text:
17 July 2007 (UTC)

 * A wine advertisement. See  and  Don't think this is salvageable.  Can't find any sign of the verb sense.  -- Visviva 02:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

disbud
Can we find quotes to support the second sense of removing horns from a young goat? That sense is not in the original OED. --EncycloPetey 19:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now cited, although I'm not certain I've formatted the newsgroup citation correctly. Note that I've only been able to find verification for goat kids and calves being disbudded, not lambs, on google books and google groups. Thryduulf 21:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed; thanks, Thryduulf. —Ruakh TALK 04:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

cityesque
Added less than 24 hours ago, it has accumulated 4 very odd definitions. Are any of them valid? --EncycloPetey 06:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like BS to me, delete --Williamsayers79 08:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

http://football.guardian.co.uk/Match_Report/0,,619747,00.html no it's legit - see sports report from english national newspaper "the guardian"

The above citation if for "City-esque" - meaning typical of the Manchester City football team (probably wouldn't meet our criteria for inclusion). The term under consideration is just rubbish - deleted SemperBlotto 09:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought this might have some merit to it meaning 'like a city', but most of the few cites I found were for something being "Gotham Cityesque" or "New York Cityesque" or "Sex and the Cityesque". bd2412 T 01:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

savaging
--Connel MacKenzie 07:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

 * And related edits. Not in other dictionaries.  --Connel MacKenzie 07:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now contains an interWiki link to well-cited page. <IP_ADDRESS> 07:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The OED has the verb savage to mean (of an animal) "to attack with the teeth" - that's the closest I can find. SemperBlotto 07:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The verb form is in widespread used. The example sentence for the noun definition uses "savage" as a verb, not "savaging" as a noun, so if this is a valid it seems like it is a definition of the verb "savage" rather than the definition of a noun. Thryduulf 16:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

 * What SemperBlotto mentioned, or what the entry has, or the original verb? (The OED's definition is merely redundant with savage def #1.)  The "interwiki linked" article is simply the bizarre 'pedia article, whose references do not convey this sense, rather instead, that of (again) savage def #1.  --Connel MacKenzie 00:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, noun section removed. —Ruakh TALK 19:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

quinine

 * Note: the title of this section was previously quinine - poker slang senses.

I know that these have been referenced but I could do the same for everything that appears in the Viz Profanosaurus and most of them (as funny as they are) would not meet our CFI.--Williamsayers79 08:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I take it that this work you reference is meant to be comedic and inventive. The book I cite, The Dictionary of Poker is a serious attempt to record the usage of slang terms in poker.  As I'm sure you are aware, attestation of slang (especially slang which precedes the internet) may be difficult to come by.  I would be happy to look for further evidence of it's usage if someone might suggest where to look.  --Kzollman 02:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

 * At least one of these senses is also mentioned by no less than H.L. Mencken ... but it is still a mention, unfortunately, not a use (in this case he mentioned it in passing while explaining the etymology of "medicine turn," which does not seem to meet CFI either). I can't find anything on Gbooks that looks like an actual use of the term -- which is striking; after all, there are plenty of slang-filled descriptions of poker games out there.  Perhaps someone with access to the appropriate period sources can turn up the necessary citations... but without them, this will fail CFI, regardless of whether other reference works have found it worthy of inclusion.  -- Visviva 06:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely to occur in a book. Queen nine is a bad and generally unremarkable hand in Texas hold'em, similarly for a 9 in lowball.  This hand is unlikely to be talked about in a book, much less using this particular slang.  If the dictionary of poker is insufficient attestation, I'm afraid it will have to be deleted. --Kzollman 19:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I found three other sources. One usenet posting apparently from a reasonably well known poker author Lee Jones.  One on another well known poker forum two plus two.   And last, an article in Card player magazine by the author of the dictionary.  --Kzollman 19:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, senses removed: I haven't seen a single use, only mentions. —Ruakh TALK 01:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

People's Club
Looks like a rant to me. SemperBlotto 08:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Nonsense deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 01:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Deal of the Century
As above. SemperBlotto 08:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Nonsense deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 01:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

electronic shelf label
One passing neologistic reference in 2002, two later listings in glossaries? --Connel MacKenzie 01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't it just a sum of parts - i.e. a shelf label that is electronic? Thryduulf 10:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I don’t think so. I didn’t know what it meant until I looked it up. I had known of the technology previously, but I didn’t know what they were called. —Stephen 19:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 04:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

inpert
Internet expert - I wonder why there are b.g.c. from the early 20th century? --Connel MacKenzie 05:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently, based on those hits, it's something like an inexperienced expert. There's a story of Edison asking an engineering student to determine the volume of a light bulb; the student does all sorts of calculations to arrive at a figure; Edison just drills a hole in the bulb, fills it with water, then measures the volume of water in a beaker. The student is supposed to be the "inpert". bd2412 T 05:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Perhaps originally the opposite of expert, made by swapping in- for ex-? -- Visviva 05:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Usenet hits suggest this is still the primary meaning. -- Visviva 05:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Silly story about Edison: any real engineer would simply fill the beaker, dip the bulb (causing its volume to overflow), remove it, and observe the amount of remaining water. (Or arrange for the overflow to go into a graduated cylinder, for more accuracy.) Robert Ullmann 11:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

 * That's the outside volume, the other procedure is for the internal volume. Given thick enough glass it might matter. RJFJR 13:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Our definition RFV failed, so entry deleted; thanks, Connel. If anyone would like to start the entry fresh, with a CFI-meeting definition, please feel free. —Ruakh TALK 05:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

ovarium
I find ovarius (one who keeps/collects eggs), but cannot find ovarium in any of my Latin dictionaries (Lewis & Short, Feyerabend, Calepinus, or Facciolati). --EncycloPetey 07:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted, thanks. —Ruakh TALK 04:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

she-she
I've never heard this one, though it's marked "US". --EncycloPetey 05:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably means chichi SemperBlotto 07:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted.

This was popular slang in the early 60's Sheshe was meaning great decorating or trends in clothing or Chic.

troublemaker and trouble maker
Hi,

Do you think those pages (troublemaker and trouble maker) need to be merged ???

Thanks

<IP_ADDRESS> 10:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

 * No, because they have different spellings. We don't merge pages here the way they do on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 10:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, that would apply if they had different meanings as well, but they don't. The full content should be given on one page and the other should cross-refer to it. In any case, "trouble maker" is incorrect - it is either "troublemaker" or "trouble-maker" (as are all forms noun + agent noun - it comes from or suggests the phrase "one who makes trouble", so requires either a hyphen or to be closed up). — Paul G 16:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Paul's prescriptive rule is accurate. We're descriptive, though, and GB supports “trouble maker”, so I performed our version of a merge from the alternative spelling entry “trouble maker” to the main entry “troublemaker”.  Rod (A. Smith) 17:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

feminazi
Request for etymology verification:

I see a cite for a 1951 book. I'm pretty sure Rush didn't have a radio show back then. --Connel MacKenzie 01:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

 * He probably does warrant mention as the term's popularizer, though. And who knows, maybe he coined it independently; stranger things have happened. (Of course, I doubt the etymology's contributor here had any inside information, so we should probably stay on the safe side and say only that he popularized it.) —RuakhTALK 03:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I removed rfv tag and added the cite for known etymology, with Rush as popularizer and Tom Hazlett as coiner.
 * from Rush's book The Way Things Ought To Be, p. 193
 * "I prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: feminazis. Tom Hazlett, a good friend who is an esteemed and highly regarded professor of economics at the University of California at Davis, coined the term to describe any female who is intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism. I often use it to describe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern-day holocaust: abortion. There are 1.5 million abortions a year..."
 * I couldn't find citations earlier than 1990-1991. Connel's 1951 cite appears to be an author's birth date that appears conspicuously in the book title in the Google books list.  (The book is from 1997). I should mention this lone citation from 1929  for the hyphenated version femi-nazi.  It is "Business Week" and it appears to me that the 1929 date is the first edition of the periodical and the issue in question is likely post-1991. -- Thisis0 20:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Sounds good, thanks! (In the future, though, please wait a bit after justifying the removal of the RFV tag before actually removing the tag. People visiting the entry in question should know if there's active discussion about it.) —RuakhTALK 21:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

 * ok, good to know! -- Thisis0 21:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Hey, do you think it would be too disparaging to list this under "Derived Terms" at feminist? -- Thisis0 21:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Disparaging or not, it's derived from feminist, so yes, I'd say so. (For that matter, it should also go in the "Derived terms" section of Nazi.) —RuakhTALK 21:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Do not remove discussion tags for your own dubious entries. Listing a "popularizer" as an etymology not acceptable on Wiktionary; that is spam.  --Connel MacKenzie 08:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Wow, what a dick. I really thought I was trying to do this right, even thinking naively to myself over the last few days, "I'll try do it all so right, even Connel would not disagree."  But one comment from the guy and you catch the definition of a true troll.  A troll is not a vandal who comes "trolling" by, nor is it the widely accepted use of the term in wiki circles "someone who disagrees with Connel or has proved him wrong," but a true troll is the nasty old miser who sits under the bridge, where he has been a very long time, just waiting for an enthusiastic newcomer to come bounding along hoping earnestly to make a difference.  The troll does not take notice of intelligence or potential, but destroys his victims witout prejudice, vandal and contributor alike.  I honestly had hopes -- spending valuable thoughts trying to figure out how I could contribute in Connel's world, but it's become clear that was in vain.  A troll is a troll.  A glance into most conversations on these pages shows the behavior of an antagonizer who regularly frightens off new contributors and raises fellow admins to a boil over petty nonsense.  It shows the behavior of a man unwilling to concede or compromise, even when devastatingly shown to have failed.  I cannot effect change as one user, but what will we as a community do to create better standards?  Speak here and now, unless the answer is nothing. -- Thisis0 09:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I am not certain that this is the place for this much-needed discussion, as it is wider than this topic. Were this Wikipedia, I would open a user-conduct RFC, but there is no obviously equivalent place here that I'm aware of (or that is listed on the Discussion rooms link in the sidebar). Thryduulf 10:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Why is listing a "popularizer" on Wiktionary spam? The etymology that is there seems to be exactly what an etymology should be - a summary of the history and origin of the word. Thryduulf 08:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Yea, I don't get it. He brings this item to the table, requesting "etymological verification."  (Which he or anyone could do.  It's the internet for Christ's sake.)  I looked into it, provided a well written etymology that included not just the popularizer in context, but also the man credited for coining the term.  I sourced it well, wikified it minimally, and what do I get?  A fat rebuff.  I provide the best answer to the query, and the messenger is shot.  Don't punish me because this neologism has a popularizer.  All this, and I also showed how his "1951 cite" was a juvenile error on his part. There will be no peace until this troll sleeps. --- Thisis0 19:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Your timing, arriving as an "innocent newbie" I find questionable, but your insistence that Wiktionary entries must contain spam is simply inexplicable. Who "popularized" a term has little (if anything) to do with where the term came from.  Previous similar terms have had similar treatment; the spam is removed.  While Ruakh agreed with that, he is relatively new here and may not have been aware of that nuance.  Above, I gave a neutral two line factual explanation of two errors you made.  You spent kilobytes ranting and raving about abuse.  Who exactly is trolling here?  --Connel MacKenzie 11:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * What timing? Just in time to rally against you on the dire subject of "for all intensive purposes? Or was that I was just in time to accurately do the research on your original query here for feminazi?  Timing.  We are so conspiratorial.  I am new -- and absolutely unaffiliated.  Just because I am well-written, engaged, and vigorous in debate doesn't mean I am not brand new here.  I will take your thinking otherwise as a compliment.  I definitely concede in learning to keep the rfv tags on for a while after I've made the actual verification.  It is clear throughout these pages that you are consistently unwilling to make any similar concession, especially when you are clearly and stubbornly in the wrong.  In my active tenure here of a few weeks, you have 1.) accused me of being "British," threatening to stalk my IP for verification (go ahead), 2.) accused me of being dishonest about my newness [in addition to the flagrant violation of "good faith", this is outrageous and libelous because I have NEVER used newness an excuse, despite your insinuation surrounding "innocent newbie"], 3.) called a troll for no such act, after which I pointed out that the activities of a traditional troll in stories align much better with the treatment you give your peers, 4.) designated my accurate fulfillment of your query as spam.  "Popularizer" here is clearly given in context along with origin, and sourced.  I did the work for your query -- if you don't like it, do better.  Go ahead.  In fact, do everything here yourself.  But then, you would have no one left to belittle, which apparently must be fulfilling. There will be no more kB rants on abuse the day you stop abusing. -- Thisis0 19:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I am hardly new here and I am rather thrown by your idea that this information is spam. If a new term is especially propogated by a particular individual it seems relevant to include that information.  As an editor with a particular interest in Etymologies I see no problems with the Etymology section here.  Also bear in mind that questioning Thisis0's status as an ‘innocent newbie’ isn't really in line with our general policy of assuming good faith.  Widsith 11:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * He made a half dozen personal attacks, laced with numerous false 'pedia policy arguments, long before I "questioned his newbie status." The statement that "popularizer" stuff isn't removed is erroneous; it is routinely removed, because it is spam, particularly for living persons.  The conspiratorial comments he made on various user talk pages (of course, intermingled with more personal attacks) is why I am certain this person is here for no good.  Doremwitzer can pile his nonsense pretty high, but his lies are easy to ignore.  This, on the other hand, is way beyond reasonable.  --Connel MacKenzie 02:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Erm, how is a citable statement of fact "spam"? Why is something spam when you say it is but everybody else who has commented says it isn't? Please can you also cite evidence, in the form of policies, discussions and diffs for all the following:
 * that ""populairizer" stuff ... is routinely removed".
 * that popularizer stuff is spam
 * that mentioning the name of living people in etymologies is spam
 * that a conspiracy exists
 * that this0 and Doremítzer are part of this conspiracy
 * that your personal attacks against this0, Doremitzer and others are acceptable and justified
 * that Doremítzer has "blazing evidence of foul play" on his talk page
 * Until I see this evidence, I am forced to make a judgement based on the facts I am aware of. These facts do not support any of your claims or accusations, and I am forced to conclude that you are the one in the wrong. This and your other actions (especially regarding usuress) are resulting in you being perceived as a radical contributor intolerant of opposing views. Thryduulf 08:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * You are welcome to do your own homework. You are welcome to download full-history XML dumps and analyze over time the number of "popularizer" removals.  You are welcome to search discussion archives, deletion log entries and discussion pages for "spam" references yourself.  You are welcome to search out the "living (people|persons)" discussions yourself.  The WP:DUCK test can be used as evidence of the conspiratorial actions; while dispersed across numerous user talk pages, obviously does exist.  Your assertion that I have made personal attacks is unfounded...I have made factual observations about disruptive behavior and vandalism.  But thank you for confessing your personal opinion regarding me.  --Connel MacKenzie 18:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 * You make this too easy. Have you actually read the essay at WP:DUCK?  It's main point warns against what you spend most of your time doing here. -- Thisis0 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not convinced the use of spam to mean the addition of trivia meets any of the definitions given at spam. And I'd dispute that it doesn't belong there, unless someone can prove the citation is nonfactual. RJFJR 15:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Searching for coined & popularized in etymologies reveals abstract nonsense, regime change, retronym, WYSIWYG, etc. It is claimed that against the grain was popularized by Shakespeare and Iron Curtain by Churchill. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the revision in question. Now, per Ruakh, I don't normally remove the RFV tag for terms I've cited myself, but then we don't usually put etymologies to RFV either. To err on the side of caution, I move to strike. DAVilla 08:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The presence of two other errors is no indication that such a thing is encouraged. (I see two that mention living people.)  There is absolutely everything wrong with spamming Wiktionary articles with "popularizer" nonsense.  It is not relevant to word formation - you know; where the word came from.  It certainly is not relevant to how the term evolved.  --Connel MacKenzie 03:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The populariser is not relevant to how the word was formed, but it has everything to do with how the word is used. Part of the job of an etymology is to debunk incorrect "folk etymologies", which this does. Or would you rather it said "often incorrectly attributed to Rush Limbaugh, who has credited his friend Tom Hazlett, a professor of law and economics at George Mason University, with coining the term."? Thryduulf 08:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * That is an interesting rewording. I still have reservations about mentioning the media-culture personality, when that (as far as I can tell) does not have anything to do with the term, nor how it is used.  But is it even true?  That is, do people incorrectly attribute it to him?  --Connel MacKenzie 16:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I know precisely why "popularizer" in many cases is spam. I will be there agreeing with you on those.  Just open your eyes on this one.  Rush has everything to do with this word, how it was coined (in converstions with his friend), and how it has been used from it's inception till today.  His show bears the sole responsibility for nearly anyone using this word ever.  I know it's a bold statment, but any use of this disparaging term is certainly traced back to it's use by Rush, as there is no evidence of any other primary source.  And, as I've said twice already, popularizer is in context; the information is necessary to lead into who actually coined the term, who did so in personal conversations with Rush himself.  There's no question he bears the greatest weight for the existence of this word, and thus bears mention for his role. -- Thisis0 17:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I think the request has been answered, so I'm fine with striking this. Thryduulf 11:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Etymological RFVpassed. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Gee, wasn't it you that was just saying "if there is no dispute...the tag can be removed in a week" or something? Yet you, of all people, with blazing evidence of foul play on your talk page, deeply entwined in a personality conflict, decide to take action after three hours (i.e. as soon as you noticed)?  If you had any concern about correctness of the entry, you might have said so; clearly you did not, rather, just wished to force an invalid point...that a newcomer should be permitted to spam recklessly.  Brilliant.  --Connel MacKenzie 02:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * No, you brought this to RFV because you were confused about a date (you saw a book which you thought was published in 1951, remember?) in the etymology. The discussion has since moved on to whether this word’s “popularizer” ought to be mentioned in the entry’s etymology (an RFC, not RFV, concern). Noöne has disputed the verification of the etymology (not even you; you’ve just been bitching about spam); therefore, I was right to declare (with prompting) this etymologial RFVpassed. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 23:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * So, yea. I'm still waiting for you to rewrite it the right way.  Can I be of any help teaching you how to use the Internets? -- Thisis0 04:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the kind offer. I think I can manage a web-search myself, however.  I haven't removed the spam part, as 1) it is still being discussed, 2) there is some indication that other long-term contributors think I may be mistaken, 3) there is too much ancillary noise surrounding the discussion.  --Connel MacKenzie 16:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Struck; the etymology has been verified/fixed. (This isn't to say that we can't discuss removing part of the etymology, simply that RFV isn't the place to do so.) —Ruakh TALK 19:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

piippumies
Since they misspelled the language name, I am forced to doubt the validity of the entry. --Connel MacKenzie 02:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

 * That contributor is a native speaker of Finnish and a regular contributor of well-formatted Finnish translations and Finnish entries; I'm sure it was just a typo. :-) —RuakhTALK 03:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, it’s good. —Stephen 19:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Keep in mind that many FL contributors may be less than familiar with the name of their own language in English. Particularly when the language is Suomi, and the nearby languages that use "Fin..." only use one n. The n is only really doubled in English to distinguish it from finish, not even for pronunciation! So it is fairly odd ... If you were making some helpful entries for English words in the rw.wikt, you might find Icyongereza tough to consistently remember ;-) AF fairly regularly fixes variant spellings of "Synonyms" and the like that are clearly the result of FL influence; but it can't generally be correcting language names the same way. Robert Ullmann 07:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I wish to confirm the typo. Same error happens to me often, but most of the times I notice it myself before saving the entry. Thanks for the compliment, too! Hekaheka 12:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I am both surprised and relieved to hear this is a common typo for native Finnish speakers. --Connel MacKenzie 17:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahoy-hoy
Is this a common set phrase apart from ahoy? Dmcdevit·t 03:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't think it is one, but my understanding is that it was a set phrase in widespread use for quite a while in the not-too-distant past (maybe about 80 years ago?). —RuakhTALK 04:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Isn't that "ahoy-ahoy"? -- Visviva 01:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't know. Trying various b.g.c. searches, it doesn't seem like any of these was ever as common as I'd thought. —RuakhTALK 03:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, deleted. —Ruakh TALK 04:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

unmentionables
Euphemism for genitals? --Dart evader 21:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Only underwear. SemperBlotto 22:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

 * What, what? I think you are mistaken.  I don't recall ever using this term to mean underwear.  Is the UK definition the opposite of the US?  --Connel MacKenzie 22:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

 * For what it's worth, I've heard Americans use unmentionables to mean underwear (if I remember correctly, I even saw it used in that manner in an American television show). That's how the American Heritage Dictionary defines it. I'm not sure about that genitals sense. — Beobach972 23:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, part of the problem with defining such a term is that it's deliberately not being explicit, but I've always taken it to refer to underwear. —RuakhTALK 00:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Likewise. I was born and raised in the US, and “unmentionables” has always meant “underwear”, usually used sarcastically in order to mock the modesty that spawned the euphemism.  Rod (A. Smith) 00:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Note the contributor of the “genitals” definition. Rod (A. Smith) 00:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Yikes! Based on that alone, I'll agree with removing the sense.  --Connel MacKenzie 20:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Do we really need all of the senses, by the way? Could any of them (I am thinking of drawers and undergarments, or breeches and drawers) be combined? — Beobach972 03:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The UK definition comes from the Victorian era (What a surprise!) and meant underwear. Algrif 13:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

 * As an American who has watched British television for years, I have to say that the underwear definition is the only one I've ever encountered. --EncycloPetey 23:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have found a curious quotation. It's from The Amulet of Samarkand by w:Jonathan Stroud. The author is a Briton, the year of publication is 2003.
 * ...stumbling along in his pajama bottoms, scratching his unmentionables and sporting a folded newspaper under his arm.

Now, the question is: what exactly was it that the character scratched? His privates or his underwear? The underpants usually do not itch. Dart evader 16:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Ah, but they can be scratched through. If I say that someone is scratching at the sleeve of their shirt, surely they're not doing it because the shirt itches.  FWIW, I've generally heard it used to mean specifically womens' undergarments; nobody cares if you discuss men's underthings as they're not generally "sexy". --Jeffqyzt 15:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, I thought of this "scratch through" possibility myself. But then the author probably would've written something like "stumbling along, scratching his pajama bottoms". If those not too elegant "bottoms" are already explicitly mentioned, why resort to an euphemism in the following clause? Dart evader 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd have thought "unmentionables" referred to anything the speaker considered, well, unmentionable. This would make it a pretty-much all-purpose euphemism.  In most cases, though, it seems to mean "underwear" because this is what the American Heritage Dictionary plus numerous contributors take the word to mean.  RobbieG 14:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed; but if anyone would like to add a usage note addressing the term's potential for more general application, please feel free. —Ruakh TALK 04:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

okta
--Connel MacKenzie 22:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This and octa now cited. Thryduulf 09:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. Thanks, Thryduulf. —Ruakh TALK 04:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

octa
--Connel MacKenzie 22:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. Thanks, Thryduulf. —Ruakh TALK 04:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Gothardite
6 Google Books hits, all too old to relate to the definition provided. bd2412 T 23:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Usage of the term, in a derogatory sense, appears in the following locations:

http://www.batteredsheep.com/gothard.html

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/gothard/general.htm

http://xchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/02/corrosive-tentacles-of-gothardism.html

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976758266

http://www.womensspace.org/Introductions/60_2.html

...and many more. It's just rarely if ever explained. Perhaps an explanation should be included that although it may appear to be a neutral term, it may come across as derogatory. —This.

 * Unfortunately, it doesn't look like any of those pages is durably archived, so they don't count toward the word's meeting our criteria for inclusion (which are described at Criteria for inclusion). —RuakhTALK 01:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Deleted (along with today's.) --Connel MacKenzie 06:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

ligger
--Connel MacKenzie 05:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, English language-section removed. —Ruakh TALK 04:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

landammann
Wrong language? English citations use italics for this. --Connel MacKenzie 07:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this should be (Swiss) German. Thryduulf 09:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No – I read this in Black Lamb and Grey Falcon where it is not italicized (if that is really the guiding criterion). A glance at Google Books shows that it is only sometimes put in italics. Besides, it is used often enough in English to warrant an English entry. Widsith 11:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, every single Google Books result I looked at (and I can't remember how many this was) had it italicised. The same was true of Google News archives. Thryduulf 18:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

,, (three of the five English results on the first page of a Google Books search) all have it in Roman type. Anyway even if it were always italicized it is used often enough in English to merit an entry. Many foreign phrases are usually put in italics in English but we still have English entries for them if we are likely to use them rather than translate them. Widsith 09:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Landammann, cited, and RFV passed: there doesn't seem to be consensus to exclude such terms. —Ruakh TALK 19:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

scrape
Sense 2 of the verb should be the phrasal verb to scrape off. The definition itself states that the adverb is necessary. Algrif 13:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I really don't think this needs verification, since there doesn't seem to be factual disagreement over how the verb is used; I think you should just be bold and fix it. :-) —RuakhTALK 16:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Wait, on second thought, can't you say, "I scraped the crud into a trash can"? —RuakhTALK 16:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks. You're absolutely right. That's what I needed to know. I'll leave sense 2 in there and just add scrape off with the same meaning. Algrif 17:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks Ruakh for the be bold link. I hadn't actually read that page. It has put my mind at rest about many doubts. Algrif 11:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Kazi

 * Note: the title of this section was previously kazi. —Ruakh TALK 19:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Listed as English, but seems to be the word Kází (and only used with italics?) --Connel MacKenzie 17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Not a mis-spelling of the Brit term for a toilet (khazi (??)) by any chance? (Sorry, I'm not even sure how to spell it myself!) Algrif 18:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I thought that at first, but I've managed to find b.g.c hits, although all the uses are capitalised, so I've moved the page to Kazi. Thryduulf 18:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

 * As an aside. The UK slang for toilet was originally carzy or karzy (many spellings) and is thought by some to come from Italian casa (house). khazi is the most used spelling these days. SemperBlotto 07:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed; thanks, Thryduulf. —Ruakh TALK 19:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

bandoneon
--Connel MacKenzie 18:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's in the AHD. Spanish bandoneón is derived from German Bandoneon according to the RAE, which is itself eponymous for Heinrich Band. The Spanish is translated as concertina in my  Larousse Spanish/English dictionary, but as I said, bandoneon is in the AHD. --EncycloPetey 01:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Now cited; striking here. (EP already removed the RFV tag quite a while ago.) —Ruakh TALK 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

bandeleon
--Connel MacKenzie 18:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted (together with bandeleons). —Ruakh TALK 05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

paresteser
Swedish. --Connel MacKenzie 23:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 05:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

caca
Does anyone here speak Papiamentu? --EncycloPetey 03:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Papiamentu is a creole based mainly on Spanish and Portuguese, so the entry is probably correct. —Stephen 18:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm marking this RFV passed, because it's plausible, and I don't think the fact that no one here knows Papiamentu should count against it (though it does raise questions about how this section came to be). However, I'm marking it with, which unfortunately doesn't have any language-specific support, but what can you do? —Ruakh TALK 21:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

gunt
I deleted it on sight, but the contributor wasn't happy. When I originally checked I couldn't see much on the net apart from Urbandictionary, but I suppose there could be stuff on messageboards if anyone feels strongly about it. Widsith 16:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This word has been added and deleted four times by four separate individuals which would suggest to me a certain level of validity. -The Contributor 16:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Numerous references here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gunt+gut+cunt

 * Deleted. Contributor is welcome to add three citations conveying this meaning (not from secondary sources) from http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=gunt or similar.  --Connel MacKenzie 17:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Verification is highly unlikely. I've now looked at every viewable Google books result for "gunt" from 2002-2007, and found references to an abbreviation for a "National Union Transition Government" of Chad, a few surnames, a few instances of the name Gunter or Gunther split by a hyphen, a lot of returns in a language that I believe to be Danish, a few scannos of Curt, Cunt, gun!, gun?, gun", guilt, Gunval, gum, etc. No actual use of "gunt" relating to the definition provided. bd2412 T 18:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

man crush
Heterosexual? Um, no. --Connel MacKenzie 19:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just saw this phrase recently, and the referent was definitely heterosexual. I'm pretty sure it was a recent copy of Entertainment Weekly (my wife got it, and I was bored in the bathroom: don't blame me). I cannot find the article in question online. mentions (does not use) the term, but is interesting (to us as lexicographers). A Google News search on man-crush yields a number of use (not mention) results; doubtless someone with time (i.e., not me) can get dates for some of these and show use "in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year" per the cfi. (See, e.g., the links on that page for "2005" et al., to see sources from those years.) —msh210 20:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, woman crush seems to exist also, although I haven't checked whether it meets the cfi.—msh210 20:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the cites (rfv stricken.) I never would guess (and obviously didn't guess) an innocent meaning for this phrase, reading it.  That is, if a writer were trying to convey male bonding, envy, jealousy or admiration they would use one of those terms, not a phrase that is pretty certain to be misconstrued.  (Shrug.)  It might have been better to show the completely bizarre context the term is likely to crop up - by quoting the woman advocating leg-waxing for guys.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

달필
The characters are Korean but the term does not appear to be a Korean word for "family" in any sense. Rod (A. Smith) 20:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It means calligraphy. —Stephen 18:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks. The entry is now updated.  RFV withdrawn.  Rod (A. Smith) 22:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

veil fetish
Also veil fetishism. Zero g.b.c. hits for either phrase. SemperBlotto 07:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Two Views of the Veil explains the erotic aspects of veils.--Oraculum 07:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 * But even that page does not use the phrase "veil fetish" or "veil fetishism". It may or may not support the encyclopaedicness of the topic (I've not read it), but that is irrelevant here as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, Wiktionary is a dictionary. Compare our entry "veil", which deals with the word, with Wikipedia's entry "Veil", which is about the topic of veils. Thryduulf 08:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The reference added to the entry itself is a durable/print citation (Slate), but needs to have the quote extracted into the entry. User:Pistachio keeps trying to remove it, and I am concerned he is treading on POV/vandal territory. Robert Ullmann 08:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Um, you mean not durably archived, right? (At least for en.wikt: purposes, it is not.)  --Connel MacKenzie 19:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I already explained my actions on your talk page and said I wouldn't remove it again. I welcome the same concern beng shown about Oraculum adding "veil fetish" and female cicumcision to category:Islam. I welcome the same concern about someone linking a sexual fetish to any other major religion. Pistachio 09:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 * This looks like starightforward sum of parts. There is nothing in the combination of words that isn't plainly obvious from the individual components. --EncycloPetey 09:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Move to RFD as sum-of-parts, + not idiomatic + not set-phrase, etc. Delete.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Passed to rfd. --Dijan 03:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Link: WT:RFD. (Deleted, re-deleted.)  --Connel MacKenzie 17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

gunna
Is this verifiable dictionary material? --EncycloPetey 09:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 * 2,220,000 googles (more than I expected!) RJFJR 15:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd say so; see (198 hits),  (50 hits), etc. (That said, going by b.g.c. hits, it seems to be about 4% as common as gonna, which definitely warrants a usage note or something.) —RuakhTALK 18:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC) fixed 20:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh, I fully agree that gonna is Ditionary material. The question is just for the particular spelling gunna, which I can't say I've ever seen used. --EncycloPetey 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Oops, heh, I mistyped. Fixed now, sorry. —RuakhTALK 20:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Now cited and RFV passed. —Ruakh TALK 17:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hagnos
Supposed to be English. Not properly formatted. Caps? Any takers? SemperBlotto 16:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think this calls for deletion, clean up yes. I am a noobie however =) —Scott 16:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Cleaned up. —Stephen 18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but is it a word? It is in none of my dictionaries and does not seem to be in the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible - and no hits in Wikisource. SemperBlotto 21:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a word- See: Strong's Dictionary 53
 * That is an example of "mention" (in a dictionary). We need evidence of actual "use" in an English text. There are several hits in google books, but each one just talks about the word (even saying it is Greek, not English) rather that just using it naturally. SemperBlotto 07:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you SemperBlotto and —Stephen! —Scott 21:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, here are some usages of the word hagnos: —Scott Smith 15:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Used in an english sentance: "straight like a heart that is hagnos" - all examples in italics showing they are not English
 * Usage in Textus Receptus it is the 12th word in blue - the 12th word in blue is Greek, not English!
 * Greek to English translation of Actual word used in above verse: Translation - mention, not use
 * List of other uses in the bible:Usage - all Greek

In regard to the second section added to the posts I made directly above: SemperBlotto, are you petitioning for deletion or for the word to be moved from English to Greek? First you said it is not an actual word, now you seem to be admitting the words existence but in a different language. Please excuse my lack of experience, I am learning and willing to contribute to the wiki communities. † Scott Smith 04:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't think anyone is disputing the existence of the Greek word, but it should of course be written in Greek rather than the Roman alphabet. -- Visviva 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes. It isn't Greek - because it uses the wrong alphabet. It isn't English - because it is only ever mentioned rather than used, or used in italics or quotes. My best bet is that it is a transliteration - and we don't accept those. SemperBlotto 07:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree, this spelling seems to be only a transliteration in English. Moved to ἁγνός. —Stephen 20:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed — not English — redirect to Ancient Greek entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 04:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

for all intensive purposes
This issue started with the addition of the phrase "for all intensive purposes" to the "alternative form" section of for all intents and purposes. When it was then removed, a new article was created, for all intensive purposes, to bolster the position of the contributor, who then re-added the incorrect variant to the list, complete with internal link. This "alternative form" is simply an uneducated person's mishearing of the idiom. A malapropism. More precicely referred to as an "eggcorn." The entry for eggcorn lists this very error in its examples. The Wikipedia article for eggcorn literally links to the Wiktionary article for all intents and purposes illustrating the common error. We cannot have articles linking to illustrative errors, only to find the mistake supported here without so much as a usage note! Please see the top three hits on Google: True, a lot of people are using the incorrect variant -- but the fact that it is common means it should get attention at places like the Eggcorn Database rather than be canonized here as an "alternative form." It seems to me the new article goes against WT:CFI and WT:CFI. The incorrect variant has to be removed from the main article for all intents and purposes because there is nothing there to differentiate to the reader between wrong and right. It just looks like "another variant you could use." Do we actually make articles with misspellings listed in the variants section? And, the new article for all intensive purposes must be deleted, or at the minimum, it should be changed to #, or simply redirected to the actual phrase.Thisis0 18:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I may not feel quite as impassioned about this as Thisis0 seems to feel, I certainly agree with his/her point. This is a malapropism, gibberish masquerading as sensible English.  In the context of any given usage "for all intents and purposes" will likely mean something, but, if "for all intensive purposes" is pasted into that usage in its place, the odds are slim to to none that it will mean anything. -- WikiPedant 18:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I too, am not particularly impassioned about this entry, I have heard it and said it, here in the US. The American use of "intensive" as an intensifier makes this a very natural US variant.  While "the odds are slim to none that is will mean anything" in British English, the opposite is true in the US, where the archaic "intents" form is more likely to be hyper-corrected.  En.wiktionary.org is not Wikipedia; when such obvious (very) widespread use exists, it is beyond naive to not list it.  To list either entry without the mention of the other (and the relevant warnings) would be irresponsible.  (So, is this a spillover edit war from Wikipedia?)  --Connel MacKenzie 18:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 * No spillover from Wikipedia. However, good job -- this is now a spillover from your own ongoing British-US culture war.  Why do you play that card so often?  Furthermore, why are you playing the U.S. card in the sense that you are proud to be wrong.  (You say you have heard the incorrect variant and used it.)  I am American. Born and bred.  As such, I feel strongly in asking that you do not tarnish our standing further by waving our flag for ignorance and always taking every chance to point out our differences.  This especially applies here, where the truth is the same on both sides of the ocean.  One phrase is correct; the other is and always will be a mistake. You make a good point about including it to prevent misuse.  Go ahead and list the relevant warnings on for all intents and purposes, and leave the UK stuff out of the article at for all intensive purposes.--Thisis0 19:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 * You can assert that you are American - if justified a CU check could show if you are, or just another British contributor pretending to be American (wouldn't be the first time this week.) At this point, I would say that it is not justified though - you could be from a region where this is (conceivably) unacceptable.  So then, are you suggesting that intensive itself is not an intensifier?  Or are you suggesting that your "prescriptivism" applies to set phrases?  This has an astonishing number of b.g.c. hits; publishers do not agree with you.  For all the things that Wiktionary has that really is falsely listing errors as valid, this one case is very much the opposite.  The pedants have it quite wrong.  Not by some small margin (as is usually the case for contested terms on Wiktionary,) but rather, by a mile.  The etymological origin of the phrase has been overshadowed by popular use.  That is the simplistic basis for all "descriptivism" (which I normally decry.)  --Connel MacKenzie 18:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * While I don't agree with the claim that "for all intensive purposes" can never be correct, I really don't think it's currently correct in Standard English. Arguments to be made include: arguments from etymology (I think we can all agree that whatever the current status of "for all intensive purposes", it originated from a misunderstanding of "for all intents and purposes"), from meaning (looking through Google and b.g.c. hits, it seems that people who write "for all intensive purposes" nonetheless mean "for all intents and purposes", though it's hard to be sure), and from frequency ( gets about 6% the hits that does, and  gets about 15% the hits that  does). Taken together with the various authorities that proscribe "for all intensive purposes", I think we have convincing reason to label it nonstandard. —RuakhTALK 19:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * By the way, I do not object to marking it as - you do make a good case for doing so.  That is what we have a References section for.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree. It really is just garbled English that has become widespread in the North American vernacular. Numerous Google hits don't make it standard, any more than the 98,000 or hits for "asterick" or the roughly 170,000 for "asterik" make those terms legitimate alternative spellings of "asterisk."  The wedding and car stereo handbooks and electrical engineering texts now cited on the page just provide evidence of the popularity of the error.  I have no problem with maintaining an entry for such a widespread usage, but it really should be flagged as the misconstruction that it is. -- WikiPedant 19:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Of note: when I said "astonishing number of b.g.c. hits, I am referring to http://books.google.com/, not http://www.google.com/. There is an enormous difference between editorially reviewed material and completely raw HTML text.  --Connel MacKenzie 17:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with Thisis0/WikiPedant: Change to "misspelling of" (or, better yet, "incorrect for" or "eggcorn for" or some such. Although it is, of course, a misspelling, too, it is easier to see how it's a mispronunciation, or simply an incorrect choice of words, than to see how it's a misspelling: the spelling is not what people erred on, but the pronunciation). —msh210 13:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Connel MacKenzie's cites made me redact. —msh210 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I respect that sentiment of "put up, or shut up." I should provide cites more often, but it is very time-consuming; usually my time is better spent elsewhere.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Although this is bigger than this debate, how about a section "common errors" or "common misspellings" on the correct forms of misspellings entries, that contain unlinked mentions of common errors. For example we have an entry pocker as a common misspelling of poker, should the poker entry mention the common misspelling? I don't think it would harm if it is labelled as incorrect. Likewise here, I think "all intensive purposes" should be listed at all intents and purposes but clearly marked as an error. Thryduulf 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It seems mostly pointless to me to list erroneous variants at main entries. The only reason I see for doing so is that listing erroneous variants will make it less controversial to list putatively-erroneous variants. —RuakhTALK 22:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Then it is pointless to list anything that isn't listed in all other English dictionaries. That is quite opposite of how en.wiktionary.org has functioned for the past few years.  --Connel MacKenzie 18:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Re: "Then it is pointless to list anything that isn't listed in all other English dictionaries.": I don't see how. Could you make your trail of thought a bit more explicit? —RuakhTALK 19:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, it would be unfair to claim that such a philosophy is mine. When I started contributing at en.wiktionary.org my views were somewhat (!) different.  As a result of discussions with a genuine lexicographer, I've learned to apply the concept "inclusion with explanation is better than omission."  A significant portion of the content here on this site remains, due to that ideology.  To issue a blanket prohibition on an entry because it is an error is (in that light) simply the wrong thing to do.  If we were to take that approach, we would need verifiable references pointing to other secondary sources to back up every entry.  It follows that if we were to do that, it would not be reasonable to allow bias from one or another regional reference.  If that doesn't answer your question, could you restate it more clearly?  --Connel MacKenzie 19:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Some cites added from the first tiny smidgen of b.g.c. hits. --Connel MacKenzie 18:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Blocked POV for edits to this page, for one week.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I've removed some of the POV comments creeping their way back in. It is painfully obvious that this is not rare; the references themselves identify it as "common" or "very common."  Ironically, the POV comments seek to prohibit knowledge of why it is so common, a sentiment I find very odd (in the context of recent discussions.)  From a British or etymological perspective, this is probably considered an error, but in the US it is a more natural construction (and more emphatic construction) that the dated/archaic "intents" variant.  --Connel MacKenzie 17:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Also of note is Doremítzwr, as always, pointlessly finding citations for very rare or obsolete, not widely accepted variants. While I agree with him that WT:CFI is obviously broken, his method still seems the wrong way to go about it.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Ok, dude. The cites you provided for your own baby "for all intensive purposes" are all wedding and car stereo handbooks and electrical engineering texts, and it's already been shown how you missed one of the cites used in a different (proper) sense.  Why bitch against the other guy plentifully citing similar erroneous phrases.  You said yourself that this stuff should be here to prevent misuse.  Why bitch -- cause it wasn't your idea? -- Thisis0 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 * What I’m doing has the chief intention of showing you just how much this phrase gets mangled — often by people who are adamant that their malapropistic form is the correct one (usually due to ignorance, but sometimes due to a weird pride in being different, however wrong; behaviour which, if I may say so, you have been exhibiting in regard to this (true, common) malapropism) — and just how many people object to such mangling. Whilst my personal view is that these various errors should be given redirect entries point to for all intents and purposes, where they can be documented as common malformations, WT:CFI being what it is, they are instead given their own entries (which is better than their being left unmentioned — as you said hereinbefore: “inclusion with explanation is better than omission”). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Firstly, it doesn't make sense to claim that "for all intents and purposes" is "dated/archaic" in the U.S.: gets more than 300 times the hits that  does. (Using <tt>site:us</tt> instead, the difference is less dramatic, but it's still a more-than-fifty-fold difference.) Secondly, while it's true that "for all intensive purposes" isn't terribly rare on an absolute scale (getting almost as many Google hits as "supercalifragilistic"), it's very rare compared to "for all intents and purposes". Thirdly, note that "for all intents and purposes" is actually more emphatic than "for all intensive purposes", since "all intents and purposes" includes absolutely all purposes, including even intensive ones. (Though that's actually pretty irrelevant, since I don't think anyone ever chooses between the two expressions; "for all intensive purposes" exists only for those who don't know the correct form.) —Ruakh TALK 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The gov sites apparently have filters or proscriptions invalidating them as representative. (Simple statistics of .gov vs. .com demonstrate that.  Site:.us is mainly a sub-set of .gov sites under a different TLD.)  The fact that you bring up a point that has already been addressed before indicates your arguments are not in good faith (nor rational.)  Your insistent prescription against the common phrase is likewise surreal; calling it "only for those who don't know the correct form" is not only wrong, but unsubstantiated.  Language changes and adapts; because "intensive" is a very common colloquial intensifier and the meaning is similar, it fits better in the American version of the phrase.  If we are supposed to be showing how something actually is used, it doesn't make sense to prescribe an old-fashioned British way of saying it.

 * The same old clique rallies to the same old (invalid) defenses, it seems. Doremitzwer, I cited the form I know to be common; we enter idioms for the most common form.  While your analysis is interesting, those "manglings" are much less common, rare or unheard-of.  As I said above, I added only the first handful I came across on the first page of search results.  You entered every historical error ever recorded for each of the others.  Which really has relevance to English, particularly Modern English?  (No, I do not wish to hear the obtuse arguments about "linguistic Modern English" again; on Wiktionary the convention is to consider items out of use for 100 years as obsolete.  For these discussions, I do not consider obsolete terms to be part of modern English.)  While yours is an interesting approach, it seem to me to still be intentionally disruptive (as so many other activities of yours have been.)  Rather than trying to identify the cause of a genuine linguistic variant, you instead try to push a bizarre prescriptive-POV while at the same time diluting the relevance of the genuine term?  Bizarre.  --Connel MacKenzie 21:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No way. You, sir, need citations that claim this mistaken group of words "fits better in the American version of the phrase." Are you honestly trying to push the POV that this wrong phrase is the more correct in America?  You, lone man, do not get that privilege.  I am all-American and I say you are dead wrong.  It's not better, it doesn't fit better, it's not more common, it does not make much sense in syntax, and we will not advocate it as such.  We will report the truth on what it is in our language.  1.) No, it is not rare.  2.) It did arise from a mishearing of "for all intents and purposes"  3.) "For all intents and purposes" is far, far from obsolete.  4.) Reporting the truth does not ban people from using any phrase they like.  This is a language site for goodness' sake.  People come to learn things they don't know, not have people blithely tell them what they are already doing.  Report the truth, and if you still back the POV that this is better in American, get the citation.  We've provided half a dozen American cites that say the original is "better."  Oh yea and I'm new -- so much for "same old clique." -- Thisis0 22:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 * That's an interesting spout of vitriol, yet completely misplaced. I never said "...intensive purposes" should be the preferred entry, I said "...intents and purposes" is likely to be hyper-corrected.  Your blathering (was that a threat?) about my response to the very rare forms that a vandal entered with equal status as the common form is just bizarre.  Your comments way near the top of this exchange ("play that card...") imply that your newbie status here, is indeed, misleading.  Or perhaps not...you possibly could get that interpretation from misreading snippets of long (scattered) conversations.  As for providing citations for the single use of a word in a discussion area; nah.  --Connel MacKenzie 17:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 * You said, "because "intensive" is a very common colloquial intensifier and the meaning is similar, it fits better in the American version of the phrase." I asked you to justify and cite this POV you've been pushing or lose it.  Regarding "rare forms entered with equal status", this is precisely what you did originally at for all intents and purposes, which led to this whole polite discussion (see top), not to mention repeating this same vandalism at usuress.  As far as "play that card" and being new, it only took me a day to notice your ubiquitous US-UK bitching on every page, and when you started spouting it immediately in this, my very first RFV, it was infuriating.  The reason so many kB are wasted around you is because people have to tell you the same things eight times when all you provide in return are red-herrings, derisive comments, false accusations, conspiracy theories, name calling, and spiteful jabs.  Is this really the way you guys like things here?  If so, let me know.  If you are reading this, speak now.  I need to know if I am at all in the wrong -- aside from lowering to this cad's level and joining in his personal attacks. Should he have continual license to attack this community without repercussion?  Do we really want a community where has it become a familiar admonishment to "just ignore him; don't let him get to you; don't stoop to his level, think about how you word things with an eye to not pissing him off?  This has to stop, and you, the community, must speak up now.  Unless you like it. -- Thisis0 20:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Too long to read. No longer interested.  Rod (A. Smith) 20:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The problem is that Connel doesn't think the rules apply to him. He doesn't have a single, specific reason for thinking this; rather, in any given discussion, he'll find a reason to claim that they don't (such as a "common practice" that no one's ever heard of, or a Wikipedia policy that's tangentially relevant). Sometimes he can't even find something resembling a reason (like at on this page), and has to resort to insisting insanely that he's already supported his claims with evidence. Now, the good news is that usually Connel does roughly the right thing, so it's not a huge deal that his motivation has nothing to do with following the rules; the bad news is that when what he does isn't the right thing, there's no way to convince him of it, because there's no argument that he considers more relevant than "This is what Connel has believed since the start of this discussion." Ultimately, we might have to have a vote to de-sysop him; but I'm really hoping it won't come to that. —Ruakh TALK 22:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Ruakh, whilst I agree with your description of his behaviour, I strongly oppose the suggestion that Connel be de-sysopped — that would only be appropriate if he were to misuse his specifically administratorial privileges; to his credit, he has not done that (as far as I am aware) — for example, he may have unjustifiably tried, and failed, to get me blocked, but at least he didn’t do so himself. Even if Connel were de-sysopped, it would not change his behaviour (all his dodgy actions, as far as I can tell, could just as easily have been committed by him even if he wasn’t an administrator). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

 * That's mostly true, but keeping him as an administrator implies to new users that we, as a community, endorse or at least condone his behavior and consider it to be in keeping with the spirit of the community. Even new users who have interactions with other editors, and therefore see that Connel is not really representative of the community, could hardly be blamed for thinking we're at least O.K. with how he acts. (By the way, I openly apologize for having this discussion here, as it's clearly not the place for it, but I really don't know what place there is for it, and the discussion seems to me to be necessary.) —Ruakh TALK 04:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I think that for such situations the only thing we can do is write the bitten newbie a note explaining Connel’s obnoxiousness. I believe that the good he does with his administratorship outweighs the implication that we condone his negative actions. Thinking about it, Connel’s actions are more appropriately dealt with by issuing a short-term block than they are by his being de-sysopped. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is RfV, not RfD. Citations have been provided. That should be the end of the discussion. Other issues can be taken up in the Beer Parlor. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed, of course. RFVpassed. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

biblical proportions
Shouldn't this be under the adjective form of biblical proportions instead? The definitions given don't seem quite right. SemperBlotto 21:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it should be under the adjectival form too. Even the current entry uses the adjectival phrase in both its examples. -- WikiPedant 00:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I moved it to of biblical proportions, listing it as a prepositional phrase (functioning as an adjective). I'm not a trained linguist or grammarian, so there might be a technicality that I'm not aware of, but it's just my feeling that it is a prepositional phrases.  If other editors feel that it is indeed an adjectival phrase, then it can be re-edited to fit the consensus (and most definitely the more learned) view. SonPraises 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

of biblical proportions
Supposed to be a prepositional phrase that functions as an adjective. But definitions and translation are for nouns. SemperBlotto 07:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I've re-worked the definition of to reflect it's adjective. I've attested it's use going back 24 years in sources as diverse as Ghostbusters and Time Magazine and speakers as diverse as Tedd Kennedy, George H. W. Bush and Henry Kissinger.  I have not found a widely consulted dictionary to reference the usage.  (AHD uses it as an example sentence under biblical in the sense of very great in extent; enormous. (This sense falls flat, I think.  One's ambition might be "very great in extent" but to call it "biblical ambition" would not convey the same thought.  And calling the Hindenburg a "biblical blimp" would not communicate that your opinion that the blimp was enormous.  But using the phrase "of biblical proportions" to describe either ambition or a blimp, conveys the meaning of that particular sense of the definition."

 * Okay, so what else does the entry lack in terms of verification?
 * SonPraises 09:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Nothing. Well done, it's fine now. SemperBlotto 09:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. Thanks, SonPraises. —Ruakh TALK 23:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Pharmageddon
Protologism? Caps? (nasty format) SemperBlotto 12:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * *Groan* — that was not fun. It’s a neologism. The initial majuscule is warranted, as (I think) this is a proper, rather than a common, noun. It has six citations, but I’m unsure how valid they are (due to durability of archiving and actual-quotation-lacking issues); though even if they’re not, Pharmageddon gets 32 Google Scholar hits, so I’m sure some quotations could be gleaned from that lot. I rewrote the definition, which seemed to be a copyright violation (well, it was copied from elsewhere, whether it was copyrighted thereby is unknown to me). I suspect Aspro didn’t know what he was on about, as he listed two translations — one Dutch (but which, I guesstimate, is actually a translation from some Scandinavian language (judging from the ‘a + kroužek’ (å) and the ‘o + stroke’ (ø)) — someone will need to check which language it is; a link to the original context is provided by it), and the other American! (I knew the dialects had some differences, but was unaware that they were beginning to be regarded as separate languages!) –The latter, needless to say, was removed. I also hid the usage note and the reference for reasons given thereinbefore; if someone could address those issues, that would be grand. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The URL is a .dk, that is, Danish. And the language used supports that. (Actually, there seems to be slightly more hits for the spelling "farmageddon" - mainly English ones, including a mention in wordspy, though I'm not sure if these are supposed to have identical meanings or not) \Mike 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Without looking myself, I’d imagine that Pharmageddon (which implies pharmaceuticals) is distinct from farmageddon (which I’d guess implies farms and thus agriculture). Pharming and phishing are other examples of this meaningful f/ph switching (and the first one directly relates to the farm/pharm(aceuticals) pair). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

RFVpassed. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

paulo post futurum
English? --Connel MacKenzie 18:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Definitely — Google Book Search yields 366 results. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It now has three citations for its one sense. Should the synonym Real Soon Now be capitalised? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, I don't agree that is "definitely." The first page of results there seem to be secondary sources (or otherwise failing use/mention distinction.)  <playing my card again> There seems to be a preponderance of British-origin links there?  Likewise, I don't think any of the three cites you already added (thank you, by the way) pass use/mention.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, they seems like examples of use to me, but if you can show that they’re actually just mentioning the phrase, I shall happily find valid citations. I recognise that the use/mention distinction can be a little tricky to grasp, so I accept that I may be wrong about that here. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * One in italics, one in quotation marks and one in all caps? That is still zero citations.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It now has five citations — the latest two have no such special formatting. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 22:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. I'm a bit iffy on this, but have decided to err on the side of inclusion. If anyone wishes to re-RFV this, I will not object. —Ruakh TALK 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

smelt
Requesting verification for both metalworking noun senses ("slag" and "the process of producing iron and steel from iron ore"). Thryduulf 20:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think so... or rather, it has some metallurgical sense...
 * 1968: Metals Abstracts, by the Institute of Metals and American Society for Metals
 * [...] the reacting agents for the smelt being fed to the metal bath through [...]
 * [...] below and above the bath surface, and the gases escaping from the smelt being [...]
 * 1996: Arthur J. Wilson, The Living Rock: The Story of Metals Since Earliest Time and Their Impact on Civilization
 * When the smelt was complete the crucible could be lifted out and the metal poured directly into the moulds, thus avoiding the need to break it up and remelt [...]
 * 1997: Applied Scientific Research, page 386
 * When the bulk amount of the base metal of the alloy is smelted, the small amount of solute metal is added to the smelt by turning the reservoir around the [...]
 * 2000: Julian Henderson, The Science and Archaeology of Materials: An Investigation of Inorganic Materials, page 280
 * [...] can vary in different positions in the furnace and during the smelt.
 * 2000: Transactions, by the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy (Great Britain) and the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
 * [...] the cakes of metal from all the smelts can then be melted together, [...]
 * 1842: John Jay Smith, Robert Walsh, Eliakim Littell, eds, The Museum of Foreign Literature, Science, and Art
 * [...] and forty-eight of brass, afforded a beautiful metal, which possessed time qualities I sought
 * [...] and that the smelts had continued to [...]
 * 2000: Julian Henderson, The Science and Archaeology of Materials: An Investigation of Inorganic Materials
 * Furnaces are unlikely to survive the smelts; all that often remains on metal production sites is just furnace bases and broken fragments of furnaces [...]
 * — Beobach972 05:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Here's one more, one I didn't quite understand (look it up, it's quite peculiar) :
 * 2000: Linda Hurcombe, Moira Donald, Gender and Material Culture in Archaeological Perspective, page 130
 * Women are allowed to play some small part in the smelt If they are breastfeeding [...]
 * — Beobach972 05:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I think it means the mixture used for smelting, usually ore and charcoal. Have I put this comment in the right place please? --Kylemew 15:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Slag it seems is the waste product after smelting, so smelt is a noun but is not slag. I started from here. --Kylemew 16:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The noun (1) sense is the output of the smelting process (sense 2). The smelt is the (semi-)liquid you get from heating up the ore, and the slag is the waste portion  of that output (often in the form of solid or semi-solid inclusions.)  You would take your smelt (sense 1) and then further refine or amend it into your desired alloy.  Hence, while the smelt may contain slag, it is not (just) slag.  Most of the quotes above that are metallurgical in context refer to the process.

 * I can't find a good illustrative quote in online sources at the moment, but here are some using the "result" rather than the "process" sense, for documentation purposes.

 * 1982, Raymond E. Kirk and Donald F. Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology
 * The green liquor, ie, the solution obtained on dissolving the smelt, contains an insoluble residue called dregs...
 * 1997, Anthony Lawrence Kohan, Boiler Operator's Guide
 * ...[it] reacts with the smelt in the furnace...
 * 1998, Deanna J. Richards, Greg Pearson, National Academy of Engineering, The Ecology of Industry: Sectors and Linkages
 * Dissolving the smelt liberates some hydrogen sulfide and particular matter...

 * I haven't added these at the article, as the definition "slag" needs to be rewritten. --Jeffqyzt 16:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, smelting is not solely confined to the production of iron; you can, for example, smelt lead ore to produce lead (don't breathe the vapors :-) --Jeffqyzt 16:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Senses merged and RFV passed; thanks, all. —Ruakh TALK 21:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

precum
b.g.c. shows this as always hyphenated (or two separate terms?) in English. --Connel MacKenzie 20:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * a Google groups search of alt.sex.stories* shows ~10,900 for "pre-cum" (hyphenated or two separate words) and ~6,090 for "precum" (one word) . Based on this, I suggest marking precum as an alternative spelling of pre-cum. Thryduulf 20:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The b.g.c. results I saw (ahem, yes, before nominating it) were all non-English. --Connel MacKenzie 03:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * search for precum erotic (not as a phrase) and there are plenty of English results (9 of the first 10) spanning at least 1996 to 2006. I'll add the citations to the article this evening (don't have time now). Thryduulf 09:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I've never seen it spelled outside a dictionary, encyclopedia or other similar resource with the hyphen. Also... it's a slang word and we're worried about its hyphenation? Ric | opiaterein 16:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I read quite a lot of erotic literature, and I've seen it spelled both ways. I vaguely recall one poorly-edited story using both "precum" and "pre-cum" in consecutive sentences! (I'm very rarely picky about which of a pair of alternative spellings an author should use, but a lack of internal consistency in a work is one of my pet peeves!) . Verification coming later (not on my own PC atm) Thryduulf 19:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * precum and pre-cum both now cited. "precum" also gets a lot of hits in a language that reckons is Latin, which probably needs an entry. Thryduulf 22:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I think in Latin precum means something like of prayers (that is, it seems to be the plural genitive of prex "prayer"; you might recognize the root from its English cognates imprecate and deprecate). —RuakhTALK 22:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A couple of books clearly had an ecclesiastical context, so of prayers would make sense in that regard. Thryduulf 22:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Yep, genitive, plural form of prex, feminine noun, 3rd declension, I think Ric | opiaterein 23:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed; thanks, Thryduulf. —Ruakh TALK 05:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

personage
"a famous and important person"? Thryduulf 21:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The first of many definitions in the OED is ''1. a. A person of high rank, distinction, or importance; a person of note. Freq. with qualifying word, as great, important, etc.'' (and normal plural) SemperBlotto 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I got "A person of importance; a man or woman of distinction; a being regarded as having an individuality like that of a human being". I thought the last bit about non-human personages was interesting. I can't recall ever having heard or read it used in that context though. Anyone? --Kylemew 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed: this word is clearly in widespread use, and as far as I know this is its primary sense by far. If you're saying that you're familiar with this word, but believe its sense to be different, please re-list. —Ruakh TALK 04:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

filk
The hits at b.g.c. suggests this is a common scanning error for milk (somehow.) --Connel MacKenzie 03:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * All the ones I see are scannos for silk. But if you search on filk music you'll find lots of uses. Robert Ullmann 17:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm only familiar with the "parody" usage, which to me is independent of the science fiction/fantasy context. The references in the Wikipedia article Filk music suggest that the main sense should be verifiable. Thryduulf 09:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * If you read only the Wikipedia page, yes you can easily get that impression. But there don't seem to be supporting uses; only that one secondary source.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Huh? I don't follow? The 'pedia page gives plenty of sources. I'll confess to a bit of filk singing meself at an SF convention. (Don't know about the Photoshop sense.) Robert Ullmann 17:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction gives numerous citations for the word filk: the noun is cited as early as 1953; the verb sense of writing or performing a filk is cited as early as 1978. The information about it being an error for folk pertains to the original etymology of its 1953 use.  That is, the word originated as a typo, but has since become a word in its own right.  I'm not sure how milk comes into this. --EncycloPetey 00:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Both noun and adj (look for filk science fiction at bgc for noun, filk song for adj.) Also for more history, see . I looked at this rfv several times thinking folks surely *must* have been discussing the photoshop def.  ArielGlenn 06:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Photoshop sense RFV failed, removed. I'm working on citing the musicky sense, because I know it exists and I don't want to delete it. —Ruakh TALK 01:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Now cited and RFV passed. This can also be used as a verb ("filking" gets plenty of b.g.c. hits), but we can get to that later. —Ruakh TALK 01:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

only if
Does this meet our CFI (it needs formatting anyhow)? I know we have if and only if and if only. SemperBlotto 08:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is definitely a set phrase with a specific, technical meaning in mathematics (my field): if its being a sum of parts is your worry, that should (à la prior knowledge) alleviate your concern. Otherwise, I'm not sure what's wrong with it, as there are countless hits in books, etc., with the meaning that's listed in the entry. —msh210 15:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I just contradicted my own stance in the discussion, above, on genuine issue of material fact. Ah, well, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. —msh210 15:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * In mathematics, only if is idiomatic, because (unlike other uses of only) it doesn't imply if; P only if Q means Q if P, and in particular, it does not mean the same is P if and only if Q. —RuakhTALK 18:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * P only if Q means Q if P ? Surely you mean P only if Q means ~P if ~Q ! Robert Ullmann 17:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * You're right that P only if Q more narrowly means ~P if ~Q, but this seems like a distinction without a difference? :-/ —RuakhTALK 01:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I think Robert means that "Q if P" is incorrect. You meant to say "Q implies P", I think. No, I'm not sure what you meant. --EncycloPetey 01:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * By "Q if P" I mean "if P, Q" i.e. "P → Q" i.e. "P implies Q" i.e. "Q ← P" i.e. "Q is implied by P" i.e. "~Q → ~P" i.e. "~P ← ~Q" i.e. "Q is true if P is" i.e. "if P is true, Q is" i.e. "if Q is false, P is" i.e. "P is false if Q is". (I'm not just being crazy, am I? I really think all of those are the same. It hasn't been that long since I've used a contrapositive.) —RuakhTALK 01:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * For purposes of this discussion then, are you distinguishing betwen "P if Q" and "P only if Q"? Those aren't the same to me, but your discussion implies they are synonymous.  In particular, "P only if Q" shluld not mean the same as "Q if P".  Yes? --EncycloPetey 01:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * By my understanding — which I was really pretty sure of until this discussion — "P only if Q" and "Q if P" are exactly equivalent (and hence might as well be synonymous), and neither is equivalent to "P if Q". —RuakhTALK 02:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Drat, I can't find the nice litle book I used to have on symbolic logic (and can't remember the last time I had it). Most of my mathematical texts are either too general for this, or cover the wrong subdisciplines. --EncycloPetey 03:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Q if P. P implies Q. P only if Q. P is sufficient for Q. Q is necessary for P. It is probably not surprising that the first three of these say the same thing, but perhaps not at all obvious that the last three say the same thing as the first three. […]
 * Unfortunately, the only textbook of mine that I can remember covering this sort of basic terminology is one that wasn't actually a published work yet (it later became this book), so I don't think it's a good idea to put it in the references section without being sure the published version had the same text in the same place. What it says is:
 * We have already mentioned that the implication P ⇒ Q can be expressed as both “If P, then Q” and “P implies Q”. In fact, there are several ways of expressing P ⇒ Q in words, namely:
If P, then Q.
 * (That's from Gary Chartrand, Albert D. Polimeni, and Ping Zhang, Mathematical Proofs: A Guide to Understanding the Basics of Abstract Mathematics and Constructing and Writing Proofs of Your Own, as it stood at the end of 1999, Chapter 2: Logic, pages 27–28.)
 * —RuakhTALK 14:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * OK, but it needs hammering into some sort of proper format. SemperBlotto 07:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm marking this RFV passed under the "clearly widespread use" clause, and adding. —Ruakh TALK 02:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Red Rectangle
Any astronomy buffs around care to provide a reference for this? (For astronomy, what should be checked?) --Connel MacKenzie 18:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Linked to the 'pedia article; catalogue number is correct. There are plenty of references there and googlable. Is this a placename that meets CFI? (Just kidding.) Robert Ullmann 17:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Thank you. I'm pretty sure we had an explicit exemption for genuine celestial objects.  Google book search didn't turn this up; is there a handy filter or qualifier I should apply in that case?  --Connel MacKenzie 20:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh, I see. http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?protocol=html&Ident=Red+Rectangle.  I'll add that to my sidebar tools.  --Connel MacKenzie 20:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Now cited and RFV passed, even though it doesn't actually meet the CFI, because Connel will accuse me of POV pushing if I actually enforce that clause. —Ruakh TALK 00:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

lapsus linguae
This is a Latin phrase. The citations given are almost all in italics; the anti-put-it-in-the-correct-language-heading cabal incorrectly marked this as RFVpassed. --Connel MacKenzie 19:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Of course it should be kept. It is used all the time in English books and conversation.  Yes, it is sometimes used in italics but that does not by itself exclude it.  The real test should be whether or not a word/phrase from another language needs to be translated to be understood.  Widsith 19:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Note: this RFV is for the English section only. (Interesting that there isn't even a Latin section - probably non NPOV vandalism somewhere along the way.)  --Connel MacKenzie 19:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't know who let slip we even have that cabal; we're definitely going to have to censure him/her at the next meeting. :-P  —RuakhTALK 21:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Note also the invalid references; one says it is Latin (unlike their normal notation from) while the other reference link is a dead link. --Connel MacKenzie 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I think this confusion arose from the fact that, whereas we would write <tt> From lapsus linguae. </tt> in the etymology of such an entry, lots of other dictionaries (like the COED [11th Ed.] for one) just give the source language, in which case the etymon is presumed identical. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I think you might have misclicked? For me, the one that was a dead link (which I've now fixed; thanks for pointing it out) was the same one that (once you clicked the "did you mean" link) gave simply "Latin" as the etymology; the other one doesn't seem to mention Latin at all. And the one that does give Latin as the etymology includes both an unqualified pronunciation and an "Eng." pronunciation, which does seem to suggest it acknowledges it as an English word. —RuakhTALK 22:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for fixing the links. --Connel MacKenzie 00:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel I need to restate my complaint about this entry. My initial tone has thrown this entire conversation out of whack.

The basic rationale for having an ==English== section for this term is as follows: learned scholars use this pompously in English contexts, so we would be negligent to omit it.

That "dumbing down" of Wiktionary is unacceptable, as it ignores several things. One is that 'learned scholars' know it is Latin, and therefore always italicize it. It also ignores the implicit pomposity of deigning to use that in English; on IRC someone suggested using a template amidst laughter. It also ignores the fact that 'learned scholars' will usually explain it immediately (depending on the audience they are addressing.)

The entry for lapsus linguae should be ==Latin==, not ==English==. A very brief stub ==English== section might also be warranted, if couched with sufficient warnings (i.e. it should always be italicized and it conveys an enormously condescending tone.)

--Connel MacKenzie 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Keep as a foreign term used in English. This Latin term is not used in all languages. Not all Latin terms are used in English. This Latin term is used in English and real dictionaries such as Collins and Merriam-Webster include it as such. Encarta does not include it and the Spanish RAE dictionary does not include it . Interestingly, the RAE Spanish dictionary includes it with a hybrid orthography where both words retain their Latin spelling but Spanish use of the acute accent to indicate stress is used. — Hippietrail 03:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC) (ammended Hippietrail 03:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

 * This is a request for verification. The examples (so far) of English use do not show it being used as English; they show it as being used as Latin within English contexts.  --Connel MacKenzie 14:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

 * What kind of use would you consider to be properly English, rather than Latin-in-an-English-context? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I did not say "Latin-in-an-English-context," rather, I said Latin. As in, "'learned scholars' know it is Latin."  I do not see the point of dumbing-down Wiktionary, calling Latin terms English.  --Connel MacKenzie 07:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Note the new Icelandic translation seems to be for "Freudian slip" not "lapsus linguae." --Connel MacKenzie 08:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Do you consider words like cliché or frisson to be French and not English? They often still appear in italics.  Surely if a word is regularly used in English sentances without being translated there comes a point where you have to accept that it is part of our language as well.  Widsith 17:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * You’d think so, after over a hundred years of usage. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 22:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, Widsith, I don't uniformly italicize "cliché" when I write it, but then, I usually write the English word cliche. But the accented version certainly does appear in English without italics frequently, (if not more often than in italics.)  I am not familiar with the word frisson.  What then, does this have to do with the Latin term lapsus linguae?  --Connel MacKenzie 17:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Both the Icelandic translations mean the same as lapsus linguae. --BiT 21:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you aren't entering translations like that routinely. Those seem to be synonyms (in Icelandic) not a translation of the Latin phrase.  If that somehow is translated from Latin "lapsus linguae" to Icelandic "slip of the tongue" directly, it should be entered as a translation.  But that is more than a little hard to believe.  --Connel MacKenzie 16:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)  That is, how would you translate the sentence "He made a slip of the tongue, or as we say, a lapsus lingue."?  --Connel MacKenzie 16:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Kept. —Ruakh TALK 21:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

science
Sense #4: The fact of knowing something; knowledge or understanding of a truth. I see something similar at Webster's 1913 (sense #1) but I don't think that this use exists in English, outside that one Bible quote. Was it mangled in rewording? Should this be marked as obsolete, or removed as not being a distinct sense, or kept with better example sentences and a better definition? --Connel MacKenzie 17:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * No it's definitely OK - this was the original meaning of the word. I don't think it's used anymore, except perhaps in theology.  I will look for some cites.  Widsith 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * This meaning is retained in its antonym, nescience. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh, that is cool. Thanks.  I think my  should be removed.  Keep.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Could somebody still provide a quote or an example, please? Hekaheka 05:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added the Biblical quote with this sense. There's another in the book of Daniel, but its interpretation is not as clear. --EncycloPetey 05:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

soz
Searching b.g.c. yields a lot of name matches, but not this use. --Connel MacKenzie 20:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it really any surprise that text messaging slang is not widely found amongst the traditionally more formal writing of books? Anyway, I've cited this from newsgroups (I found the search term "soz for" helpful to eliminate most name matches). I'd appreciate someone running their eye over my formatting, as I'm never confident of how to fit usenet messages into a citation style that feels designed for formally-published works. Thryduulf 21:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the cites. Whoops.  I must've had a connection hiccup when I searched groups and got only eight results the first time.  Odd that there is such a prevalence of .uk groups returned there; if this is specific to teh interenets of the UK, that would be an amazing first.  But, I'm not that interested in it, so I'll just rescind my RFV here.  (The references link seems to be broken?  Or is the U2 site supposed to link something with "soz" in it?)  --Connel MacKenzie 23:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The link is working for me. It leads to a (The Register) article with the headline "U2 says soz for online snafu", although the word doesn't appear in the body of the story.
 * I'm guessing the prevalence of UK hits is due to text messaging being a far bigger cultural thing outside the US (mobile telephony is one of the few areas where the US is behind the times technologically). Although I remember getting told off by my parents for using "soz" instead of "sorry" a long time before mobile phones. I know the telling off happened in about 1990 (certainly before we moved house in July 1991), I got my first mobile in the summer of 1999 (and have never been into text speak). Thryduulf 00:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I guess it makes more sense that it is a common British term that crossed over to texting naturally, rather than a texting invention. The various forms of 1eetspeek tend to be very international.  So, seeing it touted as an internet-texting invention threw me off; I've never heard it before, only because it really is a UK term?  Interesting.  By the way, texting is very popular with the younger generations here.  Very popular.  --Connel MacKenzie 07:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at a few more g.g.c. hits this does seem to be (originally?) primarily British - not something I would have guessed. Thryduulf 08:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * FWIW, in GenAm (texting or internet,) I'd use "sry." --Connel MacKenzie 15:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

ars musica
--Connel MacKenzie 23:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I can't find any primary sources for this definition at b.g.c (one secondary source, and one quote of a secondary source in a commentary about that work). However it is clear from many sources that "ars musica" means "art of music" in Mediaeval Latin. There are some books in Italian and French containing the term, but I can't tell whether it is a part of either of those languages.
 * Very, very few English language g.g.c hits are anything other than proper noun usages, even when excluding the word "Denver" (Ars Musica Denver was a widely mentioned music publication that apparently ceased production in 1995. I did see two posts containing the given meaning, however one was a list of slang phrases and so was a mention not a use; the other one quotes it from somewhere else with a tone that suggests to me the author is casting doubt upon its meaning, or at the very least the author is not familiar with the term in that context. Again there are a lot of Italian hits that someone who speaks the language should look at. Thryduulf 00:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, deleted. Thanks for the research, Thryduulf. —Ruakh TALK 21:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

off book
Dangherous/Wonderfool. Not like off the books; just sum-of-parts? --Connel MacKenzie 02:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Seems legit; I've cited the sense and added another. Don't think this can be regarded as compositional; as a non-theatrical person myself, out of context I wouldn't have known whether this meant "without the book" or "from the book."  (nor would it necessarily be obvious what kind of a "book" is meant.) -- Visviva 03:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed; thanks, Visviva. —Ruakh TALK 20:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

selectorized
Really? bd2412 T 04:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Google Books, I take it back. bd2412 T 05:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

for fake
Taking the quote as given, I get two b.g.c. hits. This is supposed to be a set phrase? Move to WT:BJAODN, if it were actually funny. --Connel MacKenzie 06:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Now cited. (This seems likely to be a series of independent nonces, but as it stands, it does seem to meet the CFI.) —RuakhTALK 13:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. —Ruakh TALK 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Gemeinschaftsbildenden
Never heard of it. Found no reference (at least not for usage as a noun). --Zeitlupe 19:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. (Feel free to re-create as whatever part of speech does exist.) —Ruakh TALK 21:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Gesellschaftlichen
Never heard of it. Found no reference (at least not for usage as a noun) --Zeitlupe 19:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My copy of Flügel, Schmidt, Tanger doesn't have this noun, only the adjective. Mind you, the edition I have is dated 1904 so won't include 20th century coinages. --EncycloPetey 19:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. (Feel free to re-create as an adjective entry.) —Ruakh TALK 21:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem
Creator of the entry marked it both "English" and "Latin". (1) Is there any evidence that this can be called "English"? (2) Is this a Latin idiom, or just a maxim/quote/piece of advice? --EncycloPetey 19:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It looks like the creator didn't mean to say that this term is English, only that "Remember to keep a clear head in difficult times." is the English translation of it. —RuakhTALK 02:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

English RFV failed, removed. Latin RFV passed, as it's an oft-quoted-without-translation line from Horace, so I think we can count it under "usage in a well-known work". (I realize that doesn't really make sense for a sum-of-parts phrase, but I think it's something we can expect people to look up. But, listing on RFD in case anyone disagrees.) —Ruakh TALK 03:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

hierophany
Didn't see this in a quick check of other dictionaries. There seem to be a lot of b.g.c. hits, but no consistent use or meaning. (Again, from only a cursory glance.) Is this worth cleaning up (that is, is it correct?)  --Connel MacKenzie 04:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm going to trot out my undergrad philosophy degree (which leaned fairly heavily into religious studies) and say I'm pretty sure it is a word, and I'm pretty sure it does in fact refer to the manifestation of the holy. I note that we (and other dictionaries) have the related form hierophant. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent source, by the way: Mircea Eliade's Vision for a New Humanism. bd2412 T 05:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Hmm, I would have said hierophancy. But this may be out there.  Widsith 09:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Connel is right that a wide number of meanings are discernable in the b.g.c. hits, but it seems to me that a clear majority of hits (and hits from what I would consider the most respectable sources) support the definition provided. I'll dig deeper. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the definition as per the Wikipedia article (which is, to its credit, referenced, albeit a bit stubby), but I’m unsure if the citations I’ve provided support it (I tried to broaden the definition to save sense-splitting). Someone else wanna check? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. Thanks, Doremítzwr; it looks fine, and if it isn't … well, it will have to do. :-) —Ruakh TALK 23:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

itihāsa
Supposed to be Sanskrit, but uses wrong script. Wikipedia link is to a redirect. SemperBlotto
 * Did we ever decide which scripts were to be used for Sanskrit? I know that in America, Hindi is frequently written in Roman letters, even on products with no English used on them at all.  --EncycloPetey 04:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is Sanskrit. See the online edition of Monier-Williams (you'll need to search for itihāsa in the page).  The article currently uses IAST, which is a fairly standard way of writing Sanskrit.  GRETIL, for example, uses it for nearly all texts they host. -- Arvind 14:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

joust
Second noun defintion - "a disgustingly fat and contemptible individual". Thryduulf 08:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Searching joust fat OR oaf -jousting on books.google.com yielded nothing among the first 100 results. —msh210 13:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh TALK 22:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

bicycle
"A literal translation: pony."

Huh? --Dart evader 18:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That was added by User:CORNELIUSSEON - who has added some strange things in his time. I shall remove it. SemperBlotto 19:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nullopep
Zero Google hits. Word does not exist in the reference given. (should be uncapitalized if it is real) SemperBlotto 22:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Contributor agrees (by email) that this new word has not yet been published. deleted SemperBlotto 10:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

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

title: Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/July 2007