Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for verification/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for verification/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.	Requests for verification/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/Others add new | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.	Requests for deletion/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for deletion/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.	Requests for deletion/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction add new reconstruction request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

This page is for entries in English. For entries in other languages, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.

Overview: This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. It is for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic or “sum of parts” should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in the Tea Room.

Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new section here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good place to check, others are listed here (WT:SEA).

Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, i.e. prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:

• Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. (If this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)
• Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. (Many languages are subject to other requirements; see WT:CFI.)

In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.

Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being “cited”, or after a discussion has been “cited” for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:

• Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
• Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV-failed or RFV-passed (emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time.
  In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFV-failed” or “RFV-passed”; for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited (in which case indicate which one passed and which one failed), or the sense initially RFVed may have been replaced with something else (some editors use RFV-resolved for such situations).

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Any takers? (difficult to search for because of the verb + adjective sense) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

You can search for the plurals and for article+noun/possessive pronoun+noun. There seems to be some rare usage in stories on newspaper websites- but I have no idea if those appeared in the durably-archived print editions. There are also a few legitimate uses on websites that definitely don't qualify for CFI. I would call this real, but possibly unverifiable. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Two cites, needs a third. DTLHS (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is this a word that is actually used? Google books has results, but they don't seem to refer to the device mentioned here. A google search shows the word being used little outside of Wikipedia with the intended meaning. I also don't think the devices are in current production and something only a countable number of people use. The Wikipedia article on them is misleading. RightGot (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is "Disabled World" durably archived? It looks like a website to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

That depends on whether you count pamphlets as durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have to imagine they normally wouldn't be. Are copies of this pamphlet held at a significant number of libraries, or is there any other reason to believe it will still be findable decades from now? —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

So far, all I can find are uses in non-durably archived sources. Kiwima (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

A Google Groups search just finds two posts that don't appear to be Usenet, given by their group names, and are both by the same poster anyway. Khemehekis (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

*sigh*, yes, this is one of those frustrating words. I can find a LOT on non-durably archived sources. Enough that I am convinced it's a legitimate word. But I can't manage to cite it by our rules. Kiwima (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can see it being used for several things, but not for Utah. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's not the only entry in need of verification – several of the entries added by Special:Contributions/70.52.11.217 are a bit dubious, IMO. How should we treat these abbreviations? I mean, there must me hundreds of local and national teams who use abbreviations on their scoreboards, but that doesn't mean that we have to include them here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

This one is certainly worth the RfV and perhaps some others.

For some others we could decide, whether by precedent, vote, or consensus, that some classes of abbreviations are OK and focus on making them conform to some standard. For example, 3-letter codes for airports could be deemed OK and presented only as Translingual (See YUL, JFK and their histories.). This contributor is not even consistent for such entries and probably for other types.

We could also apply a short block to the IP to get its attention. If that doesn't work, longer blocks might be required. DCDuring (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is the height of arrogance. None of you have ever left a message on my talk page, so how the hell am I supposed to know you have issues? Have you ever thought of ever interacting with anyone outside of blocks? MediaWiki has user talk pages for a reason, and messages posted there are actually delivered to the user in question. This Wiktionary BLOCK = HELLO THERE standardized behaviour is very disappointing. -- 70.52.11.217 07:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

You don't have a talk page. There is a talk page for your IP address, but that's sort of a hack, to get around the fact that there's no way to communicate with an anonymous individual. If you create a user account, then you will have a user talk page. You could also have a watchlist and look to see if people are having issues.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can find lots of evidence for "University of Texas at Arlington" and "Utah Transport Authority", and some for a few other acronyms such as "Union de Transports Aeriens", "United Typothetae of America", etc, but none for Utah. Kiwima (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Judging by the geolocation and by the mediocrity of the edits, this is quite possibly Fête, who has never been known for taking a hint- whether administered with compassion and tact or with a 16-lb sledgehammer. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh well. You would know best. DCDuring (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is a sports ticker and score card abbreviation for teams represented by the geographic name "Utah" when playing other teams. In North America, sports pages, sports feeds, and sports tickers frequently use three-letter abbreviations to represent teams. Teams are frequently referred to by their geographic name instead of team name. (ie. the w:Utah Jazz is frequently abbreviated via UTAH instead of JAZZ.) When multiple teams have the same geographic name in the same sport in the same league, then they don't just go by the geographic name, but instead either use the team name or a combination of team name and geographic name. University teams typically are abbreviated with the university name instead of the team name as well. If you watch sports television, the sports tickers will use these three letter abbreviations all the time. The particular team meant depends on the particular sport and league the ticker is currently displaying, as most locations have multiple teams in multiple sports that can be referred to by any particular 3-letter geographic abbreviation, so depends on context. This is a sports abbreviation though, so the context is sports. -- 70.52.11.217 07:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Here's an example of "UTA" referring to "UTAH" as a sports issue. In this instance, the Utah being referred to is the NBA team Jazz. [1] ; If you're from North America, you should know that the NBA is one of the biggest sports leagues in North America. -- 70.52.11.217 07:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
• 2018, "FRIDAY MARCH 2, 2018 - 10:30 PM EST - VIVINT SMART HOME ARENA"

11/13/17 Utah UTA 98 - MIN 109

• 2015, "GT: TOR @ UTA (Today) 9PM on TSN"

GT: TOR @ UTA (Today) 9PM on TSN

-- 70.52.11.217 07:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

None of which matters much to RfV. See WT:ATTEST; URLs like forums..../boards/viewtopic.php (the second link) are clear warning signs that they aren't permanently archived.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have cited and removed the RFV tags from VGK, CBJ, NYI, NYR, and NJD, all of which are abbreviations of NHL teams. EhSayer (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "Abbreviation of Kitchener. "

Tagged but not listed. Kiwima (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is a sports ticker and score card abbreviation for teams represented by the geographic name "Kitchener" when playing other teams. In North America, sports pages, sports feeds, and sports tickers frequently use three-letter abbreviations to represent teams. Teams are frequently referred to by their geographic name instead of team name. If you watch sports television, the sports tickers will use these three letter abbreviations all the time. The particular team meant depends on the particular sport and league the ticker is currently displaying, as most locations have multiple teams in multiple sports that can be referred to by any particular 3-letter geographic abbreviation, so depends on context. This is a sports abbreviation though, so the context is sports. -- 70.52.11.217 07:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

• 2017, "OHL Prospect Power Rankings for the 2018 NHL Draft: October"

8. Riley Damiani (KIT), Ryan Merkley (GUE), Noel Serron (OSH), Curtis Douglas (BAR) – TI Score: 16

• 2017, "Dec. 29/17 – ER (3) – KIT (4)"

Dec. 29/17 – ER (3) – KIT (4)

• 2015, "2015-16 Regular Season"

OHL - KIT (2015) RD: 3 (#44)

• 2018, "OHL Scores/Schedules"

HAM–KIT–7:30 PM

-- 70.52.11.217 07:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-sense of the variant of ad- used before certain consonants. I suspect that this only existed in Latin, and not English, where examples of al- etc in this sense are just borrowings of Latin words, as is the case with e.g. allocate. The one example of ag- which claims to have been formed in English (aggenital) is suspect, because aggenitalis (and aggenitus?) seem to exist. Compare Talk:sug-. - -sche (discuss) 20:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've made (the RFVed sense of) al- Latin-only. I see there are four words which claim to have been formed with ac-. - -sche (discuss) 04:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: Tagged but not listed: Both noun and verb for analog of tweet on Mastadon.

I have cited both, but only as a hotword. Mastadon is too new for anything else. Kiwima (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• @Kiwima, opendemocracy.net and southerfriedscience.com do not seem to be durably archived. Both senses are now lacking one cite. And if you do find more acceptable cites and pass this as a hot word, you have to add the {{hot word}} template to the entry so that we can keep track of it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

How do I add the {{hot word}} template to a single definition rather than to an entire entry? Kiwima (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

With {{hot sense}}. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

An alternative spelling of llama, but seemingly a dictionary-only word; obsolete if real. @Cnilep is the creator. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have just added two quotes from books published in the nineteenth century. I suspect the word is obsolete, though. Cnilep (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also a twentieth century usage, from 1918. Cnilep (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

1918 is just a loose translation of Buffon, so not independent. Wood is also clearly reliant on Buffon, but I suppose his is a genuine adaptation (still plagiarism by modern academic standards!). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nonce word. DTLHS (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps, but I DID find another citation besides those araphorostic shoes. We still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Another word to consider at the same time is araphostic: also with two cites. Kiwima (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

One dictionary that came ip when I GB'd "araphostic" said that the preferred spelling was arrhaphostic. Googling that, I found this cite here. Khemehekis (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh dear! Not yet ANOTHER spelling. Between the three spellings, we have enough to convince me that it is (was?) a real word, but not enough to meet RFV criteria. Kiwima (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Has Wiktionary specifically settled on a policy for when two homophonous spellings/capitalizations have the requisite three durably archived cites between them, but neither spelling alone meets COI? If we add the two araphostics and the one arrhaphostic together, we have just enough for the pronunciation without the -or- in the middle. Khemehekis (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

If no one spelling is attested, sadly they should be {{no entry}}ed, but (like Talk:gaplapper) one spelling will usually become citable as more books are digitized, etc. (With capitalization, things are more flexible.) - -sche (discuss) 22:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Entered to mean A bird, the great bustard, from Webster 1913. Wonderfool requests verification in RFD. google books:"gustard", google groups:"gustard", “gustard”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Most of what I find refers to a 1526 quote by Hector Boece, so I have left only one cite that refers to this quote, choosing the best reproduction of it I could find (quoted in 1881 by Henry Eeles Dresser). I did manage to find two other independent quotes, although the 1952 quote is a bit mention-y. Kiwima (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Unclosed: The 1952 quotation '... where it was called the "gustard" ...' is not just a bit mentiony; it is a mention. And the 1881 quotation is also a mention, "called a Gustard". It has been my position that phrasing of the form "called X" are mentions, not uses. Such phrasing may help reassure us of the meaning, but does not help meet WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

While I agree that the 1952 cite is mentiony, the 1881 quote is a use. It talks about the bird, then names it, the gustarf, before even mentioning any other names. Khemehekis (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

"A way of thinking in which one is basically pessimistic, but manages to use it to one's advantage." Equinox ◑ 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think some are typos for "pessimism". Look at the actual meaning of the 1982 cite, for instance: it's saying nobody need feel negative because things are good. Equinox ◑ 12:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Given the proposed senses, it is incredibly difficult to tell which cites actually support them. 1982 and 1943 seem to be clear typos, and many others are suggestive of that; certainly none of them gloss the very rare and unexpected word, if it actually exists. 1978 is odd because it also uses "possionate" in the next sentence; there is clearly some kind of affectation or continued mistake being made there. I would consider this not cited, and by looking at BGC, I don't see how it can be. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 13:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

We have a sense "(obsolete) At the time that; when.", but it's only backed up from a quote from Malory, 1485, which is technical Middle English (pre-1500), and more importantly says "Than the knyght sawe hym lye soo on the ground," not then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Pretty common in Middle English, but AFAICT doesn't seem to have survived past the 15th century. Ƿidsiþ 08:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I just seem to find a trademark called Understitial Ad® and a lot of hits in German. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is a lot on google news about undersitial ads, which seem to be adds on a cell phone in the analogous region. Kiwima (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, but do you understand the current definition cause I'm struggling with it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You know how some pieces of furniture sit solidly on the ground (as opposed to on legs), but after a short rise of about the height of a skirting board (base board), stick out into the room a bit more? It is that small indentation before it sticks out. Kiwima (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Kiwima! It was the OP's defintion I didn't understand, but Equinox (and you of course) made the entry perfectly clear. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Without eyebrows. DTLHS (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have added two cites to the citations page, but we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I tried ... apart from the New Sydenham Society Lexicon, nothing. Alas, "to seek is not always to find" - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Google searches don't seem to support a CFI-compliant adjective, let alone a noun. Equinox ◑ 10:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I've added one citation from PLOS ONE (can't find any others). It could well be an adjective though. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

OTOH dasyphyllus is a fairly common specific epithet. DCDuring (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

MW actually has two meanings: "having leaves thick or thickly set" and "having woolly leaves". DCDuring (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A type of sports bet. No Google Web hits for "a T-Play" bet. Equinox ◑ 18:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is painfully hard to search for, for technical reasons. When I type in "t play", I get contractions like don't or can't, followed by play. Khemehekis (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

As you probably know, one strategy is to eliminate those by adding e.g. -can -don to your search, but yes, still a pain, since that might eliminate legitimate matches with can etc. elsewhere on the page. Equinox ◑ 20:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Used as a gender-neutral suffix as an alternative to -ter or -tress". The only example given is waitron, but that entry doesn't mention -tron, mentioning patron as the origin instead. Equinox ◑ 18:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

In waitron, the suffix seems like -ron, anyway: we don't have English entries for -ter or -tress, only -er and -ress (and -ess). Merriam-Webster does claim waitron uses -tron, saying it is suggestive of "the machinelike impersonality of waiting tables", but they then link it to neutron, which strikes me as fanciful at best. Paul McFedries, Word Spy: The Word Lover's Guide to Modern Culture (2004, →ISBN) agrees that the suffix, to the extent it exists, is -ron, claiming to know of examples of seamstron, actron and laundron from 1992. I find a citation from 1995, Citations:laundron. Other sites also mention actron as a derivation of -tron or -ron, but when I try searching for it or "huntron", brand names crowd out any valid hits there might be. "Dominatron" is too often a scanno to find anything useful. - -sche (discuss) 05:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

DCDuring opined once that three citations of words using a suffix could be enough to verify it (as distinct from three attested words using the suffix, which would take three citations each, nine total). If I could find a citation of another of the words mentioned above, I'd suggest moving this to -ron, but as it is, I can only find waitron and the one citation of laundron. The latter does seem to confirm that it's not -tron, but the citation could mean something more like "mechanical laundry-machine" rather than "gender-neutral laundry-doer" (it can be hard to distinguish from just a snippet!), compare the two different senses of waitron. - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just some short-term meme? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can find quotes spanning from at least as early as 2016 to as recent as three hours ago -- but not on durably archived sources. We have no good durably archived sources for this type of internet slang. Kiwima (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Usenet produces nothing. Khemehekis (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is one of those terms that is often used is some online communities, but hasn't had mainstream use yet. Google finds 129 thousand results, but they are mostly from internet forums and nothing from reliable sources. Amin (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "Outstanding stupidity"

Not in a OneLook reference. Can we find citations that unambiguously support this definition? DCDuring (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

AltHypeFan's block has expired. They should be around to defend this definition by now. Khemehekis (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is 4chan slang, basically a synonym of "obsessive pedantry/attention to detail" or "anal-retentiveness". I feel as though the other existing senses cover it. Equinox ◑ 20:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't know whether the other senses cover that usage or not (they may: it may be just hyperbolic reference to the real condition, like "this post gave me cancer/AIDS"), but this definition doesn't appear to. - -sche (discuss) 21:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Squirrel. DTLHS (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@DTLHS: Please check (first and last probably refer to the same, but the word seems to have existed) Alexis Jazz (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The 1913 quotation is a mere mention. As for the other two, they look like Middle English rather than modern English. (MED Online indicates that ōc-querne means "the fur of a squirrel", not "a squirrel". Variant spellings are aquerne, aquierne and okerne.) — SGconlaw (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sgconlaw: It's (as far as I can tell) indeed not modern English. I don't know if English Wiktionary also covers Middle English? Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the English Wikipedia (theoretically) covers all languages. However, the main header for the entry would have to be changed from "English" to "Middle English", which is treated as a different language from modern English. For examples of such entries, see "Category:Middle English nouns". — SGconlaw (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sgconlaw: that should be done, but I don't know if we can just change it or should add an entry for that and remove the current entry with this RfV. Are the requirements for that the same? It seems fairly obvious the Middle English word for "squirrel" would have been used in more than 3 books back then, but we may or may not have online access to any of those. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sgconlaw: I misread, acquerne is not the same as aquerne. Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Alexis Jazz: sorry, I'm not following what you mean. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sgconlaw: I would expect that the Middle English word for "squirrel" would have appeared more than 3 times in books, but that word may be aquerne and not acquerne. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also, the 1898 and 1920 citations seem to be quoting the same Middle English passage. - -sche (discuss) 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yup. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Incidentally, I believe the normal word for squirrel in ME was squirrel (obviously spelt differently). "Acquerne" may have meant something slightly different – the Dictionary of Middle English defines it as "the fur of a squirrel" (in the same way, perhaps, that otter once meant "the fur of an otter"). Ƿidsiþ 04:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Added one citation. DTLHS (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I did some research and discovered that cataglottism was the proper form of the word. It's a nonexistent entry, which had only two citations on its citation page, but I found and added a third citation. Perhaps the entry can be created now. Khemehekis (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Seemingly only in dictionaries. DTLHS (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@DTLHS It's in the OED where there are some attestations not from dictionaries. 2WR1 (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have added two cites to the citations page. One is, yes, a dictionary, but it is still a use rather than a mention, as it is part of the definition of another word. Kiwima (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• RFV passed. Two of the cites are uses from dictionary definitions of other words, which is quite unusual, so I have applied the label extremely rare. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is this attested in modern English? - -sche (discuss) 16:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Edna Rees Williams, in The Conflict of Homonyms in English (1944), page 100, says it is not:

• OE swīᵹan 'to be silent' became ME swīᵹe, swie [MED: swīen], by normal phonetic development, by the year 1200. Middle English had, in consequence, in the 13th century two verbs identical in sound, one meaning 'to make a noise, to resound,' the other 'to be silent.' Confusion was, obviously, unavoidable between them so long as both remained in the language. Swie 'to be silent' became obsolete almost immediately, except possibly in one dialect survival. Swie forms of swēȝan [MED: sweien] 'to make a noise' vanished; swei(e forms survived. But they did not survive into Modern Standard English.

- -sche (discuss) 00:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I haven't find anything in the English Dialect Dictionary that looks like a dialectal survival of this verb (the EDD sometimes has citations or pointers to other spellings, which can be helpful). It does mention swig (“a card game in which all players must remain silent”) as a possible relative, and swech (verb) as a possible 'survival' of the other ("resound") sweien, both already obsolete in Wright's day. - -sche (discuss) 00:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't the two senses ("be quiet" and "shut up") be merged? Same thing. Equinox ◑ 18:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is it used transitively? DCDuring (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

If this is kept in Modern English, a note should be added that it's a homophone of swai. Khemehekis (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

• RFV failed; the Middle English entry swien already exists. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cites given are mentions. DTLHS (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. I couldn't find any natural usages. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I could, but mostly not on permanently archived sources. I added two cites to the citations page, but although I found some better ones as well, such as this, but they were not on permanently archived sources. Kiwima (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

LGBT slang: used by (some) gay men to address each other. I've seen it around social media a lot but can't find any good cites. Might be a usage notes thing rather than a sense, idk. [2] [3] [4] – Julia (talk) ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 19:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Don't they use "bitch" too? It seems more a general usage practice (referring to gay men as though they were female) and less a property of this particular word. Equinox ◑ 23:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've only really heard "girl", but I'm not a gay man. I think it might fall into the class of "gendered" terms (e.g. dude, bro, bitch, guy, etc.) have become more gender-neutral. But, the perceived gender (or lack thereof) depends on the context, like the use of girl. Should these all be in usage notes? Or considered a "sarcastic" usage? – Julia (talk) ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 02:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Other female-coded words that gay men may use for each other: babe, honey, girlfriend. Our girl entry doesn't mention "used by gay people to address each other" either in a sense or in the usage notes. Appendix:Cultural pragmatics?? Equinox ◑ 16:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking about this this morning. I agree that it's more of a cultural thing. Some other things like this that I was pondering:

• noun → verb zero derivation: Like weird 20-somethings saying "omg I can't even adult!!!" (= "I don't know how to be an adult")
• (idk what the ling term for this is): Do you like him or do you like like him?
• reclaiming slurs (though this might be for usage notes)
• (usually older women) calling everyone "honey", "darling", etc. in the South, but it would be weird in the North (US)

Ideally an appendix might be good but I think it'd be hard to make. And might be beyond the scope of an online dictionary. – Julia ☺ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 17:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Do you LIKE-like him" is contrastive focus reduplication. (But we have an entry for "like like", lol.) Equinox ◑ 17:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oops. But it can be used with almost anything. party vs party party = lowkey party vs big house party / jacket vs jacket jacket = quarter zip vs winter coat. "like like" might be more idiomatic tho. I feel like this is like Category:English elongated forms, which I think is pointless but whatever. – Julia ☺ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 17:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

This does seem like it may be a general practice of (jocularly/affectionately) referring to other gay men as if they are female, since so many other terms in the same vein are also used, as Equinox notes, up to and including the "gay she" (which might deserve an entry like royal we)—referring to other gay men with "she"/"her" pronouns. Compare Wiktionary:Tea_room/2015/February#girl, about derogatory references to boys/men as "girls" e.g. by drill sergeants. However, it might be useful to add an interjection sense, defined somewhat like dude but with the note that it refers especially to a woman rather than especially to a man, to cover things like "girl! I love your hair!" etc (spoken to women, gay men, etc). - -sche (discuss) 17:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, for some reason girl is on my watchlist and I saw you add the discussion to the talk page. Which inspired this RFV thing. I think the interjection usage notes should be there, but then again, we'd have to add it to every word with this property. And speaking of "gay she", "he/him lesbians" are a thing too apparently, but it might just be within Tumblr, lol. – Julia ☺ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 18:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Bi men also use this, as do other flavours of LGBTQ generally in my experience. It's just sorta camp I guess, not specifically gay. I somewhat frequently use it to refer to my heterosexual male friends. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 22:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

At the risk of straying overly far from the original topic, this reminds me that gay has a broad sense by which it's synonymous with queer, and historically even with LGBT-including-the-T, which I've been trying to find enough citations of for a while, if anyone wants to help. It's just...difficult to find citations that can't be interpreted as the now-more-common sense. - -sche (discuss) 23:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Attested in modern English? If not, move to Middle English? - -sche (discuss) 02:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Or possibly move to Scots Leasnam (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Searches for "stevvons", "stevvoning", "stevvoned", "stevvon'd" turn up just enough hits that one (consolidated?) verb definition-line is probably citable, although several of the places the word occurs are dialect dictionaries, whose usexes (if not direct quotations of real people or works) don't count. - -sche (discuss) 06:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's really a slightly more modern dialectal (spelling) variant of steven. It's listed as an Alternative form there Leasnam (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I didn't (and don't) want to RFV steven until I can make an effort to cite its various senses and find out which I can and can't find citations for, but ultimately it too needs to be checked. - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

In any case consider glossing as obsolete unless we have good evidence that modern northerners have a clue what this means. Equinox ◑ 20:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

and

I did a very cursory look and couldn't find three durable citations, but they may be out there. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't seem to be attestable in Dutch either. – Julia ☺ ☆ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 15:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nor French or Portuguese, as far as I can find, which the creator put in as translations. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

No word anything like it (apart from Batavia and Batavian) in the OED. Sounds reasonable, but looks like a protologism to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nothing on Usenet. Khemehekis (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I could only find one cite (for Batvocentric). Kiwima (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was torn between sending this to RFV or RFD, but I don't think I will take the role of an arbiter of everything concerning WT:CFI. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 17:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's a meme, it appears, originating with the rapper Lil Pump. There are also a lot of mentions of it (mostly explaining its origins), but I haven't found any durable citations yet. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Usenet contains only one post with this word; apparently "esketit" is somebody's signature in that post. Khemehekis (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The creator of this entry has now also created esskeetit, which seems like an alt form. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 21:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Collective noun for goldfinch. Mainly/only in word lists? Equinox ◑ 18:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see that can also refer to finches in general, not just goldfinches, and has an alternative form in charm Leasnam (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sense 2: computing slang: "A co-worker who does not deliver a useful contribution." This is from Eric Raymond's New Hacker's Dictionary, which has quite a number of otherwise unattested terms and/or protologisms. Equinox ◑ 18:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

1859 and 2004 are eye dialect for "lonesome". 2011 might work, but it's in a poem, where the context is unclear and the word may well be a nonce. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 11:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The etymologies have been split. Etym 2 is the one in question. I've added some cites (not durably archived) from online sources to demonstrate use Leasnam (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

"A motor car that was built between the years 1919 and 1930." Extremely specific definition, what evidence is there for it? DTLHS (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It seems at least somewhat established as a definition. These aren't durably cited, but they're related. [5] [6], [7]. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's my understanding of the term. If I can find time, I'll look for verification. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It may be more of a British definition than an American one. Added one ref. DonnanZ (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

An anon thinks that this is "not a real word". It is not in the OED. Could someone provide evidence? SemperBlotto (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

At least one of the senses is heavily cited. Is that not evidence enough ? Leasnam (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'd actually even argue that the citation given under sense 2 belongs under sense 1: "where such hell-whisperers shrithe in their wanderings" seems to me to talk about them wandering in a sneaking and creeping way. Otherwise, it would essentially be "where such hell-whisperers wander in their wanderings", which doesn't make sense. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

So is this an RFV on sense 2 only? It's possible that the quotation currently under that sense could be an instance of sense 1, but on the other hand if you rephrase the last part as "where such hell-whisperers roam about in their wanderings" it seems to make perfect sense. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

As Leasnam pointed out, the citations for sense one are clear--the second sense is the one to question. The line from Beowolf originally is "hwyder helrúnan hwyrftum scríþað". I was looking at other renderings of this line into modern English, and so far I've found this word rendered as "slink", "wander and ramble", "roam", and "follow"--so your point is well-made. But the word itself in OE is ambiguous, and at this point so is the ModE descendant used in this manner. The question at this point is whether there are clear attestations for the ModE word being used in sense 2 in addition to this ambiguous citation. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Tangent: the etyms at shrithe and stride#Etymology_1 suggest some conflation or confusion in the English descendants of *strīdaną (“to fight”) and *skrīþaną (“to step, to stride”). Did English stride get its meaning from, or was it otherwise influenced by, Proto-Germanic *skrīþaną? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Possibly, but *strīdaną meant more than simply "to fight"...it also meant "to be stiff, strut, step up to" Leasnam (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-resolved - because of the ambiguity, the two senses have been merged. Kiwima (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

"An escape route". Equinox ◑ 19:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

"The picture or animation that a website features centrally on its front page." This is only Google's "Google Doodle", isn't it, not a generic Internet term? Equinox ◑ 20:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

1. (derogatory) gender identity
2. (derogatory) Pejorative term for gender mainstreaming , gender studies and other beliefs that recognise personal gender identity.

gender ideology is a offensive term which is used by transphobic people. I think second definition is more accurate. But User:Metaknowledge argued that it seems politically charged --Sharouser (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think we should second definition with some modification --Sharouser (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think the expansion was a move in the right direction, to the extent the term is idiomatic at all, but I'm not convinced it is [idiomatic]. There's a spectrum of use, a lot of which is clearly just "any ideology relating to gender", as in the books Victorian Gender Ideology and Literature and Revealing Reveiling: Islamist Gender Ideology in Contemporary Egypt, and the 2006 Handbook of Gender in Archaeology speaking of "second-wave structuralist construction of household spaces as universally conforming to the elite gender ideology of fixed mutually exclusive male versus female"; the latter especially refer to an ideology that usually doesn't recognize gender identity. Is Western "conservative" use of it to refer to a "liberal" view (which actually a rather traditional view in several societies...) of gender not just the same term, "ideology relating the gender"? (I'm sceptical that a sense "gender identity" could be attested in a way that couldn't just be the broader / more SOP sense.) Pejorativeness seems to derive from users' attitudes to the referent concept and their claim it is an "ideology", compare e.g. "racial ideology" (similarly often used by people who take a negative view, but seemingly WT:SOP). - -sche (discuss) 14:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. The phrase "gender ideology" is being used to refer to a particular gender ideology that people object to, not to gender ideology in general (the fried egg rule). However, that narrow meaning is still only a hot sense, as far as I can see, since I find no cites for it before 2018. Even the broader use of "gender ideology" is a bit more specific than any ideology that applies to gender, as it is generally taken to refer to sex roles and gender norms, as opposed, for example, to an ideology that sees women as good and men as bad or vice versa (which would be an ideology about gender, but not a gender ideology in this sense). Kiwima (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

That seems like a practical rather than a lexical restriction: if there were a culture whose ideology of gender were so undetailed (and there was any significant amount of literature on it), I expect it would be described as that culture's gender ideology. But I suppose if the hot sense is kept, the broader sense should be.
But I'm still not sure whether that sense is best considered a separate sense or not; I'm on the fence. It does seem like how e.g. white supremacists would dismiss the promotion of racial equality and diversity as "racial ideology", while other people would see white supremacist views as "racial ideology". (Or more generally, "no, you have a point of view, I'm just telling it like it is"; "no, other people have an accent, I talk right".) The "we are against gender ideology" quotation highlights this, in that if a trans person said the same thing in the context of a discussion of the prevailing view that men and women must adhere to strict/limiting, defined roles, it would be obvious that "gender ideology" was being used to denote the restrictive ideology instead, rather than the permissive one. - -sche (discuss) 05:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Only in this one cited paper? Equinox ◑ 17:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here's an example, but in hyphenated form: [8] --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have added another cite in the unhyphenated form. We still need a third, unless we want to accept that hyphenated version. Kiwima (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The term "DoggoLingo" is very uncommon, but other terms associated with it (doggo, shibe, do someone a frighten, hecken, pupper, etc.) have been used millions of times. The media on which internet culture is propagated however don't really tend to meet our attestation criteria, however, being non-durable (subreddits, tumblr blogs, facebook meme pages, etc.). So personally I don't have much hope CFI-compliant cites will be found for these terms. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Usenet returns nothing. I've never heard "do someone a frighten", nor "hecken". Is "shibe" a reference to the Shiba Inu? Khemehekis (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's pretty much meme-heavy language, as in the "stop it son, you are doing me a frighten" meme. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is common enough to attract the attention of the Boston Globe: [9]. Oh, and sorry I misspelled heckin. -- Beland (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Rfv-sense: Existing knowledge before one begins learning a subject, language, etc. Tagged by @Tooironic. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 14:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I would think this would be trivial to cite, but it is redundant to sense 1; perhaps RFD was intended? Equinox ◑ 21:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Definitely trivial to cite. To get this out of the way, I have cited it. Kiwima (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

First, I think the sense as used in the quotation for sense 1 is better covered by the definition of sense 3. Second, that sense 3 is just a special case of the generic sense of "something someone knows or knew already", "knowledge that is prior [to some form of new information or some new situation, as implied by the context]". In the context of organized learning, it can refer to knowledge that may be needed for following the curriculum – or, contrariwise, knowledge that is actually not a prerequisite. The term can be used outside of a legal or educational context. ("This left a ton of devices out on the web that anyone could log into if they had prior knowledge of the default passwords." — "The rules are introduced as they come up, giving everyone else the opportunity to jump right in to the action without any prior knowledge." — "Women who aspire to become actresses should have a prior knowledge of what they're coming in to." — "BlockCAT is an Ethereum-based decentralized platform that provides an easy to use web portal to deploy smart contracts without the need to have prior knowledge or expertise." — "Prior knowledge in the fire protection industry is seen as a plus." — "Former Volkswagen boss denies prior knowledge of pollution cheating" — "Prior knowledge about marine animals isn't necessary to be a Maritime Aquarium volunteer." — "Although there was no cake, children's prior knowledge would lead them to expect a cake to be present." — "The record shows that defendant's jury was composed of eight persons who had prior knowledge of the case and four who did not.") And as to use in a legal context, prior knowledge need not imply any wrongdoing; in fact, it can be exculpatory: "Prior knowledge of an invention is an affirmative defense [against a claim of patent infringement]."  --Lambiam 19:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

New welfare sense was added with a citation from a non-durably archived source, that's more reference than use. Do we have uses in three durably archived sources?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It can be found plentifully on Usenet as a verb (in welfare-payment senses) but perhaps not as a noun, unless as part of "gibs muh dat" etc. Also note that this seems to be mocking black pronunciation so would need sense/gloss to indicate that it relates to black people (in the US one assumes). Equinox ◑ 21:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

Rfv-sense "(adj) Extremely plump or obese". SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 22:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think I could cite it as a noun, but not as an adjective. Kiwima (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Inexplicable". I think this is a nonce word, and have expanded the single citation to show that the writer is playing with etymologies a bit. It's not clear, either, that the definition in that context is actually "inexplicable". Equinox ◑ 19:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Definition

1. (blend of French + Thai) Frenchthai, usage of using French mixed with Thai

Created by a suspect IP. It's hard to be sure with all the false positives, but I can't find anything on this in Books or Groups. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Per the discussion at RfD, can citations be found indicating a use of the phrase that is limited to institutions of higher education? bd2412 T 04:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

First, for terminology, higher education: "Education at university level or beyond" (I am a non-native and had to look it up, so for everyone's convenience.)

Second, W:Academic institution is an article that includes primary schools in the subject matter that it covers. May I plead that, whatever the definition as refined by search for attesting quotations, the entry is kept to provide clarity to the reader? Or is it obvious that a primary school is an academic institution? Or is it obvious that it is not? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

A sport. The entry was a bit of a mess and appears to have been shunted our way after Wikipedia deleted it. The reference links were 404s so I have removed those. Equinox ◑ 19:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

All I see are literal uses. The linked example is now a 404. DTLHS (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Alternative spelling of µs". I might believe that u is sometimes used in place of µ and that us is accordingly a "Plural of µ", but given that we have no such sense at u and µs has no relevant content, I ask for citations. - -sche (discuss) 21:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

This would be an SI prefix followed by the symbol s for second, the SI unit of time. The SI standard allows the substitution of u for the SI prefix µ (pronounced "micro"), which means (one) millionth (10^-6).  --Lambiam 22:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

"A minister or pastor of a church, as in the Seven Asiatic churches." The citation given is from the book of Revelation, which appears to actually reference angels (perhaps in the sense of "messenger"). I doubt the word is used in the sense of "minister/pastor," unless a misunderstanding of the use of the word in Revelation has led to usage in that sense. Regardless, the citation from Revelation should be removed. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Agree. If anything it's figurative. Leasnam (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "(Israel) A shot of hard liquor." On the talk page a user opines that this is incorrect. Googling suggests it may indeed refer to a unit of hard liquor, but possibly a different unit than a shot. - -sche (discuss) 01:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Definitely not just Israel either. DTLHS (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is a relatively mild drink (e.g. beer) that is taken after a harder one (e.g. whiskey). SemperBlotto (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's the sense right before this one (in the entry). But this sense is claiming (and I can find a handful of websites about Israel which suggest this is plausible) that in Israeli English, a unit of hard liquor can be called a "chaser". (But it may be a different unit, i.e. a different amount of hard liquor, than a shot.) - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ahem.......this is a strange one. Definitely the entry needs to be cleaned up anyway; "describes" doesn't generally start a good definition. But I only found this and this in my search for citations, and I doubt they line up with the current definition. I can't find evidence that Keanu Reeves was the first person this word was used to describe either, at least in durable sources, and in fact I'm almost certain that's not the case. From what I'm looking at here, the word looks like a nonce word or at best an informal term, but that does not alone deny its inclusion. My only worry is that if we can find over 3 citations, can we prove that any 3 of them have the same meaning? (Also, unrelatedly, I'm finding a lot of news results, but those are for an Italian book with the name Cinemology, perhaps deserving of a Wikipedia article? Anyway be careful for titles.) @Kiwima might be a good person for this citation hunt. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I will see about getting the article I read this in uploaded as a citation. I do believe that the word has been used to describe other works in the past. – Cinelosopher

Here are some citations that would fit a different sense:

1. Template:quote-magazine
2. Lua error in Module:quote at line 2959: Parameter 1 is required.
3. Lua error in Module:quote at line 2959: Parameter 1 is required.

DTLHS (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Supposedly pseudo-Russian "bitch". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have cited sense one, but not sense 2. Kiwima (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

seeme kinda fake to me. 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:85A2:1A9E:D7F7:47BC 20:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The adjective definitely does exist. See Google Groups Usenet uses for proof (I could only find one Google Books usage though). So this RFV now only pertains to the noun sense. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I managed to find two cites for the noun, but can't find a third. Kiwima (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Kiwima Thank you, but I very highly doubt unatheist as a noun means "ex-atheist." "Un-" doesn't imply "used to be but isn't anymore," but just implies "isn't." PseudoSkull (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. It is more likely to mean non-atheist. — This unsigned comment was added by Kiwima (talk • contribs).

seems kinda advertisey. 32.210.179.170 03:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

cited. And useful, I would think, since many of the books I found use the term with no explanation. Kiwima (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

None of the cites seem to be durably archived. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The first (Sep 2013) is Fox News, which I suspect is durably archived. The third (2014) is MIT press, which I am sure is durably archived. I added a fourth (2015) which is also durably archived. The fifth(Feb 2016) is Penn State News, which may well be durably archived. The sixth (Dec 2016) is published in an academic journal (although it has the same author as the third, so only one of them would count). I added another 2016 from a durably archived source. The last one (2017) is from the University of South Florida Scholar Commons, which I believe is also durably archived.

All told, I would say this is cited - at least for wikistorming as a noun. The verb is more questionable. Kiwima (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree with all of your calls, but there are three books attesting the noun, so it looks like it's good (the verb, not so much). I also think the definition needs a change, because all the cites seem to focus on feminism. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Etymology is an interesting point, since to storm something is a violent military attack, but it's possible that it comes from another collaborative origin like "brainstorm". Equinox ◑ 18:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is this citable? 32.210.179.170 02:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Added 3 cites; more are findable. Equinox ◑ 18:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

"To fast forward past the standard FBI warning at the start of a movie." (The noun at this entry might be dubious too...) Equinox ◑ 21:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I could find no uses of the supplied meanings, but did find some other meanings. Kiwima (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Noun sense: a federal agent. Again, seems to be pure invention. Equinox ◑ 23:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Alt spelling of consensual. Hard to imagine anyone hyphenating this unless drawing some sort of explicit comparison ("sensual but not con-sensual"), so may at the very least need glossing in some way. Equinox ◑ 21:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "A lawyer who represents defendants", tagged but not listed (and now cited). Kiwima (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The unlisted tag, and the disclaimery "only short for" definition that I've folded back into this definition, were added after Wiktionary:Tea room/2018/January#defender_?=_lawyer, where however I had already provided (links to) citations, so together with the citations you've added to the entry, I do think this passes. - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "(slang, Britain) A key". --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thought about RFVing this too; not familiar to me. I assume they mean the kind of key that unlocks doors... Equinox ◑ 18:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not exactly a key, but I found some uses of jigger to refer to a lock-picking device....

• Lua error in Module:quote at line 2959: Parameter 1 is required.
• Lua error in Module:quote at line 2959: Parameter 1 is required.
• Lua error in Module:quote at line 2959: Parameter 1 is required.
• Lua error in Module:quote at line 2959: Parameter 1 is required.
• Lua error in Module:quote at line 2959: Parameter 1 is required.

(Althought the 2012 quote might just be using the thingamajig sense). Kiwima (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have taken the liberty of extending that 2012 cite in your comment above, to add more (vital!) context. It seems to be describing some kind of lock-picking tool, indeed. Equinox ◑ 23:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

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

DTLHS (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

We have three cites, two on clearly durably archived sources, but I have my doubts about the third. Kiwima (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nonstandard spelling with no cites. DTLHS (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• added 2 but they're probably just grounds to consider it a recurring typo, should this be redirected to misdemeanorous ? ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I added a book cite. I have my doubts that the other two are durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dictionary word. DTLHS (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• So I suppose we would include it if we were a dictionary! SemperBlotto (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps DTLHS meant a dictionary-only word? Khemehekis (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sense 2: "Any fire apparatus, such as a fire truck." Sense 1 already is a fire truck, so what else is covered by this? Equinox ◑ 00:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

cited. I also gave a different example to the definition, because saying fire truck is, as you pointed out, not useful in distinguishing from sense 1. I also added the qualifier archaic. Kiwima (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is a hook and ladder truck a fire engine? I don't know whether they carry water. Is a plane that drops water or chemical fire retardant on a fire a fire engine? I think that a fire engine has to be a truck that carries equipment or supplies for fighting fires. More specific delineation of equipment and supplies, like water, pumps, hoses, ladders. firemen, halligans, axes, belongs somewhere other than the definition line, IMO. DCDuring (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

In modern usage, you are probably right, but the citations I added are basically for water pumping devices that are used in fire fighting, not a truck at all. I deliberately chose cites that did not refer to trucks. Kiwima (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry that I lost sight of the venue. I'm not satisfied with def. 1, which was not under challenge. DCDuring (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

You might be amused by “fire-engine”, in The Century Dictionary […], New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC.. DCDuring (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cannot find anything. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

199 hits for "redcore" on Usenet, not a single one of which is this purported slang sense. Most of them are hits for the Montreal band or a brand of infrared heater. Khemehekis (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Or a fungus that causes root rot in strawberries (which I added) Kiwima (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

UK slang: an idiot. I suspect this might be legit but I just can't find it. Somebody on a forum wrote that they'd heard it in the gangster films Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, but it doesn't appear in the script I found online; they also said it was in St George's Day but I can't find that script at all. Equinox ◑ 18:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Added one cite for now. Will look for some more but it's difficult to search for. BigDom 20:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The word "melt" is in this review of St. George's Day, but doesn't appear in the script at https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=st-georges-day

However, GB'ing the phrase "some melt" lead me to this page on Google Books: ". . . is that good for you she said yah we both making paper and I get so much respect now, and I love the taste of Sid's pussy, I said okay TMI, she laughed and said I tested some of that last package she brought that shit is some melt, I said aight . . ." What does "melt" mean in this (con)text? Khemehekis (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Found a second cite, this one on Usenet. Khemehekis (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The film is about drug dealing, so the package that the person tested must be drugs. Punctuating, it must be: "I tested some of that last package she brought; that shit is some melt"; sounds like a compliment. Doesn't seem to be the sense under discussion. Equinox ◑ 02:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for explaining. Khemehekis (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cited. Khemehekis (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, they look great. "Have a bastard word with yourself" is something I now intend to start saying (in a Cockney accent). Equinox ◑ 02:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Another Wiktionary success, like sea lawyer! British football hooligans can have such a way with slang. 8) BTW, First Lady, according to my searches, is a book wherein a girl meets a kingpin, so it is about drug-dealing after all, so no harm done. Khemehekis (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 00:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Requesting citations independent of Nicholas Rescher or people quoting Nicholas Rescher. DTLHS (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

"To restart (a computer or video game) from the beginning." Is this not just the normal sense 1, i.e. resetting a system? If you simply quit to the game's menu and start playing from level 1, that's not a "reboot" as far as I know. Equinox ◑ 14:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "a book of printed sketches". Tagged but not listed (and now cited) Kiwima (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Tagged but not listed (and now cited) Kiwima (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The entry should not exist according to an IP. "radande" does indeed not really look like Swedish, while "trädande" is a generic term for a tree spirit. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 19:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Mentiony citations at Citations:radande. DTLHS (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Humorous unit for measuring activity, based on a certain busy person in history. Seems rather obscure, and the given citation is a mention. Equinox ◑ 20:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Given the fact that the word was coined at a secret Russian nuclear research facility, you would expect possible uses in Russian sources, so I searched for миллиБриш (milliBrish) and микроБриш (microBrish). That did give one hit to a contribution to a Festschrift, but again only a mention, recounting the same anecdotal evidence of the accomplishments of ru:Бриш, Аркадий Адамович (no article on the English Wikipedia) as in the one citation given. Conclusion: not attestable even in the original Russian form.  --Lambiam 09:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

"(UK, historical) The act of killing a person in a secret manner, distinguished from simple homicide." This was the original sense in the entry (which came from an old dictionary); somebody later replaced it with another def, saying that it was incorrect. It deserves an RFV though. Equinox ◑ 22:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "(abbreviation) jack". Not sure which jack it refers to; in my experience, a poker jack is abbreviated as J, not JK. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 01:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just found it listed in Morrison's Sound-it-out Speller: A Phonic Key to English, where it glosses the word as "lift" (so the kind of jack that mechanically raises a vehicle?). Equinox ◑ 21:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Seems spammy. DTLHS (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

We have one citation that uses the term. Note: citations of "negative entropy" do not count. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Done: see "Citations:negentropy". Still unsure how to define the word, though. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Needs two more real cites. Per utramque cavernam 10:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Nothing more and nothing less", as distinct from the other sense ("that's the end of the matter"); the latter sense, which to me seems to best cover both sense's cites, was just added by an IP who has made some notes on the talk page that led to my creating this RFV. Equinox ◑ 12:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

google books:"not have the faintest", google groups:"not have the faintest", “not have the faintest”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.

"not+have+the+faintest"+-"faintest+idea"+-"faintest+clue"+-"faintest+notion"+-"faintest+understanding"

I already mentioned I couldn't recall hearing it often, but in fact I can't seem to cite it. The only entry I found was in a dictionary: "not+have+the+faintest" An Asperger Dictionary of Everyday Expressions. Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's a sort of bowlderized dictionary-form of "I don't have the faintest", "She didn't have the faintest", etc. DTLHS (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@DTLHS but is it also used in real life?

The Five Ws to the rescue:

• google books:"not have the faintest who"
• google books:"not have the faintest what"
• google books:"not have the faintest where"
• google books:"not have the faintest when"
• google books:"not have the faintest why"
• google books:"not have the faintest how"

Time to make some citations..  Done Exactly three. That's all there is. Guess it should be enough. Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is this actually an adjective or just an alternative form? DTLHS (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: A person who has been robbed by a dacoit. DTLHS (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I think that the quotes given are misspellings of dacoity - The OED gives dacoitage as a synonym for this. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'll call it an obsolete spelling. DTLHS (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Able to sin. (Seems wrong: shouldn't it logically mean "able to be sinned [against]"?) Not much in GBooks. Equinox ◑ 21:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I’ve added three quotations, but the term appears obsolete, as I did not find quotations later than the 19th century. Language is not always logical; peaceable does not mean "able to be peaced".  --Lambiam 07:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Understood about logic for some common words, but when it's a super-rare word that can hardly be found at all, logic might come into play. Equinox ◑ 01:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The noun sense. Needs a headword if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Made by person who made redcore. 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:C073:2829:9837:FE1B 13:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

SoP. This is just like a three-mile walk. Perhaps a case could be made for five-sigma observation, because there is agreement in the particle physics community to only announce discovery of a new particle after the significance level of the combined observations has reached five sigma.  --Lambiam 13:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Found in Webster, created by @Equinox. I'm only seeing one cite on BGC. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see some Scholar cites, but in French and German, not necessarily referring to the birds. DCDuring (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

This page is for English. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think we allow all contributors. DCDuring (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Citations:thamnophile, do not really support an entry or this definition. DTLHS (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Real thing on the Web. Don't think it meets CFI. Equinox ◑ 01:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

cited DTLHS (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Some slang. Equinox ◑ 02:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

"The compulsion to abuse small children". I'm not convinced that this is what "Herodism" actually means. Please convince me (or perhaps better, correct the definition). Equinox ◑ 02:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox Perhaps I should not have been the one to create this entry. I seem to have gotten the definition from this book, and I vaguely remember some other books giving similar contexts, although I can't seem to find them now and it could have just been an error in my judgment of such contexts. I now try to give citations for all the entries I create, which may help with future confusions such as these. Nevertheless, I have added a definition request line for other senses of this term, as Google Books shows the word definitely is in use, but as you said not likely to mean this. Sorry about this! PseudoSkull (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

"An action that was unintended". Not convinced that this is what this word means. If it fails, please deal with any related thesaurus/synonym detritus. Equinox ◑ 02:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

In several dictionaries with two other definitions: "watery food or drink".

“slipslop”, in The Century Dictionary […], New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC. also has "blunder".

Google slipslop (Books • Groups • Scholar) seems to offer attestation for all three definitions. (Need to exclude the numerous references to "Mrs Slipslop" (in Joseph Andrews and other uses as proper name.) DCDuring (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is used in a single work. DTLHS (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• See Google ossiphageous (Books • Groups • Scholar) for indication of lack of attestation. DCDuring (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Moved to spelling that seems attestable. See Google ossiphagous (Books • Groups • Scholar) for attestation. DCDuring (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Used in a single work. DTLHS (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Just a PLOS article and one journal cite for "junction -ome": (Google junctionome (Books • Groups • Scholar)). DCDuring (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see no evidence for this spelling with no space. DTLHS (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

Not a single result on Google. Seems like a protologism to me. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-resolved Speedied. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 00:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "(vulgar, colloquial, usually followed by “up”) To break; to destroy." Obviously fuck up exists, but just fuck, with this sense?__Gamren (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Trivially meets RfV because fuck up does.

As to a possible RfD, someone who encounters a use of fuck collocated with up could legitimately expect to find guidance among the definitions (not just the derived terms) of fuck. DCDuring (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't seem right. Would you want put to have sense lines for each of put up, put off, put through...? They aren't just put! Equinox ◑ 10:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I would like the entry for put to at least include definition lines that made some sense for someone trying to understand the collocations or phrasal verbs (if indeed they are phrasal verbs). How would a new user even know to go to derived terms for the verb + particle combinations? DCDuring (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "(vulgar, colloquial) To play with; to tinker." The usex and citation have instances of fuck with.__Gamren (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Trivially meets RfV because fuck with does.

As to a possible RfD, someone who encounters a use of fuck collocated with with could legitimately expect to find guidance among the definitions (not just the derived terms) of fuck. DCDuring (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

There does seem to be a well-attested adjective sense, but the only POS currently in the entry is "Noun":

1. (slang) A cannabis cigarette

No trace of this in Books or Groups. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Reliably citable? SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 10:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Added 3 citations. Equinox ◑ 10:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Needs two more citations. DTLHS (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

These are mentions and not uses. DTLHS (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Worse, they're mentions in modern English of an Old English term which I haven't been able to find in Bosworth-Toller. Also, sōlmonaþ is supposed to be the Old English word for February. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Relating to zoiatria. Only seems to be the name of a college. DTLHS (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply