text:
Talk:Charizard

RFV discussion: September 2011–March 2012
Trademark; specific character from the Pokémon range of children's toys. Needs to meet WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 20:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved to Appendix:Pokémon/Mewtwo, Appendix:Pokémon/Charizard, Appendix:Pokémon/Meowth. - -sche (discuss) 22:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: June–July 2021
I believe with the added quotations, this passes both brand, if that applies, and fictional universes now. If it doesn't, there are some other cites that could be included. DAVilla 03:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like it is all within the fictional universe of pocket monsters. Kiwima (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, there were a lot of quotations that were fairly useless. I've trimmed those out. Looking better? DAVilla 07:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As promised, there are some newer cites, now added. I love the one about the robber who lures players out into the woods, but the quotes from this year are probably the best new ones for our purposes here. DAVilla 10:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No? The quotes refer to Charizard as a Pokemon, which means they are not "independent of reference to that universe". In practise, being "independent" means that the word must be genericized in a way. For example, if a source were to use it to refer to any fire-spewing, flying lizard-like entity.__Gamren (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If Charizard needed to refer to any fire-spewing lizard-like entity, then CFI would specify that it had to be used in a generic sense rather than an "attributive" one. Quite literally, "independent of reference" means there aren't any references to that universe. Not all of the cites listed pass that, I know, but the robber in the woods was just too funny not to include. There only need to be 3, and in practice while they could be generic it's more precise to note that they should be "out of context". In the last example given, "as if we had just announced that we were from the planet Vulcan" names the one and only planet Vulcan, but does not make reference to the Star Wars universe. DAVilla 02:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (Edit.) DAVilla 03:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what whoever wrote that meant by "attributive", but I'm guessing it means "used in such a way as to describe an attribute of something". So, for example, "that dog is a real Charizard" or "that's a very Charizard thing to say", or "the house was a Charizard of bricks and cement", or "she was the neighborhood Charizard". Charizard is a part of the Pokemon universe, and therefore any source that uses "Charizard" to refer simply to Charizard is making "reference to that Universe". That's why, in practise, it needs to be genericized. Examples:, , , , . Maybe the language of CFI needs to be clarified.__Gamren (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We may be talking at this from incongruous angles if we have a different understanding of what it means to be "genericized". Regardless, here's your answer in underline, analogous to the above:
 * 2017 September 19, Gabbie Hanna, “Chivalry”, Adultolescence, Atria/Keywords Press, page 52:
 * i’m a holographic charizard: / highly desired and rare / yo, / i even drop pokémon references / ’cause i’m fuckin’ dope as shit
 * Attributive (you may say generic) in a way that's so explicit, it's currently not included in citations because it gives too much away. DAVilla 23:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well can you find 3 sources that use "Charizard" to mean "thing that is sought-after"?__Gamren (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, in that cite it is the holographic nature of the Pokemon card which is being referenced as making it highly desired (because holographic cards are rare), a holographic Blastoise is also more desirable and rare than a non-holographic Charizard or Blastoise. So, I don't see that as using "charizard" to mean "something sought-after"; if anything, it's using "holographic charizard" to mean that, or (given how many other card games also make a percentage of their cards holographic to make them sought-after rarities) it might be something to cover at holographic, depending on whether there are other citations to be found, of e.g. "holographic blastoise", "holographic pikachu", "I'm a holographic card" (or "she's a holographic card", etc, meaning "...is rare/valuable"). (Whether the other citations are CFI-compliant citations of is a separate matter which this comment is not expressing an opinion on.) - -sche (discuss) 01:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed. All quotes refer to the Pokemon universe or its spinoffs (cards, the phone-based game). Kiwima (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Charizard


text:
Talk:Meowth

RFV discussion: September 2011–March 2012
Trademark; specific character from the Pokémon range of children's toys. Needs to meet WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 20:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved to Appendix:Pokémon/Mewtwo, Appendix:Pokémon/Charizard, Appendix:Pokémon/Meowth. - -sche (discuss) 22:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Meowth


text:
Talk:T字尺

RFV discussion: September 2011–March 2012
123abc. -- Liliana • 12:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are some Google Book hits which match the term, just I can't read them, so someone else will have to. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

 * A quick look at Google Images turns up 1,700 hits, a lot of which are pictures of a carpenter's square. (Note: even with SafeSearch set to "strict", one of the top image hits is still NSFW.)  The characters are plausible for this meaning too (literally, "T-letter ruler"), and I could tell what it was without knowing much Mandarin just from my Japanese background.  I'd be very surprised if this one is not just what it says on the tin.  :)  -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh. 丁字尺 (N.B. 丁 is not T) seems to be the standard term and gets a lot more image hits. The only Google Books hit for T字尺 where you can actually see the text is a scanno for 丁字尺 (note the little hook on the bottom of 丁) so there's no way of knowing if the other Google book hits are scannos or not without getting hold of a physical copy. I think this should be marked as a misspelling or non-standard version at best. Fugyoo 19:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Non-standard / misspelling sounds like the way to go. This Baidu entry for 丁字尺 explicitly lists "T形尺" as an alternate name, so it's not far to go to see how someone might use "T字尺" as yet another alternate.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 20:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

 * In Chinese character and Roman letter T are used alternatingly when one needs to express the T-shape. Look at  entry (T-shaped).  is the preferred way and  is used 10 times more often than, although it is a synonym. Not all shapes based on Roman letters can be rendered using hanzi, though, so it is a good example how words can be formed in Mandarin, so eg. , , etc. are all valid (i.e. Y-shaped, X-shaped, etc.).  means "character" or "letter". --Anatoli 23:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Anatoli on the alternate use of 丁 and T. Another good example is T字路口/丁字路口 (three-way junction or T-intersection). I grew up with 丁字路口 but I have seen T字路口 used. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Please archive this (I'm not sure how this is done). I think the discussion is over and the tern is verified. --Anatoli 03:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this should be closed until there are 3 citations. Fugyoo 08:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, no-one provided three actual citations, so I deleted it. - -sche (discuss) 22:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:T字尺


text:
Talk:snoodge

RFV discussion: September 2011–March 2012
" A small amount or distance. Move that camera over just a snoodge." Not seeing it in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 13:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Closest I can think of it smidge. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 22:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:snoodge


text:
Talk:paperflyer

RFV discussion: October 2011–February 2012
Paperflier failed RFV, and as Equinox says, this one is suspect, too. I see one good Usenet hit for "paperflyer", and one book with a German word "Paperflyer". - -sche (discuss) 04:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:paperflyer


text:
Talk:Pepé Le Pew

RFV discussion: October 2011–February 2012
Needs to meet BRAND and/or FICTION. - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed as uncited. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pepé Le Pew


text:
Talk:Road Runner

RFV discussion: October 2011–February 2012
Needs to meet BRAND and/or FICTION. - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed as uncited. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Road Runner


text:
Talk:Tasmanian Devil

Tasmanian devil
Needs to meet BRAND and/or FICTION. My RFV of "Tasmanian devil" is of the proper noun, not the common noun (the real animal). - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed as uncited. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tasmanian Devil


text:
Talk:Taz

RFV discussion: October 2011–February 2012
Needs to meet BRAND and/or FICTION. - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed as uncited. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Taz


text:
Talk:Tweety

RFV discussion: October 2011–February 2012
Needs to meet BRAND and/or FICTION. - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed as uncited. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: August–September 2018
As per WT:FICTION, looking for cites "independent of reference to that universe"; more precisely, uses out of context in an attributive sense. S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 19:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Before anyone asks, the RFV is still ongoing; the IP that created the page just keeps removing the template (I have already reported to WT:VIP). S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 00:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

 * I note that the entry previously failed verification in 2012: see "Talk:Tweety". — SGconlaw (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tweety


text:
Talk:Wile E. Coyote

RFV discussion: October 2011–February 2012
Needs to meet BRAND and/or FICTION. - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Only WT:FICTION IMO, not a "brand name of a physical product", it's not physical in any way at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WT:BRAND should evidently be changed to cover non-physical products and services. Many everyday brands are not tangible. Equinox ◑ 13:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems so obvious that one would think that this broader coverage must have been what was intended, as it is hard to find a legitimate basis for a lexicographically significant distinction between a service mark and a trademark. In fact, I would naively expect [[WT:BRAND]] to include names that were not registered as either kind of mark, such as dba:, commercial jingles, and, possibly, political counterparts and words and catchphrases used for propaganda.
 * As to this case, it is almost certain that the character has been used for the sale of merchandise under license, which would seem to make WT:BRAND as now (mis)written literally applicable. DCDuring TALK 14:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Find Wile E. Coyote merchandise here. DCDuring TALK 14:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm sure I could go to Toys R Us and buy Wile E. Coyote, or a Wile E. Coyote. (Arguably, the fictional character and its various images and representations are a single dictionary sense.) The trademark broadly covers the name and image, including physical products, and so the entry should meet all of our relevant criteria.. —Michael Z. 2011-12-14 16:55 z

 * RFV-failed as uncited. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Verb forms
How should the verb forms on this entry be specified? For the 3sg it seems like "Wile E. Coyotes" is preferred (although I can't find published examples), the present participle can have either a hyphen or an en dash, and the past tense uses an apostrophe. ? Ioaxxere (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cf., . J3133 (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wile E. Coyote


text:
Talk:hot hotdog

RFV discussion: October 2011–March 2012
A hotdog in a bun - but a hotdog is already in a bun - isn't it? SemperBlotto 13:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the def, this one is covered in gravy. Equinox ◑ 13:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems unsupportable from cites to me. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 13:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems unlikely that we'll get three citations which definitely or very likely refer to this; most of the time they'll just related to a hot dog of a warm temperature. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Fwiw, has no relevant hits. —msh210℠ (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per this is bsLucifer 05:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:hot hotdog


text:
Talk:doggo

RFV discussion: October 2011–March 2012
Is this attestable outside the set phrase lie doggo? The entry itself says no. -- Liliana • 14:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"I was doggo"
Gertrude Jennings' 1934 play Family Affairs includes the line: "Sorry I missed you last night, but I was doggo." This suggests the word can be used alone, outside of. I assume it has the same meaning (in hiding or concealment) but can't find the full play script to confirm. Equinox ◑ 09:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:doggo


text:
Talk:Pollyanning

pollyanning
I assume this would be a two-component misspelling of Pollyannaing, which might be a word. DCDuring TALK 02:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, that sounds more likely, or even Pollyanna-ing. I find the juxtaposition of "a" and "i" very odd.  In any case, we need citations if we are to keep any form.    D b f  i  r  s   12:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that any one form of the participle meets CFI. For example, some find the oddness to require a hyphen. I'm not really sure that this kind of conversion is worth a separate section, ie, Pollyanna. The Pollyanna entry seems to be encyclopedic in its second sense, which might belong in an etymology section if we were better about including sense evolution in our etymology sections. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You know when I first added this entry I added, pollyann with the conjugated links to pollyanned, pollyanning, and pollyanns, I have heard all of these used and I in fact had cited pollyanning thrice if any admin would be kind enough to dig it up please.Acdcrocks 09:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've moved the entry to Pollyanning, but I think it still fails because the quotations do not support a single part of speech. - -sche (discuss) 01:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pollyanning


text:
Talk:pollyanning

RFV discussion: October 2011–March 2012

 * See Talk:Pollyanning.

title: Talk:pollyanning


text:
Talk:WikiLove

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
This one could be a close call... -- Liliana • 05:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Delete not in widespread use outside of one websiteLucifer 04:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

 * keep: It's a word. And, moreover, it's widely used (986 000 Google hits). And not on a single website (but, even if used on a single website, including it would be justifiable). Lmaltier 08:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote. It is a request that someone provide valid attestation. DCDuring TALK 13:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get as many hits as that, and the ones I've looked at all seem to be one website or about that website. One website is not sufficient (anyone can create a website and add silly words), but if others are talking about it, then it becomes borderline, and if they continue talking about it then maybe we should include the word.  There seem to be several senses and capitalisations.    D b f  i  r  s   09:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can try Google Books, you'll find printed attestations. But contesting that this word exists seems preposterous. Lmaltier 18:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it have to "exist" outside of its point of origin, and have three attestations over more than a year? I don't think this does. This is just a feature of one single website, its kindness shown on wikipedia or wikimedia projects only. It's not used anywhere else.Lucifer 23:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The few Google Books mentions seem to be all about the Wikimedia foundation, and some just have the "word" in quotes or as part of a URL. I'm not convinced that it satisfies our CFI, but if someone can find independent citations, then I might be ...    D b f  i  r  s   09:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, citations are about Wikipedia, what would you expect? Would you delete platypus because all citations are related to this animal? Lmaltier 20:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that most of the very few claimed citations are in Wikipedia, and most are mentions, not usages of the word. I don't think the platypus has its own website, but if it had, perhaps it would have the word platypuslove.  If this word began to be used elsewhere, rather than just mentioned, then it might, eventually, meet CFI.    D b f  i  r  s   22:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If it were a made up neologism I would but it is not and platypus meets the CFI for many reasons, not to mention there are tons of different sources for platypus.Lucifer 21:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

 * This has sat here uncited for several months... it's time for some tough love. In accordance with policy, I have deleted this term. - -sche (discuss) 03:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:WikiLove


text:
Talk:legendrization

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
Needs 3 cites as usual. The given cite seems to be something in mathematics (perhaps made up for one paper) and may not match the given definition. Equinox ◑ 00:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The mathematical term is capitalized - it means making something Legendrian: (as in Legendrian knot). SemperBlotto 08:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 00:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:legendrization


text:
Talk:family dissident

RFV discussion: November 2011–February 2012
One who hates his/her family or opposes their religious beliefs. Is this another User:Tedius Zanarukando protologism? These two senses are not what it appears to mean in the relatively few results in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 14:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 09:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:family dissident


text:
Talk:avwa

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
"Common" misspelling of au revoir. Equinox ◑ 02:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 * If it's "common" then it is certainly hiding itself well!   D b f  i  r  s   10:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Au revoir à jamais! - -sche (discuss) 04:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:avwa


text:
Talk:rowrbazzle

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
"An exclamation used by the characters in Walt Kelly's comic-strip "Pogo"." This is not a "definition" but some kind of usage note. So what does it mean, and can we cite it, bearing in mind the rules on fictional universes? Equinox ◑ 02:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 08:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:rowrbazzle


text:
Talk:Windows Forms

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
WT:BRAND? -- Liliana • 15:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Yeah, like the previously failed Windows Driver Model. These are specific technologies, even though the low-level technical ones tend to have boring names that don't leap out at you like e.g. iPhone. Equinox ◑ 22:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just the name of the programming object used in IDEs. The definition at form (A window or dialogue box) should be sufficient to cover this. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Windows Forms


text:
Talk:Commodore 64

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
Would need to meet WT:BRAND criteria. -- Liliana • 17:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

 * As fond as I might be of 1980s home computers, this is just a brand and model name, like Ford Sierra Sapphire for a car. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There's a bit of use of Commodore 64 as representative of the era. Terms like "Commodore 64 era" and "Commodore 64 style", but I'm not sure if that's enough to pass.--Dmol 21:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As this is RFV voting isn't appropriate: can you find citations supporting such a sense? Equinox ◑ 22:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

 * That just means “era of the Commodore 64,” and “styled like a Commodore 64.” They're specific references with no other meaning. Of course, you may find references that disprove me. —Michael Z. 2011-12-14 17:47 z

 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Commodore 64


text:
Talk:spinal immobilization

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
Really? Any protecting of the spine, and not only immobilization of the spine? —msh210℠ (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  the medical practice of protecting the cervical spine from potential or further injury after an incident of trauma such as a car accident
 * Instinctive opinion; delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ( Just a G Troy invention under his new identity. ) Sum of parts.  Delete.    D b f  i  r  s   13:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes there are many ways to protect the spine, either complete immobilization or partial stabilization. The point is to reduce the chances of further injury, if the scene is stable, then a spineboard plus spider straps and cheese blocks is in order, but if the patient is bleeding to death from gun shot woulds in addition to having been in a car accident then immobilization no longer matters, we can break the patient's neck if that means saving them from bleeding to death and in that case we do very basic stabilization with a towel, but both of forms of spinal immobilization or "C-spining" as we shorthand it to. There are a plethoera of a situations in which the goal is still just to stabilize a bit if even possible instead of complete immobilization, and this covers protecting all 5 vertebrae sections, the spinal cord, and also adding cribbage to hunchbacks and special considerations for children, it can be done with tools or simply with paramedic's hands. Any medical book would cover this and it's a bit more complex than spinal+immobilization you know what i mean?Lucifer 22:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't. For our purposes, can we just stick to the lexical information and leave the practical information aside? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor do I. The details belong in Wikipedia.    D b f  i  r  s   08:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A dictionary allows for quick reference.Lucifer 09:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying it's called spinal immobilization even when you don't immobilize the spine? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, SI is actually often times impossible. Some patients have a higher priority but SI is taken into account less and later. Some people are drunk and have a broken neck from a car crash and fight you so you take minimal steps. In general its the concept of protecting the spine.Lucifer 05:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ... so that's an attempt at spinal immobilization in order to protect the spine as far as possible.   D b f  i  r  s   09:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Equinox, as interesting as all this information is, it's useless in terms of the entry spinal immobilization, which we've been asked to verify per WT:CFI, and we haven't done so. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see three quotations do you?Lucifer 00:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are three clear quotations for spinal immobilization but not for spinalimmobilization.   D b f  i  r  s   16:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:spinal immobilization


text:
Talk:cheese blocks

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
Cites demonstrating given meaning, please. —  [Ric Laurent] — 01:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * and don't get anything usable, so I'm no longer sure where to look to try and find this term. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look through some of my medical books. They blocks are about a foot long and 6 inches tall and wide and covered in a thick yellow plastic, it looks like a giant plastic block of cheese which is what earned it the name.Lucifer 23:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Some poking around turned up no medical usages, but did turn up something used in the logging industry to hold the logs in place on a truck. --EncycloPetey 05:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:cheese blocks


text:
Talk:Binary Application Markup Language

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
Proprietary Microsoft format, needs cites meeting WT:BRAND. Also, the definition is pretty embarassing. -- Liliana • 00:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

 * This makes me wanna cut my dick off and makes me itch too, delete Delete DELETE.Lucifer 06:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for no usable content given. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per .NET Framework (recently failed RFD as a specific software product akin to a brand). Equinox ◑ 22:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Binary Application Markup Language


text:
Talk:microglomerate

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
A kind of small company. Added today by an IP. Everything I can find online relates to one company, Brick Cave Media, which appears to have introduced this term. I don't think it meets WT:CFI. Equinox ◑ 23:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I introduced the word to Wiki today, and am unaware of Brick Cave Media or it's claim to introduce this word. I developed the definition for the word "Microglomerate". If Brick Cave can produce their definition of what a "Microglomerate" is, then we can evaluate it based on it's merit. At any point as needed I can provide the date at which I created the word "Microglomerate" and the date to which I established the definition for the word Microglomerate". Here is my definition of the word "Microglomerate" - "A Microglomerate is a combination of two or more Brands, Businesses, and/or Entities engaged in different businesses that fall under one Business structure. They are a parent company and several (or many) subsidiaries. It acts like a conglomerate but without the corporate structure, cost, and inefficiencies. Each entity acts as its own profit center reporting to the parent company." I am open to discussion regarding word Microglomerate.

To further establish my claim to this word, I am notarizing the document that establishes the dates by which I created the word, and its definition, also the dates I made public claim to the word.

 * Makes it sound even more likely to me that it won't meet CFI if you've just made it up. By the way, are you saying you created the word and established its definition at two separate dates? What's the date then? Anyway as interesting as this all is, can we delete the entry yet? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't add words based on merit or based on any one person's definition, but on established usage as evidenced in print etc. Equinox ◑ 13:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary is not a publicity engine for Bob Nelson of Brick Cave Media. I suggest that we move the word to our list of neo protologisms.    D b f  i  r  s   23:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, this seems to merit a line in WT:LOP, but not yet a full-blown entry. ~ Robin 16:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed, deleted. If you want to put it into the LoP, go ahead. :) Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 03:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:microglomerate


text:
Talk:convironment

RFV discussion: December 2011–February 2012
Two maybes at bgc: not even sure they mean what our entry claims. (And I can only see their snippets.) —msh210℠ (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like deliberate nonsense to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:convironment


text:
Talk:something else

RFV discussion: December 2011–February 2012
Rfv-sense: (informal) Exceptionally good. Tagged but not listed. Highly doubtful. -- Liliana • 20:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No it's basically ok. I'm not sure about the part of speech. Exceptionally good is just one interpretation, it really means 'out of the ordinary; unusual' which can be positive (Usain Bolt is something else) or non-positive (the rain in Ireland is something else). We definitely need to cover this; what we don't definitely need to cover is the pronoun sense 'some other thing'. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree (w/Mglovesfun). —Ruakh TALK 00:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As do I. ---> Tooironic 22:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would claim widespread use for it in MG's definition, though a good citation would be nice. DCDuring TALK 01:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Passed. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

RFD 2012
Also nominated (tagged linking to this section): everything else, something else, somebody else, someone else, no one else, everybody else.

 * SOP, delete all of 'em, per decision at [[]] (presumably to be archived at [[talk:nothing else]]). —msh210℠ (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all except something else, because (per the adjective sense in the entry) that one is really something else. bd2412 T 04:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite right. Sorry. Keep that one. —msh210℠ (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 15:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation
According to the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary, ˌsomething ˈelse Backinstadiums (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:something else


text:
Talk:fika

RFV discussion: December 2011–February 2012
Rfv-sense: the Manchu section. I could've tagged it but this seems more effective. No hits on Google at all, at least not in Manchu script. -- Liliana • 22:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Swedish quotes
Would someone like to translate the Swedish quotations (and check whether I put them under the right definitions, especially for the noun)? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  12:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've tried to translate the quotes but the last one was quite hard since the formulation kan bliver icke ostraffad makes no sense to me. I mean and  is the present tense of . To me the formulations literally translates to may gets/becomes not unpunished. It makes no sense to me. I mean, I can just use the English Bible version but then it wouldn't be an English translation of the Swedish text, just an English and a Swedish translation of the same text in Ancient Greek. I guess it's some kind of dated Swedish I just don't know of.Jonteemil (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You are correct to suppose that the translation is in the first place a translation of the Swedish, but it is okay to sometimes use a cheat sheet, so I've added the missing part from English translations. I'll see if I can find anything in a grammar later. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Swedish synonym
Isn't fikarast a Swedish synonym? 173.88.246.138 20:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Yeah, fika-rast. Fika-paus is another way to say it. Translated it would become something like "coffee break" but the definition of the word "fika" doesn't inherently include "coffee." "Fika" is a word to describe the enjoyment of pastries and drinks with people. The word in and of itself has nothing to do with breaks. 62.181.233.140 14:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:fika


text:
Talk:real estate deal

RFV discussion: December 2011–February 2012
Is this really used as a verb? Example sentence in second definition is a noun. Is this at all saveable? (RfV may not be the best place) SemperBlotto 08:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as worth saving. real estate + deal would seem to fully incorporate most uses of the term. The literary usage in the Heinlein citation hardly justifies even a noun sense. But with our current practice on inclusion, who knows? All words.... DCDuring TALK 14:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely "all words..." but not "all combinations of words..." SemperBlotto 08:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sense 2 seems to be nonsense. Equinox ◑ 21:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried to google "I real estate deal", "you real estate deal" etc., "I'm real estate dealing" etc. and "I real estate dealt" etc. The only thing I could find was one banner with message "We real estate deal in Texas". In the quote "buy the farm" is the verb and "real estate deal" is a noun. > delete. --Hekaheka 18:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:real estate deal


text:
Talk:Afrophobia

RFV discussion: December 2011
Tagged but not listed. I think the term is okay except one thing: it is rather a phobia against Black people, not Africans. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In academic usage I think its against both black people, especially in America, but also anything negro/dark/african/black in general, either people, politics, religion, culture etc. Just black people might be a bit too narrow and americentric.Lucifer 22:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What I mean by Black people includes Africans. Probably I should have said Africans and African descendants. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, at the exclusion of White Namibians, Arab Egyptians, Indian South Africans, and Berber Moroccans, I presume?Lucifer 03:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is more politically correct than negrophobia. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, do we not have negrophobia then? Might have to add that. Phobias have to be ultra well cited though, right?Lucifer 09:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We should have negrophobia too. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Negrophobia (in upper case) is citable - the definition could be "Fear of or contempt for Black people and their culture", should not be limited to Africa and descendents. We need this term. The black-skinned people may be only of African descent but Australian aborigines and people with very dark skin from anywhere (e.g. parts of India, Sri Lanka). Afrophobia is a partial synonym, the definition is fine but could be expanded. --Anatoli (обсудить) 01:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added an entry for an overlooked phobia: Arabophobia. --Anatoli (обсудить) 02:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, upper case. Yes, negrophobia would be a phobia for black-colored things… So, is it all right to close this discussion as verificated? — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Kept: verified. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Afrophobia


text:
Talk:opnommen

RFV discussion: December 2011–February 2012
I have never heard of this word in Dutch. Google gives quite a few hits but they are all in Frisian (the fy equivalent of dutch opgenomen). I also googled for "ik nom op hem" and besides some hits that find there origin here, some typo's for noem, some abbreviations for ik - nominative there is nothing. I think this is a prank / protologism. Jcwf 04:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Have the inflected forms of the verb been deleted as well? —CodeCat 21:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, no. Good point. - -sche (discuss) 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now they have been. - -sche (discuss) 21:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:opnommen


text:
Talk:lthr

RFV discussion: December 2011–February 2012
Really? SemperBlotto 07:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Abbreviation of leather?Lucifer 09:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume this is Internet slang rather than just 'informal', but I've never heard of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be found in product catalogues. As an example, this is a line for a blue motorcycling jacket: ALPINESTARS MX-1 LTHR JACKET BLUE. Hardly dictionary material, though. One may find a lot of similar "abbreviations" in product catalogues. --Hekaheka 10:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:lthr


text:
Talk:kush

RFV discussion: December 2011–February 2012
English section, "cannabis". Tagged by Cobone, but not added. The term certainly exists and is indeed related to cannabis, but I'm fairly certain the meaning is far more specific. I think it refers to a certain family of strains, though I couldn't tell you what the specifics are supposed to be. —  [Ric Laurent] — 11:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually,. lol —  [Ric Laurent] — 11:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * hell yeah!Lucifer 12:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * More specifically Kush (cannabis). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Resolved. - -sche (discuss) 04:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

'kush' in Uzbek
This term may be mistaken for 'qush', since the word for 'bird' in Uzbek is 'qush', and I'm failing to find the word 'kush' in uzbek dictionaries. It's possible the term 'kush' is a dialectism, but then it should be specified that it is. Sanyokoff (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:kush


text:
Talk:yn unig

RFV discussion: December 2011–February 2012
I doubt the creator of this entry speaks Welsh. --Simplus2 18:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He may not, but it’s a Welsh adverb and it’s the correct meaning. Sometimes it can have other meanings: ydych chi yn unig = are you alone. —Stephen (Talk) 21:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But it is SoP. You can add to any adjective to make it an adverb or a predicate adjective. I say move this to, which is currently a red link anyway, but label it Adjective rather than Adverb. —Angr 16:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can vouch for what Angr has said — this is an RFD issue and undefined: is an unidiomatic sum of its parts. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted per the above discussion, and because it was technically uncited. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:yn unig


text:
Talk:medilicious

RFV discussion: December 2011–February 2012
Citations please. SemperBlotto 08:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing in Google Books or Groups, except (unusable here) one person's Internet pseudonym. Equinox ◑ 13:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:medilicious


text:
Talk:copyright

RFV discussion: December 2011–February 2012
"The copyright symbol ©, a circumscribed C. If © is the international symbol for copyright, what should we use for the open source symbol?" That usage example does not refer to the symbol but to the concept (hence the use of "symbol for copyright"). Equinox ◑ 16:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not come across this one. Having said that, if it does exist finding citations will be hard. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One might say “the copyright is on page ii,” but this would refer to a copyright notice or statement. —Michael Z. 2011-12-14 15:44 z
 * The relationship is not 2-way (symmetric in the mathematical sense). The symbol means "copyright", but surely no-one would claim that the word "copyright" means the symbol, any more than "plus" means +    D b f  i  r  s   13:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: June–August 2017
It has two verb senses:

 * 1) To place under a copyright.
 * 2) To obtain or secure a copyright for some literary or other artistic work.

I don't think the distinction between them is very clear. Maybe a few citations would help. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not clear. I have added some cites that I think get at what this distinction is aiming for, but I could be wrong. Kiwima (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

 * To me, the first definition appears to be the definition of a transitive verb, and the second definition appears to be the definition of an intransitive verb. Mihia (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

 * That makes sense. Ok, it is now cited Kiwima (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

 * I don't think that's what the distinction is (if the distinction was meant to be transitivity, then we should merge the senses and label it as "transitive or intransitive"). Maybe it's actually who is doing the action. It seems that with the first definition, the subject would be the government, while with the second one the subject would be the author or owner of the work. But I'm not sure that's a necessary distinction to make, so perhaps even in that case they should be merged. --WikiTiki89 16:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think merging them is a good idea. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the two senses should be merged; there's no meaningful distinction between them, as the recently added quotations only serve to prove. BigDom 13:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have merged the two senses. This is RFV-resolved (although there are plenty of other entries where we consider transitivity enough reason for separate entries). Kiwima (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:copyright


text:
Talk:medible

RFV discussion: December 2011–February 2012
(This discussion is about the deleted English section)

As above, same originator, cross-referenced. --Hekaheka 09:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:medible


text:
Talk:お母さん

RFV discussion: December 2011–February 2012
Min Nan spelling is unstandardised, no doubt, uses Roman letters or hanzi but does it really use the Japanese spelling as well? What happened to the honorific "o-" in "khà-sàng"? In Japanese the word is pronounced "okāsan". --Anatoli (обсудить) 00:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Romanization khà-sàng is correct (meaning that it is in the Romanization used by Wiktionary). It is obviously a loan word from Japanese that is still commonly used in Taiwanese Min Nan.  To my knowledge, it is not commonly used in this way by Min Nan speakers outside of Taiwan (i.e. PRC etc).  The honorific o- from the original Japanese is not required in Min Nan, although it can be included as well.  I don't recall ever seeing the original Japanese spelling (お母さん) mixed in with written Min Nan (to the extent that Min Nan is written down at all :)  I would say keep khà-sàng with an etymology that explains its origin (from Japanese お母さん), but get ride of the Min Nan tab in お母さん (unless someone can find a couple of attested uses in written Min Nan).  Truth be told, when khà-sàng is written in Chinese characters, it is usually written as 卡桑.  -- A-cai 01:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Krun has speedily deleted this, does anyone object? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Struck. - -sche (discuss) 04:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

JA etym
@Fish bowl, see also my edit comment from May 2016, and the etym at.

I'm afraid I haven't the time right now to dive in and expand the etym here for. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:お母さん


text:
Talk:homofonum

RFV discussion: December 2011–February 2012
nominated this for speedy deletion. No admin has seen fit to delete this outright, so I've brought it here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cited. The nominated entry is one for Czech term "homofonum". I have attested the term using the nominative plural "homofona"; for the singular "homofonum", I have found only one Google books hit. A Czech synonym of this term is "homofon", which has the nominative plural "homofony". The nominator argues in  that the term is not in Czech dictionaries, which does not matter for the inclusion in English Wiktionary. Attested terms (see also WT:ATTEST) are included even when they can be found in no other dictionaries, and unattested terms are excluded even if they can be found in other dictionaries. Milda follows the practice of some editors of Czech Wiktionary who require sourcing from dictionaries rather than true lexicographical evidence in the form of quotations of actual use. --Dan Polansky 10:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Passed. Thanks, Dan! :) - -sche (discuss) 22:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:homofonum


text:
Talk:splatterspunk

RFV discussion: December 2011–February 2012
Horror subgenre or something. Everything in G.Books and Groups appears to be the title of one book. Equinox ◑ 00:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * this search shows at least 3 attestations over 1 year in length, this is a word; just not what the creator claims.Lucifer 21:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What is referred to as "This search" above by Luciferwildcat is, and it only finds hits for a name of a work published in 1998, bearing the full name of "Splatterspunk: The Micah Hayes Stories". Thus, so far unattested. --Dan Polansky 11:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:splatterspunk


text:
Talk:セルベロス

RFV discussion: December 2011–February 2012
Added by known-suspect IP user Special:Contributions/2.217.87.87.

Hit counts:

 * : 0
 * : 1, except searching the text in the PDF at http://ir.lib.shizuoka.ac.jp/bitstream/10297/4958/1/100513001.pdf shows that this is actually a kana-ization of what appears to be a Spanish name, and is not Cerberus: as either the mythological beast or the constellation.
 * : 0
 * "セルベロス": 1,390

Can anyone vouch for this? In my eyes, it looks like rubbish, inspired by a misunderstanding that Cerberus: was imported into Japanese from English and thus starts with an "s" sound, rather than the reality that it was imported directly from Greek mythology and thus starts with a "k" sound. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a possible error. It is definitely not official by academic standard, but it will be okay to list it as an error. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

 * No durably archived citations. Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:セルベロス


text:
Talk:Afro-nationalist

RFV discussion: December 2011–March 2012
Any takers? SemperBlotto 08:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like tosh. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Afro-nationalist


text:
Gapo

Etymology
.

title: Gapo


text:
Talk:'-'

RFV discussion: May–August 2011
haven't seen this one so far -- Prince Kassad 15:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither have I and I do do a lot of online chatting. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 04:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:'-'


text:
Talk:油炸鬼

RFV discussion: July 2011
Tooironic, what part of speech is this word? --Lo Ximiendo 00:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a noun. I added it already. ---> Tooironic 00:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:油炸鬼


text:
Talk:do it up

RFV discussion: June–December 2011
"To do something, usually with purpose." Ultimateria 21:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The lemma should be do up or do something up or do someone up. At "do up", MWOnline has a few senses relating to clothing or hair, "prepare", "fasten", "can/preserve", and "exhaust". bgc has usage of a sense related to sex, possibly "beat someone up" and "scold/berate someone". Our entry for do up needs to be done up right. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 14:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:do it up


text:
Talk:三級片

RFV discussion: July 2011
Tooironic, I have another request again; it's the same as last time for the word that's about some food. --Lo Ximiendo 05:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It might not be "nevermind", but this explains the word. --Lo Ximiendo 05:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a real word, but the definition is a copyright violation. Fixed it now, striking. ---> Tooironic 00:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:三級片


text:
Talk:effemimania

RFV discussion: July–December 2011
Only in Serrano's paper, which does not seem to appear on Google Scholar. Equinox ◑ 00:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 14:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:effemimania


text:
Talk:webalist

RFV discussion: July–December 2011
A huge mouthful of a definition with nothing I can find on Google Books or Groups. "(Internet) A designer, developer or administrator that is versed in the building and maintaining of websites, web servers, routers, and web applications. One with the understanding of all things web-related, having a high understanding of the web as a whole. Their functions include, but are not limited to, the following: building pages, writing code, administering servers/routers." Equinox ◑ 22:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 14:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:webalist


text:
Talk:podview

RFV discussion: July–November 2011
"(slang|internet|neologism) A podcast interview." Nowt in Google Books and Groups. Equinox ◑ 23:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 22:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:podview


text:
Talk:spell model

RFV discussion: July–October 2011
"The intricate or complex structure(s) of a spell, especially intricate or complex enchantments, (think like a mathematical or data model.) Often involved in the creation of new spellwork and spells." Equinox ◑ 20:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 15:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:spell model


text:
Talk:三菱商事

RFV discussion: July 2011–January 2012
Needs citations meeting the company name CFI. -- Liliana • 11:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. It’s for Wikipedia. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:三菱商事


text:
Talk:qymyz

RFV discussion: August–December 2011
Alt spelling of koumiss. Evidence of this in English, please. All I can find is one Google Books result where it is italicised as a foreign word. Equinox ◑ 20:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 14:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:qymyz


text:
Talk:祝呪い

RFV discussion: August–December 2011
Another, again by Special:Contributions/2.216.205.44. I was tempted to put this on RFD, but it does appear that this term is used on the Japanese web -- at least, Google is returning what look like valid hits. From the context I see in the hits, I suspect this term is an alternate spelling for or. The content given on the 祝呪い page is in need of massive overhaul at any rate, since the user just copied the content from in the mistaken belief that these are the same words.

Can anyone verify what this word is supposed to mean? Even just a confirmed reading would be useful -- 2.216.205.44 used しゅうじゅい by extension from the しゅうじゅ on the page, but that reading is also wrong (it should be しゅくじゅ). -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Deleted. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have googled it and found nothing. I have found 祝呪い解除 for example, but it means "congratulations, cancellation of curse." It must  be at most a fictional term in a game or a manga. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:祝呪い


text:
Talk:截氣神功

RFV discussion: August–November 2011
Eirikr tagged with rfd, I changed it to rfv and moved it here. Does this term get enough hits to avoid speedy deletion? --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Googling to exclude Wikimedia sites and mirrors shows 42 hits here. Adding "の" to search specifically for Japanese entries gets nine hits here, but all of them are actually Chinese sites showing Chinese usage, where someone just happened to use Japanese elsewhere on the page.

 * I'm not that up on Chinese, and still a bit fuzzy on WT's criteria for inclusion, so I have no clear idea whether these 42 hits constitute enough to keep this entry (reworking it to be a Chinese term instead of Japanese, of course). -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Should I delete my post from WT:RFD, then? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably should remove it, yes, I can see why a user might think that Requests for deletion is the place to request any form of deletion. Anyway, what I actually meant was in practical terms, anything that's very unlikely to pass - no Google Book, Scholar, Group or News hits - is susceptible to get speedily deleted. It's not a 'policy' it's just that this page is so massive, that we need to spend our time trying to cite the borderline cases, ones which may be citable, but also which may not be citable. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone's obssessed with the Airbender. This is used only in the universe of this Japanese manga series along with firebending, waterbending and earthbending. Should be deleted as it obviously fails CFI. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All the Chinese links in Google hits are related to 降世神通, or the Avatar. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 00:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been over a month and no one has presented any compelling evidence of validity. Searching for  still gets zero hits.  Is anyone opposed to deleting the JA entry?  James and any other sinophone editors, what is your take on the Mandarin entry?  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

,, -- triple bupkus for Japanese and Chinese both. Failed RFV.

✅, striking. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:截氣神功


text:
Talk:PASSLQ

RFV discussion: August–October 2011
Doesn't seem attestable on Google Books. ---> Tooironic 04:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And IINM all Google Groups results are mentions. RFV failed. —msh210℠ (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:PASSLQ


text:
Talk:罠カード

RFV discussion: August–November 2011
Another pair by suspect IP user Special:Contributions/90.209.77.109. Apparently only used in the Yu-Gi-Oh universe, which would seem to fail WT:CFI. Can anyone confirm use in other contexts? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 20:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

 * RFV Failed. ✅, striking.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:罠カード


text:
Talk:AVAP

RFV discussion: September 2011

 * See Wiktionary talk:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense.

title: Talk:AVAP


text:
Talk:Jalpi Turkic

RFV discussion: September 2011
No hits for the phrase in Google book search. Do we accept international auxiliary languages? SemperBlotto 17:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

 * We accept words in some international auxiliary languages, like Ido. We also accept that the name of any language is a word used in other languages, if that is demonstrable. In this case, that hasn't been demonstrated. - -sche (discuss) 02:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Could perhaps be speedily deleted, gets just 54 Google Hits, some of which aren't in English, some of which are Wiktionary and its mirrors. Google Books, News, and Scholar all get zero hits, Google Groups gets two hits... in Turkish! Neither of which are usenet. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Gone. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jalpi Turkic


text:
Talk:賢術

RFV discussion: September 2011
Not listed in any dictionaries to hand. Google only shows 11 non-Wikimedia hits for the phrase anywhere on the web ("賢術の"+-wiki+-wiktionary), suggesting that this is a rare term indeed. Given the dubious nature of many of the entries added by Special:Contributions/90.209.77.78, I'm adding this to RFV. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 07:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:賢術


text:
Talk:巫法

RFC discussion: August 2011
Synonyms / see alsos need serious pruning; readings wrong in many cases (there's no "wu" in Japanese, etc.); formatting is a mess. Another beauty by known-suspect IP users. The term *does* actually show use, entirely in manga as best I can tell. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Did some major surgery; synonyms might still need some pruning, but I've confirmed at least that the terms still listed are all valid. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September 2011
Not listed in any dictionaries to hand. Google only shows 10 non-Wikimedia hits for the phrase anywhere on the web ("巫法の"+-wiki+-wiktionary), suggesting that this is a rare term indeed. Most (all?) of those hits seem to be the same sites as for 賢術 above. Given the dubious nature of many of the entries added by Special:Contributions/90.209.77.78, I'm adding this to RFV. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 07:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to speedy-delete this one and the one above. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ta then, please do. If and when folks can show actual use on more than a handful of dubious sites, I'd be happy to have these terms, but as it currently stands, these two really look like so much noise.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:巫法


text:
Talk:nolalite

RFV discussion: September 2011
250 raw Google hits. Nothing on Google Books or Usenet. Could be speedily deleted. - -sche (discuss) 18:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It was speedy deleted yesterday, but was recreated by the contributor. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:nolalite


text:
Talk:black sanlus

RFV discussion: October 2011
I don't see this spelling on Google Books. - -sche (discuss) 07:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * More rubbish from Gtroy sockpuppet - I would delete it. SemperBlotto 08:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted it, as I saw nothing on Books and Groups (or Google itself!). - -sche (discuss) 08:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Speedily deleted by someone. Equinox ◑ 14:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:black sanlus


text:
Talk:sex lines

RFV discussion: October–November 2011
"The visible indentations made by the ilium marking the threshold between the navel and the thighs on fit people." Very plausible, but "her sex lines", "his sex lines" aren't on Google Books. "Sex lines + abs" (a word commonly used with "cum gutters") also found nothing. References to telephone sex lines are plenty. - -sche (discuss) 08:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC) '''RFV failed. Deleted.''' —msh210℠ (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * More rubbish from Gtroy sockpuppet - I would delete it. SemperBlotto 08:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:sex lines


text:
Talk:salpingopharyngeuses

RFV discussion: October 2011
This plural is AFAICT not attested, except on 16 incomprehensible, not-durably-archived websites. - -sche (discuss) 08:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

 * More rubbish from Gtroy sockpuppet - I would delete it. SemperBlotto 08:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

 * I've deleted it. - -sche (discuss) 08:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

 * is what you're looking for. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 08:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

 * And that plural form is attested! Fantastic, that solves this issue. - -sche (discuss) 08:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Speedily deleted by someone. Equinox ◑ 14:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:salpingopharyngeuses


text:
Talk:weitaming M

RFV discussion: October 2011
Mandarin? Cantonese? Citations? -- Liliana • 17:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see wéitāmìng M. 2.25.212.57 08:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Delete. Now. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Deleted, it's abc123's work, (today - Engirst, when he uses his account, that is). --Anatoli 21:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't think this word actually exists - there are four hits on Google Books of dubious nature. ---> Tooironic 10:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the toned pinyin per . Mglovesfun (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Speedily deleted by someone. Equinox ◑ 14:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:weitaming M


text:
Talk:.NET Framework

RFV discussion: October–November 2011
needs citations meeting WT:BRAND criteria -- Liliana • 20:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Citing WT:CFI: 'A brand name for a physical product should be included if it has entered the lexicon'. The term does not refer to a physical product. I am not saying we need to keep ".NET Framework", but that has nothing to do with WT:BRAND. --Dan Polansky 07:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

 * This user has added a lot of software products and software trademarks. I'm not really even sure that we should have .NET (which I added a while ago, but not with great enthusiasm and only to disambiguate from the existing .net). Equinox ◑ 09:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to think it is a physical product rather than a concept. It's not tangible in the way a wooden table is, but nor is heat or electricity or sound or vibrations, but I would nevertheless consider all four of those physical. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Heat, electricity and sound are not physical products, unlike cars. Software is also not a physical product. A physical product is space-extended, can be touched, and has a mass. Physical products include cars, computers, consumer electronics, footwear, clothing, and food. What is not physical product includes bank accounts, insurance contracts, software, databases (data collections), movies, books, and songs. Citations missing, though. --Dan Polansky 11:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

RFV failed; deleted. —msh210℠ (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:.NET Framework


text:
Talk:iFascism

RFV discussion: October–November 2011
"(derogatory, slang) the paternalistic and controlling way that Apple treats customers of its consumer products, and the lack of personal control or freedom on those devices; instead having a centralized and uniform experience across any such device" Equinox ◑ 12:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

RFV failed; deleted. —msh210℠ (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing obvious in the first few pages of Google book "hits", but quite a few hits in blogs and the like. Maybe a protologism. Several other similar entries by the same editor are also a bit iffy. SemperBlotto 14:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No ggc either. —msh210℠ (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:iFascism


text:
Talk:finaliter

RFV discussion: October–November 2011
The usage examples provided do not use the word. SemperBlotto 07:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it worth citing when all uses will be referring to the Urantia Book? Do things only mentioned in dubious non-mainstream religious books count as "fictional universes"? Another Urantia word is ultimaton (supposed sub-electron particle). Equinox ◑ 09:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Three citations of which two aren't referring to the book itself would be nice. That is something like 'Urantia Book calls it a finaliter' shouldn't be accepted, but 'usage' independent of it to refer to the same concept should. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

RFV failed; deleted. —msh210℠ (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:finaliter


text:
Talk:雷気

RFV discussion: November 2011
Likely bogus, added by an IP user whose behavior looks awfully similar to our other fantasy-and-Japan-obsessed-but-non-Japanese-speaking IP contributors.

This term is not in any dictionary I have to hand, nor Jim Breen's (http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1C, you'll have to paste in the term) or even Eijiro (http://eow.alc.co.jp/雷気). Google Books throws up tons of hits, but the first page of 100 that I pored over all look like scannos for instead. "雷気"+の+-wiki brings in a lot, but many hits have punctuation between the two characters, and others show use in bigger compounds, but there is some use as a nickname, and this page shows its use as the title of a piece of music.

The meaning is understandable from the spelling; my concern is that it shows up in none of the expected places if this were a regular and fully attestable word. Does anyone else know if this term is sufficiently cromulent? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig

 * Haplology took care of this on 15 November. ✅, striking.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:雷気


text:
Talk:気術

RFV discussion: October–November 2011
More apparently bogus content from our magic-obsessed Japanophile IP user, Special:Contributions/90.215.199.167.

Not in any dictionary to hand. shows only use where the 気 actually belongs to the preceding word. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not in any of mine either. Fishy as all get out.  Delete Haplology 14:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Striking so we can tell it's done by looking at the TOC. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:気術


text:
Talk:holbytla

RFV discussion: October 2011
'Middle Earth'? It seems more like Old English, but is that verifiable? —CodeCat 23:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's an Old English translation of the Hobbit?? Where?? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fictional word - I can't quite read the ang.wikipedia article. SemperBlotto 10:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically "The Hobbit is a book by J.R.R. Tolkien", it doesn't say that such a creature would be called a 'holbytla'. As a matter of interest, if the word is attested in Old English but only in the context of a fictional universe, does it meet CFI or not? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This may well sum if up, "Tolkien says that he translates this kûd-dûkan term into the invented word holbytla from which hobbit might just have been derived if holbytla had ever existed in the ancient language (hol-bytla is a made-up Old English compound meaning "hole-dweller")". (The Origins of Tolkien's Middle-earth For Dummies). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Something coined in modern times can't be Old English, can it? Has this word been used or only mentioned? Equinox ◑ 13:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

 * No, it's never been used. JRRT came up with it as a pseudo-etymology of ‘hobbit’. It's not real. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 13:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Equinox that's a bit controversial as we allow Modern Latin even though Latin is a dead language. It's hypothetically possible to write in Old English and coin new words. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This touches upon the serious issue of attestation for words used only in certain fictional universes. What is the rule of thumb?  I dimly recall reading someone else saying that usage in at least three fictional universes was required (or was that just "preferred"?).  This issue is important for me to better understand in order to handle all the Japanese magic- and fantasy-related terms that have cropped up. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a translation of "hobbit" into Old English, then it's no longer fictional, since "hobbit" is used as a nickname for H. floresiensis . Or does that not count? (though the entry at hobbit is suspiciously missing this widely used usage of "hobbit") 70.24.251.158 09:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That'd not count, as this is a translation of the other sense of hobbit into ang. —msh210℠ (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(Re: Latin, dead language doesn't mean unused language.)

More info conveniently assembled here. *holbytla is not Old English, it's Tolkien's speculative OE-like reconstruction, created for flavour in his fiction and not as part of any academic linguistics work. If we find three independent citations in modern English, then it is English for our purposes. I don't imagine it's likely to be attested in Old English, since that language is not much used to write durably-archived sources these days. —Michael Z. 2011-12-15 19:13 z

title: Talk:holbytla


text:
Talk:squibble

RFV discussion: November 2011
Sounds like a valid entry, but I cannot verify it. If it is used, where is it used? I surely have never heard of it. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 20:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

 * It's in UrbanDictionary and basically nowhere else. A search for "a squibble of" finds very little. I think we should probably speedily delete it. Equinox ◑ 21:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Deleted as a protologism. SemperBlotto 07:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

 * The word form "squibble" seems attested, with whatever meanings: . Some occurrences:, , , , . --Dan Polansky 19:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:squibble


text:
Talk:sun magic

RFV discussion: November 2011

 * See Talk:star magic.

title: Talk:sun magic


text:
pãntic

Etymology
From. Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) belly, abdomen
 * 2) womb

title: pãntic


text:
pãnticã

Etymology
From. Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) belly, abdomen, stomach

title: pãnticã


text:
Talk:封印術

RFV discussion: November–December 2011
Word from Naruto. No results from Google Books: [] and 2 results from G Scholar--in Chinese. [] Haplology 14:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 * : Zero hits.
 * : Zero hits.
 * : Two hits, the first having to do with the "Tales of Phantasia" video game, and the other actually a dead link.
 * : Over 790 K hits, the first page of which is mostly about Naruto. Stripping that and likely wiki pages,  gives us a bit less than half that at over 350 K hits.  Skimming through the summaries on the hit list shows that many (most?) of these are fantasy-related uses.  I have nothing against fantasy as a genre, but this does make things more difficult in that Google has so far concentrated its digitizing efforts on more serious and academic works when it comes to Japanese books, leaving us with no easy means of citing these terms (at least, that I'm aware of).  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Delete: sum of parts. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

✅, striking. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:封印術


text:
Talk:stupid shit

RFV discussion: November 2011
I think this is a verifiable word, and we have dumb fuck, stupid fuck, chickenshit, they are all the same family of insults and this one is very common.Lucifer 23:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

 * "stupid shit" and stupid fuck (which YOU created) are two-word phrases, dumbfuck and chickenshit are single-word compounds, which we tend to treat differently from two-word phrases like stupid shit and stupid fuck. —  [Ric Laurent] — 23:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

 * They are all written both as one word and as two words.Lucifer 23:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

 * You can't just say that, you need to verify it. Dumbfuck yeah, but I've never seen stupidfuck or stupidshit anywhere, ever, except here, because you added them. —  [Ric Laurent] — 00:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I didn't, they are both verified, I'm not making it up. Have you ever heard someone call someone a stupid shit? or stupid fuck?Lucifer 03:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

 * ... but there are two words in this expression. Why do you insist on using the word "word" for "two-word terms"?    D b f  i  r  s   08:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Word is used in a typographic sense, but also in a linguistic sense (same sense as term). If you think that this is a term, then it should be includable (blue bicycle is not a term, not a word, but is it possible to consider stupid shit as a term, as a word in the linguistic sense, I have no idea). Lmaltier 08:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

 * As far as I can tell, all the two word terms added by Troy are simple sums of parts and should be deleted. SemperBlotto 08:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Naturally I agree. —  [Ric Laurent] — 01:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

 * .. as do I, with possibly one or two exceptions. I'm evidently not a linguist since I don't consider the words "word" and "term" to be synonyms.    D b f  i  r  s   09:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An interesting page: https://courses.washington.edu/info200/win12/word.htm
 * For typographers, runs and run are different words, and presqu'île, so long or on-line are composed of two words. For linguists, runs and run are the same word (they belong to the same lexeme), and presqu'île, so long or on-line are single words (items of vocabulary). This is what I was meaning. We seem to miss the typographic sense in word. Lmaltier 18:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose "Any sequence of letters or characters considered as a discrete entity" covers a wide range of senses. The OED distinguishes "words" from "compound terms" consisting of two or more words, with or without hyphens.    D b f  i  r  s   10:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Very interesting you brought that up, but I think that shows there's a debate and I think most people think a vocabulary term is a word.Lucifer 08:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:stupid shit


text:
Talk:月野兎

RFC, RFV
Added at Requests_for_verification. I suspect that at least some of this page will pass. As the page currently stands, the defs are a bit of a mess, and the JA entry has an excessive list of "See also" items that are almost all badly transcripted names of characters from the Sailor Moon manga/anime series. Perhaps these should be moved to an appendix somewhere? Or should they just be deleted? They're all redlinked, so there wouldn't be any need to delete pages. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thoroughly disavowed by Chinese and Japanese speakers both. Deleted, so striking.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

RFV discussion: November 2011
Not listed in any dictionaries to hand - these all have, but not. Entry created and heavily edited by known-suspect IP users. Online hit counts:

 * : 0
 * : 2, but both bogus - the first provides nothing to look at, the second doesn't actually seem to include the search term.
 * : 40K+

I suspect adequate citations could be found to warrant keeping the JA entry, but I wonder if the main content should be moved to ? Hits for :

 * : 282
 * : 129
 * : 15M+

In addition, the Mandarin entry at is just a copy-paste of one sense of the JA entry, which makes me rather suspicious. Could one of our sinophone editors have a look? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh. 月野兎 is one Mandarin name of the fictional character Tsukino Usagi, whose Japanese name is a homephone for the mythical Moon rabbit. Literally it (月野兎) means "moon hare" but that's not what the Moon Rabbit is called in Chinese. This IP doesn't have a clue what it's doing. Delete the whole thing. Fugyoo 22:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I got there before you. Shot on sight by me. Complete, utter, unverifiable bull. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:月野兎


text:
Talk:雷魔

RFV discussion: November 2011
Another from Special:Contributions/2.125.74.75. Not in dictionaries to hand, web searches show only scannos, cases with punctuation between the two characters, or use in Chinese contexts. Hits for Japanese: Keep, and add or some such? Or ditch? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * : 52, a quick skim shows all scannos, with instances found by Google in unlikely contexts such as Watershed Ecobiology: Preventing Red Tides and Revitalizing the Ocean, or Easy Graph Workbook for Statistics Practice.
 * : 13, all scannos -- searching the PDFs themselves finds zero instances.
 * : 1.2M+, but mostly cases where the 雷 belongs to the preceding word or is part of the middle of a word. Numerous instances within the term 氷雷魔, which is apparently used in certain fantasy contexts to mean mage: or wizard:, possibly interchangeably with 氷雷 of the same apparent meaning.  Filtering out 氷雷  cuts the number of hits to 745K, showing use in manga/anime contexts, with a smattering of usernames.
 * Speedy delete - Anime/game inspired name/character/title/character class name with no real idiomatic meaning. I've already blocked the user (twice), first time for including tosh entries that the person just invented himself, inspired by anime most likely, second time for dodging the first block with a different IP. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 05:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Haplology 07:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:雷魔


text:
Talk:降世神通

RFV discussion: November–December 2011
Highly bogus content: not in any dictionary to hand, etyl given is for avatar:, JA WP link is to a disambig page about place and ship names, reading is wrong even if this were a valid word, and most of the synonyms given aren't even proper synonyms. Added by one IP user and edited by another who are both known for lack of Japanese or Chinese skills. Mandarin entry too looks bogus. Hits for Japanese: Nix the whole thing? Or does someone here know of cromulent uses for this term outside of the Airbender universe? If memory serves, we'd need citations from at least three fictional universes to pass muster. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * : 0
 * : 0
 * : 1.5M+, mostly having to do with The Last Airbender.
 * The same discussion we had with the Mandarin counterpart applies here. Enough said. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, my memory fails me -- what discussion was there about the Mandarin counterpart? The current Mandarin entry at  just gives a def of avatar:, but the linked Chinese WP article is clearly about The Last Airbender.  Looks like we ditch the whole page for failing CFI, then?  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. You got me there. I remember there was a conversation somewhere regarding 阿凡达, but I can't seem to find it now. In summary, in that conversation, the author defined the term as avatar, but in reality it only applies to the movie Avatar. The same analogy applies here. The Last Airbender is also known as the Avatar (the original name of the Anime series, not the James Cameron bluey thingies) to some and that's probably where the definition came from (by probably I mean 99.9% chance). So my advice is to exterminate the entry. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 21:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I just realized that he created the Mandarin section for it as well. The previous paragraph applies to that as well. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 21:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted: bogus contents related to the TV program. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete the whole article: the Japanese section is a bogus, and the Mandarin section is incorrect because it is the name of the TV program. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:降世神通


text:
Talk:有りな

RFV discussion: November–December 2011
Is this word really an adjectival noun/na-adjective (形容動詞)? I can find it as a noun or just as a form of 有る, but not as an adjectival noun in dictionaries, and I can't find any clear support in search results for "有りな", but maybe I'm just not seeing it. TIA Haplology 05:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

 * The only use I'm familiar with is the one I'm finding in my web searches -- where あり is in juxtaposition to なし, meaning something like the English or having:}, and the な is the generic modifying particle used with adjectival nouns in Japanese in lieu of the の used with regular nouns.  Hits include メールしない子って脈有りなのか無しなのか, currently hit number 6 at "有りな", or 問題有りな友人を招待すべきでしょうか, currently hit number 7.  None of these uses seem to match the def currently given at.
 * FWIW, I don't think ===Adjectival noun== is correct for this; this construction seems to represent a different grammatical rule, but a good explanation of it escapes me at the moment. I'll have to look into this later and get back to you.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 02:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted: we don’t allow an adjectival noun entry with -な, anyway. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete the whole article. It is the noun 有り, which is generally written in kana (あり). The copula だ always becomes な before の whether the noun is adjectival or not. It is also increasingly common to use な even if the noun is not adjectival, when it modifies another noun. (That is one of the reasons why I think the classification of 形容動詞 is meaningless.) — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:有りな


text:
Talk:razolution

RFV discussion: November 2011
Can anybody look for this word in any source, such as Sociology? --Lo Ximiendo 04:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no usable content. Deleted SemperBlotto 08:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:razolution


text:
Talk:聖地面

RFV discussion: November 2011
IP Wizard has created a Holy Things series, some of which is verifiable, one of which was previously deleted, and some of which is dubious. I present this term, which I think is 聖地 plus 地面 and a little magic kanji dust to make a new word, but correct me if I'm wrong and my dictionaries and I are missing something. Haplology 04:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 * It seems like a rare synonym of 聖地 but you can, of course, break it as 聖 + 地面. --Anatoli 05:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Quick checks:
 * : 0 hits
 * : 0 hits
 * : 0 hits
 * : 10 hits, of which:
 * 3 are typos for 整地面 (the ones with 原子力 in the hit summary)
 * 1 is a translation of French song lyrics that seems like a valid instance ("Secret Professionnel 歌詞 - Babx: SongColeta")
 * 2 are Chinese
 * 2 are actually hits for "聖地. 面"
 * 1 is actually a hit for "総聖地面積" (i.e., +  + ) in reference to the total size of a graveyard
 * 1 is a scanno from a mostly illegible PDF scan of a map, and while I cannot tell for sure what the characters are, I can tell that they aren't "聖地面"
 * So we get exactly one valid usage, but not in a format that meets WT:CFI. I'd vote for nixing the entry.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I just deleted it. No way this is real. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 02:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:聖地面


text:
Talk:fatcow

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2011/more. - -sche (discuss) 00:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: November 2011–January 2012
'ere we go again. Not seeing anything usable here: Equinox ◑ 22:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

 * But I cited it with three quotations.Lucifer 22:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

 * These appear to be scannos. Did you look at the physical scanned page? The 1904 one is particularly ridiculous: you think that somebody was sent an obese woman? No, of course it's a scanno for "fat cow": he was sent a large animal for meat. Equinox ◑ 23:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Hefers have been pestering men since 1904 and beyond so yes I do.Lucifer 23:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Obvious bullshit. Slang like "cow" for a woman was not casually used in literature of that time. I'm starting to think you're just here to troll. Equinox ◑ 02:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Yet more tosh. Rapidly approaching tosh-limit. SemperBlotto 08:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Damn you guys are saints compared to me, I hit my tosh-limit days ago! D: —  [Ric Laurent] — 12:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Every single one of those quotations is questionable. The 1904 one is clearly absurd; the second one is possible, though I can't see the page. The last one ... the text doesn't support or disprove the definition--somebody can check the 1972 Treasure Island at 1:00:00 into the movie for that--but given that on the last page we have it spelled "fat cow" and on this page we have "my path" and then "mypath" below it, and "gallows for" and "gallowsfor", I think we have to assume that the loss of a space is a typo, not a spelling choice.--Prosfilaes 07:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

 * It's a very common insult.Lucifer 09:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The common insult is spelled with a space. Equinox ◑ 12:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And infrequently it is spelled as one word.Lucifer 09:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ... presumably by mistake?   D b f  i  r  s   16:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Deleted, cites did not stand up. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 07:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:fatcow


text:
Talk:throat-gagging

RFV discussion: November 2011
Needs at least two more citations. —  [Ric Laurent] — 03:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * all done.Lucifer 06:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like this one: "He automatically began to hump my mouth sending it into my throat gagging me at times." because it looks like a co-ordinate construction (? is that the right word for it), i.e. "sending it into my throat and gagging me at times". Fugyoo 10:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 * You're right, so I'm removing that one. Now there's been another sense added with only one quotation, so if another two citations for that one aren't added, and now one more for the first.... —  [Ric Laurent] — 12:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I added what I could find, its in common usage, its a synonyms for throat fucking/irrumatio.Lucifer 19:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 * If what's there now is all you can find, the entry will have to be deleted for lack of verification. I'm pretty sure it can be verified, but the verification will have to actually be done. —  [Ric Laurent] — 20:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If anyone can point me at them I'll add them, but all I added was what I could, I was surprised I had trouble finding good ones.Lucifer 10:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The current version has two citations for the first sense, of which the second is not from a published work (and is a mention rather than a use, anyway). —msh210℠ (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Damn, I missed that, too. Removing. —  [Ric Laurent] — 21:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:throat-gagging


text:
Talk:霊漿

RFV discussion: August 2011
Not in my Japanese dictionaries to hand. Not in JA WP despite interwiki link. Entry created and edited by suspect IP users. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't actually doubt the validity of these entries. I have a problem with the anon listing non-synonyms as synonyms. I digress. Anyway, take a look at this: 霊法会 (reihōkai). Essentially, it refers to an spiritualist offshoot of Shinto Buddhism. I am not into religions, so I don't understand most of it. As for 霊漿, here is a passage from a book by 徳冨蘆花, a 19th/20th century Japanese humanist/philosopher - 巖の如く頑なる魂を透して一滴したたり落ちた天の霊漿. I think in this case, it refers to some sort of spiritual liquid that drips from heaven. Note that this anon seems to be dedicated to editing mysticism/spiritualism/magic related terms in Japanese, which are all attestable as far as I am concerned. The entries are, however, a little too detailed for a dictionary. I've tried talking to him/her about that, but his/her English seems to be limited and I also have a feeling that the person is quite young as he/she talked about receiving instructions from her mother all the time. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks James. One of the IPs listed in the history looks like an IP user I've conversed with successfully in the past, who then amended their editing to be more in line with Wiktionary style and formatting norms.  If it's the same user, they are very interested in manga, but they apparently don't have access to any dead-tree reference materials and get all of their definitions from manga, anime, and online sources.
 * This leads me sideways to a separate question about attestable -- would use of a term in manga be sufficient to warrant inclusion in Wiktionary? -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. As long as it's used in more than 3 separate manga/anime universes, which in the two examples we have here, I have no doubt. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * O/T question, but is there such a thing as "Shinto Buddhism"? My understanding was that the two remain largely distinct.  The 霊法会 article describes the sect as part of 法華宗, itself part of Japanese Buddhism.  Then again Japan is known for its syncretism... -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Shinto Buddhism is a synonym of Japanese Buddhism AFAIC unless I am horribly mistaken? Religion has always been a mind-boggling exercise for me as I am more of a logical thinker. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert, but what I remember from uni is that the two are separate. Broadly speaking, Shintō covers the living, and Buddhism covers the dead.  So you take newborns to the Shintō priest for a blessing, and you bury your dead in a Buddhist cemetery.  -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I think I should do more research on this in the future. Thanks for that. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a JA WP article on 霊法会, apparently one of Japan's new religions . However, a quick read through the top of the JA WP article indicates that this is a proper religion deriving from the Lotus Sutra of Buddhism, and not just the vague spiritualism or magicalism indicated by the 霊法 definition given.
 * I rather suspect that the contributing editor, the suspect IP user, based their content solely on their limited understanding from anime / manga, and that 霊法 is either:
 * not a real term at all, or
 * a term actually used, but only in certain manga / anime.
 * I am not a manga reader nor much of an anime viewer, so I have insufficient familiarity with such materials to tell if 霊法 is used in enough manga / anime universes to merit inclusion. If no one else can fill in and confirm this term, I suggest it be deleted.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 06:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:霊漿


text:
Talk:toad-strangler

RFV discussion: August 2011–February 2012
Could benefit from some more words. Like ones from books. —  [Ric Laurent] — 12:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cited as "toad-strangler". Hard to find "toad strangler". DCDuring TALK 16:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Passed. - -sche (discuss) 05:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:toad-strangler


text:
Talk:determinatyw

RFV discussion: August 2011–February 2012
Maro 20:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In general, if an entry was written by Tbot (as this one was) and you're pretty sure it's wrong, you can or delete it without bringing it to RFV. Also please fix the entry it's based on. (The template added by Tbot at the end of the entry indicates which that is.) —msh210℠ (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:determinatyw


text:
Talk:svetilnik

RFV discussion: August 2011–February 2012
Rfv-sense. Serbo-Croatian noun. Tagged by Ivan Štambuk. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:svetilnik


text:
Talk:haggard

RFV discussion: December 2011–March 2012
"(slang) A woman who frequents the gay scene usually with a male gay companion; often with chronically low self-esteem, superficially bolstered by attentive yet self-obsessed gays." Current definition seems offensive. I've heard of a fag hag but never this. Equinox ◑ 14:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have removed the bit after the semi-colon, I'll bet it's not attestable in that much detail. Anyway, let's get three cites first then debate the actual wording. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 07:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:haggard


text:
Talk:weighth

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
Dated form of weight. Suspect they are typos/scannos in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 01:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Uno, dos, tres. --Pilcrow 02:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think they are typos/scannos. Does any other dictionary have this? Equinox ◑ 02:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's a mistake on the analogy of height:, which etymologically is high: + -th: and which used to have heighth: as a common alternative form. But weight: is not from that suffix (at least, not unless you go really far back). On the other hand, in the books cited by Pilcrow, weight: is used consistently apart from those individual sentences, so they're probably typos. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 08:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, just errors. I can also find cites for "weighth" when "eighth" was intended, but I don't claim that this is an "old spelling"!  Many (but not all) of the mis-spellings I've found are by authors for whom English is not their first language, but perhaps we could have a "mis-spelling of" entry?  Even "really far back" in the word's thousand-year history, there was never a spelling weighth, not even in Anglo-Saxon!   D b f  i  r  s   22:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 20:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have found some good citations for this. Three that Pilcrow has above, plus one more. These are not scanning issues.
 * 1) First, a citation where "weighth" is clearly a spelling error for "weight": http://books.google.com/books?id=MytFAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA447&dq=%22weighth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wCtuT8WkO-O1iQea4cS5CA&ved=0CFEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22weighth%22&f=false
 * 2) Next, a citation in which the rules of spelling are explained, and the "th" in the theoretical "weighth" is reduced to "weight": http://books.google.com/books?id=0vUDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA2&dq=%22weighth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wCtuT8WkO-O1iQea4cS5CA&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22weighth%22&f=false
 * 3) But here are three clear citations: http://books.google.com/books?id=2UcZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA189&dq=%22weighth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VyxuT8qLBsqhiAfP9MiMBg&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22weighth%22&f=false
 * 4) http://books.google.com/books?id=9PYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA270&dq=%22weighth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VyxuT8qLBsqhiAfP9MiMBg&ved=0CHEQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22weighth%22&f=false
 * 5) http://books.google.com/books?id=pWwDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA349&dq=%22weighth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wCtuT8WkO-O1iQea4cS5CA&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22weighth%22&f=false
 * 6) One more: http://books.google.com/books?id=g01CAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA649&dq=%22weighth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wCtuT8WkO-O1iQea4cS5CA&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22weighth%22&f=false

 * Alright, I've restored the entry and made it a "misspelling of" entry. - -sche (discuss) 20:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:weighth


text:
Talk:Stihl saw

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012

 * See Talk:Stihl.

title: Talk:Stihl saw


text:
Talk:ᄃᆞᆯ

RFV
Let this pass your mind: the Baekje language existed from 20 BC to AD 700. Korean writing was invented in 1443. Guess what doesn't fit in there... -- Liliana • 18:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 07:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:ᄃᆞᆯ


text:
Talk:abfallverzögern

RFV discussion: October 2011–February 2012
Must be an incredibly rare verb if it gets only 150 hits even on Google Web, and none on Books or Groups. -- Liliana • 21:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:abfallverzögern


text:
Talk:up gazes

up-gazes
moved from RFD. The base form says "plural not attested", so how come these exist? -- Liliana • 12:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, the user who created the entries changed his mind. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlike upgazes, these forms don't seem to be attested. I've deleted them. - -sche (discuss) 05:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:up gazes


text:
Talk:bigger

RFV discussion: October 2011–March 2012
I can't think of a way to use this noun sense ("someone bigger than oneself") in the singular. Fugyoo 10:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Anyone have an argument for keeping this, or a link to cites? If not, I'll delete this as uncited, so that the content will only be at the plural... although [[better]] has a singular noun section. - -sche (discuss) 05:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Added two cites for a total of three. It looks like a plural-only noun. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Duly moved. - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:bigger


text:
Talk:katagelasticism

RFV discussion: October 2011–February 2012
"The joy of laughing at others." Only in word lists? Equinox ◑ 15:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:katagelasticism


text:
Talk:millenarian

RFV discussion: October 2011–March 2012
Rfv-sense: of or pertaining to a thousands years. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 07:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

 * I have deleted the sense "Of or pertaining to a thousand years" as RFV-failed. I have added and cited the sense "Lasting or expected to last a thousand years". - -sche (discuss) 18:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:millenarian


text:
Talk:Olive Oyl

RFV discussion: November 2011–February 2012
Fictional character. Needs to meet WT:FICTION and possibly (since it's a trademark used for various products and media) WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 18:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this: "she's an Olive Oyl-on-coke type, looks to be about 5'll and 55 lbs" ? Fugyoo 22:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You guys really suck. You demand a lot of time fiddly around formatting citations without giving any hint as to whether they will be acceptable or just a waste of time. Fugyoo 11:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How is this a word or an idiom in a language? Move to RFD if it passes. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For fucks sake what kind of cunts are running this dictionary Fugyoo 11:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You shitbags come along and REQUEST citations, so I waste my time going around looking for them, don't get any feedback on which ones might be acceptable, and then you want it delete it regardless or citations or not. Fucking pricks. If it can't be cited anyway just fucking delete it, morons. Fugyoo 11:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you asking to be blocked?
 * Please see WT:FICTION and WT:ATTEST. DCDuring TALK 12:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An individual user requested citations. I, a different individual user, am questioning how this can meet CFI as a word or an idiom in a language. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like at least one of you people should be able to answer my goddamn question then (the suggested citation) Fugyoo 16:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To me it seems to be just mentioning the character (like "he had a Robert Smith hairstyle"). But we've got John Lennon glasses so who the hell knows really. The current definition is just naming a single specific character from fiction, so I don't think it belongs in a dictionary but an encyclopaedia. Equinox ◑ 12:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Has been deleted. - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Olive Oyl