text:
Talk:-os

RFV discussion: November 2013–June 2014
Do we have evidence of this having been used to produce forms not present in Hebrew or applied to non-Hebrew singular forms or stems? The individual terms need not be attestable. Three instances of productive use at any time 1450 to present would be sufficient. DCDuring TALK 15:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Could you provide a link to the policy/vote/discussion page for the policy you describe? —Ruakh TALK 21:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

 * WT:CFI and, for the date which something needs to have been published after to be English, WT:AENM (which notes that the date is actually 1500, not 1450). -os is currently defined as an English suffix "Used to form plurals of some Hebrew and Yiddish loanwords, usually ending in -a or -ah"; per CFI, we need evidence of that. The entry currently links to a couple of words which English borrowed wholesale from Ashkenazi-accented Hebrew or Yiddish; it currently lacks anything that might demonstrate -os to be an English plural-forming suffix. - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes this abuse of WT:RFV is entertainingly farcical, but most of the time it's just tiresome. It's the main reason I stopped bothering with this page. —Ruakh TALK 18:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This plural-formation rule is, of course, only used in cases where the etymon used that plural-formation rule. I doubt anyone is suggesting otherwise, and we don't really need an RFV to resolve that. If there is disagreement on whether we should keep these entries, that's a disagreement over policy (either over what it is, or over what it should be); if you are so confident that your view is correct, then you might as well speedy-delete them, rather than putting up straw men for the pleasure of tearing them down.
 * Are you saying that any Latinization of any morpheme in any script of any language meets CFI if there are three English instances of one (three different?) borrowings that contain the Latinized morpheme? DCDuring TALK 20:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that if you think this entry should be deleted, you should either start an RFD discussion (if you care to discuss it) or speedy-delete it (if you don't). Listing it here, with requirements that everyone knows can't be satisfied, is disingenuous. —Ruakh TALK 21:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But I could imagine them being attestable as productive English suffixes in which case they should certainly be kept. I have no animus against them. I would expect that -im would almost certainly prove attestable in macaronic English formations. Similarly -san is almost certainly attestable in English. These two just seem much less likely. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 * There was a RFD discussion, it reached no consensus. I presumed DCDuring started this RFV in response to the RFD. It is not uncommon for discussions at RFD to raise questions of attestability and thus shift to RFV. You say it's "disingenuous" to list it here with "requirements that everyone knows can't be satisfied", but those requirements are the ones everything else is subject to. If everyone knows the entry doesn't meet them, then it should be deleted and the question should be asked: why was it created? (-oth was created by me for reasons outlined here, in short I presumed it to be as attested or unattested and as idiomatic or unidiomatic as -os and thus deserving of the same treatment.) - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As for the RFD discussion link — thanks. As you can plainly see, it was closed with "no consensus", not with "let's invent attestation requirements, then move it to RFV and impose them". (It's not as though anyone there argued that it met these made-up requirements; it's just that there wasn't consensus that they should be applied.) If DCDuring indeed started this RFV in response to that, then this listing is even more disingenuous than I had supposed. —Ruakh TALK 23:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If the closest you can come to demonstrating a policy that requires "evidence of this having been used to produce forms not present in Hebrew or applied to non-Hebrew singular forms or stems" is to link to the entirety of WT:CFI, then you really might as well dispense with the link; it's not helpful. (And even if CFI did impose the requirements that you ascribe to it, your characterization of them as "the ones everything else is subject to" is impossible to take seriously. You can't possibly be suggesting that you'd apply this "forms not present in [source language]" requirement to whole words; rather, you must be applying this requirement to sub-word morphemes.)

 * Do you think we should have an entry ki- that states that ki- is an English prefix? It so happens that in addition to Swahili and Kongo, English also borrowed kiSwahili and Kikongo. - -sche (discuss) 22:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Well, what is the relationship of those forms? What speakers use both "Swahili" and "Kiswahili", and what do they take the ki- part to mean? My understanding was — and our entries agree with this — that the two forms are synonymous alternatives. —Ruakh TALK 23:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As a crude check of plausibility I looked at 's Affixes.org site. The site includes -im and -san, but not -os and -oth. I understand that there might be some difficulty in attesting these because affixes are not conveniently searched for on Google, but I thought someone might have a feel for where attestation could be found. I aven't tried COCA and BNC yet. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 * There is no requirement in CFI that a putative suffix must be productive and attested as such. This nomination is not policy driven. DCDuring has been pushing the requirement that suffixes must be productive for some time, but I do not recall a community consensus for that requirement. For emphasis, the nomination says "Do we have evidence of this having been used to produce forms ...", italics mine. Proposed RFV outcome: out of scope of RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I asked that there be unambiguous demonstration of productivity at any time in the past 500+ years. I was trying to suggest a more objective means of demonstrating that the affixes convey meaning,
 * Second, lots of things aren't in CFI and shouldn't be. Attestation of meaning is beyond what detailed rules are likely to sustain. I came up with something that seemed practical.
 * Third, could you suggest some other means of demonstrating that -os and -oth or other similar affixes convey meaning that has some taint of objectivity and testability (Or is that also to be a realm of whim wrapped in voting and legalism?) 14:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed; deleted. - -sche (discuss) 22:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Undone by Ruakh . — Ungoliant (falai) 22:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

 * RFV kept for no consensus about which policy, if any, pertains to this nomination in relation to attestation. The closer User:-sche (sic) failed to point to a policy supporting his or her manner of closure. For a previous RFD discussion, see Talk:-oth. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

-oth
Same as for -os. DCDuring TALK 15:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

 * and are both attestable as plurals of ; presumably only one of them is correct in Hebrew. This has  as a questioned plural of  (the plural from the Persian would be ).  can become  or, whilst the correct plural form (AFAICT) is ; likewise,  can become  or , whilst its plural form is properly .  is attestable as  in the plural, even though the correct form is .  is attestable as  and as , even though, as in the case of , presumably only one of them is right in Hebrew. Is any of that evidence at all helpful? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

 * It's certainly helpful.
 * I wouldn't have thought that the existence of alternative transliterations would be evidence for the existence of target-language morphemes based on the morphemes of the source language.
 * The forms that would be erroneous were they transliterations are definitely better evidence that there was some more active word-formation process. I still wonder whether that kind of error in the frequency that it occurs would normally be deemed to be sufficient evidence of actual "morphemity" rather than of mere error in comparable cases, but no comparable cases come mind immediately.
 * Thanks. DCDuring TALK 17:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Re № 1: Well, presumably, attempted application of this suffix requires familiarity with other words in which the suffix occurs, which would probably include familiarity with the different ways that the suffix can be spelt (Hebrew is quite variable in its transliteration); compare the English – pair. Re № 2: I think that use of a plural-marking suffix in contexts that would be incorrect in the source language is a sign of its morphemity — it shows that the user of the suffix is thinking "-oth (or -ot) marks a plural", and not just that there are a bunch of listemes where the singular happens to end in -ah and the plural meanwhile happens to end in -oth. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

 * I that criterion definitely demonstrates that a suffix should be included. However, I don't think that not fulfilling that criterion automatically means that a suffix shouldn't be included. --WikiTiki89 03:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree, this is helpful, whether or ot it is conclusive. In Deut. 12:3 and 1 Kings 14:23, the plural of asherah seems to be asherim. ISBN 0664241859 says "the Asherah (plural Asherim or Asheroth)". - -sche (discuss) 07:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Does that mean that asherim and asheroth are transliterations of noun forms that are both correct in Hebrew? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

 * They both occur in Hebrew scripture, so I would say yes, though I suppose one could argue about whether they're scribal errors or whether they both mean the same thing. At any rate, if they're present in the Hebrew, they could be borrowed, whether they're correct or not. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, that was my thinking, too. More examples like would be ideal. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 03:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Could someone who is proficient in Hebrew please state which, if any, of the plurals I listed above (in my post timestamped: 17:06, 30 November 2013) do not occur in Hebrew? Given that, I can then create English entries for them and thereby attest -oth as an English suffix. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think they are all attestable in Hebrew (except ayatollot, because it's not even a Hebrew word). The only question is whether the -ot ending is attested in Hebrew before or after it is attested in English, and that's a tricky question. Bar-mitzvah has been used in English since before Hebrew was revived as a spoken language, although the sense of bar-mitzvah that is more likely to have the ending -ot is the ceremony sense, which isn't attested in English until 1941. Although, it is still likely that the -ot ending in English may have come first. (Just a side note: the correct plural of bar-mitzvah is not barei-mitzvah, but bnei-mitzvah or b'nei-mitzvah.) --WikiTiki89 00:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

 * RFV kept for no consensus about which policy, if any, pertains to this nomination in relation to attestation. The closer User:-sche (sic) failed to point to a policy supporting his or her manner of closure. For a previous RFD discussion, see Talk:-oth. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:-os


text:
Talk:om nom nom

RFV discussion: January–July 2014
Rfv-sense: the noun sense, tasty food. Can we get better and more durably archived sources than yelp.biz for this? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Added two cites. There's probably another floating around, but it's difficult trying to filter out use as an interjection or verb. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Added a third cite. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:om nom nom


text:
Talk:date rape

RFV discussion: December 2013–July 2014
Rfv-sense for the sense, "Rape committed with the use of a sedative or memory-inhibiting drug". I do not believe that the term is so broadly construed as to apply to any such act, even if it occurs between complete strangers in a non-social setting (for example, if the perpetrator were to break into a random house and force a complete stranger in that house to imbibe such a drug). bd2412 T 17:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that "if the perpetrator were to break into a random house and force a complete stranger in that house to imbibe such a drug", that would not be considered date rape. Perhaps the words "in a social setting" should be added to the definition. --WikiTiki89 17:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is worthwhile to bother trying to find citations to support the definition's arguable inclusion of BD's hypothetical. But I would expect that folks would use date rape when hook-up rape might more precisely fit the situation. Date is fairly elastic. It is euphemistically (and legalistically) used (as is party) about short-term sex-for-money encounters. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At least that's how it's done in the movies. I do not have any direct experience and my friends have the same story. DCDuring TALK 18:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Our definitions should be precise enough to avoid sweeping in scenarios not actually covered by a term. Of course, the rape itself is generally not committed in the social setting, but the setting is used as a cover for the drugging. How about, "Rape committed by a perpetrator first secretly administering a sedative or memory-inhibiting drug to the victim, under cover of a social setting"? bd2412 T 18:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How about we trim it down a bit to: "Rape committed by administering a sedative or memory-inhibiting drug under the cover of a social setting"? --WikiTiki89 18:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would keep "secretly" (or make it "surreptitiously", which is such a great and sneaky sounding word). Otherwise, I agree. bd2412 T 18:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But if it weren't done secretly, wouldn't it still be a date rape? --WikiTiki89 18:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If a guy walks into a bar and in full view of his target drops some pills or powder into her drink, and she goes ahead and drinks it with full knowledge that the drink has been drugged, I would consider that to constitute consent to whatever effect the drug has on the imbiber, and whatever activity follows from that effect. Outside of some weird fantasy role-play type situation, "rape" requires a lack of consent. I suppose a drug could be administered in a way that was secret to the victim, but not to others (i.e., the guy at a party telling his friends, "look what I'm doing", and then spiking the drink of an unaware victim). bd2412 T 18:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Consent to a drug does not imply consent to sex. --WikiTiki89 19:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If I were representing a client accused under these facts, I would argue that consent to imbibe a drug offered by a complete stranger in a bar implied consent to whatever acts could reasonably be foreseen to occur under the influence of the drug. I would win that case, too. bd2412 T 19:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. Even real consent given while intentionally intoxicated can be insufficient for legal consent. Anyway, this is not a court but a dictionary; we don't debate laws, but terminology. Also, the word "rape" in the definition implies lack of consent. --WikiTiki89 19:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This being an RfV, are there citations that demonstrate that the phrase is so used where the drugging is done with the victim's knowledge? The Urban Dictionary reference you provided in the other discussion refers to a secret drugging. bd2412 T 19:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For bd2412, couldn't it hypothetically mean raping the fruit a ? I'm not saying any person who has ever existed would interpret it that way, just that it's hypothetically possible. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Since this is an RfV, not an RfD, ther hypothetical meanings are irrelevant to the definition for which verification is sought. If this were an RfD for sense 1, it would be apparent from the context that the relevant sense of "rape" is unlikely to apply to an inanimate object. However, I would certainly avoid your tendency to assume that the meanings of phrases that have been culturally ingrained in you are therefore obvious to everyone else, regardless of where they are from or what language they speak. bd2412 T 19:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't claiming any relevance. I'm saying we shouldn't make up hypothetical definitions and then say the word doesn't mean this. For every word, there are literally infinite things it doesn't mean. Why try to make lists of them? It's madness. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, our definitions should be precise enough to avoid sweeping in a lot of things that the word doesn't mean. We could define fire engine as "a thing that fights fires", but although that is technically correct, our definition is far more precise. I'm not trying to say what the thing isn't; I'm trying to define it so that it is clear what it is. bd2412 T 20:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Date rape is not a legal term. Rape is. The more one tries to make date rape legalistically precise, the more it seems that date rape = date + rape. Date rape seems to have ambiguity with respect to both components of its meaning. DCDuring TALK 20:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, this is true. However, this gets us back to the question of what meanings are verifiable in citations showing how the word is used. I believe that the word is generally used to refer to an act following drugging done secretly. bd2412 T 20:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably, but there is a great haze of ambiguity (which has led to the usage of terms like gray rape). Some write that alcohol is the most common date-rape drug. Usually nowadays at least the first doses of alcohol are self-administered or knowingly accepted. DCDuring TALK 21:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In any event date-rape drug seems to be easily citable as being taken voluntarily:
 * It seems to me that date rape doesn't necessarily require that the rapist deliver a drug secretly or at all or even that there be a drug of any kind involved. It seems to mean rape by a rapist with whom the victim was in a consensual social relationship (possibly very short term). DCDuring TALK 21:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sense one of date rape says exactly that. However, there is apparently a second sense which does not involve the "consensual social relationship", but instead involves secret drugging. Why is it called "date rape" even though there is nothing like a "date" involved? Because people started using the drug to carry out rape in the context of a "consensual social relationship", and the drug came to be known as the "date rape drug", with all rapes using the drug thereafter coming to be known as "date rape" via back-formation. Notably, your citations indicate that the substance itself is still known as "date-rape drug" even if it is used under circumstances that do not involve "rape" at all. bd2412 T 21:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that it is back-formation, but I disagree. I think it is more likely that "date rape" first acquired the drug connotation, and then people started using "date rape drugs" to refer to the drugs used that form of "date rape". --WikiTiki89 21:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That would not be a back-formation.
 * In Google News, the first usage of date rape that is accurately dated is 1983; the first for date rape drug is 1996. In Books, 1978 and 1996. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But was it used in our drug-related sense before "date rape drug"? --WikiTiki89 23:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Wikitiki: I haven't looked at that.
 * The citations in [[date rape]] show that date rape has not been limited to traditional dates. Date may even be a term to disguise the actual situation: hookups following from group hangouts. Date rape is apparently a term used to allow cross-generational discussion.
 * Date rape drugs can be:
 * administered secretly or not
 * self-administered or not
 * associated or not with actual subsequent rape or intent to commit rape
 * associated with traditional dates or with hookups, with are included by some in an elastic definition of date, or not
 * a chemically manufactured pharmaceutical agent in the form of pill or powder, an alcoholic beverage, or a natural product.
 * I do not think that we want to have enough definitions to cover all sensible combinations of these possibilities, nor can we readily use attestation to tease apart which combinations occurred first.
 * It seems to me that the usage has most commonly been "date rape" drug (with the double quotes) in its first use in the written material I have looked at at Google. This suggests that the readers are not expected to know or care about the chemistry, but to care that the drugs facilitate "date rape", which itself may be a novel concept (and a misnomer given that dates have been often superseded by hookups). "Date rape" is a hot-button to girls and the relatives of girls.
 * The two medical dictionaries that are the only OneLook references that have entries for date rape drug define it as only Rohypnol/rohypnol (rufie). If that is accurate, then that radical restriction would seem to make a non-SoP definition, though it does not cover all the usage. DCDuring TALK 23:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think that we want to have enough definitions to cover all sensible combinations of these possibilities, nor can we readily use attestation to tease apart which combinations occurred first.
 * It seems to me that the usage has most commonly been "date rape" drug (with the double quotes) in its first use in the written material I have looked at at Google. This suggests that the readers are not expected to know or care about the chemistry, but to care that the drugs facilitate "date rape", which itself may be a novel concept (and a misnomer given that dates have been often superseded by hookups). "Date rape" is a hot-button to girls and the relatives of girls.
 * The two medical dictionaries that are the only OneLook references that have entries for date rape drug define it as only Rohypnol/rohypnol (rufie). If that is accurate, then that radical restriction would seem to make a non-SoP definition, though it does not cover all the usage. DCDuring TALK 23:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

 * I have reworked both definitions. The first definition had not been RFVed, but was tortuously worded; I tried to simplify/clarify it. I modified the second definition to include all (and only) the elements mention above which I thought were part of the meaning of the word. - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 * RFV-passed; the basic sense is attested and has been cited. Further tweaking of the definition can be discussed in the Tea Room and/or talk page. - -sche (discuss) 17:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:date rape


text:
Talk:hederate

RFV discussion: January–July 2014
I can only find hederated; can anyone find hits of other tenses of this verb? If not, it would seem best to move the content to hederated and describe that term as an adjective. I would have just moved the page, but gets a lot of hits, and although the ones I looked at were Latin or scannos, I didn't wade through all of them. - -sche (discuss) 04:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of dictionary definitions here and here, a few older references to hederate of ammonia or of lead (whatever those are), and a botanical work that uses it as an adjective here. The rest is Latin and scannos. On Groups, there's hits due to its being a username (and most, if not all, not on Usenet), but nothing else. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is clearly a chemical term: I am seeing hederate of baryta, hederate of lime, hederate of potash, hederate of silver, hederate of lead as well as several cites to hederate of ammonia mentioned by -sche.  It appears to relate to any salt of hederic acid, which is a chemical derived from ivy seeds. Spinning Spark  10:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Hederic acid" appears to be obsolete term, it is now called hederagenin. I tried to run NGram for "hederic acid, hederagenin", but there were no results for "hederic acid". "Hederagenin" first appeared in 1919 in that search. "Hederate of" only gets 3 Google hits, all from sources dating back to 1800's. Thus it appears appropriate to tag the noun sense "obsolete". --Hekaheka (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed (by ). — Ungoliant (falai) 15:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

hederated
This is now listed as a verb form, but just to cover the superficially plausible hypothesis that this is an adjective existing separately from the verb hederate, I am asking quotations attesting the existence of this specific form, meeting WT:ATTEST, including the requirement that they are in use rather than mere mentions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I found one more independent citation (beyond the one from ), from 's chapter on . This is the one often quoted and paraphrased. As much as I enjoyed The Diamond Age, it doesn't seem to rank as a well-known work. I've tried Scholar, News, and even Groups. DCDuring TALK 14:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are now five citations at Citations:hederated. I’ll leave it for someone else to decide whether they are adjectives or participles. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I commented above "I can only find hederated; can anyone find hits of other tenses of this verb? If not, it would seem best to move the content to hederated and describe that term as an adjective." I will do that now. - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Changed to adjective (by ). — Ungoliant (falai) 15:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:hederate


text:
Talk:umiko

umikino
Esperanto words for fuck buddy (male and female, respectively). I can only find one use at best:. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So is this a blend of -um- and amiko? How amusing. Seems like a protologism. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, it (or rather, geumikoj) actually has a published usage in La ĉapo de la sterko-vermo. In its glossary, Jorge Camacho defines it thus:
 * ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Both failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Both failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:umiko


text:
Talk:jiwiri

RFV discussion: February–July 2014
Warlpiri uses several words for "water", but I haven't found evidence that this is one of them. - -sche (discuss) 06:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Both jiwiri and waji are listed in the Warlpiri dictionary. Beyond that, I can't say. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 07:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

waji
Warlpiri uses several words for "water", but I haven't found evidence that this is one of them. (It might be a word for "rainbow", though.) - -sche (discuss) 06:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:jiwiri


text:
Talk:babirut

RFV discussion: March–July 2014
And various derived terms: jibabirut, hibabirut, babirutül, hibabirutül, jibabirutül, babirutülamit, babirutil, babirutamit, babirutik. Volapük for different types of babirusa. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:babirut


text:
Talk:genealogataib

RFV discussion: March–July 2014
Volapük for genealogical table. No hits on Google Books or even on a regular Google search. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:genealogataib


text:
Talk:gakko

RFV discussion: February–July 2014
put a note in the two pages asking if we have "to include alternative transcriptions", and I am therefore putting the two pages here for that matter. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Arrowred.png|15px]] Personally, I must say that romanizing as gakko instead of  is a bit like spelling  as aple, or  as  -- it's a misspelling that omits important phonetic information, potentially resulting in a different word altogether.  I don't think we have any business including "alternative transcriptions" as a matter of normal policy.

 * [[gakko]] is also a valid romanization of other Japanese words: ; . As such, I'd be much more tempted to deep-six the "alternative transcription" content and turn that page into a regular romanization entry.
 * [[gakkou]] isn't a valid romanization of any Japanese word (using our modified Hepburn scheme), so my sense would be to delete this altogether. Alternately, if other folks feel this might still be useful to incoming users, at least rework it entirely so it's clearly marked as a misspelling, and so it's not showing up in the index of Japanese nouns.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * This is really an RFD matter... delete both (replacing the first one with the valid content Eirikr mentions). - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Moved to WT:RFD. Neither entry was tagged with anyway. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

RFD discussion: February–July 2014
"put a note in the two pages asking if we have 'to include alternative transcriptions', and I am therefore putting the two pages here for that matter. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Arrowred.png|15px]] Personally, I must say that romanizing as gakko instead of is a bit like spelling  as aple, or  as  -- it's a misspelling that omits important phonetic information, potentially resulting in a different word altogether.  I don't think we have any business including 'alternative transcriptions' as a matter of normal policy.

 * gakko is also a valid romanization of other Japanese words: ; . As such, I'd be much more tempted to deep-six the 'alternative transcription' content and turn that page into a regular romanization entry.
 * gakkou isn't a valid romanization of any Japanese word (using our modified Hepburn scheme), so my sense would be to delete this altogether. Alternately, if other folks feel this might still be useful to incoming users, at least rework it entirely so it's clearly marked as a misspelling, and so it's not showing up in the index of Japanese nouns.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * This is really an RFD matter... delete both (replacing the first one with the valid content Eirikr mentions). - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)"

 * It's been four months. Done, striking.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Just think, if Votes/pl-2014-06/Allowing attested romanizations passes, we'll end up restoring just a wek from now. :b - -sche (discuss) 16:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are talking about. Where do you see any attesting quotations of "gakkou" in use to convey meaning? Enjoying setting up straw men much? "gakkou" was sent to RFV, no attesting quotations were provided for the form, so it was deleted, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * has loads of instances of the string gakkou. I argue they're not "uses" of a "word" to "convey meaning", and it seems no-one disagrees with my view, since no-one cited any of those citations when the term was at RFV. Nonetheless, those citations are identical in form to citations which the main proponent of allowing romanizations (BD) has argued are "words used to convey meaning", hence I presume that if the vote to allow romanizations passes, he'll support including . - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It bears noting that at least some of those hits are likely bogus, like the top title on this page of hits: The Phonology of Hungarian. :)
 * That aside, there have been occasional conversations among us JA editors about what to do with spellings that don't fit the modified Hepburn scheme in use here at EN WT. So far, the general consensus (at least, as I've understood it) has been to remove such entries.  The use of ou or uu instead of the macron versions ō and ū is very common online and even in some academia, in part due to the difficulties of inputting macrons using US keyboards.  (For those interested, this is sometimes called wāpuro rōmaji or “word-processor romanization”.)  Given that we already have a standard for romanized Japanese entries, and given that we already have romanizations for a high percentage of our JA entries (and even the JavaScript tools in place to accelerate their creation), I don't think BD's arguments in favor of including romanizations have much immediate bearing on Japanese -- we're already doing that.  :)
 * If folks wish to expand that discussion to include the issues of alternate spellings and what to do with those, I'm happy to engage in that conversation, and if such alternates are deemed entry-worthy, it would be very easy to (re)create the [[gakkou]] entry as a similar redirection.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:gakko


text:
Talk:macrospect

RFV discussion: March–July 2014
Possible spam? (some hits for i.e. inspection with the naked eye) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. Not spam though, there were two uses. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:macrospect


text:
Talk:neknomination

RFV discussion: March–July 2014
This is one of those "ripped from the headlines" terms that seems to be too recent to meet CFI. There are a surprising number of Google Books hits, but none with even a snippet to verify that it's not a scanno. There are hits on Google Groups, but none seems to be more than a month or two old, and most, if not all, seem to be non-Usenet. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * neknominate (an earlier word?) seems slightly more promising in Groups: . Equinox ◑ 21:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Olinguito? I think this has crossed the threshold into the sort of widespread international use that would justify inclusion despite not meeting the one-year provision of CFI. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Keep: I get hits before one-year on Google Search, however; without any time limitation there is certainly a lot of usage of this word, both on the web and the news:

 * Google Web Search About 4,070,000 results (0.48 seconds) WritersCramp (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Google News Search About 35,100 results (0.47 seconds) WritersCramp (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Make no special exception. Everyone knows Google's numbers are wildly inaccurate. If you click through the pages, there are only 31 pages of results. And I have yet to find a single Google Books result that actually has the word in the search result. --WikiTiki89 22:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Move to RFV. Oh, wait, it's already at RFV; people are just voting "keep" and "delete" for some reason. If it meets CFI, it'll be kept; if it doesn't, it'll be deleted and can be re-examined next year. On which note, we should check if that Russian term for "pink slime" that some people were sure would be more than just a one-year fad has seen any current use. - -sche (discuss) 22:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * WritersCramp, if you can find CFI-compliant sources in Google (I imagine mainstream newspapers are fine) then please go ahead and add them. There is the spanning-one-year rule but I think Cloudcuckoo may be right about widespread use. Equinox ◑ 22:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Hi, thanks for the tip. The poster of the +tag should have to support their assertion.  I think the definition is fine with the citations it has now :) I have provided the generic google search with plenty of citations from before a year ago.  The person that posted the +tag, should have done his own research first.  My suggestion would be to remove the +tag and advise the editor that posted it to do his own research first and not waste other peoples time. i.e. did the editor do anything before posting the +tag?  Why should I have to go on a wild goose chase everytime some guy posts a +tag, let him provide the proof to support the +tag, not the other way around. Thanks.  WritersCramp (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * You're asking someone to prove a negative, i.e. prove that a word isn't in use, or (in this case) hasn't been in use for more than a year. That's not sensible. It's up to you to prove that the word meets our requirement that words have been in use for at least a year before being included. - -sche (discuss) 23:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Bullshit, all the editor had to do was perform a simple Google Search using the time range function, then they would have their proof. Example 1. WritersCramp (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Added three from the The Telegraph (UK), the Belfast Telegraph, and the Toronto Star. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately they don't even span a month let alone a year. --WikiTiki89 23:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Three mainstream newspapers in a month, from different countries, feels like "widespread use" to me — well, given that it isn't based on a marketing stunt/press release (see Talk:wilf) and is also all over social media. Equinox ◑ 23:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not in "widespread use". Widespread use is for words like horse, apple, have, the, etc. --WikiTiki89 23:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with WikiTiki. - -sche (discuss) 23:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Equinox suggested that someone find mainstream newspaper cites. I'm aware they don't meet the one-year-span provision. I added them in the hope of documenting widespread international use. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the citations, but they are not enough. And international use has nothing to do with being widespread. --WikiTiki89 23:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Me too. The widespread use clause is for words any speaker of the language in question is expected to know, not for slang a couple of journalists found cool and is likely to be forgotten in a few months. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The verification is anything but a slam-dunk. I looked through the two main sources for CFI-compliant usage examples and found nothing older than January, which is more than enough evidence to just delete it as a protologism. It seemed in enough use recently, though, for me to bring it here where it could be considered in more depth. It's very rare for us to use the widespread-use criterion for such a new term, so it would require discussion before doing so. In short, everything I looked at said I should delete it, but I wanted to give it a chance. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors like Chuck Entz are a hazard to Wiktionary, you are a deletionist and you add nothing to the dictionary. Now click on this link, which you could have done and should have done before you posted your frivilous +tag: Google Search - Custom Range Time 1900 to 2013 . 11:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

 * On a side note, I notice the Collins Harper website shows peoples potential new word contributions to their dictionary. I notice neknominate is one of them, although that does not affect our discussion, it is just a point of interest :).  The webpage might be a good place for Wiktionary editors to find and consider new words to add to Wiktionary. WritersCramp (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WritersCramp, drop the crap about Chuck Entz. This is an entriely good RFV nomination; your ignorance of CFI does not change that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dan Polansky read the Google Search - Custom Range Time 1900 to 2013 citation, there are plenty of one-year of longer usage citations!! It is not a valid +tag, he did not even bother to check it, he just posted it without doing any research whatsoever! This is wasting everybody's time! WritersCramp (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please place the attesting quotations at Citations:neknomination, but only those that meet the permanently recorded media criterion as per WT:ATTEST. Per common practice, permanently recorded media means printed media including those found at Google books, and Usenet. Your search is irrelevant, since it is not constrained to permanently recorded media; the first hit is Facebook, which is not permanently recorded media. Again, leave Chuck alone, and focus on attestation, since you are not going to convince us that the nomination was a poor one. And spare us the exclamation marks. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not completely irrelevant: the Google search shows no durably-archived cites, but there are plenty of references to actions taken by local governments and other official bodies that are likely to have durably-archived records. This looks to be very difficult to verify from online sources, but we only need one cite from before February of 2013 to clinch it. I was ambivalent about nominating this in the first place, and I hope we can verify it. Still, I obviously don't agree that the nomination was frivolous or reckless- I checked the usual sources, and everything pointed to a facebook-only phenomenon that only recently went into broad usage. A broad google search normally just turns up way too much irrelevant stuff to wade through- but in this case, it would have been helpful.  Chuck Entz (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Oppose widespread use. That is, as for WT:ATTEST, the following line should not be applied to this term, IMHO: "clearly widespread use". Other than that, let this RFV run its course as usual, and if not CFI-enough CFI-fit quotations are found, let the entry be deleted. I propose the attesting quotations are placed at Citations:neknomination, since the entry is likely to get deleted, AFAICT. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

 * How long has the word Euromaidan been in use? WritersCramp (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly not for a full year, givne that the protests began 3.5 months ago; thank you for pointing that out. I have tagged it now, and listed it below. - -sche (discuss) 23:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Failed. Citations moved to Citations:neknomination. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What good does the deletion of this entry (and neknominate) serve? It was well-formatted, and given the term's widespread use in the media, it clearly qualifies as a "hot word." All this deletion ensures is that some Wiktionarian is going to have to waste time rebuilding the entry from the ground up a few months from now. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a hot word in February, now it only finds occasional use. And if it becomes citable, it can be undeleted (which restores all revisions). — Ungoliant (falai) 20:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

neknominate
As above. - -sche (discuss) 04:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:neknomination


text:
Talk:uton

RFV discussion: March–July 2014
Gerhard Koebler's dictionary has this, and lists several alternative forms,, ,. But they are all marked as unattested, with a *. How Koebler was able to include those terms if there are no attestations of them, I don't know, but I do think it means this should be checked. 04:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * funny he has an asterick beside it as its well attested: wuton wuldrian weorada dryhten halgan hlioðorcwidum . It supposedly stems from the optative plural for of . Leasnam (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Passed by . — Ungoliant (falai) 19:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:uton


text:
Talk:grenakrov

glügakrov
Volapük for various types of crows. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 02:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

 * All failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:grenakrov


text:
Talk:kvagad

jikvagad
Gender-nonspecific, male, and female, respectively. Völapuk for an extinct species of zebra. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:kvagad


text:
Talk:black ox trod upon my foot

RFV discussion: March–July 2014
find two important things:

 * seems to be copied verbatim from the book listed under references
 * that seems to be the only attestation on Google Books. No actual usage.

2.30.98.209 13:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a figurative expression used only in that context. For something to be a proverb, it needs to see regular usage outside the context of the book. Delete. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you allow in your search terms for minor variations, it's not as rare as it first seems: Google Books: "black ox" trod "foot". At any rate, it seems to be mostly Elizabethan, or thereabouts, with some dialectal usage since. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you check out the first hit in the search Chuck Entz provided, Renaissance Studies in Honor of Hardin Craig (1941) has "The proverb "The Black Ox has not Trod on His Foot" in Renaissance Literature by Archer Taylor that gives a plethora of cites for various forms, defining it as "1. He has not known trouble in the married state", "2. He is inexperienced, he has not known sorrow or care", "3. She has not suffered the ravages of age", and "4. He has not known want.", backed up with at least 20 citations. I think it's a pretty clear keep in some form.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Webster 1913 includes it as "have the black ox tread on one's foot"; there is a Leigh Hunt citation, though the text is not given. Equinox ◑ 19:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Moved to the black ox tread on one's foot which is trivially citable. Further improvements or moves are welcome. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:black ox trod upon my foot


text:
Talk:oPt

OPT
Supposedly "occupied Palestinian territories". [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=oPt%2COPT ngrams results for "oPt"] seem to be white noise. Keφr 08:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Both failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:oPt


text:
Talk:Uessian

RFV discussion: March–July 2014
Meaning a citizen of the United States. User:Pass a Method added three quotations to this entry shortly after creating it, but of those quotations, two were scannos for Hessian and the other was a mention, not a use. All I can see on Google Books is more scannos. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I must have misread, sorry. Pass a Method (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Pass a Method: RFV is not a vote, and it is not even a "!vote". The outcome depends on the existence of cited usage, not on what people write in bold letters. What is it that you have "misread"? Keφr 17:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The citations Pass a Method (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Before developing this idea of "counter-worlding" any further, I would also note that as a postcolonial-oriented comparativist of Canadian and Québécois literatures, I am inevitably drawn to considering such an approach vis-à-vis the United States – especially within the immediate context of greater pressures on Canada and Quebec to integrate within the USian imperial nexus in terms of national, continental, and international policies and values, as well as the current academic debates over whether the US should be a subject of postcolonial studies or whether analyses of its cultures, writings, and politics would be well served by the new field of North American studies.
 * FWIW, I'm used to encountering (or more rarely  as an alternate spelling) as synonym of, but restricted to the United States senses.  That said, our entry at  was apparently deleted back in 2006 for failing RFV.   shows a lot of noise, but there are some valid hits, like this one:
 * ... or like this one:

I am a member of the Liberal Democrats, a British political party that are liberal in the British, rather than the American, sense – while for the most part the beliefs of the party as a whole (though not of every member) tend to overlap with the USian definition, for us liberalism is based around the idea of allowing the individual the maximum freedom to run their life as they wish – the role of the state being to remove, rather than to add, restrictions on individual liberty.
 * I'm sure a third cite could be found. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Add these to Citations:USian, then. This is the RFV for . Two different things. Keφr 19:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I explicitly stated that these would be for rather than, in recognition that these are separate terms.  I am curious as to whether  has encountered , and whether that might be a better term to work on.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was unable to cite Uessian. There were two cites of use as adjective to be found on Usenet, both from 1997, and only one use as a noun from a Texas newspaper. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. Note that one of the citations is a mention. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Uessian


text:
Talk:abe

RFV discussion: March–July 2014
Said to be an intransitive regional British form of "be". Is it really? The commonness of the name "Abe" makes it hard to search for, even for phrases like "to abe with", "to abe in the"... - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Three citations added. The OED lists several more, mostly with the spellings "abee" and "a-be". All three citations I've added and all 10 or so in the OED are part of the phrase let abe, so maybe that's what we should have an entry for. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was going to say the same. The OED says "obsolete" for the sense "let alone" (not to mention), and both regional and rare for the sense "desist from".  I'd guess that the word might still exist in the Scots language, and hence Scottish English ( ... any experts here? ).  I've never heard it in northern England.    D b f  i  r  s   22:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Passed. Even if this verb is only used in, its entry should be kept and appended to the definition — Ungoliant (falai) 18:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:abe


text:
Talk:Usonan

RFV discussion: March–July 2014
I ask for attestation per WT:ATTEST, since I can't find enough attesting quotations. Consider placing them at Citations:Usonan, since at least one can probably be found. . --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * After going through all seven pages of Google Books results, I've found lots of Esperanto hits for usonan, a few mentions, and lots of scannos for "us on an", but only one definite hit as well as one that is a possible hit, but not clearly legible . —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess it's an early variant of Usonian that didn't catch on. See the usage notes at Usona.  I would think simply being derived from Usona, which is well-attested, would be enough to keep it here, since it's the natural adjective form.  Soap (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Usonan


text:
Talk:aid

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
The incompetent general's brilliant aid: should this be spelt aide? If so, this example sentence is misleading. Donnanz (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I notice there is a sense 7: aide-de-camp. Perhaps the example sentence can be moved there. Donnanz (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To my surprise, both the OED and the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary say that "aid" is an acceptable alternative for "aide" (with the OED noting that using "aid" for "aide" is chiefly found in US military contexts). I agree with Donnanz that sense 7 already covers this. In any case, sense 3 seems to describe things, not persons, and I would just delete this old and unhelpful e.g. sentence from sense 3. -- · (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The numbers for each sense seem to have been mucked up, either by the rfv or the following quote. Donnanz (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, Donnanz, within the numbered senses you should use the template . I fixed it. -- · (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks; it's the first rfv I have ever done (and probably not the last). Donnanz (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Usex moved to definition 7. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:aid


text:
Talk:魔鬼的運氣

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
It looks like literal but not idiomatic translation from English. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 09:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Knowing the IP who created it, it's probably just the result of running the English through Bing Translate. If they ever get anything right it's by sheer luck- they've repeatedly demonstrated they have no knowledge of Chinese or Japanese, but have created dozens of entries in those languages anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, he added a lot of bogus translations at devil's luck. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, gets over 11K hits, but unsure how idiomatic or representative these are.  Meanwhile,  only gets two hits, only one of which looks real (the search string doesn't actually appear in the text Google shows for the other one).  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The one hit in the Google books - 魔鬼有魔鬼的運氣 "devils have devil's luck" must be a result from a literal translation of Emil Ludwig's Napoleon's biography. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 21:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Chinese Internet is quite big now, so 11K hits in web searches may not be a lot. There's a lot of Chinglish out there. It may be a neologism but too new to be included. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Wyang (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:魔鬼的運氣


text:
Talk:pochemuchka

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
This entry was deleted by, saying "This is a Russian word with an entry at почемучка, not an English word." But I think there is a reasonable chance that it is attestable, so I restored it and am RFVing it. --WikiTiki89 16:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Google Books and Google Groups both have a fair few mentions - almost all in lists of "untranslatable words" - but no uses. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't think the two citations you added should count. The 1968 one uses it as the name of a ship, and the 2014 one uses it clearly as a foreign word, putting it in quotes after defining it. --WikiTiki89 17:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Isn't this rather easily translated as "questioner" or "inquisitor"? (although it loses the pestiferous, gleefully malicious character...) - Amgine/t·e 05:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What our current definition fails to mention is that it means someone who always asks "Why?", not just any other question. --WikiTiki89 15:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. Citations moved to Citations:pochemuchka. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:pochemuchka


text:
Talk:boadiködav

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
Volapük for xylography. Nothing on Google Groups or Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:boadiködav


text:
Talk:death note

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
Was moved today from Appendix:Death Note (which had an RFD tag on it, though I can't find the old discussion in WT:RFDO). Needs to be attested outside of its fictional universe. Equinox ◑ 12:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:death note


text:
Talk:bleeful

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
Like "bleefully" above, despite unsatisfactory citations, this does not seem to be an actual word at all. Equinox ◑ 14:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again I agree with you. A possible corruption or misspelling of gleeful. Delete it? Donnanz (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Only two hits at, one of which is clearly not English, instead being poorly scanned Dutch in a Fraktur typeface, and the other on closer inspection also looks like a scanno (though to be honest the image is so small it's hard to tell quite what's going on).
 * Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:bleeful


text:
Talk:bleefully

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
Two citations given. One is using nonsense words without any meaning, and the other appears to be an error for "gleefully". I don't think this word exists as defined at all. Equinox ◑ 14:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you. The quotes don't convince me. Is it a candidate for deletion? Donnanz (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A nice round number of hits at : round, as in zero.
 * Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:bleefully


text:
Talk:bludasolidotil

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
Volapük for blood clot. Nothing on Google Books or Google Groups; a Google web search turns up several mentions but no uses. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:bludasolidotil


text:
Talk:bullabessa

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
I can't find any English books that use this term (in Google Books). Probably should be spelled bullabesa? Needs a Spanish Catalan entry. Pengo (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I found nothing in English and only one use in Spanish. Pretty much every Google Books hit is in Catalan. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. Readded as Catalan. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:bullabessa


text:
Talk:two-thousandsies

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
The decade that began with the year 2000. I don't see anything on Google Books or Google Groups. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Rachel Maddow uses it all the time. The 2nd quote is from last night:  04/17/2014, 1st story, 1m 17s – 1m 20s.
 * Second source: Federico Moramarco (2010) The City of Eden: Poems from a Life Paperback. The last section is called "The Two Thousandsies".  Reviewed here.
 * kwami (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Maybe we shouldn't include quotations as example sentences without attribution.... Anyway, that book gives us one durably archived citation. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't know why it would be called that. I would just call it the "two-thousands". --WikiTiki89 21:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

 * But is the 2000's the decade or the millennium? The obsolete term "noughties" similarly disambiguated the 1900's as the decade 1900–1910 from the 1900's as the 20th century.  kwami (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that. I always called that decade the "nineteen-hundreds" as well. --WikiTiki89 23:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

 * You're expecting usage to make sense? It looks to me like a deliberately silly attempt to make the name of the last decade sound like those of the previous decades. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you hit the spot just right there with "silly". --WikiTiki89 23:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Found three other, independent uses on the net. Put them in the citations tab. kwami (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like none of those three are durably archived. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Our guideline recommends using web sources: "Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google", etc. How is something archived by Google "durable", but something archived by WaybackMachine is not?  What are our criteria?  We could archive a few with WebCite.  kwami (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 * We had a discussion about this not too long ago (see here). It is possible for a website to opt out of Wayback Machine and have all of its archives deleted. --WikiTiki89 00:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 * But that's not a problem with WebCite. kwami (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 * This is not the place for a discussion about changing our policy. We are not WebCite, and when and if we start allowing citations from the web, we will most likely also have to increase our web citation threshold for inclusion. --WikiTiki89 01:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 * A dozen citations is certainly an increase. kwami (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Who said anything about a dozen? Anyway, as of now web citations are not allowed at all. --WikiTiki89 04:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 * You said "we will most likely also have to increase our web-citation threshold for inclusion", as if that were an objection. kwami (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that's when and if we start allowing them. So it's irrelevant. --WikiTiki89 05:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hit at Google Groups:
 * Back in the early two-thousandsies I was briefly obsessed with the idea of using license plate numbers as messaging addresses. (2012-1-10)|sort:relevance|spell:false/buffalo-opencoffee-club/QgMIvoX16vQ/gEV3xgAiCrEJ

 * That's not Usenet. --WikiTiki89 05:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Google says it's an archive of Usenet postings. kwami (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Where? — Keφr 06:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Google Groups is a discussion forum thing that also serves as an archive of Usenet. Not everything in Google Groups is Usenet. I'm not an expert on Usenet, but I do know that Usenet group identifiers generally look something like "alt.language.latin", while that quote is in a group called "Buffalo OpenCoffee Club". --WikiTiki89 06:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I haven't used usenet in ages, and my accounts have all expired. I'd have to reinstall the software just to scan it.  kwami (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Failed. There are lots of uses, but only the two in the entry (which I moved to Citations:two-thousandsies) were durably archived. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

RFV discussion: October 2021
Are there three durably archived citations? I added one from The Philadelphia Inquirer. See previous RFV. J3133 (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You should not have recreated this entry as it failed and you added no new citations. J3133 (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 * There are multiple durably archived citations. kwami (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See Talk:two-thousandsies: other users disagree obviously, as it failed. J3133 (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * These users are Mx. Granger, Wikitiki89, and Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV. J3133 (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 * We have three print attestations: 2 newspapers and a book of poetry. Or does print not count as "durable"? kwami (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, I added one of the newspaper cites; however, you should not recreate failed entries without any new citations—those are speedily deleted, if you are unaware. J3133 (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see several dead links, several bits of non-durable attestation and one cite, possibly from a print newspaper, regrettably behind a paywall . One can infer that the poetry cite is in print, but there is no link and a search gets us to Amazon, which has a customer review that refers to a section of a book of poetry that has two-thousandsies as its title. This needs more durable attestation, preferrably with visible context. At present, I can only confirm one. DCDuring (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

This looks cited to me. Kiwima (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:two-thousandsies


text:
Talk:Danlaga

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
I request this for verification. No redirects on Wikipedia. I don't see anything on Google. Supposedly an alternative form of Danelaw in the English language. And please add citations to Citations:Danlaga. LalalalaSta (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you RFVing a word that you added? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It was originally listed on the Danelaw page as an alternative form. And why, is it not allowed here to RFV your own page? I see some references now, but is this word really only in English? Please verify. LalalalaSta (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * By creating an entry, you take at least some responsibility for it. You should create an entry only if you are able to judge whether the term is correct (even with something as weak as "native speaker's gut feeling") and meets our criteria for inclusion. And you should have something more to put on the page than just a link back to the page where you found the redlink. If you cannot do that, leave it alone. — Keφr 20:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WAIT A MINUTE.... why did this fail? Did you even TRY to site this? This makes me mad. You didn't even give a reason why it failed. Rædi Stædi Yæti  {- skriv til mig -} 02:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1: "cite".
 * 2: The nearest thing to something relevant is a scanno for "damage". Unless you think this is citable from Google Groups, or you have a history of Pre-Norman England which uses "Danlaga" instead of "Danelaw", in which case please provide your cites.
 * --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 02:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Do read the introduction of this page. The protocol recommends failing RFVs one month after the nomination. This one has been here for nearly three.
 * If you don’t like it, just find three cites that meet the requirements and readd the page, no questions asked. That’s the fun thing about RFVs: even if a word previously failed RFV, you can recreate it immediately if you find adequate citations. And yes, I did try to cite it. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Danlaga


text:
Talk:abaxial

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
Rfv-sense: Other dictionaries do not seem to have the mathematical sense. Therefore, three quotes would be called for. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

 * , and  are optical/astronomical cites.  was the only mathematical one I could find at quick notice.  is an abstract of a preprint (of an otherwise Chinese paper) that uses abaxial in the optical sense.  is another preprint with Chinese authors, this time in plasma physics. I'm going to say that if arXiv doesn't have mathematical documents using it, it's not in use, at least currently, in mathematics.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:abaxial


text:
Talk:triskaidecameter

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
If anyone wanted to talk about a 13-foot meter, this would be the logical name for it- but, judging from Google Groups and Google Books, I doubt anyone actually uses it. Even Google search yields only 17 hits, of which 16 are dictionaries. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 13-foot meter? That does not seem right. — Keφr 05:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

$ units meter foot * 3.2808399	/ 0.3048
 * No, "meter" (or "metre") as in music and poetry (senses 5 and 6). We have tetrameter,  pentameter and hexameter, but I've still never heard of triskaidecameter used of a thirteen-foot or thirteen-beat meter.  Nothing beyond octameter seems to be used.  For decameter (the poetic sense of "a verse consisting of ten metrical feet"), the OED calls it "a nonce word" (with just one cite).    D b f  i  r  s   08:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Cf. and. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:triskaidecameter


text:
Talk:smellbrain

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
Linked Wikipedia article does not exist. Single cited book uses the term hyphenated, i.e. "smell-brain". Is the single-word form real? I don't think so. Equinox ◑ 00:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Some hits, though a few are recombined "smell- / brain". Also nosebrain, which might be citeable. Both seem to be calques of . — Pingkudimmi 08:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. Moved to which is easily citable. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:smellbrain


text:
Talk:adenochirapsology

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
I can only see mentions. Could we have some actual usages please. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. Added to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:adenochirapsology


text:
Talk:selfiest

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
We need three independent citations. Every Google hit for "selfiest" that I can find is quoting the same original source - an article in Time ranking the "selfiest" cities. Searching for "" gets virtually no useable citations, and I can't realistically see a way of using this word in the sense given ("Describing the place in which the most selfies are taken") outside this one article, unless city selfie ranking becomes a regular thing (searches for "selfiest party", "selfiest house" and "selfiest university" find nothing). This Huffington Post video is arguably a citation of a more general "most pertaining to selfies" sense (although it's not strictly durably archived), and that's about all I can find. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:selfiest


text:
Talk:haltlumo

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
Esperanto for stoplight. Nothing on Google Books or Tekstaro. There is one hit on Google Groups, although it's followed by a question mark in parentheses, suggesting that the author was uncertain about the word. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 04:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:haltlumo


text:
Talk:hæimʀ

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
Using ʀ for the early Norse reflex of Proto-Germanic z is a modern convention, so it's unlikely that this is attested this way in the original form. I'm not sure in what form the ʀ would be written instead, though. I suspect that this entry actually represents a romanisation of a word that was written in runic originally (which did indeed have a separate letter for ʀ). 13:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The exact spelling hæimr occurs in a couple of Old Icelandic (West Norse!) works, e.g. Thómass saga erkibiskups. In Runic, all I can find are inflected and abbreviated forms, e.g. a stone in Folsberga has ᚤᚴ ᛁ ᚦᚬᚾ ᚽᛘ and a stone in Fjuckby has ᚴᚱᛁᚴ᛫᛬ᚼᛅᚡᚾᛁᚱ ᚼᛅᛁᛘᛅ ᛏᚢ; none of those stones vouch for this spelling. We could move the entry to hæimr and drop the claim that it's East Norse. - -sche (discuss) 01:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Moved to and removed the East Norse label, per -sche’s comment. Does it need a West Norse or Icelandic label? — Ungoliant (falai) 23:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:hæimʀ


text:
Talk:彼の

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
Rfv-sense genitive of 彼 (kare, “he”); his. It's a SoP. We don't make entries for noun, pronoun + の. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 11:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It had been an article about the adnominal "彼の" (kano) until I added the noun sense raised above. When you encounter a phrase "彼の" in written modern Japanese, it is much more likely to read as the noun-genitive "彼の" (kareno) than the adnominal.  Failing to explain that is not interest of our readers, in my opinion. Could we perhaps add the explanation into the usage note? Same might apply to 此の. Whym (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For this you could use, I think you could even pronunciation right after it, add a short definition ("his") and a usex on the next line. See 得了, etymology 2--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can it be used for a pair that are not exactly the same in the surface form (in pronunciation), but are closely related in the etymology? (I don't know which is the "original" form for that matter.) I am feeling that it is a bit stretching to call one "idiom" in this case. --Whym (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Not sure at the moment how best to reformat the JA entries, but my general thought is that, if a particular JA spelling merits inclusion as a term, then we should include etyms and senses for all readings and meanings that apply to that spelling. Since  does merit inclusion as a valid spelling of non-POS terms  and, we should include etyms etc. for those readings, as well as for any other readings, in this case, for .  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

 * has this flaw that it makes the entry's other senses "idiomatic". What about # (literal) his, see,.
 * Is the term "genitive" used often to refer to Japanese possessive ?--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 11:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Re: literal, that sounds good. We probably also ought to add a link to a page or pages about Japanese grammar and how particles function.
 * Re: genitive, some authors might, but it's not that prevalent from what I've seen (anecdotal and subjective evidence, but there you go). “Genitive” implies a case system and declension, which Japanese doesn't really have, strictly speaking; Japanese grammarians, at least, consider nouns (of which JA pronouns are a subset) to be invariable and unchanging.  I think  might be more appropriate.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree to Eiríkr Útlendi on that possessive is more common, and if one does not wish to liken it to case systems in other languages, they normally avoid genitive. I didn't carefully choose the term when writing "genitive", sorry.  Whym (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise. Guys, please edit the entry you see fit as per discussion, you can take out the RFV as well. I'm busy with other stuff :) --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, here is my attempt. Whym (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I made more changes. Please check . Please note headword and template changes as well. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Finally got around to reworking to split everything out by etymology.  Have a look, see what you all think.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank a lot, Eiríkr Útlendi. This organization makes much more sense to me. Can we maybe remove the pronoun sense, unless there is an adequate quote to support?  If that was derived from what I wrote, [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=彼の&diff=26572320&oldid=26512857#Japanese] I would regard this now subsumed by the adnominal sense above (that [one] (distant from both speaker and listener). Explaining by you-know-who: might have not been a good idea. I just meant that it refers to an object not introduced previously but already known in the dialogue; there is no connotation whether they want to mention it explicitly or not, and it cannot stand as a pronoun as far as I know.  A typical use I had in mind is found in 「岩波茂雄 読書子に寄す ――岩波文庫発刊に際して――」(1927): 吾人は範をかのレクラム文庫にとり. Whym (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The pronoun sense does show up as an independent nominal in two quotes I have to hand, both dating to the Edo period. I'll add those to the entry for illustration purposes.  That said, I haven't done any further research into how current this usage is, so it might be archaic or even obsolete.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure that the sense is obsolete. Or more precisely, as Nihon Kokugo Daijiten puts it, 近世の隠語的用法. Whym (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Duly marked as such. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed, as the issue has been dealt with. Untagged by . — Ungoliant (falai) 00:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:彼の


text:
Talk:proalitionist

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
This is marked as hot word. For one thing, WT:CFI does not recognize the notion of a hot word as far as attestation. But even assuming we bend WT:CFI: from what I understood from the proponents of hot words, hot words would fail the "spanning at least a year" requirement of WT:ATTEST, but otherwise would be attested. This is not attested by even a relaxed standard. , . Even and  finds very few hits. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing on Books or Groups, and all but one of the regular Google search hits are for a specific article or direct quotes from that article in news aggregation sites. Definitely not widespread. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

 * "proalition" was briefly popular in late 2012, early 2013, but it looks like it had no staying power. Both terms seem to fail CFI at the moment. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:proalitionist


text:
Talk:birdem

RFV discussion: May–July 2014

 * Turkish: university

A user asks for attestation. Consider placing the attesting quotations at Citations:birdem. Here is Google Books search for "birdem" in Turkish, which does find some hits of the term, in whatever meaning. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * At there it isn't birdem, it is "bir dem". So, bir=one, a/an; and dem=time, moment.--95.183.130.9 17:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you telling a lie Türkeröz (or "123Snake45")? --88.251.5.235 20:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.anadolu.edu.tr/ You are telling lie.

It isn't birdem meaning university. It is üniversite. It isn't "anadolu birdemi". It is "Anadolu Üniversitesi".--81.213.47.236 21:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Some of the google books results have a meaning like Latin universitas which is the root of the word "university". There are some google results like "Anadolu birdemi, Oxford birdemi" etc.

 * I don't see any Google books results with the meaning university. -- Curious (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:birdem


text:
Talk:pacifism

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Rfv-sense "The active opposition to such violence, especially the refusal to take part in military action" This splitting of senses is sometimes irritating, especially when ttbc's are then created. Are they really different from each other? Can e.g. Portuguese "pacifismo" be different for these two senses? You may believe in peace or be active about it, does it make a difference for a dictionary? pacifism is pacifism. Perhaps "an attitude or policy of nonresistance" is a new sense, especially in a non-political sense. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад)
 * like User:Atitarev--Pierpao (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What does your comment mean? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you--Pierpao (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a countable sense of pacifism (see ). Maybe this is what was meant. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * MWOnline has two definitions:
 * opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically: refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
 * an attitude or policy of nonresistance
 * Some others at have three senses.
 * I'm sorry that the same word may translate all the senses in some or all languages, requiring tedious copy-and-paste to indulge one's desire for completeness, but the English language dictionary is not for the convenience of translators. DCDuring TALK 04:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. I replaced the definition with a for the countable sense. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:pacifism


text:
Talk:⚪

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Translingual symbol meaning "neither male nor female". It appears to resist Google searching, so this may be hard to find attestation for. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the original definition was slightly different. -- Liliana • 00:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wiktionary's mission is to create a dictionary which has an entry for every word in every language. I don't see how this could be a word. If it is, then e.g. traffic signs could be understood as "words". --Hekaheka (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean like this 🚦 (U+1F6A6 VERTICAL TRAFFIC LIGHT)? --WikiTiki89 15:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it used in writing? It seems that's the first question to answer; if we can identify uses in writing, then we can judge whether it qualifies. We have a bunch of characters used in writing, like * and ? and Unsupported_titles/Colon and ‽ (but not <), and also ⚲, ♂, ⚥ and ♀, symbols with similar usage. I can imagine uses that I would regard as keepable; try "Three people were there, Pat (♀), Pat (♂), and Pat (⚪)."--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Racial sense
This is also used to mean "white", e.g. writing "⚪ people" to get around filters that would flag or block "white people" as impermissably commenting on a racial group. Whether this is common enough to merit listing I don't have time to ascertain. - -sche (discuss) 20:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May 2022–January 2023

 * See Talk:⚤.

title: Talk:⚪


text:
Talk:afaik

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Rfv-sense: abbreviation of "and for all I know". I'm only aware of the other sense, "as far as I know". —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Yeah, it would be confusing to have an almost contrary sense. kwami (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See Category:English contranyms. DCDuring TALK 13:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's in the Glossary of Emergency Preparedness Acronyms and Terms in Durham (no date) The Re-Birth of a Nation, published by vanity press Lulu.com. Not an actual use, not worth including since the author could have simply got it wrong.  kwami (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:afaik


text:
Talk:設備

RFV discussion: April–July 2014
Rfv-sense - Etymology 2. No reference. Seems to be a strange choice of kanji for such a concept. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 02:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Added by our favorite IP, who probably misinterpreted something he found online somewhere. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Absolute bonkers silliness. No idea where he (I'm assuming "he") gets some of this stuff.  Next thing, we'll find out that  has a new sense, .  My, what a wonderfully exciting world we live in.
 * (For the record, the JA term means.
 * I'll clean up the entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. This user is obviously a Naruto fan. I am thinking of banning him/her again for dodging IP ban and for making substandard, unreferenced edits. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They're a big anime fan, and don't seem to realize that anime wroters and artists make up a great deal of the mythology they use, or borrow it from elsewhere.
 * There are several of us who block this person on sight (they geolocate to Sky Broadband in England, with occasionaly stints on Easynet, also in England), but they've gotten in the habit of doing quick bursts of editing, then changing their IP. After seeing the odd language used in the request they made on Feedback yesterday, I'm beginning to think there may be mental issues involved. Not that I'm surprised- based on their edit history and failure to learn from the reaction to their contributions, there certainly seems to be a bit of a detachment from reality.
 * I'm starting to use mass delete (Special:Nuke) on their page creations and revert everything that looks questionable just to see if we can discourage them from constantly adding stuff- I've seen too many cases where they get reverted or the pointless clutter they add to entries gets pruned, but they come back and add it again until it slips by because no one is paying attention at the moment. They don't just mess with Japanese and Mandarin, either: there are lots of their junk edits pervading the English-language coverage of anything having to do with deities and personifications of death, and they go off on weird tangents every once in a while- it took me forever to get them to realize that there's no such thing as a "single-malt brandy", for instance. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 * It was previously agreed to Special:Nuke their new edits, regardless of quality. That's the only way to discourage him/her. The anon misuses the system and distracts editors. It takes more to clean up the mess than creating new entries. Simple ones (ja, cmn, ko, vi) can now be generated with User:Wyang's tools. BTW, Chinese topolects are now being merged into one L2. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Speedied by . — Ungoliant (falai) 23:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:設備


text:
Talk:fagmosexual

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
You would think the only hope for this one would be Usenet, but the cite already in this entry refers to the only Usenet post that contains this word (if Google Groups is to be believed). The other cite on the entry is not, as best I can tell, a durable citation.

There are only two Google Books hits, one of which doesn't appear to even contain this word. This, that and the other (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. Citations moved to Citations:fagmosexual. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:fagmosexual


text:
Talk:brandophile

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
An old entry from 2004: "Someone who collects cigar bands." It looks like a possible typo for bandophile, but neither form seems to meet CFI. Equinox ◑ 17:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cited under the sense "one who is fond of a brand or brands" (also, in capitalized form, as "a fan of Marlon Brando"). The "cigar band collector" sense does indeed seem uncitable. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed. The original sense was replaced with the current one, which has enough citations. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:brandophile


text:
Talk:self-uned

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
This word is used in a work by Joshua Sylvester; see. I guess the inclusion of this word hinges on whether Sylvester's translation of Du Bartas is considered a "well-known work". This, that and the other (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added the Sylvester cite. Note his use of the accent as in self-unéd. If that counts, there are now two cites on the page. Spinning Spark  11:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And there'll be a third when someone adds the Du Bartas one. This, that and the other (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sylvester is translating Du Bartas, the original won't be English. Spinning Spark  18:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But can't translations be cited? It doesn't make sense to disallow them, if that's what you're saying. This, that and the other (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Translations (that is, the English editions of works) can be cited. I imagine Spinningspark thought you expected Du Bartas in the original French to count as a citation — that is also what I thought your comment was suggesting, and I'm not sure what you meant if not that. A work by Sylvester has already been cited, if you cite another, it won't count towards attesting the word, per WT:CFI. - -sche (discuss) 17:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, no, I wasn't suggesting to cite a non-English word in an English entry; I'm not sure how that could be inferred. Anyway, I wasn't really aware of the idea of per-author independence, so we are still in need of one more citation here, I suppose. This, that and the other (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. Citations moved to Citations:self-uned. Added to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:self-uned


text:
Talk:cynomorphism

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Only seeing one use (non-mention), repeated several times in the Google Books results. This, that and the other (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cited, but I think the definition needs revision, as it seems to be used to mean the canine equivalent of anthropocentrism. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a go at a better definition. This, that and the other (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It's in the OED, which is where the first quote came from. That's one's meaning is somewhat different, so I split the def. kwami (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 07:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:cynomorphism


text:
Talk:weye

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Are there any attestations of this after 1500? 11:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For weye as variant of way: one from 1658, one from 1568, and one from about 1528

 * For weye as a variant of weigh: one from 1625, one from 1563, one from 1559, one from 1554, and one from 1551

 * I didn't find anything for the senses meaning to deceive or lead astray, but I haven't gone through all of the hits at Google Books. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

 * The OED has the verb (from Old English wǽgan to delude, deceive), both transitive, meaning to deceive or lead astray, and intransitive meaning to go astray, but it marks it as both rare and obsolete, with cites only from Shoreham's poems of 1315, so it would hardly meet our criteria for inclusion.   D b f  i  r  s   17:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

 * The OED covers English since the beginning of the second millennium, meaning that the earliest five hundred years of their coverage is Middle English on here. Couldn't the language header simply be changed from English to Middle English? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

 * As 1315 is Middle English, one cite meets CFI.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Readded as Middle English. added to English entry. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:weye


text:
Talk:selfclose

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Without the hyphen? (The creator's other contributions may have the same problem: smellbrain is already under RFV because it only seems to exist hyphenated, and I haven't RFVed selfblanking and selfboot but they probably deserve scrutiny.) Equinox ◑ 19:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:selfclose


text:
Talk:phthongometer

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Again, is this relatively obscure scientific text really a "well-known work"? The word doesn't seem to have caught on elsewhere. This, that and the other (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Yeah, but it's made it into dicts such as the OED. Or do we intend to be a more limited dictionary? kwami (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I think we do. We even have a list of words that some dictionaries include but that have failed to pass CFI: Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 03:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 * But the OED often gives citations of real-world use, just like we do. Maybe someone with access to it can find out if it provides cites, and if so, track them down and add them to our entry. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 * In this case, the OED (or at least its online version) only gives two citations, of which one is a clear mention and the other is from the text linked above. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 12:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 * My edition gives one actual citation, from 1837, where it appears to be a protologism (We may‥consider this instrument as a phthongometer, or measure of vowel quality), and as a second only in "Smart ... and in later Dicts." About as close to a "dictionary-only term" as we're likely to get, so I'd say this is a good candidate to be moved to that appendix. kwami (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I've looked through the hits yielded by, and I couldn't find any English uses that aren't by , and even then, all he seems to do with the term is to give it as a suggested name for a device that measures the qualities of vowels. He was a prolific, so it would be no surprise if he'd coined the word; however, in the course of my searching, I found this isolated use of the German term from 1754 — what is the chance that these usages are related? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Failed. Citations (all mentions) moved to Citations:phthongometer. Added to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:phthongometer


text:
Talk:türküm

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Allegedly a Turkish word meaning "group".

Allegged inflected forms: definite accusative türkümü, plural türkümler.

Someone doubts the existence of the word entry, so I request attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. seems to be an actual Turkish word . — Ungoliant (falai) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:türküm


text:
Talk:bretch

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
"Small tool used to create holes in leather." Created by an old Wonderfool incarnation, ostensibly from Wikipedia. I can't find anything on this and it sounds like a hoax. Plural "bretches" may possibly (unrelatedly) be an obsolete form of "breeches", or just a scanno. Equinox ◑ 05:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

 * The word bretch used to exist as a Middle English spelling of breach, and the OED has a 1610 cite. There is no trace in Google Books of the tool sense for leather, and the common word awl goes right back to Old English (in the Laws of Ælfred), so I agree that we should suspect a hoax.    D b f  i  r  s   17:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. Definition replaced with . — Ungoliant (falai) 15:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:bretch


text:
Talk:chiliaëdron

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Alt spelling of chiliahedron. Umm yeah? Equinox ◑ 05:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I've found three sources that use this spelling, one of which is 's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, which is certainly a well-known work; it appears that Locke coined the term. However, this spelling is very rare, so I've redefined it as a and marked the plural not attested. Does the entry as it currently stands appear OK to you? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO it's really just one independent use. I would exclude Century and the commentary on Locke as mentions. OTOH, as you say, it is a well-known title, if not often well read. DCDuring TALK 17:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:chiliaëdron


text:
Talk:cainophobia

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Another junk phobia, I suspect, with not one but two senses! Equinox ◑ 05:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I've added one quotation from Usenet and one from Google Scholar, but I can't seem to find a third. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Found a third cite. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This word is also spelt, , , , , , and according to Oxford's Dictionary of Psychology. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:cainophobia


text:
Talk:hi-Kanadänan

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
And ji-Kanadänanik, ji-Kanadänan, Kanadänan, hi-Kanadänanik, Kanadänanik, and Kanadänik. All Volapük words for Canadian. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:hi-Kanadänan


text:
Talk:daedatelum

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
"The daedalum or zoetrope." It's okay, I'll wait while you click through. Equinox ◑ 05:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I found two — one use, one mention. Despite Corbett's assertion that this was the original name for the device given to it by its inventor,, it would appear that he actually called it the . — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:daedatelum


text:
Talk:kujöran

RFV discussion: July 2014
As well as jikujöran, hikujöran, and kujöravan. Volapük words for obstetrician and midwife. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs)
 * All failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:kujöran


text:
Talk:kavigar

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Ido for excavate. I can't seem to find anything on Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:kavigar


text:
Talk:flugopendi

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Esperanto for hover. The alternate form flugpendi is easily attestable, but I can only find one use of this form. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:flugopendi


text:
Talk:synt

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
"A unit of semantic meaning." Can't find in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 22:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not relevant to the validity but that sounds like a morpheme to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:synt


text:
Talk:sidth

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
" Length, specifically when referring to an article of clothing." Equinox ◑ 21:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a grain of truth to it, but it seems to be more dialectal than obsolete, and to be derived from side by analogy to wide and width- thus equivalent to depth, not length. The phrase "walking width and striding sidth" is quoted in some places as a traditional rule of thumb for the dimensions of a dress, which I interpret to mean "wide enough to accommodate how far the legs are apart when one is walking, and with enough room from front to back to accommodate the length of one's stride". It looks to me like the creator was trying too hard to derive specific information from vague/ambiguous passages, and got it wrong. I would get rid of any reference to fashion, and just make it something like "(dialectal) The length of the sides of something, that is, the depth."
 * There may be enough quotes to support my interpretation, but I don't think any support the interpretation in the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * After further looking, I seem to have oversimplified: there are, indeed, a couple of references that talk about a dress that is too long being "too side"
 * The cites I've found in Google Books: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. You'll note that most are more mentions than uses, but they do quote usage here and there. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The sense specific to clothing failed. The more generic, dialectal term, which was added after the entry was tagged, remains. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:sidth