text:
Talk:fat bastard

RFV discussion: November 2011
I think it should be included but another user does not so I will leave it here for consensus.Lucifer 21:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep since it is a set phrase inspired by the Austin Powers series, and can also mean "a large amount" something that is not, a meaning cited in the entry. And since CFI says something is "“idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." "fat bastard" means abundant, & that's not easily obtained from the sum of parts.Lucifer 21:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete oops, this is RFV, not RFD. But he has failed to show anything more than sum of parts. Note he's recreated this after I speedied it twice. Equinox ◑ 22:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I tried to talk to you about it and it does meet the idiomatic inclusion criteria and without the sources and the entry there's no way to show that here, I tried to talk to you about it.Lucifer 22:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there citations at Citations:fat bastard that show a meaning that is not easily interpreted as fat: + bastard:? We may well be missing a sense for the use of fat in invective. DCDuring TALK 23:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well... there's big fat (apparently under RFD discussion), as in the film title My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Equinox ◑ 00:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Same deal here, except this one is also an interjection but it can be used as a prefix and is also a noun, so much use seems to denote a special case here.Lucifer 00:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not an intj, any more than shouting "idiot!" or "pervert!" makes them an intj. An intj is something like ouch:. And there is no way that fat bastard is a prefix. Honestly without wanting to sound smug and rude I wish you'd study some basic linguistics before you make such bold statements. Equinox ◑ 00:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That wasn't nice, your being ridiculous.Lucifer 01:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm talking perfect sense, and any linguist would agree that "idiot" and "fat bastard" are not intjs. Are you willing to learn or are you going to keep creating crap and get blocked regularly? Equinox [User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 01:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * These are indeed very basic aspects of dictionary work. We are attempting to compete with and surpass the other on-line dictionaries, not just in quantity, but in quality. At the very least we should not be inferior to them in reflecting the most basic facts of usage. There are wonderful sources of information available in print and on-line eg, Google NGram viewer, OneLook.com, COCA, BNC) that enable rank amateurs to become moderately knowledgeable linguists and effective amateur lexicographers. The standard for our work is high. Accurate and useful definitions, citations, etymology, and translations should be accompanied by grammatical information that is correct and useful for those capable of benefiting from it.
 * Simply advocating a supposed "missing" entry is not a valuable contribution if the advocate:
 * doesn't understand the rationales for including or excluding entries and
 * makes it difficult to attract support from others by making very basic mistakes and then failing to correct them and learn from them.
 * There are numerous shortcomings to our entries, including the absence of modern senses of such basic words as "fat" and "big" in "fat N", "big N", and "big fat N", where N is some noun with a pejorative sense. It is difficult to produce useful definitions of these senses. A start is to have some citations of the usage that clearly distinguish a new sense from older senses. Such citations are really valuable and can provide some opportunity to learn how language evolves. DCDuring TALK 02:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:fat bastard


text:
lleón

Etymology
From, leōnis.

Noun

 * 1) lion

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

title: lleón


text:
Talk:Child Catcher

RFC discussion: July–August 2011
Sole sense: A fictional character who is employed by the baron to snatch and imprison children.

What baron? Subordinate clause not supported by cites. DCDuring TALK 12:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Baron Bomburst, it seems; a character in a story-within-a-story. Encyclopaedic. — Pingkudimmi 16:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would suggest RFD. The citations page don't show any 'generic usage', they simply refer to the actual fictional character. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Absurd. Please delete. Equinox ◑ 19:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

RFV discussion: November 2011–February 2012
Fictional character. Needs to meet WT:FICTION. Equinox ◑ 18:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Has been deleted. - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Child Catcher


text:
-ㅂ니까

Suffix

 * [[File:누가 물을 마십니까？.ogg]]
 * [[File:누가 물을 마십니까？.ogg]]
 * [[File:누가 물을 마십니까？.ogg]]

title: -ㅂ니까


text:
Talk:may gusto ako sayo

RFV discussion: November 2011–February 2012
It seems to be the title of a song, but other than that, there are zero hits on Groups or Books. -- Liliana • 05:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 19:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:may gusto ako sayo


text:
Philippine tarsier

Noun

 * 1) A very small tarsier,, native to much of the southern Philippines.

Translations

 * Finnish: filippiinienkummituseläin
 * Russian: филиппи́нский долгопя́т, сири́хта

title: Philippine tarsier


text:
Talk:beghilos

RFV discussion: November 2011–February 2012
Calculator alphabet. Is mentioned in Wikipedia but tagged as original research. Nothing much in Google Books or Groups. Equinox ◑ 00:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 21:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: July–September 2020
A fun method of displaying words like "BOOBIES" on a calculator by entering appropriate digits and then turning the calculator upside down, or the limited alphabet so used. Was previously deleted at RFV; see Talk:beghilos. Plenty of Google hits, but probably more mentions/definitions than uses, and many sources, being "random websites", forums, user comments etc., would probably not meet our criteria. I wonder whether any combination of the following, and/or any others that other people may be able to find, would suffice and allow us to restore this fine word.

 * http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-beg1.htm
 * "The answer 13093134 when read in beghilos reads as heleboel which in Dutch means ‘lots, a whole lot, an awful lot’."

 * https://www.theguardian.com/education/datablog/2014/jan/10/words-you-can-write-on-a-calculator
 * "Calculator spelling is known as 'beghilos' because most words have to use those letters."

 * https://thequietus.com/articles/21407-trump-president-ballard-sex
 * "Women, to him, are calculators with BOOBIES typed out in beghilos."

 * https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/monday-puzzle-fun-on-display/
 * "The subset of the alphabet that is available on a calculator display has been called the beghilos alphabet, based on the letters available."

 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q0AoDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA46&dq=beghilos
 * "Did you know that spelling on a calculator is called beghilos, because those are the most frequently used numbers. I mean numbers that can look like letters, on a calculator."

Mihia (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 * RFV closed. Out of scope of this page. DTLHS (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Reopened. Not out of scope when I am asking whether these citations are sufficient to pass RFV which previously failed and/or requesting further ones. Mihia (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems more like a tea room item, but, since you're here....
 * All of the above seem like mentions or are not durably archived.
 * I found a conference paper title: Literacy for Living Conference Papers. Australian Council for Adult Literacy National Conference (12th, Brisbane, Australia, 1988), Norton, Marian, Ed. This document contains 43 papers on many aspects of adult literacy: "Beghilos and the Pig Problem" (Hawke).
 * You would think Usenet would be a good place for them, but I didn't find any hits on Usenet, just a few on Google Groups. DCDuring (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking. At least two of mine (worldwidewords and thequietus) are not mentions/definitions as quoted, but I am not clear about the "durably archived" rules, so I take your word on that. I feel that this is a "word" that does somehow "exist", so I feel we should be able to accommodate it. Mihia (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I have put what uses we could find on the citations page, grouped by whether the source is durably archived. The result is close, but not quite enough to pass RFV. Kiwima (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. So, we just need one more "durably archived" citation, right? Mihia (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what it looks like to me. Kiwima (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:beghilos


text:
Talk:fossple

RFV discussion: November 2011–February 2012
A dictionary-only word? Google Books finds no actual uses. Equinox ◑ 23:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 21:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:fossple


text:
Talk:fucking with one

RFV discussion: October 2011
If OK, it should be at fuck with one:, but is probably sum of parts. SemperBlotto 08:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedily deleted, see fuck. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually fuck with. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:fucking with one


text:
Talk:ἤκουσα

RFV
I don't know if it's some form of Greek, ancient or modern. --Lo Ximiendo 03:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC) I replaced some Greek letters that formed some words with. Sorry about that? --Lo Ximiendo 23:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No content. deleted SemperBlotto 07:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:ἤκουσα


text:
Talk:pratty

RFV discussion: September 2011–February 2012
Rfv; "to pratty", "after pratty", "football pratty" and "soccer pratty" all get no hits on Usenet. "Pratty" gets hits as a spelling of "pretty" (in many of the senses of that word) and as an adjective I would guess is related to "prattle". - -sche (discuss) 17:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:pratty


text:
Talk:Blastoise

RFV discussion: September 2011–February 2012
Trademark; specific character from the Pokémon range of children's toys. Needs to meet WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 20:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Blastoise


text:
Talk:rhodophobia

RFV discussion: August 2011–February 2012
Absolutely zero Google Book hits, one Usenet hit that I can see which is this, and in my opinion, that doesn't convey much meaning. I'd tend to accept it if someone can find two others, mind you. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:rhodophobia


text:
Talk:semper-virens

RFV discussion: August 2011–January 2012
The entry says it's an English noun meaning "the houseleek", but checking Google Books for "semper-virens" houseleek, I only find species names ... and as far as I can tell, "semper-virens" isn't in the species name of the houseleeks (which are sempervivum). Note that I just cleaned and cited the Latin word sempervirens. - -sche (discuss) 01:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 22:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:semper-virens


text:
Talk:nikhedonia

RFV discussion: August 2011–January 2012
"joy or pleasure that comes from imagining future success". I can find mentions but not uses. Equinox ◑ 21:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here, here. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 21:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that second one should count because it's clearly been created to re-use a word that's been defined elsewhere in the same book. Fugyoo 20:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 18:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:nikhedonia


text:
Talk:occlumency

RFV discussion: August 2011–February 2012
I don't see these terms used outside HP universe. Any takers? Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Legilimency already has an open RFV started by me (higher up on this page). Equinox ◑ 22:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Those do seem to belong in Appendix:Harry Potter, rather than our main namespace. ~ Robin 13:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * RFV failed. Equinox ◑ 01:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:occlumency


text:
Talk:Droopy

RFV discussion: August 2011–February 2012
Trademark; fictional dog from specific TV series. Needs to meet WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 13:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Droopy


text:
Talk:Clark Kent

RFV discussion: August 2011–February 2012
Trademark; secret alter-ego of Superman. Needs to meet WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 13:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Would citations for "Clark Kent glasses/spectacles" help? Fugyoo 22:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not for this entry, bc the title is Clark Kent and not Clark Kent glasses or Clark Kent spectacles. Equinox ◑ 22:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 * How about this one?: "The journalists who work alongside Roger White know him for his design skills in creating the newspaper's front page, but underneath that Clark Kent exterior is a man of steel." Fugyoo 09:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 01:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Clark Kent


text:
Talk:Jigglypuff

RFV discussion: August 2011–February 2012
Trademark; specific character from the Pokémon range of children's toys. Needs to meet WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 13:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

RFD discussion: May 2020–April 2021
My concern about this entry is that it relies on an entirely in-universe definition and citations simply refer to this in-universe character. We do have Pikachu though, but I'd vote to delete it too. If we could have this entry, why don't we have Kirby, or Link, or heck, even Mario? I'm sure you could find similar citations for those. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. You mention Kirby, Link, Mario... people are so short-sighted that they think only "their" toys count. When you think about it neutrally and take a step back, there have been millions of toys and game characters, not just the ones that are popular on YouTube etc. Many of them have been occasionally mentioned in a book without a whole lot of context. It's just out of scope; delete; Wikipedia has reams and reams of stuff about toys and characters. Equinox ◑ 14:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Actually a pet peeve of mine is that (America-centric) gamers think the history of video games was basically: Pong, Mario, Doom, [everything modern]. Equinox ◑ 23:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, a disclaimer: Pokémon are not "my toys". I have never played the Pokémon video game, although I have been exposed to the anime episodes which my 1988-born brother watched, videotaped, and rewatched incessantly. Khemehekis (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The above seems to ignore WT:FICTION, and rather provides arguments with no obvious bearing on CFI but rather seem to argue in favor of policy change, or maybe rather a policy override. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete: doubt that it satisfies WT:FICTION. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Equinox. The simple discussion of this entry makes me drowsy. ;) Tharthan (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per evidence in the entry. For instance, 'And when your body type is "Kirby" or "Jigglypuff", finding a style that is meant for your shape is next to impossible' does not seem to be in universe, nor does 'They sleep when you on the mic, you're fucking Jigglypuff'. It depends on what one means by "independent of reference to that universe" (WT:FICTION). And then things get lexicographically interesting when one notes French Rondoudou and German Pummeluff. For further calibration, one may look at Criteria_for_inclusion/Fictional_universes, where an example quotation supporting inclusion is e.g. "[...], was rapidly becoming the Darth Vader of Japanese baseball." --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's another thing: The criterion "independent of reference to that universe" seems to pertain to common nouns and such, not to proper names, although that is merely implicit in there being a sentence covering "names of persons or places from fictional universes", which uses a different criterion, namely "shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense". --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 * What on earth do you,, think that "you're fucking Jigglypuff" means, without reference to a Pokémon? Shall we have an entry for "Bill Gates" because someone said I look like Bill Gates? Equinox ◑ 14:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There sure is a reference to Pokémon, but is it "in universe reference" or, rather, is it true that "they are used out of context in an attributive sense"? I'd think the latter is true and relevant, and a distinction between "X is B" and "X looks like B" should be maintained and the "X is B" taken as a stronger attributive use of B where B is a proper name. And what does "was rapidly becoming the Darth Vader of Japanese baseball" mean without reference to Darth Vader, an example from that very policy? Bill Gates is not covered by WT:FICTION, but if he were, he would be inclusion worthy per the example given by the policy, via e.g. "Edison was the Bill Gates of his day." --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note I am arguing in terms of policy, not in terms of general inclusion-worthiness driven by my taste. In disregard of CFI, I would say, "Jigglypuff" is a single word attested in use, has pronunciation and non-trivial translations => let's include it. It is lexicographically marginal but so are all the species names that can be included. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 * If you think "is a single word attested in use, has pronunciation and non-trivial translations" is really on its own justification for inclusion in a proper dictionary, I'm just staggered. But I think whoever publishes Harry Potter, and hundreds of other kiddie books, might want a Czech translator. Equinox ◑ 15:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do think that it is a justification for inclusion in a ridiculously inclusive dictionary. And a dictionary that includes all the place names that we do and will (all the village names if I get it right), all the two-word species names that are attested, all the names of chemicals, you name it, is a ridiculously inclusive dictionary. By the way, I would not really miss Jigglypuff, and I don't care about Pokémons; I miss Tolkien's Shelob, in Czech Odula. By another way, it is in the slogan: all words in all languages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * From yet another angle, Wikipedia's article is about the Pokémon, Wiktionary's entry is about the word Jigglypuff: how do you pronounce it, etc. Is Jigglypuff fit for an encyclopedia proper? I don't really think so, but the thing is, Wikipedia is ridiculously inclusive, covering all manner of popular culture that many would consider unfit for a serious encyclopedia. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 * If having a pronunciation is enough then we should include every commercial trade name? pls Gooby... Equinox ◑ 20:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 * If you see that it's ridiculous then you should be arguing against that ridiculousness because being ridiculous is inherently a bad thing for a reference work. If you just wanna say "well we're shit, so let's dump another ton of shit on top" then umm. Equinox ◑ 20:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say having a pronunciation is enough; I required attestation, which requires three independent uses, and I mentioned translations. That is a much stronger filter. I would admit that making even stronger filter is up to a meaningul discussion, but what I reject is the idea that if something stems from popular culture, it should therefore be excluded.
 * I have spent a lot of effort to make Wiktionary better, and I do not want to make it "shit". Let it be accurate, let it provide very extensive coverage of terms but only in so far as existence can be verified and let it dispense with genuine cruft such as certain absurd image captions and absurd quotation identifications. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: What does Scheherazade mean without reference to 1001 Nights? The entry seems to pass WT:CFI.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 * After reading the quotations, there may be some value in keeping a definition that boils down to “Someone/something that is similar to the Pokemon Jigglypuff in some way” (with the actual definition detailing the properties that may be shared between the refernt and the fictional creature). We have similar situations in (the first def; the second is a different deal) and  (the second def).
 * Out of the current citations, the only ones I find convincing for such a definition are 2007 and 2015. As for the definition as it currently stands, delete as it doesn’t pass WT:FICTION IMO. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I should point out that the 2016 cote (the rap lyrics) fits this criterion too. According to this page, "Jigglypuff linen" means that the linen in the van is ponk, the color of Jigglypuff. Khemehekis (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WT:FICTION does not say anything about definitions, only about names. The name has to be used in an "attributive sense", but CFI does not say that such a sense should be put on the definition line. Indeed, I find a practice where the proper-noun definition is replaced with some kind of invented common-noun definition unwise and not based on the practice of other dictionaries concerning fictional entities. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: various uses that aren't in-universe. (: and I added some more) Being a reference to the Pokémon universe doesn't disqualify it IMHO, you're not going to remove all the generic trademarks either. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As the creator of this entry, I'm going to !vote strong keep. It meets WP:FICTION, as none of the cites except the "swelled in size" one give any indication to those who don't already know it that Jigglypuff is from the Pokémon universe. They would have to look it up. Also, it's important to note that the word "Jigglypuff" in English (and "Purin" in Japanese) refers to both the famous anime character and an entire species of Pokémon, a species with possibly millions of individuals on Earth (or whatever planet the Pokémon universe is set on). So it's not just a proper name.
 * Why does this matter? We aren't Bulbapedia. Moreover, we aren't Wikipedia. Why is WP:FICTION relevant? This is a dictionary. Tharthan (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * At first I read this and thought, "How is it not relevant?" But then I saw Chuck Entz' comment below. Chuck Entz is correct: I meant WT:FICTION. Khemehekis (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Also: why not have Kirby, Link, or Mario? As for character names in general. . . two-part names identifiable with a human ethnicity (like Harry Potter, which is an English first name combined with an English surname) need to be used figuratively, for the same reason we can't have a Walt Disney entry (until someone finds the perfect three cites at least), but we have lots of one-word person's names, like Confucius, Aristophanes, or even the Biebs or the Trumpster. Jigglypuff, even when referring to the character rather than the species, is one-word. Khemehekis (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WT:FICTION. The cites demonstrate that this is used figuratively to refer to things with Jigglypuff-like attributes, i.e. rotund, pink, sleep-inducing. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't seem to pass FICTION to me, at least from the current cites. I don't see the lexicographic argument here at all. Ƿidsiþ 10:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I get the sneaking suspicion, as Equinox seemed to also suggest in his "Delete" vote, that a lot of the people (though not all) demanding that this be kept are really just saying "I want my preferred beloved character to have an entry in this dictionary!" Listen, I'm a long time POKéMON aficionado myself. Played all main series games (aside from "Let's Go, Pikachu!" and "Let's Go, Eevee!") from Generation I up through Sword & Shield. But "Jigglypuff" simply is not entry-worthy here on Wiktionary. I mean, people are bringing up WP:FICTION despite this being Wiktionary, even! Come now, let us cease this silliness. Tharthan (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary -- it seems to me that the people !voting "keep" are making arguments based on Wiktionary policy -- it meets WT:FICTION (for which "WP:FICTION" was a thinko). Conversely, most of the deletors are making arguments based on things extrinsic to Wiktionary policy (and, as I mentioned above, words like Jigglypuff and Pikachu refer to both individual characters and species, like naming your cat Cat). It's like the extremists among Wikipedia's deletionists who, deep down inside, really want to delete articles on as many pop culture topics as possible because they hold a grudging conceit that topics that aren't traditional encyclopedic sobjects don't belong in an encyclopedia (they would get them all deleted if they had their way, but Wikipedia has a "Wiktionary is not paper" point at WP:NOT, to which this attitude runs contrary). Similarly, would you find Pokémon-related words in a traditional dictionary? No, but Wiktionary isn't paper. We have neologisms (though not protologisms), hotwords, obscure slang, misspellings, proper names, place names (including minor villages), specialized jargon that wouldn't make the cut for Merriam-Webster unabridged or the OED because they're paper, transient slang, and even brand names and terms from fictional universes, and we have policies like "3 durably archived uses from 3 different sources spanning over a year", WT:FICTION, and WT:BRAND to guide this otherwise radical inclusionism. Khemehekis (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I see, so if someone wants to delete an entry that has your pet pop-culture character (which is naturally out of scope for Wiktionary) they are an "extremist". Good to know. Also, I notice that you keep confusing Wikipedia and Wiktionary in your comments. ("WP:FICTION, "Wiktionary is not paper") Need I remind you that these are separate projects? Something that might fly at Wikipedia might not fly here on Wiktionary, and vice versa. And something might be worthy of a Wikipedia article covering its subject, but not be worthy of a Wiktionary entry.
 * Hotwords, if I recall, get deleted if they don't end up eventually getting citations that extend beyond one year. Neologisms are something that most dictionaries these days have. I fail to see what is special about us having entries for... 'obscure slang', as you put it. The Misspelling entries are there to redirect people to the correct spellings. Place names are in no way comparable to arbitrary entries on this or that POKéMON. As with "obscure slang", specialised jargon doesn't seem particularly out of place. I'm not sure why you are mentioning it. Tharthan (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As for I see, so if someone wants to delete an entry that has your pet pop-culture character (which is naturally out of scope for Wiktionary) they are an "extremist". Good to know., you misread my comment. I was stating there is an underlying similarity between Wiktionarians who argue for deleting Jigglypuff because it's "just out of scope" and the extremists among Wikipedia's deletionists (the people who want to delete pop culture articles from Wikipedia, not Wiktionary, BTW). Not everyone who wants to delete an article is an extremist; the extremists are the people at the extreme end of the deletionist spectrum who, if they had their way, would delete all articles that aren't traditional encyclopedia topics from Wikipedia, including Pikachu, Britney Spears, and Traci Lords. They are out there. Luckily for the rest of us, those attitudes will hold no sway in an AfD, because Wikipedia has notability guidelines in addition to other policies, including "Wikipedia is not paper".
 * As for "(which is naturally out of scope for Wiktionary)", we have the page Criteria for inclusion, which spells out what is in scope and what is out of scope. Tthe citations for Jigglypuff clearly confirm it as meeting CFI, specifically the Criteria_for_inclusion section, so what the "just out of scope" people are really saying is, "It seems weird to have this because it's not the kind of word someone would normally expect to find in a dictionary". WT:FICTION does state that characters in fiction should only be included if their names are used figuratively (like using "a Pippi Longstocking" to refer generically to any lass with red hair and freckles, or calling a real-life person who scales buildings a Spider-man), but, as I have mentioned before, the Pokémon species words refer to both species of Pokémon and individual characters belonging to that species. There's only one Mario, but Pikachu can mean either the electric rodent Pokémon #25 or Ash Ketchum's Pikachu. As a result, we have an A Dog Named Dog trope. The appropriate analogy here would be entries like Klingon, Dalek, and Wookiee. Ash Ketchum or Zippo (the individual Charmander in Pokémon) would not belong here unless people started speaking figuratively of "Ash Ketchums", but Pikachu, Jigglypuff, and Squirtle (the only three WT:FICTION-compliant Pokémon species I've found so far) do. And yes, there are only three (as of now, before someone starts a slippery-slope argument about "Do we really want to include all 800+ Pokémon species?") It's about Wiktionary policy, not about whether someone just must have their favorite pop-culture character in here. Personally, I think Omanyte is an awesome Pokémon species, but I wouldn't dream of creating an Omanyte entry today, because there just aren't any citations around that meet WT:FICTION.
 * The underlying similarity in question is that both the "just out of scope" deletors here and the extremist deletionists on Wikipedia is the "not traditional encyclopedic/lexicographic material -> doesn't belong in Wikipedia/Wiktionary" reasoning. Of course, the people who disagree with the inclusiveness of Wiktionary inclusion policy might dominate with their numbers, and then we could have a jury nullification, so to speak, and see "Jigglypuff" deleted.
 * Wiktionary includes lots of types of words that would never appear in your average paper dictionary: Twitler, Goracle, pedosaur, Poochie-fication, esquilax, Arianator, Belieberism, conperson, aatheist, Aspieness, Crohnie, /b/tard, lulzfag, Caturday, Schmucksville, chocogasm, Pippi Longstocking, carebear, ghost piece, FemShep, Eeveelution, Torygraph, purrfect, Boraga, Ceqli, wonderfool, or even Juventus. On the other hand, Wiktionary agreed to delete icup because it failed to meet the pillar of meaningful use, and even xesturgy, since it was a dictionary-only word. George W. Bush doesn't belong in Wiktionary either, since it's a firstname-lastname combo.
 * Yes, it's true that Wikipedia and Wiktionary have different policies. Usenet is considered a reliable source for Wiktionary attestation purposes, but not for Wikipedia purposes. On the other hand, everyone agrees that Angela Merkel deserves a Wikipedia entry, but she wouldn't be eligible for Wiktionary. Fictional species like Pikachu (which you have voted to keep before, BTW) are potentially eligible for both projects. And by the way, "Wiktionary is not paper" is an official Wiktionary policy: see What Wiktionary is not.
 * Yes, hotwords get deleted if they don't last a year, but most dictionaries won't include hotwords at all, since those dictionaries are paper (although Merriam-Webster made an exception for COVID-19 and related words this year). The OED normally waits seven years after the first use of a word to include it. As for place names, I'm not saying they're comparable to Pokémon, I'm just mentioning the names of small towns as an example of something Wiktionary would have but paper dictionaries would not. As for obscure slang and jargon, Merriam-Webster has a policy requiring words to be used across many kinds of texts in order to be included. It has a "Words we're watching" feature, but even then it acknowledges that those words do not meet the Merriam-Webster criteria for inclusion -- yet. You won't find conworld, stim, nor oligosynthetic even in Merriam Webster's Unabridged. Even words as familiar as Nigerian scam and basement-dweller are missing. Khemehekis (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it looks like the reference to WP:FICTION is an error for WT:FICTION: the "WP:" prefix only works at Wikipedia, and w:WP:FICTION is about notability, while the argument here is about fictional universes. That said, it's important to keep straight the difference between referring to the fictional universe without explicitly mentioning it vs. being independent of the fictional universe. If, hypothetically, a professional wrestler took the name Sauron because they claimed to be the "Lord of the Ring", that would be an in-universe reference- one wouldn't know that there was a connection between the terms "Sauron" and "Lord of the Ring" without knowledge of Middle Earth. On the other hand, calling someone Sauron to say that they're a master of evil might not be an in-universe reference at all. It all revolves around whether Jigglypuff in these quotes is an abstract epitome of certain characteristics or a Pokémon character being alluded to because it's known to have those characteristics. It's often hard to tell, but the distinction goes to the core of WT:FICTION. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 15:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. J3133 (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Ugh, 'weak keep, mainly per Dan and Khemehekis; though the citations of Jigglypuff are more "independent of reference to that universe" than could be said for Pichu, I agree that this becomes a blurry distinction here. I agree with Dan that a proper noun definition would be more appropriate. I must admit I'm somewhat swayed by the nontrivial translations, although the translation target criterion of course cannot apply here. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 10:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Keep. (2015 quote with quotation marks and 2018 quote as "Jigglypuff from the Pokémon series" aren't good though.) --幽霊四 (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Well, with all the citations WordyAndNerdy has added, it looks as if we've got a completely universe-independent definition and ample evidence that Jigglypuff has entered cultural canon of the Anglophone world. Have a look at the citation page! I don't think anyone would want to delete it now. Khemehekis (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Weak keep - while I love the little guy, I'm not totally sure her/his name has entered the English language outside of the Pokemon community. I have to admit some of those citations are convincing, although others mention Pokemon or things from Pokemon such as Aprijuice. Cheers! Facts707 (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. After nearly a year on this board, keep votes slightly outnumber delete votes, and sources have been noted as a basis for finding this to have entered the lexicon. bd2412 T 04:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jigglypuff


text:
Talk:Hello Kitty

RFV discussion: August 2011–February 2012
Trademark; fictional cat used to market cutesy products. Needs to meet WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 13:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hello Kitty


text:
Talk:Charlie Brown

RFV discussion: August 2011–February 2012
"(trademark) One of the main characters of the Peanuts cartoon strips by Charles Schulz." Needs to meet WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 22:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Charlie Brown


text:
Talk:zmijak

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

title: Talk:zmijak


text:
Talk:višemuštvo

RFV discussion: August 2011–February 2012
Tagged by creator, Ivan Štambuk, in 2008, about a month after he created it. Serbo-Croatian neuter noun, also by extension the Cyrillic spelling listed in the entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks valid; the first Google Books hit is "Viši oblik obitelji je višeženstvo (poligamija) i višemuštvo (poliandrija)." - -sche (discuss) 05:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added one citation to the Latin spelling and one to the Cyrillic spelling (вишемуштво), which should both count towards verification of the word, unless someone thinks use of the word is restricted to one script. - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed with only two citations. - -sche (discuss) 06:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I've found two more citations. - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:višemuštvo


text:
Talk:実直子

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:実直子


text:
Talk:実生音

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:実生音


text:
Talk:実生咲

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:実生咲


text:
Talk:geofence

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:geofence


text: Category:ast:Primates

title: Category:ast:Primates


text:
Talk:sofa king

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:sofa king


text:
-롭다

Derived terms

 * be absurd, laughable
 * be mellow
 * be wonderful
 * be painful, distressed
 * be fastidious, troublesome
 * be sharp or keen
 * be honorable
 * be cumbersome or inconvenient
 * be new
 * be wise, sensible
 * be mysterious or wonderful
 * be pathetic
 * be solitary, lonesome
 * be helpful
 * be freely
 * be harmonious
 * be wise
 * be peaceful
 * be harmful
 * be aromatic
 * be gorgeous
 * be interesting, attractive
 * be gorgeous
 * be interesting, attractive

title: -롭다


text:
Talk:facebook friend

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:facebook friend


text:
Talk:porte-enfant

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:porte-enfant


text:
Talk:gilaqui

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:gilaqui


text:
Talk:しじゃ

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:しじゃ


text:
Talk:parkour

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:parkour


text:
Talk:pinyines

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:pinyines


text:
Talk:EC

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:EC


text:
Talk:テイラー

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC

 * I realise I mistakenly removed your post from RFC thinking it had already been there, when it fact it had already been in RFV. That said, the formatting didn't need much work and I think it's fine now. If you want, we can ping a Japanese editor to get them to make it even better. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good right now. I just didn't feel like fixing it before since I was hellbent on spamming Recent Changes doing highly repetitive tasks... —suzukaze (t・c) 07:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:テイラー


text:
-쩍다

Suffix

 * 1) Used to make adjectives from nouns, with the meaning of "to have the feeling (of)".

title: -쩍다


text:
Talk:Dickies

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dickies


text:
Talk:succisive

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:succisive


text:
Talk:hargebuze

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:hargebuze


text:
Talk:reticular information

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:reticular information


text:
Talk:perka

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:perka


text:
Talk:luvu

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:luvu


text:
Talk:セレーネー

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:セレーネー


text:
Talk:セレネ

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:セレネ


text:
Talk:near-field

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:near-field


text:
Talk:chaulk

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:chaulk


text:
Talk:角神

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:角神


text: Tarsius syrichta

title: Tarsius syrichta


text:
Talk:white slime

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Restored with hopefully acceptable cites. Equinox ◑ 16:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:white slime


text:
Talk:perstat

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:perstat


text:
Talk:XXXX

RFV discussion: April–June 2012
Rfv-sense: A brand of Australian lager. Needs citations meeting WT:BRAND. -- Liliana • 19:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's widespread use of the expression "wouldn't give a xxxx for anything else". This was originally the advertising slogan, but it's escaped in to the wild.--Dmol (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The page to the right has quite a few citations of that phrase, if they can be accepted as referring to the beer. thumb|right - -sche (discuss) 06:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I've reworked the entry so that the beer is mentioned in the etymology, and the sense which the citations support, namely "fuck", is the definition. - -sche (discuss) 21:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:XXXX


text:
Talk:cymoid

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:cymoid


text:
Talk:Atacamenian

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Atacamenian


text:
Talk:scharmant

RFC discussion: May 2012
since 2004 no longer a official German word according to „Rat für deutsche Rechtschreibung”, see page 31 of "Regeln 2006" and list of words 2006, page 132 --J. Lunau (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So? It's listed as an alternative spelling, and as long as it has been used in print in the past we can include it here. Also, you put the "RFV" tag on it but listed it at RFC -- are you asking for verification or cleanup? —Angr 16:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed the tag from rfc to rfv as that seemed to be the author's intention, I will delist it from rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Could this be called dated? 2004 seems much too recent to be called archaic or obsolete. Do German speakers stick to official word lists? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Cleaned up by adding a "dated" tag. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Mglovesfun sorry for the confusion about rfv / rfc and thank you for correcttion
 * @Angr please tell me, where it is listed as an alternative spelling? The online Duden does no longer list, because the former alternative spelling was withdraw by the „Rat für deutsche Rechtschreibung”. But maybe I am wrong, than of course the word should stay and I would add it to german Wiktionary as well. --J. Lunau (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @J. Lunau we base our information on how people use words, not on other dictionaries. If a word is withdrawn from a word list, all the instances of the word being used are not magically erased. The best example I can think of is French, which was spelt for centuries. But when the spelling was reformed to savoir, the term sçavoir didn't magically disappear from many thousands of texts. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Our entry scharmant is labeled an alternative spelling. We don't follow what Duden or the Rat für deutsche Rechtschreibung say, we follow how people actually write and have written in the past. I think RFV really is the right place for this: if we can find attestations of people spelling the word this way, then we can keep the entry, though it can be labeled not only "alternative spelling" but also and probably  as well (even before 2004 this was hardly a common spelling, I think). —Angr 17:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if Wiktionary doesn't follow the Duden or the Ortography Reform, these rules are used in schools, government and many printed publications. So whether a spelling is "official" in this sense is important information that should be included in the Wiktionary entries. There exists a template (de-usage obsolete spelling) that can be used in the usage notes. However, I fail to see that scharmant is obsolete. This published word list of 2006 still contains the spelling: . Is the list given by user J. Lunau maybe a draft? So until there are better references, I would suggest to remove the "dated" tag. --Zeitlupe (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. It's listed in the published list under C after the entry for charmant. --Zeitlupe (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless this really may not exist (or have existed) in German, it shouldn't be at RFV. If citations are needed to confirm whether it's dated or obsolete or not, this is the right forum (or as good as any other, WT:ID, WT:TR for example). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a 2012 citation, plenty of 2011 citations too; I consider the matter closed unless someone has new evidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May 2012
Based on the edit by J. Lunau, of which the edit summary was "Requests for deletion - no official German word according to „Rat für deutsche Rechtschreibung”, see page 31 of this document: http://rechtschreibrat.ids-mannheim.de/download/regeln2006.pdf". He/she tagged it with, which I'd imagine was a typo for rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are lots of German hits on Google book search, but many use the old Gothic script. I have only a babel 0.5 de rating so don't feel comfortable supplying the quotations. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I shouldn't have listed this; I will remove this section in a day or so. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:scharmant


text:
Talk:phlegma

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:phlegma


text:
Talk:leather cheerio

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:leather cheerio


text:
Talk:acknowledg

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:acknowledg


text:
Talk:breathe sounds

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:breathe sounds


text:
Talk:咋夏

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:咋夏


text:
humpeln

Etymology
, from (attested in the nominalization ). Compare 🇨🇬, which, according to Van Neen & Van der Sijs, is of imitative origin, akin to, 🇨🇬, etc.

Verb

 * 1) to hobble, to limp

title: humpeln


text: Carlito syrichta

title: Carlito syrichta


text:
bishinã

Etymology
, from. Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) a passing of wind

title: bishinã


text: -구요

title: -구요


text: -고요

title: -고요


text: incluyir

title: incluyir


text:
Talk:agaperos

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:agaperos


text:
Talk:withing

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:withing


text:
Talk:penisy

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

cocky
Also: cocky --75.71.229.53 05:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Are you sure that's what that word means? Equinox ◑ 16:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:penisy


text:
Talk:家裡

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:家裡


text:
Talk:goner

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:goner


text:
Talk:wth

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:wth


text:
Talk:tractor

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:tractor


text:
Talk:FSN

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:FSN


text:
Talk:barely there

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:barely there


text:
Talk:phys-

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:phys-


text:
Talk:inbalance

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:inbalance


text:
Talk:threskan

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:threskan


text:
Talk:folian

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:folian


text:
Talk:hullian

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:hullian


text:
Talk:honᵇˡᵉ

RFV discussion: September 2012
Has to be cited from Usenet, because books are assumed to use letters, whereas this entry uses modifier characters: but if Usenet posts can be found which use these exact characters, this will pass and be kept as attested. - -sche (discuss) 04:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing anywhere that doesn't trace back to us- and zilch on usenet. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Btw, previous discussions are Using modifier letters for superscripts and Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2012-02/Handling of superscript and subscript letters. To expand my comment about books: if there are books that use "honble", they support an entry *[[honble]] (likely using the template we have that forces the pagetitle to display partly superscript) or, if it is necessary to distinguish "honble" from "honble" because both are attested (even in different languages), "honble" will be an Unsupported title linked to from [[honble]]. - -sche (discuss) 06:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe I don't understand. Revise: Almost certainly I don't understand. Why, for example, is the first page of this book not a valid citation? --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What -sche is saying (and I agree) is that that's a valid citation for "honble" (hon followed by superscript ble), but not a valid citation for "honᵇˡᵉ" (hon followed by three Unicode modifier letters, which look very much like superscript letters but are actually special Unicode characters intended for use chiefly in phonetic transcription; for example, the "ˡ" in "honᵇˡᵉ" is intended for use in, for example, IPA transcriptions to indicate lateral release). That is, the current entry honᵇˡᵉ is not actually hon plus superscript ble, as it appears, but hon followed by some misused Unicode phonetic symbols. Rather than delete the entry straightaway, -sche has created this RFV to see if this spelling of "honᵇˡᵉ" as hon followed by some misused Unicode phonetic symbols is actually attestable. —Caesura(t) 01:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And so we're saying that the manner in which functionally identical characters were entered ought to be something that Wiktionary distinguishes? What a mess. Why not send 'em all to RFD/BP/whatever and make redirects? --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by functionally identical characters. ˡ, for example, is not functionally identical to l: l is a superscript letter (its function is to be a letter in the spelling of words), ˡ is a lateral release diacritic (its function is to indicate articulation in a pronunciation transcription). Books use letters, unless they're books that contain IPA transcriptions of laterally-released consonants, so that old book gets typed up using l, while we might use ˡ in a narrow IPA transcription of spotless. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

 * (I'm posting this after an edit conflict, in case it explains anything Caesura didn't.) I can't actually see the book you link to, but I assume it looks about like this, that is, it's got normal-sized letters hon followed (without a space) by small, raised letters ble. Right? Those are all regular letters, though some of them are raised. Thus, that citation proves that "honble" exists, and if there are, as I trust there are, two other similar citations, we'll have an entry at honble (with <sup> tags) or a subpage of Appendix:Unsupported titles. ᵇˡᵉ, meanwhile, are Unicode modifiers (ˡ, for example, is used in IPA transcriptions to represent lateral release). The opinion, expressed more vehemently by some than by others, in the discussions I linked to, is that it would be wrong of us to use them to stand in for superscripts in books : but, if there are citations on Usenet that use those exact characters, that supports having the entry honᵇˡᵉ. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict- twice!) A good analogy showing the issues involved would be an English entry for рорру (transliterated "rorru") using Cyrillic. Yes, it looks right, but no one is going to search for it with those characters, and anyone who searches for poppy isn't going to find this spelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I reread that old vote, and all your ec'd explanations. Thanks. I had totally forgotten this problem and the whole discussion surrounding it (FWIW, I voted in favor of regular letters). I am tempted to rerun the vote, just to see if we can gain consensus this time and nullify the need for all this. Do you think that it could work? --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that no one is going to search with those characters. If рорру shows up on Usenet and elsewhere on the net, it's entirely possible that someone is going to copy-and-paste it into a Wiktionary search box.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How could it ever show up anywhere? As far as I know, no one uses Cyrillic for English. There are very few English words that can be spelled with lookalike Cyrillic characters, especially lowercase ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I take that back. There are a few hits from bad OCR, but most of the tens of thousands of Google hits are for creations of people playing games with characters. If we accommodate OCR errors, do we need alt-form entries for rnorn (mom), clacl (dad), etc.? Chuck Entz (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then it's not a good analogy. The argument is that as long as people are using these strings of Unicode code-points, we should record that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

majᵗʸ
As above.

 * Nothing on usenet- as above Chuck Entz (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

majᵗⁱᵉˢ
As above. This exact string of characters needs to be attested. - -sche (discuss) 05:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On usenet: a whole lotta nada- as above. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

9ᵗʰ
All of these misuse Unicode modifier letters as superscripts. The proper entries (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th) already exist. And at least in the font my computer is displaying the page in, the letters of 2ⁿᵈ don't line up as they aren't the same size. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I'd prefer to move these to RFV. It is misuse of Unicode modifier letters, but if that spelling is citable from Usenet sources, then we should keep it with a usage note.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Although some of these are used elsewhere on the web, none of them is used on usenet. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:honᵇˡᵉ


text:
Talk:majᵗʸ

RFV discussion: September 2012

 * See Talk:honᵇˡᵉ.

title: Talk:majᵗʸ


text:
Talk:majᵗⁱᵉˢ

RFV discussion: September 2012

 * See Talk:honᵇˡᵉ.

title: Talk:majᵗⁱᵉˢ


text:
quexa

Noun

 * 1) complaint

title: quexa


text: quexes

title: quexes


text:
Carlito

Hyponyms

 * - sole accepted species

title: Carlito


text:
Talk:1ˢᵗ

RFV discussion: September 2012

 * See Talk:honᵇˡᵉ.

title: Talk:1ˢᵗ


text:
Talk:2ⁿᵈ

RFV discussion: September 2012

 * See Talk:honᵇˡᵉ.

title: Talk:2ⁿᵈ


text:
Talk:3ʳᵈ

RFV discussion: September 2012

 * See Talk:honᵇˡᵉ.

title: Talk:3ʳᵈ


text:
Talk:5ᵗʰ

RFV discussion: September 2012

 * See Talk:honᵇˡᵉ.

title: Talk:5ᵗʰ


text:
Talk:7ᵗʰ

RFV discussion: September 2012

 * See Talk:honᵇˡᵉ.

title: Talk:7ᵗʰ


text:
Talk:9ᵗʰ

RFV discussion: September 2012

 * See Talk:honᵇˡᵉ.

title: Talk:9ᵗʰ


text:
Talk:Çetler

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Çetler


text:
Talk:ferramenta

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:ferramenta


text:
Talk:ultimately

RFV
See Requests for verification archive/2012. - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

eventually
in the end, as the culmination of a process or event I ultimately decided not to take part. --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:ultimately


text:
Talk:Mid-Atlantic

RFV discussion: April–October 2012
A location the middle of the Atlantic Really? -- Liliana • 23:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Good tag. Also, the adjective shouldn't have comparative and superlative forms.--BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, really. It's used both in literal ways — for example, the "Mid-Atlantic Ridge" really is a mid-ocean ridge in the Atlantic Ocean — and in figurative or idiomatic ways — for example, "Mid-Atlantic English" (or a "Mid-Atlantic accent") is a variety (or accent) of English that combines elements of British English and American English (or of British and American accents). But we're also missing some key senses: in the U.S., the Mid-Atlantic states are the states on the Eastern Seaboard that are south of New England but north of . . . whatever the states south of them are called. —Ruakh TALK 01:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I'll be darned. "In the Mid-Atlantic" gets quite a bit of action; a lot of times, it seems to be short for "Mid-Atlantic region." --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Cited — very thoroughly, if I do say so myself — but I'm not sure how to handle the capitalization. This sense is usually uncapitalized, and the other sense is usually yes-capitalized, but there are plenty of exceptions in both directions. —Ruakh TALK 15:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thoroughly. Why not put each set of full senses under its most common spelling and add the other spelling as a definiens? That might be better than . I suppose it isn't consistent with the approach we use in more normal situations, but perhaps we should try something out before trying to get consistent.
 * I think recognizing and documenting differential preference for one capitalization rather than another is a not-uncommon aspect of supporting names of specific entities. Whether in general the game is worth the candle for Wiktionary, I don't know. DCDuring TALK 16:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are nice citations. I have one quibble, about the 2002 citation for meaning 2-4. I think it should actually be under meaning 1. The speaker, Juliet, is mentioned as being in Rhode Island here. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

 * ...RFV-passed, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 19:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mid-Atlantic


text:
Talk:afterlife

RFV discussion: April–October 2012
Rfv-sense: "later life". Presumably meaning old age. Really? Sounds unlikely to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * It's real. Cited. I also stuck an archaic gloss on it, because I don't think it's used this way any more. Equinox ◑ 20:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Incidentally, I don't buy afterlife being a proper noun, as we claim. There can be afterlives (plural) and it isn't capitalised, and it just doesn't feel proper, like (say) Paris. Equinox ◑ 20:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Uncited. By the way, this sense is usually written as or . —Ruakh TALK 21:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * The usage in the cites doesn't mean old age, it just means "later in life", or the part of life that came "after". It's really SOP, but with an odd way of using "after". Chuck Entz (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Re: "The usage in the cites doesn't mean old age": Keep in mind that Mglovesfun made his presumption before Equinox added the cites. Re: "It's really SOP": The term "SOP" doesn't apply to single-word forms. Sometimes we debate whether a given form is really a single word (is "yesterday's" a word, or is it the word "yesterday" plus a clitic "-'s"?), or whether a single-word form is really correct (is "hisown" a word, or is it just an error for "his own"?), but once we've accepted that a given form is a single word, and not an error, "SOP" simply doesn't apply. —Ruakh TALK 16:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This appears in Moby-Dick, but as after life, not afterlife. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:afterlife


text:
Talk:niggerass

RFV discussion: April–October 2012
More tiresome Luciferwildcat stuff. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 06:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tiresome, yes, but are you sure it's Luciferwildcat? He would have to be editing as both an IP and a logged-in user within the space of a minute or two. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has Lucifer written all over it (and the IP has previously edited Spanish terms). SemperBlotto (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether WT:COALMINE motivated this. DCDuring TALK 11:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well if attested it would allow for nigger ass, but here we're disputing niggerass. Curiously it does mean what I'd consider the most obvious meaning, a black person, but a person with a large ass (rear, derriere) chiefly African American, so I guess it can refer to whites, Hispanics, Asians (etc.) too. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I created it, and I used to get called niggerass all the time as a kid by the black kids cause I had a bubble butt.Lucifer (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Here's a citation that shows it is just a derogatory term for a black person, regardless of the size of their derrière. That is the only citation on Google Books. Many, more cites for "nigger ass." --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Lucifer presumably you don't know if it's niggerass, nigger-ass or nigger ass as they never wrote it down for you. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They sure didn'tLucifer (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:niggerass


text:
Talk:swat

RFV discussion: April–October 2012
"The exchange, in turns, of swats, usually with a paddle and to the buttocks, either as a macho dare or imposed as a 'self-inflicted' corporal punishment or as part of a fraternity-type hazing." Distinct from a singular swat (sense 1). Probably added by Verbo/Fastifex since it originally went on about bare buttocks. Equinox ◑ 12:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Countable or uncountable? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

 * There are some GB hits that imply this.

 * - I was paddled more than any other freshman in the house―but I remember the sportsmanship of several upperclassmen who traded swats with me on different occasions.
 * - A "New Deal" was called for and the calamity averted, however, by the actives trading "swats" among themselves.
 * - You paddled me, but you wouldn't trade swats.

 * I can easily imagine a fraternity tradition of trading swats being called "the swats," but I don't find an explicit statement of this. At the least, it should be noted that this is used only in the plural. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But... these seem to back up "a hard stroke, hit or blow, e.g., as part of a spanking". Mglovesfun (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. All I'm saying is that you can see that the meaning in question can easily grow from this. It's only one step from instituting the practice of "trading swats" to people saying "I did swats with Jack." Looking for forms of "do swats" or "swats with" in a student paper might turn something up. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, that would be swats. I'm not really sure what this definition is even supposed to mean, and without wanting to prejudice the discussion, Verbo/Fastifex wrote a lot of stuff in poor English (though not sure what his first language is; his French and Dutch entries also had a lot of problems) that has failed RFV or RFD, so much that he got permanently banned for disruptive edits. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be Separated
The "second" definition (To illegitimately provoke a SWAT assault upon (someone, usually a third party).) of the verb needs to be put in a second etymology section since it clearly has a different etymology than the first (To beat off, as insects; to bat, strike, or hit.). - Mocha2007 (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

 * ✅ Equinox ◑ 19:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:swat


text:
Talk:penta chart

RFV discussion: April–October 2012
Almost non-existent in Google Books and Groups. Also, should "Penta" be capitalised? Is it a trademark of some kind? Equinox ◑ 23:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it refers to the Pentagon? 23:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a tool for evaluating proposals. Penta Chart Description as used by NASA:
 * The Penta Chart format is a one page summary of a technology proposal. GCT needs to review many concepts and technologies. Having a standard summary page which emphasizes the technical context of an idea is useful and helps GCT to review of many ideas quickly and efficiently. The Penta chart format asks that a technology be described in terms of the problem/need it addresses and asks for a summary of the status quo in how the problem is addressed today. In the introduction and description of the idea, the Penta Chart asks for a description of the insight achieved which make this idea attractive. The proposer is asked to provide a description of the concept along with a summary of the benefits of its approach. If a development program is pursued, the Penta chart format asks for the goals that would be achieved.
 * A sample Penta Chart can be downloaded here. I think the name comes from the number of fields or "boxes" in the chart. The description and example are from NASA but other organizations use the tool as well. The headlines of the fields vary by organization and kind of proposals evaluated. --Hekaheka (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Conceptually and linguistically, it is an extension of quad chart (which looks attestable), having five rather than four sections. It just doesn't seem to have left much trace in attestation space. pentachart is visible on the web. (Why isn't it a quinta chart/quintachart?) DCDuring TALK 12:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:penta chart


text:
Talk:data hump

RFV discussion: April–October 2012

 * Sense given looks like a protologism to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Might as well add sexposition to that, which that entry specifically says was coined last year.. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:data hump


text:
Talk:crey

RFV discussion: May–October 2012
Some bollocks about internet slang or something. Ƿidsiþ 06:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Well apparently people use it on Facebook and other sites (I haven't yet, but I've seen many people use it) and it's not a typo. Here's an example: "crey how do I even study for this test omg." Here's some other links as well: UrbanDict, Quora, and this one on Tumblr where it's used as a tag name, but I think this tag includes both the "crey" as "cry" and the shortened form of "crazy" ("cray" or "crey" as used in "That shit cray"). Btw, this entry (crey) was originally created in 2008, when it was probably relatively new. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, it seems to be used to intentionally make fun of the actual "cry" and the seriousness of its usage/context. From UrbanDict. From what I think, "crey" is a purposeful misspelling to imitate the immaturity of younger kids when the person is faced with unfortunate events, except maybe using the actual word as a substitute for the sound or just to further de-emphasize the seriousness when "cry" is used. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable, but we need some valid citations for the entry. Ƿidsiþ 06:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if any books or reliable sites have mentioned it, since it's only used online and among younger people (teenagers and kids) at times of distress or unfortunate events (before deadlines, tests, unlucky events, etc.) OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:crey


text:
Talk:shuggle

RFV discussion: May–October 2012
I reverted an IP who added a comment about it not being a word, but a quick search turned up next to nothing except a different definition in English and what looks like the same definition for Scots. Are the current definitions attestable for English, or do we need to add the other definition and move these to a Scots one? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Verb RFV-passed, noun RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:shuggle


text:
Talk:thiz

RFV discussion: May–October 2012
Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We have thizz, which is a slang term for ecstacy. I don't think it's much of a stretch to use it as a verb. A quick look at Google Books for thiz with one z turns up mostly eye dialect for this. I suspect that the one-z spelling is a very rare variant, and I doubt it will prove attestable. The two-z variant already has 2 cites and there are plenty more out there- though perhaps only enough for the noun sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that inflected forms like thizzes, thizzing, and thizzed are ambiguous as to whether the bare stem should be spelled thiz or thizz, so the current citations for the verb thizz could just as easily be for the verb thiz. —Angr 22:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

While "thizz," as a slang term for "Ecstasy," turned up a couple of times on Google Books, I could only find one use of the spelling "thiz":
 * 2008, "Students Suspended Over 'Ecstacy Pose'", KRCA.com, 1 May 2008:
 * But Shad Canestrino from the Lodi Police Department said the gesture represents the words "thiz" or "thizzin'," which are slang terms for Ecstasy, or MDMA.

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

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

title: Talk:thiz


text:
Talk:narożniak

RFV discussion: May–October 2012
It's hard to find this word in other meaning than a surname (Narożniak). Etymologically it's correct, the stem -roż- is derived from róg ("corner"), so the meaning could be correct, but I suppose it was used as a surname only. Maro 22:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:narożniak


text:
Talk:athalite

RFV discussion: May–October 2012
Patented material used in a soldering tool. Seems to be a WT:BRAND and should probably be at capitalised Athalite. However, I see nothing in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 23:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:athalite


text:
Talk:mainie

RFV discussion: May–October 2012
Rfv-sense (Australian, slang, automotive) Driving up and down the main street of a town, repeatedly, for show and to see what's happening.
 * The link for the existing citation is broken. Perhaps a neologism coined by Chris Lilley for Angry Boys? — Pingkudimmi 05:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:mainie


text:
Talk:ðe

RFV discussion: May–September 2012
Modern English? Really? — Liliana • 12:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How can a 2006 citation back up Obsolete spelling of the? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have modified the context to reflect this, but it still needs 2 non-enm cites. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 13:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Deleted (RFV-failed). - -sche (discuss) 04:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:ðe


text:
Talk:Abrahamization

Abrahamize
The former has but two bgc hits; the latter has none. I found this post, about as old as the entry, to be rather funny:. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Abrahamization


text:
Talk:Abrahamize

RFV discussion: May–October 2012

 * See Talk:Abrahamization.

title: Talk:Abrahamize


text:
Talk:チャーゴグガゴグマンチャウグガゴグチャウバナガンガマウグ

RFV discussion: May–October 2012
I dare you. Just cite it and I will be in shock for days on end. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. See チャーゴグガゴグマンチャウグガゴグチャウバナガンガマウグ. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, and now, any citations? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The obvious question: Is it really Japanese, or is it merely a foreign place name rendered in katakana? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * GIYF. According to the Japanese Wikipedia article, the name appeared in a Japanese TV program in 2004. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If we can have an entry on the lake, Chaubunagungamaug, I see no reason why we could not have entries on all attested translations of that placename. bd2412 T 17:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Emphasis on "attested". -- Liliana • 18:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, last I checked we still need evidence rather than just discussion over the validity of the term. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How about Google Maps .jp? http://www.google.co.jp/m/maps?q=&ll=42.042154,-71.843033&spn=0.036078,0.067291&oi=nojs
 * -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:チャーゴグガゴグマンチャウグガゴグチャウバナガンガマウグ


text:
Talk:チャウバナガンガマウグ湖

RFV discussion: May–October 2012
This one too (see above). --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. See チャウバナガンガマウグ湖. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the Japanese Wikipedia article only cites English language sources. The katakana rendering seems to be the work of one of its editors, although I'd need a Japanese atlas (or trivia book) to know for sure. Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How about Google Maps .jp? http://www.google.co.jp/m/maps?q=&ll=42.042154,-71.843033&spn=0.036078,0.067291&oi=nojs
 * — Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Being owned and hosted by Google is probably as close to durable as an internet resource is going to get. Not entirely sure whether it's a use or a mention, but putting a word on a map seems to be a use (a map with a picture of the UK and a dot marked "London" is surely as much of a use as "London is in the south east of England", right?). Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It hardly sounds like a use to me, but I would count it - if you can find all 3 citations. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:チャウバナガンガマウグ湖


text:
Talk:DRF

RFV discussion: May–July 2012
Rfv-sense: (computing, rare) To be put into a development request process. -- Liliana • 21:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:DRF


text:
Talk:make tortillas

RFV discussion: May–October 2012
Not only does it need cleanup - it needs citations. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:make tortillas


text:
Talk:make someone's nipples ache

RFV discussion: May–October 2012
An extremely messy entry, and it might not be citable anyway. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I found only two citations, both from the same author, same book, but different year. --BB12 (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Same sentence, in fact. —Angr 06:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Whoops! I was looking at the sentence before, which is different. --BB12 (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:make someone's nipples ache


text:
Talk:catvertising

RFV
Nothing on Google Books, Groups or Scholar. It does get some hits on Google News, but it depends how 'durably archived' they are. Websites aren't usually considered durably archived because of linkrot. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted three cites I found for the noun form on Citations:catvertising. They're all under a year old, though, so this doesn't seem to meet CFI yet. Astral (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This is even rarer, and catvertisement listed as a derived term is rarer still. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've deleted this one as RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 08:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

RFV 2

 * Previous discussion: Talk:catvertising

Around October 2012 catvertising was deleted for some reason but I can't locate the discussion around this. Can you point me to it? Woz2 (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

 * OK I found the discussion. I was taking a prolonged wikibreak and I missed it at the time... The term dates back to at least 1999

Can you restore it? Woz2 (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Hi! Sorry it's taken me a bit to get back to you. I've moved the RFV discussion to Talk:catvertising. Was the term in use in books, newspapers, magazines, journals or Usenet posts as far back as 1999? If you can demonstrate that it was (or find a use of it from 2013), that'll satisfy the requirement that citations 'span a year', given that there are already citations from late 2011 and early 2012 here. Be aware that articles which merely mention the word don't count. Also, the article you link to seems to use "catvertisement", which is a different word. - -sche (discuss) 01:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 * WP:NORUSH I collected a bunch of cites in my sandbox for a wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Woz2/catvertising I'm not sure if this meets the WP:NEO threshold... I seems to me it does... The 1999 ref was The Mirror newspaper a RS in the UK. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't Wikipedia of course. The original deletion was correct. Catvertising and catvertisement for a dictionary are two separate words, but for an encyclopedia one topic. We need to cite them separately. My guess is if they don't pass now, they will pass at some point in the future. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying wikipedia and wikitionary are the same thing... nor that catvertising and catvertisement are the same thing... just looking for general guidance from the experts here as to whether either or both terms have met the threshold for either or both works... Woz2 (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Some links that support its usage over the years 1999: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-60242274.html 2009: http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/9014 2012: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/adhocracy/the-wild-wacky-weird-world-of-webby-advertising/article2415040/

The section I started earlier didn't come to a resolution, so I'm reopening the request to undelete catvertising and catvertisment here. The words have been in use for more than a year:

1999: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-60242274.html (catvertisment)

2009: http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/9014 (catvertising)

2012: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/adhocracy/the-wild-wacky-weird-world-of-webby-advertising/article2415040/ (catvertising)

More here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Woz2/catvertising

Can you undelete them?

Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

...or give me a pointer as to how to move the ball forward? Woz2 (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to investigate this as fully as I'd like, either to verify that the linked-to citations are durable or to look for more, so I've moved discussion here. If the rest of you feel this term is adequately cited/citable, please do restore the entry. Remember, many an entry has failed because no citations could be found, only to pass a few years later thanks to Google Books' scanning of more libraries. :b - -sche (discuss) 08:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See above, I couldn't cite it in March 2013 and it's now April 2013. Treat these are normal RFV failed entries and only restore with valid citations (not before). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * On the attestation section it says "this naturally favors media such as Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google." A lot of the web is durably archived by archive.org so do web pages archived there count as durable? How about YouTube videos? Thanks!

 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkOQw96cfyE
 * http://issuu.com/creativemag/docs/november2009 Creative: The Magazine of Promotion and Marketing, ISSN 0737-5883 Vol 41 issue 4 page 80 (print mag)

Woz2 (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * YouTube definitely not durably archived; I have an account there and I can delete my own videos. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK How about archive.org? Is stuff there considered durable? Also one more print instance in New York Magazine Nov 28, 2011 edition:

Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * http://nymag.com/nymag/toc/20111128/ Click on the link "Of mice and memes"

title: Talk:catvertising


text:
Talk:catvertise

RFV
See Talk:catvertising. - -sche (discuss) 01:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:catvertise


text:
Talk:monocardian

RFV discussion: May–October 2012
Rfv-sense - having a single heart.

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

 * I think it should be tagged rare, (~4 independent uses in nearly 200 years) but I've dug up a few uses:
 * That said, I think these are referring to the second definition, having a single ventricle. As far as I'm aware, no creature exists with two separate hearts (though it's not necessarily impossible) and outside science fiction, this sense is unlikely to exist - I did find a few Doctor Who fanfics that talked about monocardial people. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP hagfishes have 2. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 20:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Learn something new every day! Incidentally, the most common term for two hearted seems to be bicardial, with use in both textbooks and Doctor Who novels. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That said, I think these are referring to the second definition, having a single ventricle. As far as I'm aware, no creature exists with two separate hearts (though it's not necessarily impossible) and outside science fiction, this sense is unlikely to exist - I did find a few Doctor Who fanfics that talked about monocardial people. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP hagfishes have 2. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 20:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Learn something new every day! Incidentally, the most common term for two hearted seems to be bicardial, with use in both textbooks and Doctor Who novels. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:monocardian


text:
Talk:dole out

RFV discussion: May–October 2012
Rfv-sense: To generate.

I'm not really sure what sense of generate would even apply. DCDuring TALK 12:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 22:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:dole out


text:
Talk:Istanbul twist

RFV discussion: May–October 2012
Created as a verb based on a single sentence in a Robert Heinlein book. I changed it to a noun to fit how it was actually used, but I still have doubts as to whether it meets CFI in any form. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Oddly, the version of the sentence in our entry is very different from the version in my copy of the book, which is also the version that pulls up (in two different editions, neither of which is the same edition as my copy). I can't decide if our entry used a genuinely different version, or if the contributor did a shockingly bad job copying the quotation, or what. But either way . . . The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress might count as a well-known work; but then, if this is the only place that the term appears, then it probably counts as a term originating in a fictional universe? And technically the quotation is structured as a mention rather than a use, but it's an extremely use-y mention. —Ruakh TALK 01:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I think it qualifies. In addition to the Heinlein, here are to Usenet citations:
 *
 *

--BB12 (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The first is good. But the second citation is discussing the book, so it doesn’t pass WT:CFI. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Istanbul twist


text:
Talk:laughtivism

RFV discussion: May–October 2012
Really? Looks like a word invented by some motivational speaker. Fairly localized. Doesn't seem to be in wide use. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 11:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I had already deleted it once as a protologism. There are Google hits, but many use the term in quotes. If OK, it needs heavy pruning back to a simple dictionary definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a term that many people in the field of nonviolent struggle have been using to describe the use of humor in protest and how it can create a dilemma situation for authorities.
 * In that case, you won't have any trouble finding three independent citations. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Two cites on ggc, but that's it. This is really close, so if anyone feels inspired to look for that one last quote, I can only laud you. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Couldn’t find any song lyrics with “laughtivism”. Note that the Google Groups cites are a few months apart from each other. Smells like failed protologism. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 06:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:laughtivism


text:
Talk:sorceror

RFV discussion: May–September 2012
Is "sorceror" really a legitimate alternative spelling? Axl (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm not going to cite them right now, but Google Books has a plethora of hits, including books by Harper & Row and Macmillan. It certainly needs an entry; what makes you think it's not a legitimate alternative spelling?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * sorcerer says sorceror is a misspelling. Siuenti (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 * The only results that comes up for "sorceror" in One Look are us and Urban Dictionary (Wikipedia and TFD appear, but if you actually click the links it takes you to "sorcerer"). I think this is clearly a misspelling - no dictionary contains "sorceror". It does seem common enough for an though. Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I think it's a misspelling. I note that a number of the top b.g.c. hits for "sorceror" are actually for "sorcerer" (cases where someone messed up the metadata), and that even in hits that do use "sorceror", many are from works that also use "sorcerer". That is not typical for alternative spellings, even rare ones. —Ruakh TALK 22:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree from what I saw on Google Books. Many usages are by authors with foreign-sounding names, who from my G.Books experience are more likely to make mistakes or use non-standards forms. Equinox ◑ 23:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Replaced definition with . ~ Robin (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Tag removed by, who has the right to withdraw his/her nomination. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:sorceror


text:
Talk:murder by suicide

RFV
Added by known-suspect anon IP Special:Contributions/90.205.76.5. The wording is a bit odd -- "A by B" suggests that B is instrumental somehow in carrying out A, but if so, "murder by suicide" would seem to suggest something more like killing oneself and incidentally killing another in the process of committing suicide, rather than any meaning where murder is the primary action and suicide is something that happens in the course of the murder. Actually, that latter case would be more "suicide by murder". Then again, maybe I'm overthinking this. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A suicide bomber's suicidal act murders other people. As for the anon: first a preoccupation with the occult, now murder and suicide- kinda creepy! I hope we're not looking at warning signs of something (not that we could do anything about it, unfortunately). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tosh. I would have just deleted it. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Cited --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

 * RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 21:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: June 2014
An IP recently changed the definition. I restored the old definition alongside the new one. Which of the definitions are supported by citations? There are three citations in the entry; one clearly uses the first sense, the other two are less clear. - -sche (discuss) 19:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The quotation about Kaliayev definitely does not support the second sense. It is a very strange case of the first sense in my opinion. The link to the Myslobodsky cite has gone dead so I can't get the full context but it is very unlikely it supports sense#2.  I got a further snippet of the cite from google "Among fathers of terrorism are the Russian-born political philosopher and anarchist, Michael A...." which indicates that it is supporting sense#1. Spinning Spark  08:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are some more cites supporting sense#1 . Spinning Spark  09:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Alright, I've removed the second sense and kept the first sense. (See also the previous discussion on the talk page.) - -sche (discuss) 21:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:murder by suicide


text:
Talk:industrial punk

RFV discussion: May–October 2012
Defined as a type of science fiction (e.g. ), but I think it is a type of. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Oh, dear. Methinks the initial contributing editor was a touch confused, and didn't do their homework very well.  Sure enough, "industrial+punk" generates tons of hits that appear to be mostly about music, which is also the context in which I first heard the term.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:industrial punk


text:
Talk:mobilian

RFV discussion: June–September 2012
"A person moving on his/her own, and only moving himself/herself, not transporting goods or other persons, such as a pedestrian, passenger, motorcyclist, skater and the like." Equinox ◑ 19:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Nothing useful in a book search for 'mobilian -jargon -language -indian -amerindian' (to filter out Mobilian), nor for '"a mobilian" transport'. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I, too, could not find anything relevant. RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:mobilian


text:
Talk:obloquy

RFV discussion: June–September 2012
Rfv-sense: One who denies or disputes. It's not in any online dictionaries AFAICT, but I haven't looked that hard, so it might exist. —Internoob 18:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW it was the only ever main namespace edit by an IP back in 2006. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:obloquy


text:
Talk:antlered god

RFV discussion: May–October 2012
Is this really a variant of the Horned God and if so it is not supposed to be capitalized?Lucifer (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 21:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:antlered god


text:
Talk:همخوابگی

RFV discussion: June–October 2012
Is it really a Persian word? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Z 12:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Nevertheless, it has been deleted. - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:همخوابگی


text:
Talk:miyako

RFV discussion: May–October 2012
Couldn’t find cites for the language, only for the islands. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 23:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Certainly wouldn't pass muster as an EN entry, but then I haven't much knowledge of PT standards.
 * Adding the relevant JA entry in a moment. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 03:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Portuguese uses lower case. It’s correct as is in Portuguese. —Stephen (Talk) 04:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the capitalization is being disputed. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV you seem to be correct. Is there a Google Groups or Scholar in Portuguese? I don't see them in the dropdown list. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don’t know. When results show up with different languages mixed up I add a few common Portuguese words to the search (de, que, o, a and um/hum usually does it). In this case I tried searching for language related terms like idioma miyako, língua miyako, palavra miyako, and went through various pages, but everything in Portuguese was about the Miyako island instead of the language. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 04:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:miyako


text:
Talk:Dad's Day

RFV discussion: June–September 2012
Probably fine, I don't know. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why did you bring it here?
 * I've confirmed: it's fine. A bgc search for the phrase shows quickly that that's the case. I can't be bothered (now, at least) to add cites to the entry, however. —msh210℠ (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I like to be on the safe side and sometimes I'm lazy. One of these days I'll atone for my verification-related sins in a day devoted to fasting and citing every possible term on RFV. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I've detagged it. Can we close this discussion as resolved? - -sche (discuss) 00:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Resolved. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dad's Day


text:
Talk:mushroomoid

RFV discussion: June–September 2012
Probably exists, but not sure it means that. Ƿidsiþ 07:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I was about to delete it on sight, but found two real usages on a Google book search. Difficult to know exactly what they mean though. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In X-ray examination, cystoid degeneration (41.4%), mushroomoid degeneration (35. 4%), and deformtive osteoarthritis were frequently detected
 * The exact form of the indented central panel is also unique, although it bears a distant relation to those pieces with mushroomoid indentations on the vertical axis.

 * Quite a few uses out there on the web including this transcript from Stephen Fry's TV show QI. Spinning Spark  15:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 * It looks like the definition is correct. -oid is a common suffix. My person preference is "having" rather than "in," but perhaps it makes no difference.... --BB12 (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should treat the QI transcript like we treat Google Books. If Google Books were to disappear tomorrow, the printed versions of the books would still exist. If that website disappeared tomorrow, would there be a written/printed version of it somewhere? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is reasonable to expect that there would be copies of the show (the studio and at least one library somewhere are sure to keep copies), which (not the transcript per se) is what counts. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I formated SemperBlotto's citations and put them on the Citations page (thanks for finding them). I also tracked down a recording of the show (on Youtube), so I can verify the correctness of the transcript and have added that citation, making this cited, I think. - -sche (discuss) 02:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Passed. - -sche (discuss) 02:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:mushroomoid