text:
Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/July 2007

=July 2007=

levvy
With two v's? bd2412 T 04:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Common misspelling of luvvy . perhaps? --Connel MacKenzie 04:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I had my smiley in the summary, but not here. --Connel MacKenzie 04:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) :-)

 * I've had a quick look through google web, books and groups searches and found:
 * Lots, and lots of uses of "Levvy" as a surname, including an widely-cited academic making books searches hard
 * "Levvy" used in comics-related newsgroups as the name of an award of some sort, presumably named after a person with the surname "Levvy". It might be worth checking to see if this meets our CFI
 * Quite a few misspellings of "levee" (including at least two different parodies of American Pie)", the most frequent use of "levvy" with a small "l". I don't know whether this will meet our CFI though.
 * One or two uses of "levvy" that are either misspellings or archaic spellings of "levee"
 * One or two misspellings "levy", extremely unlikely to meet the CFI
 * No misspellings of "luvvy" Thryduulf 23:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, deleted. —Ruakh TALK 22:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

whigger
--Connel MacKenzie 04:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Google Groups suggests that wigger is a wee bit more common, but yes, this is real. Are you RFV-ing wigger as well, or just this spelling — as in, do you doubt the word's existence, or just that it's spelled like this? (I'll cite it either way, I guess, but it would be nice to know.) —RuakhTALK 06:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I should have clarified: I have serious doubts about this spelling. I have no doubts that the word (spelled correctly as "wigger") is in use.  --Connel MacKenzie 16:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The whigger spelling is important, as an apparently intentional conflation with the Whig Party (either one?). (Of which members at the time were just called "Whigs"). So the spelling is very real, and the reference to Whig should be noted. Robert Ullmann 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 * So, a British variant of the American slang term? --Connel MacKenzie 18:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow! Our definition of Whig is pretty misleading.  There were a couple years where the term was used attributively by a nascent (temporary) American political party, but the term means the British party - it is in every way reminiscent only of British politics.  --Connel MacKenzie 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a choose your own adventure: either RFV passed, or RFV failed but cited by Kappa before anyone got around to actually marking it failed. Either way, entry retained. —Ruakh TALK 22:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

gronk
Four definitions given; all seem copyvios, unattested, or both. There should be, perhaps, the onomatoepeic "definition" from the cartoon. But the floppy drive? No, even when I still used 3.5" or 5.25", it was never called 'gronk'. (Nor even when using 8" floppy drives!) --Connel MacKenzie 04:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

 * RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 22:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

synodicer
--Connel MacKenzie 05:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Rubbish. Deleted SemperBlotto 06:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there were several related terms, as well? --Connel MacKenzie 07:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It had been created by TheCheatBot because synodic had been wrongly formatted as a noun. SemperBlotto 08:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's sort of what I meant. I think I got the others cleared, with it.  --Connel MacKenzie 16:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

4649
--Connel MacKenzie 06:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * delete --Williamsayers79 15:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 * May be good; I can't tell if it is citable in use (mentions are easy); it will take a fluent native speaker (I can't skim google returns in Japanese the way I can in English ;-. It does make a great deal of sense. (more than l33t) Robert Ullmann 16:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Wouldn't that imply the language heading should be ==Japanese==? --Connel MacKenzie 20:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 * This is very common as a Japanese "abbreviation" (I’m not sure that abbreviation is the best word). 4 = yo; 6 = ro; 4 = shi, 9 = ku ... yoroshiku (よろしく) ("I’m glad to make your acquaintance"). On Google, it gets over 140,000 hits. —Stephen 17:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me we should treat it as a textspeak-style contration, e.g. the English m8 and cul8r. Thryduulf 18:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It's real, like txtspk or leet. I even found a cite for it. Cynewulf 19:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * ...which brings us back to the question of whether it is English or not. I'd close the Japanese portion of this RFV on the strength of Stephen and Cynewulf's assurances that it is common in Japanese, but there's still an English section on the page... — Beobach972 02:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Whoops, someone added the Japanese section, instead of correcting the L2 language heading? (I don't think anyone contests its existence in Japanese.)  --Connel MacKenzie 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * rfvfailed for English (left as Japanese) Cynewulf 18:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Abacot
A historically notable misprinting. I'm not really sure what to do with this, as it has no real meaning. Opinions? Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I would make it an bycoket, with =Etymology= notes on how it originated.  Widsith 09:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up, moved to abacot. —Ruakh TALK 22:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

five alls
--Connel MacKenzie 02:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * From the google books hits, it is easy to see that the definition given is correct. However the first few pages of hits refer to its use on signs of pubs called "[The] Five Alls". There is scope for an encyclopaedic article about the sign, but I'm not certain about whether "five alls" is dictionary material, especially as there are occasional variations with four or six.
 * Looking to see whether there should be an English entry for "alls" (the page exists as an entry for a Catalan word) it seems likely that this is an archaic term, but I've not been able to find many uses of it outside the proper nouns e.g. as above. Does the OED have anything on this? I suggest a transwiki to en.wp if it is decided this is not suitable for wiktionary.
 * alls is used in medical literature to mean "acute lymphoblastic leukemias", but I'm not certain if this is an acronym or an initialism, or whether the singular "all" is used. It certainly meets our CFI though.
 * "alls" is also found in plurals of noun phrases that end with the word all, e.g. know-it-alls, free-for-alls, cure-alls. It is also used as a misspelling of "all's", a contraction of "all is". How do we include these? Thryduulf 10:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It's also often a jocular pluralization of all (that doesn't actually affect the meaning). As far as I can discern, this is due to a misspelling/reanalysis of dialectic all's (which seems to originate in all as, as being a dialectic variant of that in many senses), influenced strongly by the survival of all's in a few stock phrases (such as "All's I know is […]") in dialects where as is no longer otherwise used to mean that. —RuakhTALK 15:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 * This is archaic but was once a very common phrase otherwise it wouldn't have been used to name pubs. The name has been heavily used in Stokely Green (near Stokenchurch) in Buckinghamshire where it has appeared on a pub, a car garage and is now emblazened across a private house with very similar mottos to the quotation given.  The humour behind the phrase has stood the test of time.  I think the phrase it should be included as archaic as an idiom, but current as a pub name. It certainly deserves a Wikipedia article too. Thorskegga 14:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed as a common noun; moved to Five Alls. —Ruakh TALK 03:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

pinner
Adjective sense. Not in any other dictionary. SemperBlotto 09:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, section removed. —Ruakh TALK 23:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

strikethrough
strikethrough as a verb?? Surely this is the phrasal verb strike through. Algrif 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like it. I googled for struckthrough as a potential past form and got 105,000 hits.  All the listing I looked at were functioning as adjectives for the first few pages of returns. --EncycloPetey 16:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Ditto my comments below for strikesthrough. Algrif 15:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed: cited quite a while ago, no objections since. —Ruakh TALK 23:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

cum whore
The only b.g.c. reference that supports this is a secondary source - all others seem to be the form "x-cum-whore", e.g. "secretary-cum-whore" or "businesswoman-cum-whore" in stark contrast to the pointlessly peruile definition proffered. --Connel MacKenzie 16:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In contrast, look at the google groups results, where you will find many thousands of uses in the "adult" meaning. Thryduulf 20:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Um, no. I sure "adult" meanings can be found, but not that one.  But nevertheless, I didn't see any on a cursory look at b.g.c.  Instead, I found lots of "secretary-" and "businesswoman-" references, which mean only whore (in a literal or figurative sense.)  --Connel MacKenzie 19:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * No doubt, but it's not really a set phrase. Widsith 08:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. (Note that our one reference completely disagreed with our definition, and our one quotation didn't 100% agree with our definition, either.) —Ruakh TALK 23:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It girl
? --Connel MacKenzie 16:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This has already passed RFV, about a year ago.--Dmol 21:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Not exactly. With no discussion, and no citations, it was incorrectly marked as "passed" for no apparent reason.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Couple of comments. I rfd'd the original def – The actress Clara Bow, and later I added the def "a rich party girl, socialite" which seems to be the common understanding of the term. Discussions that followed were,

''The article lists the only def as "the movie actress Clara Bow". I'm thinking of the more modern (chiefly British???) definition of a rich party girl, socialite, bimbo etc. Does the def as stated exist, and if it does, surely it should be relegated to second place.''

--Dmol 22:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

''It girl, in my experience, is more of a flavor-of-the-month appellation; e.g., who's hot at the moment. See the Wikipedia It girl article. BD2412 T 15:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)''

So which meaning is in dispute? Is the term chiefly UK?--Dmol 10:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

General sense RFV passed, as it seems to be in clearly widespread use in the UK. (?) Specific sense RFV failed, removed. —Ruakh TALK 16:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

strikesthrough
Only one citation, and likely a typo. --EncycloPetey 17:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Can we transfer the entry to strike through? Algrif 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a good idea. --EncycloPetey 20:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Not if you consider strikethrough, strikingthrough, struckthrough, and strickenthrough. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Have you tried a Google search on strikingthrough and strikesthrough? I am very uneasy about the validity of strikethrough as a verb. As a noun, OK. struckthrough and strickenthrough as adjectives, OK. But I really do not see any support for the verb form. All the hits are either 1) mis-spellings. 2) Taken from computerspeak and blogs. 3) Using the noun form as a verb incorrectly. If this was a real verb, then it would be strikethrough strikethroughs strikethroughed, whereas the actual forms given are strike as an irregular verb plus the particle through. It's a phrasal verb. Convince me it isn't. Give book citations, please. Algrif 15:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The entry for strikethrough already has the requisite three citations for the verbal sense (and they are all books). Or do you deem these invalid? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strikesthrough now has six citations. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * So it qualifies as a common misspelling then. --EncycloPetey 18:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Common misspelling of what? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Of strikes through. --EncycloPetey 21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Do you think so? The noun comes from “strike + through”; the verb comes from the noun; the inflexion comes from the verb, with knowledge of the “strike + through” ultimate origin retained. I believe that “strikesthrough” is used intentionally, not mistakenly as “strikes through” with the space omitted. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * If those citations are to be believed, (livejournal is not durably archived for CFI) then it is a slang British-ism, while simply an error in GenAm. The compound word is the noun strikethrough; as much fun as verbing words can be, it is still incorrect to verb part of the noun.  It would inflect as strikethroughs / strikethroughing with no past or past participle conceivable, if one wanted to be intentionally incorrect.  But splitting a compound word does not allow re-attachment after inflection (perhaps that is not true in BrE?)  --Connel MacKenzie 23:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * [See my combined reply after your bulleted comment immediately hereinafter. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)]

 * Who keeps entering "cf." in actual entries? Gender abbreviations are the only abbreviations allowed in entries (except of course, for direct definition references.)  Use "confer" or "compare."  --Connel MacKenzie 23:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Even if the Live Journal quotations are deemed invalid, the other four citations mean that strikesthrough nonetheless meets the CFI. Why is such verbing incorrect? –Please provide reasons and/or references. Why is cf. disallowed? What about and ? Is e.g. expected to be written as exempli gratia? This all sounds very doubtful — cf. is a common and well-known Latin abbreviation used in English. Please point to the policy or section thereof which states what you assert. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

 * This is Wiktionary. WTF?  Get with the program.  --Connel MacKenzie 17:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Simply, Connel, you’ve yet to give a good reason for not using these Latin abbreviations; so I, who think that they are appropriate, am not going to stop using them just because of your personal preference. You have misrepresented your opinions and preferences as being “common practice”, policy, or shared by (an) authorit(y/ies) more than once in the past, and that is, I believe, what you are doing now. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't know whether Connel is citing actual established practice in this case, but for the record, I'm with him in opposing the use of "cf." in entries — though perhaps not for exactly the same reasons. I'm O.K. with "e.g.", "i.e.", "etc.", and other common abbreviations with specific meanings (though for myself, I prefer "such as", "that is", and "and so on", or other such English equivalents); but "cf." just means "and by the way, you might also be interested in this entry, but I won't tell you what part of it to look at or what connection I think there is". Wiktionary is not paper; we have room to actually explain the connection. If you can't take three seconds to explain the relevance of the entry you're linking to, you must not think the link is so important; so why include it at all? —RuakhTALK 17:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Ancient history, but very solidly established practice: and a precursor to what eventually became WT:VOTE! Beer parlour archive/October-December 05. --Connel MacKenzie 00:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * That settles it then. I shall only use the abbreviations sg, pl, m, and f from now on. Connel — could you move this obscure piece of case law to somewhere more accessible (pertaining to WT:ELE?) to make future reference thereto easier? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 02:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I use cf. consistently to mean “carefully distinguish between this X and the similar yet vitally different Y”; writing cf. is a lot neater than writing that kind of thing every time (especially in pronunciation sections et cetera). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * But if not everyone knows that that's what you mean by it, then people are liable to take the exact opposite interpretation. (In this case — strikesthrough linking to strikethroughs — it's liable to be misinterpreted as "Note that the normally inflected form strikethroughs exists as well.") —RuakhTALK 20:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Point well made. I now oppose its use for the definitions of strikesthrough and strikethroughs. I shall consider possible misinterpretations of cf. in future. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I just did a Google search on strikethroughing It's barbaric. I sometimes wish we had a Royal Academy of English‼ So strikethrough as a verb must remain. But as Connel suggests, what about the past and past participle?? I need a good strong cup of something to get over this. (or should I be getovering it?)Algrif 16:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm going to add the phrasal verb a.s.a.p.Algrif 16:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

 * All that is needed now is someone with the stomach for it to correct the third person singular, present participle, simple past and past participle forms on strikethrough to read correctly, not the barbarised forms of the phrasal verb that are there at present.Algrif 17:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Google Book Search returns no examples of “strikethroughs” as a verb form; moreover, searching for “strikethroughing” and “strikethroughed” yields no search results in either case. The past tense and past participle forms are, of course, “struckthrough” and “strickenthrough”, respectively; nota bene that whilst conducting a normal Google search for “strikethroughed” yields 535 hits, searching for “struckthrough” yields over 180 times that number, giving 97,700 hits. No “corrections” are necessary. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As a postscriptum, note the following interesting example of this process of continuing to treat a verb as its two separate constituent morphemes and inflecting it accordingly here: “How about just sharing the text that’s in the cell and describe what characters are strikedthrough (struckthrew/struckthrough?)”. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I suspect that a large number of those struckthrough results will be adjectives.Algrif 18:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The supremacy of computerese is why I sometimes wish there was a Royal Acad. of English. I think it is bad use of English. But then English is as English is spoken. Find the quotes and other examples, and that's it. That is why I reluctantly have to agree to the verb form. But I still think (personal POV) it is a barbaric way to treat the language. Algrif 18:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree somewhat (especially in re strikingthrough). What prescription do you feel is appropriate? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * (Shrugs shoulders and moves debate to WT:BP )Algrif 15:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. *sigh* —Ruakh TALK 00:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

shath
Claims it's a portmanteau of shower + bath, given to children. A quick google books search shows only 36 hits for "a shath" with none supporting; seems like nonsense. --Jeffqyzt 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Google Books search for shath bath OR shower also gives no support. On the Web: I didn't note dates as I was going along, but, hey, you have the URLs. Those are all (I think) blog entries or comments on blog entries, so they should have dates. But note that shath has at least three different meanings on the pages I've quoted (which is why I've quoted them so extensively). —msh210 07:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * : shath (shower-bath)
 * : my bower (shath? We have a bathtub, no shower, with two separate hot and cold taps, so we bought a shower attachment that we could hook up to the taps and have the water come limping out of one nozzle. It is not a very strong shower, water pressure-wise, and we can’t stand up in the tub (even if we wanted to, the roof slants so it’s between 3 and 5 feet high from one side of the tub to the other so all we can manage is an uncomfortable half-crouch that is worse than sitting).
 * : a shower. Well, sort of a bath. A Shath I suppose. No shower curtain meant a shower sitting down in the bath tub.
 * : what I like to call a Shath. I've been shedding like a dog in july but even though I clean out the drain after every shower, I guess enough hair goes down (or other stuff, I don't know what's down in those pipes) that the shower tends to get clogged early on in the shower experience, causing the showeree to have both a bath and a shower at the same time. a Shath.
 * : shath (shower+bath)
 * : taking baths... or shaths (standing up in the bathtub, using the handheld shower and trying not to spray all over the room)
 * : He kind of takes a bath, but gets rinsed with the doggie shower head. So I guess we can call it a shath.
 * : You fill up the bath with a little bit of water (but not so much that it's a bath!) then get in and shower as usual, except that it's not a shower - it's a shath
 * : I shower and wash my hair, then fill the bath up while I put leave-in cinditioner on my hair and when I finish soaking I put the shower back on and wash it out. I call it a shath
 * uses what I like to call a bower or a shath to refer to sitting in a bathtub with the water running on oneself.
 * : I showered off after that [bath] (my friends and I refer to this as a "shath")
 * : Hairy people, or women who refuse to clean their hairballs out of the drain all inevitably cause shaths. A shath is when you attempt to take a shower, but because there's enough hair over the drain to make Jason Alexander a toupee, you end up taking a bath.
 * : something we nicknamed a "shath." Basically, we would stop up the drain to fill the bottom of the shower with about an inch and a half of warm water to bathe Hope while the shower ran overhead.
 * These quotes aren't useful, because the author for pretty much all of them seems to have neologised the phrase - call it simultaneous neologisation if you will --Keene 18:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 00:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

glad rags
--Connel MacKenzie 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've heard this in the lyrics to the theme song from the original BBC version of The Office: "the handbags and the glad rags that your granddad used to sweat so you could buy." With the two citations currently on the page, that makes three. I think it should be marked (UK) though. --EncycloPetey 18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That song is Handbags and Gladrags, originally by Rod Stewart and covered a couple of years ago by the Streophonics (I don't know which version is used in the theme to The Office). Independently of each other Rukah and I have added another group of cites, so I think this one has been comprehensively verified. Thryduulf 18:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, striking. Kappa 02:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But you didn't properly tag it as ? The only US cite is a secondary source of dialect-isms.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * No, it's originally a US term - I heard it started as cowboy slang. Widsith 08:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

back of a bus
Were they trying for the English idiom "a face only a mother could love"? --Connel MacKenzie 18:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is another British idiom with two forms, comparing usually people but sometimes other things to the "back of a bus" or the "back end of a bus". It means that the person or thing being compared is ugly, or at least very unattractive. cites:

 * "back of a bus"
 * 1) *2002, Simon Avery, a little buzzed, a lot cheesed off, alt.geek
 * My great-aunt just died 2 days ago. She was a catholic nun. Spent all her life in prayer. Fat lot of good it did anyone. The prevailing concept in the family was that with a face that looked like the "back of a bus" there was no way she could get married and there weren't that many other careers available for a woman at the time. I think that was one of the worst wastes I've seen in my life.
 * 1) *2004, Robert B. Waltz, New Haven, Forest Hills R16 Rankings, rec.sport.tennis
 * The fact is that a 16yo who's playing well and blitzing through the rankings is hot even if she has a face like the back of a bus and a body like a tank. Youth and novelty count for a lot to these guys.
 * 1) *2005, "nemo", Beeb sports reporter mangles the English Language!, alt.fan.goons
 * The prettiest one of the lot - can't remember he name - turned out to be gay though and ended up going round with one with a face like the back of a bus!
 * "back end of a bus"
 * 1) *2001, "Richard", "A sign of our times...", demon.local
 * Not really fighting over her (puns aside). When you get a current beau and an ex, full of booze and testosterone, meeting up, their common interest isn't much of an issue in the subsequent display of machismo. I think she looks like the back end of a bus but, to them, she was a 'possession'.
 * 1) *2004, David Platt, "DUCHESS OF YORK NUDE", uk.politics.misc
 * You surely can't be comparing Alicia Witt with Sarah Fergusson? Alicia Witt looks stunning, while the duchess of Pork looks like the back end of a bus.
 * 1) *2006, "sheelagh", "Bookie: Did you adopt the blind cat?", rec.pats.cats.health+behav
 * As I once told him,being british,looking like the back end of a bus or weighing 30stone, was utterly irrevlevant to the posting i made
 * "back end of a bus, not a person"
 * 1) *2002, "Tanuki the Raccoon-dog", I drove a..., uk.rec.cars.modifications
 * Must admit, I like the *original* 911s - the original, late-1960s ones back before they fitted bulgey wheelarches and silly tea-tray rear spoilers. They look much more like delicate, precision instruments compared with the later 'sledgehammer" versions [which IMHO are about as attractive as the back end of a bus].
 * Thryduulf 19:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 * These seem like entirely compositional similes; "back of a bus" is not actually used to mean anything other than the back of a bus. -- Visviva 04:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is obvious that being compared to the "back (end) of a bus" means "ugly", rather than literally looking like the rear of a bus then perhaps it doesn't belong. I'm not certain that is obvious though. Thryduulf 08:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It wouldn't be obvious to me. The question is, where should we define a stock simile like this? At like the back of a bus? —RuakhTALK 16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 * As it happens, one of my back burner projects is a standard simile appendix. (Surprised?) There are a lot of them, and I think it could be a useful resource. As black as coal. As white as snow. As strong as an ox. As ... as and like similies are quite hard to find, but the Wikt is ideal for producing this kind of resource and making it easy to use just by checking the headword adjective / adverb. ugly would lead the reader to As ugly as the back end of a bus. Algrif 16:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But that phrase has only three Google hits and no g.b.c hits, whereas "like the back of a bus" has loads (and is a very well-known and understood phrase in the UK) SemperBlotto 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC) p.s. Old-fashioned double-deckers were asymmetrical at the back with an open platform at the bottom left - such faces are normally thought to be ugly.

 * For what it's worth, here's a print quotation for the like (adjective) use:

 * 1) *2005: Will Hadcroft, Anne Droyd And Century Lodge
 * ‘You’ve got a face like the back end of a bus,’ he spat, his eyes raw and burning. Then he grinned, his yellow-stained teeth spreading across his mush [...]
 * ...and here's an example of it as a noun:

 * 1) *2003: Glen Duncan, I, Lucifer
 * Adam was no back end of a bus either — the sloe eyes and sculpted cheekbones, the tight buns and chiselled pecs, the abdominals like a cluster of golden [...]
 * — Beobach972 17:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't think I've ever heard (or noticed) this British idiom before. Given the abundant (diverse) citations, I think it is fair to say "rfvpassed."  --Connel MacKenzie 06:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Except it is wrong as it stands. The expression is "like the back end of a bus" (adjective phrase), not just "back of a bus" (noun phrase). The definition is for this adjective phrase. I'll change it and let the current entry redirect to the full phrase. — Paul G 11:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are two forms of the idiom, used in the same manner. I am familar with "back end of a bus", but "back end of a bus" is just as verifiable. Thryduulf 11:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. —Ruakh TALK 01:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

After timer
--Connel MacKenzie 18:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 01:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

GILF
--Connel MacKenzie 18:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It's used to refer to ‘women mostly between the ages of 50 and above’, eh? Hmm... — Beobach972 16:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * PS- I'd have guessed it stood for girl I'd like to feel... — Beobach972 16:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Same here, I assumed it was a variation of "MILF". Thryduulf 17:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought it was GMILF. bd2412 T 02:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Also of note is the signature wording of the "Usage notes" section, exactly in the form of previously deleted nonsense. --Connel MacKenzie 20:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, deleted. —Ruakh TALK 01:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Information exchange
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

typewrite
The verb is (and was) to type. --Connel MacKenzie 04:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * now cited. Thryduulf 09:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Typewrite is bad enough as a verb, but I'm truly impressed by the use of comuter percentage as a verb in your 1935 quotation ... — Beobach972 16:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It was actually "compute percentage". It's fixed now. —RuakhTALK 16:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd like to see a usage note (if nothing else) explaining why the word type is favored now. --Connel MacKenzie 20:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * If it citeably is preferred, and the reason for this is citeable, then go ahead and add such a usage note. My guess is that in current usage "typewrite" is used almost exclusively to specify the use of a typewriter rather than a computer, with "type" used generically; but I've not looked to see if there is any supporting evidence for this. If it is the case, then the usage note could say this, but I'm not sure that it would be accurate to say that "type" is preferred over "typewrite" as the meanings are different, in much the same way that neither "write" nor "handwrite" are preferred over the other, although the former will naturally get more usage being the generic term referring to all forms of writing, whereas the latter is only used in circumstances where the distinction is important. Thryduulf 22:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. —Ruakh TALK 01:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

gun fu
--Connel MacKenzie 21:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 01:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ç'
— Beobach972 23:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "ç' and çfarë" gets about 414 Google books hits, but the ones that appear relevant are not in English (and it's hard to tell whether the apostrophe is necessary, as Google will return all results with a letter "c" in response to this inquiry. There is definitely a word, çfarë, but in what language and with what meaning, I can't tell. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are some examples showing both çfarë and ç' as a combining form, but I can't even guess the language. ,, bd2412 T 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It's apparently Albanian; see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0352030/. —RuakhTALK 00:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Albanian was my guess, based on one of the German books (which was a discussion of Albanian, and mentioned it), but, as you say, a number of the most relevant quotations are not in English. Beyond simple verification that this exists in a language, we need to determine what language that is (and what L3 header to use?). — Beobach972 17:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the examples noted above are from Albanian. The giveaway is that the book titles include the word "Albanian" in German and in "Serbo-Croat". Of course, it's also a giveaway when the nouns all end in ë; I don't think I've seen that happen in any other language. I looked on the Albanian Wiktionary, but they don't have an entry for just ç'. Baed on what I've seen in the linked texts above, I don't think it occurs as an independent word. It looks to me like it shows up as a contracted portion of a word, much like -n't does at the end of some English verbs. Neither does the Albanian Wiktionary have çfarë, so I can't guess what that word means either. Although I couldn't find out anything more about the Albanian uses, the French Wiktionnaire does have an entry for ç'. In French it is a rare elided form of a demonstrative pronoun. --EncycloPetey 04:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * What I could glean was that it was a pronoun meaning who (bear in mind that may be completely erroneous). — Beobach972 04:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the gist of the above is that these should be kept, but we need an Albanian speaker to tell us what they mean. bd2412 T 23:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Fortunately for us, we have a new Albanian user (User:Zeke_sq-N) who has joined us from the Albanian Wiktionary. He's added much information about the Albanian, which now needs cleaning up to meet formatting standards. --EncycloPetey 00:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Verified. De-listing. bd2412 T 00:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

near the knuckle
Meaning risque? bd2412 T 00:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes. That is what the idiom means in the UK at least (I don't know why). SemperBlotto 08:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Struck. SB's word is good enough for me. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

jopeless
Spanglish of some form? I do find a scattering of odd Google hits for this and for "jopeful," but nothing that really suggests it might meet WT:CFI. -- Visviva 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Hits seem to be OCR errors for hopeless. Possible joke. Deleted SemperBlotto 08:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

scholalia
--Connel MacKenzie 06:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

genuine issue of material fact

 * Note: the title of this section was previously Genuine issue of material fact.

Sum of parts? Caps? Nasty format. SemperBlotto 19:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No caps (fixed that). But this is a very common phrase in legal parlance. Any first year law student will be taught to recite it like a mantra in their civil procedure class. In order to get summary judgment (i.e. judgment as a matter of law) the moving party must always prove that there is no "genuine issue of material fact." For example, if we agree that we signed a contract and disagree over whether a term in the contract has a particular meaning, that is an issue of law, not an issue of fact, and a court can decide that without hearing witnesses or taking evidence. If you say I signed the contract and I say I never signed it at all, that is a question of fact, which must be decided by a factfinder after hearing evidence from both sides. I can assure you that this term has clearly widespread use in law.. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree (in fact, I know) the phrase is used extensively, but its meaning is clear from its components "genuine", "issue", "of", and "material fact". —msh210 07:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On the surface that is correct, but it doesn't tell you that, in strictly legal parlance, this terms refers to the kind of issue that prevents a litigant from prevailing on a motion for summary judgment. This is a legal "term of art", and should remain on that score. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're saying that the meaning of genuine issue of material fact is "an issue of material fact which is genuine and which (therefore) causes a judge to dismiss a motion for summary judgment"? I differ, if I may. I think it means "an issue of material fact which is genuine" only. The fact that it causes a judge to dismiss a motion for summary judgment is not part of the definition of the word but is, rather, just a legal fact about summary judgment motions. An analogue: Would you say that death means "termination of life, which causes one's possessions to become an estate so someone can inherit"? Or would you say it means "termination of life" only; and the fact that it causes someone to inherit is just a legal fact about estates? —msh210 14:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing that makes it a set phrase is that a lawyer would almost never say "an issue of material fact which is genuine", nor would they say a "real" issue or a "legitimate" issue, or refer to the need for a "pertinent fact" or a "fact on which the case may be decided". The phrase that you will see in the lawyer's brief and in the court's opinion will be "genuine issue of material fact", almost without variation. Other phrases with exactly the same apparent meaning would simply be wrong in the same way that it would be wrong to refer to something as being "under average" instead of "below average". bd2412 T 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So this belongs with the below average discussion then, I suppose. That has stalled, although people seem to agree on not deleting the entry. However, DAVilla's argument there (q.v.) that below average be kept does not apply to genuine issue of material fact. To paraphrase, it was: The meaning of below average is not ascertainable from its parts, as below does not mean "having a score that is below". Here, the meaning is ascertainable from the parts (treating material fact as one part). Nor does Connel MacKenzie's rationale there apply here. (Note, though, that your own argument, BD, to keep below average does apply here, as you're probably well aware.) —msh210 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Has an entry in Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed., p. 708). Thereby meets the lemming test.  So keep, I guess.  I'm not big on the lemming test, but as defined in Black's, the term seems fairly non-compositional.-- Visviva 13:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed, despite not having been actually, you know, cited, because it's fairly clearly in widespread legal use. (If there were clear consensus that it was sum-of-parts/non-idiomatic, I might be bold and just delete it, but that's not the case, so I'm hesitant to do that without an RFD.) —Ruakh TALK 04:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. But I'm adding the new template, since this should be cited. —Ruakh TALK 04:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

evacipate
Cynewulf 19:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 * rfvfailed Cynewulf 16:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

USAFMC
--Connel MacKenzie 00:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, deleted. —Ruakh TALK 01:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

dacrygelosis
I don't see any b.g.c. hits in English that aren't secondary sources. --Connel MacKenzie 01:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd keep it anyway - seems it appears in about a dozen medical dictionaries. A word like that, even if regularly used among medical professionals, is not going to get much use in parlor talk. bd2412 T 01:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't appear in any non-dictionary works; if it was actually in use, there should be at least a few hits on Google Scholar or PubMed. But there's nothing; it seems, on the face of it, to be one of those words that has been passed from one dictionary to another without anyone ever checking whether the term is actually used.  If this is the case -- and perhaps it isn't, perhaps the usage is just unusually well hidden -- this word doesn't belong here, because entries in a dictionary don't count as attestations of use.  -- Visviva 01:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 * But b.g.c. has actual medical books (not just dictionaries) in its archive; if the word were in actual use, one of them would mention it. And Google Scholar would pull up at least one hit. —RuakhTALK 01:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd still like to see it kept (by which I mean I hope some CFI-worthy sources are found) because it's just the sort of thing that there ought to be a word for. bd2412 T 02:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't found verification either, but, interestingly, a picture titled "Dacrygelosis" is pictured at, which latter is dated 2003. —msh210 07:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's neat, but seems to be from "d" + "acrylic" - lic + "gel" "-osis" or something. Abstract, no doubt.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed — no primary sources found — entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

ishiki
I gather the basis for listing romaji here is that they are actually used, but I'm not sure that's the case here. A cursory look at Gbooks and Ggroups didn't turn up much. -- Visviva 08:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I assume you're not disputing the existence of 意識 but rather whether Wiktionary should include romaji entries. The policy has roughly been that romaji entries (ishiki) are assumed to pass based on the existence of the normal form (意識). Cynewulf 19:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As for verifying this particular entry, looking through the gbc hits I get lots of transcribed article titles from bibliographies, in addition to things like a parallel-text transcription and mentions in English works. I can probably dig out 3 or so cites that aren't obvious mentions. For what it's worth, I've never seen a whole book written only in kana or romaji, but then I don't go looking for children's books. Cynewulf 19:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I guess my question would be "are romaji such as this ever used as a medium for actually writing (vs. transcribing, transliterating, etc.) Japanese?" My impression had been that this is not the case, which makes the verifiability of these entries somewhat dubious (see also curent discussion at WT:BP)... Taking another tack, is it possible that "ishiki" might meet CFI as an English word, perhaps a technical term in Japanese studies or what have you?  -- Visviva 05:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Romaji is/are used a lot in email and discussions and so forth; as Cynewulf notes you usually do not see books in romaji. This is one of the cases in which google makes life difficult; there are a lot of domains and proper names with "Ishiki" Robert Ullmann 23:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed, even though uncited, because it's standard but uncodified practice here to include romaji entries for attested Japanese words. —Ruakh TALK 18:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

gaiden
Supposed to be Japanese, but uses wrong script and en-noun template. Encyclopedic. Can it be saved? SemperBlotto 15:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Recreated as normal romaji entry. Cynewulf 19:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

50 Cent Shoe
Mainly RFVing this because of the etymology: "Derived from the ancient myth of Stuart, David and Alex 'just missing' a cricket ball and a gangsta's shoe at different events respectively" - I'm not familiar with Australian culture enough to get this, but it almost sounds crazy enough to be worth looking at. --Keene 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, deleted. —Ruakh TALK 01:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

2tm
2tm claims 2b internet slang - I suppose finding a quote on bgc isn't the bset place to look? --Keene 20:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 01:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

2125
supposed Internet slang --Keene 20:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 18:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

555
supposed Internet slang --Keene 20:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

it means crying in Chinese, (mandarin), because it sounds like crying. there's absolutely tonnes of these if you want entries for them all, I don't know. Pistachio 22:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If we do have an entry for it the language header should be Mandarin or Chinese, not English. Thryduulf 22:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * 555 is used heavily in Thailand because 5 (ห้า) sounds like 'ha',
 * so we use it as a shorthand to 'ฮ่าฮ่าฮ่า'; the equivalent form exists but may not widely used,

for example ๕๕๕ (using thai alphabet for five); ห้าห้าห้า (lit. five five five). - 15:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC) linebreaks added by Thryduulf 17:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

 * What is it used to mean in Thailand though? Thryduulf 17:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Expression of laughing. Just like lol or ｗ. - <IP_ADDRESS> 07:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should include all of these that meet the three independent durably archived cites spanning at least a year requirements of the CFI. As we should include English equivalents, e.g. b4 (before), l8r (later), etc. Thryduulf 17:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

English entry RFV failed, deleted. If a Thai or Mandarin entry can be cited, please feel free to create it. —Ruakh TALK 15:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

143
supposed Internet slang --Keene 20:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This was around - and widely used - when I was in high school. bd2412 T 23:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed — not cited, and IMHO not "clearly in widespread use" — entry deleted. Sorry, bd2412. —Ruakh TALK 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

12B
supposed Internet slang --Keene 20:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 18:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

2186
supposed Internet slang --Keene 20:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 18:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

latices
--Connel MacKenzie 23:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I haven't got time now to add cites here or to the entry (and might not until Monday evening), but the "plural form of latex" definition is easily verifiable from the first page of b.g.c -, and ; it might need a context tag though as the hits appear to be from quite technical works. Nothing in the first page of b.g.c verifies the "misspelling of lattices" sense as inclusion-worthy - but given the existance prevalence of the latex usage, this does not surprise me and certainly doesn't rule it out yet. Thryduulf 00:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I’ve added six citations showing latices used as the plural of latex to the entry’s subpage. The misspelling sense is yet to be verified — it may just be a usuress → usurers example of spell-checker inadequacy (although I agree that latices → lattices is a lot more likely than said inextant erratum). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

 * In print dictionaries. — <IP_ADDRESS> 11:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Anon., what is? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed that latices notes latexes as a synonym. latexes on the other hand links to latices as an alternative spelling. Obviously the two should be the same, but I'm not certain which is correct? Thryduulf 17:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Synonym. Their definitions are both “Plural form of latex”, which means they are synonymous; however, they are not alternative ways of spelling the same plural form. For the sake of example, the hypothetical “latexiz” would be an alternative spelling of latexes, and the hypothetical “laticese” would be an alternative spelling of latices (both of which would be marked non-standard, I suspect) — but latexiz and latexes would be synonyms of laticese and latices. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * My vote is for alternative form, but this isn't something we've reached consensus on yet. —RuakhTALK 20:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * That would work, although it would still be useful to distinguish alternative spellings from alternative forms. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Plural form sense — RFVpassed. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Misspelling sense — RFVfailed. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

font
Noun sense #1: a fountain.

Um, no. That would be a fount. Is this an error, or is it really used this way in England? (It does not have that meaning in GenAm.) --Connel MacKenzie 00:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I take it you're not a fan of Shakespeare? :-)

 * Font definitely has an archaic sense of fountain, whence also a still-current metaphorical sense, found in phrases like "a font of knowledge". (The best definition for the sense in current use would be something like "An inexhaustible source; construed with of.") In all such uses fount is found as well, albeit perhaps less commonly.

 * —RuakhTALK 05:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Um Ruakh, the only two uses of font in Shakespeare refer to a baptismal font. However, this disputed definition is valid and not an error, albeit dated/archaic. The OED describes this use as "now only poetic". I did find one quote on Wikisourse, but the vast majority of them refer to baptismal fonts.
 * 1887 — Henry Rider Haggard, She, ch XXIII
 * "Ah, my Holly," she said, "thou art of a truth like those old Jews--of whom the memory vexes me so sorely--unbelieving, and hard to accept that which they have not known. But thou shalt see; for unless my mirror beyond lies," and she pointed to the font of crystal water, "the path is yet open as it was of old time. And now let us start upon the new life which shall end--who knoweth where?"

There is also a figurative sense derived from this: "a source, a wellspring" which is missing from the page, as seen in expressions like "font of wisdom" and as evidenced by the quotes below. --EncycloPetey 08:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1824 — George Gordon, Lord Byron, Don Juan, canto V
 * A gaudy taste; for they are little skill'd in The arts of which these lands were once the font
 * 1910 — Arthur Edward Waite, The Pictorial Key to the Tarot, part II
 * As I am not drawing here on the font of imagination to refresh that of fact and experience, I do not suggest that the Tarot set the example of expressing Secret Doctrine in pictures and that it was followed by Hermetic writers; but it is noticeable that it is perhaps the earliest example of this art.
 * 1915 — Woodrow Wilson, Third State of the Union Address
 * I am interested to fix your attention on this prospect now because unless you take it within your view and permit the full significance of it to command your thought I cannot find the right light in which to set forth the particular matter that lies at the very font of my whole thought as I address you to-day.

 * Those seem to be scanning errors of "fount" though, right? --Connel MacKenzie 16:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

 * "Font of wisdom", "font of knowledge", "font of information", and "font of understanding" all get more Google hits than their counterparts in fount, and I couldn't find any phrases so constructed where a version with fount got more hits than a version with font. That said, all of them are pretty close. —RuakhTALK 17:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the correction, EncycloPetey; mea culpa. (I think I used to think that a baptismal font was an actual fountain, which might explain my confusion.) —RuakhTALK 17:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. (It's unfortunate, because the OED has five quotations it says belongs to this sense, but what can ya do?) —Ruakh TALK 02:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lawyer's Wig
--Connel MacKenzie 04:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly it shouldn't be capitalized, but I don't have any books on British mushrooms to check this one properly. Wikipedia redirects "lawyer's wig" to the page about the mushroom genus Coprinus. The Hutchinson's Encylopedia identifies it with Coprinus comatus, and a combined Google search for pages containing all the words "Coprinus + lawyer + wig" gets 530 returns, which is more than I would have expected.  --EncycloPetey 02:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

 * They are very tasty, lightly fried in butter. Personal experience.Algrif 19:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Given EP's comment, I'm going to mark this RFV passed, despite the awkwardness that not all the cites in the entry are using the same capitalization. —Ruakh TALK 02:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

stinky
Second sense. Especially latest edit. SemperBlotto 07:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've heard in similar constructions to the "I can't beleive you made such a stinky decision" given, but haven't time now to look for cites. I doubt the "too desirable" usage.
 * the "You stink from your spleen. (english of Tu pues de la rate)" is in completely the wrong place. If this is an English usage, it should be at stink, but my first impression is that this is an idiom in some foreign language. Putting the phrase into Google suggests it might be (Latin-American) Spanish, but it gets 0 hits as an exact phrase on google web. Thryduulf 08:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * «Tu pues» means "You stink" in French, not Spanish. PierreAbbat 19:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense removed, cites added, and RFV passed. —Ruakh TALK 18:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

calchasam
Only 2 Google hits, and only 20 of calchasm, of which it appears to be a misspelling. "gg:calchasm" brings up some occurrences on Wiki, and some wordlists, but no use of the word in context. PierreAbbat 01:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

frings
Fries and rings as a single word? bd2412 T 03:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC) There are more results on Google; that was just a sampling. I'd say it's likely specific to California, except that a chain called Cheeburger Cheeburger seems to have them on its menu; and it's based in Fla. DejaNews results: In those two, I mean the food was eaten in Florida; I don't know where the person was from (although further Google Groups research might reveal that). I think it meets cfi. —msh210 06:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone ate them in San Diego, April 2006.
 * Someone them in Marin County, Calif., June 2005. WP says that's San Francisco-area.
 * People ate them in Daly City, Calif., Dec. 2006 and May 2007. WP says that's in San Mateo County.
 * Someone ate them outside Sacramento in Aug. 2006. blog dot myspace dot com/jeremyfitch
 * Someone ate them in San Diego in May 2007.
 * People ate them June through September and November 2006, and January and February 2007, in San Francisco.
 * Florida 2003
 * Florida 2004
 * May 2007
 * March 2000
 * Jan. 2000

RFV failed — uncited, and despite msh210's research, it's not obvious to me that this could be cited convincingly. —Ruakh TALK 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

machine-readable dictionary
Sum of parts? (needs formatting) SemperBlotto 10:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Gets a lot of b.g.c. hits. I'd define it as any component following the 'dict' protocol, (2229) myself.  MRD does seem to be the typical abbreviation.  --Connel MacKenzie 14:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm marking this RFV passed because it's clearly in widespread use with this sense, as and  make clear, even though no one has actually cited it. The "sum of parts" question is better discussed at RFD. —Ruakh TALK 17:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

do a Reggie Perrin
Move to BJAODN? --Connel MacKenzie 14:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? SemperBlotto 14:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * With only one b.g.c. hit, it seems like it was a passing nonce. Is it not?  --Connel MacKenzie 15:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added cites, the b.g.c one you found and two of the >30 from Google Groups (often a much better place to look for informal and slang terms than Google Books). As the TV series this comes from, w:The_Fall_and_Rise_of_Reginald_Perrin, was broadcast between 1976 and 1979 I would be extremely surprised if the first ever use was in 1998 (the earliest g.g.c hit). Thryduulf 16:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * And more hits on http://www.guardian.co.uk a personal favourite site.Algrif 16:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I've encountered this one as well. --EncycloPetey 17:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed, thanks all. —Ruakh TALK 20:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Wait, cancel that; the third cite is not using the phrase "do a Reggie Perrin", but rather the verb "do" with the phrase "a Reggie Perrin style fake death". —Ruakh TALK 20:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * O.K., I've added another b.g.c. cite. One b.g.c. cite italicizes "Reggie Perrin" and one uses quotation marks around it, but I think that just means they're taking "Reggie Perrin" as the name of the show; I think the quotes are valid anyway. If anyone would like to object, please do so in the near future — this page is getting overfull, so the sooner this is resolved, the better. —Ruakh TALK 20:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. —Ruakh TALK 05:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

pop culture pariah
Idiomatic? A set phrase? bd2412 T 17:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Usually that's a question for RFD, unless you're following SemperBlotto's lead. What you're requesting here is three quotations. When you have three quotations will that answer your quetion? DAVilla 18:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Three quotations showing idomatic use will, yes. bd2412 T 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Move to RFD? Widsith 09:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * move to RFD.--Williamsayers79 14:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Moving to RfD. bd2412 T 18:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

expressionality
Sounds like a real word, but gets one Google Books hit (not capitalized). bd2412 T 19:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The word expressional exists, but the noun from it is expression, not expressionality. I would have just deleted it. SemperBlotto 21:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * So would I, but it did get that one hit... bd2412 T 23:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I’ve cleaned up the entry, redefined the word as per my (quickly-made) interpretation of the use in the quoted book, added the single citation, and moved the entry to the uncapitalised form. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 23:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Still doesn't appear to meet the CFI, though. bd2412 T 01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Regardless, I’d rather not have such a messy entry listed on RFV for a month. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 07:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * True, true. bd2412 T 04:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Sounds extermely suspect to me, move to RFD.--Williamsayers79 11:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * That would be out of process. Sounds like colloquial GenAm to me.  But I'm not sure why the groups.g.c cites aren't added yet, nor the two b.g.c. hits?  (Was there only one last week?)  For all the stuff that does pass that shouldn't, this seems to be receiving unduly harsh treatment, for no distinct reason.  --Connel MacKenzie 16:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. (Connel, please feel free to restore it and add verifying cites.) —Ruakh TALK 20:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

newfangleder, newfangledest
These were marked as the comparative and superlative forms of newfangled when I came to the page. I've never come accross these (and they sound horrible to my ears), so when I formatted the entry I added the more/most forms I'm familiar with. However I have retained (and created entries for) the -er and -est forms pending verification. Thryduulf 20:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * "Newfangleder" gets 0 Google Book Search hits and just 2 Google Search hits (one of which is Wiktionary). "Newfangledest" gets only 1 Google Book Search hit (John Bull, 1903, no preview available unfortunately, so it might be a scanno) and 9 Google Search hits, one of which is of course Wiktionary, and the others are mainly blogs and forums/messageboards.  Shouldn't it be "more newfangled" and "most newfangled", anyway?  RobbieG 12:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we delete them. Widsith 12:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree, they will be deleted imminently.--Williamsayers79 14:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Just for the record, the comparative and superlative adjectives that come from or resemble past participles ending in -ed are almost always formed using "more" and "most". The only exception I can think of right now is "damned" (and its variants). — Paul G 16:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Do we have an Appendix:English grammar yet? :-)     --Connel MacKenzie 16:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * No forgetting the occasional further and furthest where more applicable. misled and out of the way are two that spring to mind. -- Algrif 15:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

wuzzle
Secondary sources only? --Connel MacKenzie 02:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I seem to have found one source (possibly): "Wherefore it be. hooved Walter to fish like an archangel. lie didn't look the

part, being screwed into a wuzzle behind his gleaming glasses" although I have no idea what it means. Also it appears to be a made up term for animal homosexuality (from other book hits). <IP_ADDRESS> 02:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's another one: "Walter far-sighted it, his sunburned face puckered up in a wuzzle." <IP_ADDRESS> 02:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't believe this is a word with a generally accepted use or definition. Not in any other dictionary I can find. I deleted it on sight - feel free to reinstate if you think otherwise. SemperBlotto 07:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

situational ethics
Also needs cleanup. Widsith 09:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

. . . or even a definition. Why not just delete it? SemperBlotto 09:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Er...all right. Widsith 09:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

nuupi, nobo
One thing is that these entries are incorrectly classified as either Norwegian or Finnish. I suppose it is Norwegian since the same IP user has done some similar work. I'd like to see whether these are real in any case though. __meco 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 * They are Finnish, not Norwegian. —Stephen 22:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entries deleted. —Ruakh TALK 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Never mind. For some reason Stephen removed the RFV tags when he made that comment, which kind of defeats the point of RFV — the idea isn't that you have to follow WT:RFV to know whether a given entry has been RFV'd. So, I guess this will have to be re-listed. —Ruakh TALK 22:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

arbium
Really? bd2412 T 04:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like spam. Already deleted from Wikipedia. We should do the same. SemperBlotto 07:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I can barely make head nor tail of it. The word does get google books hits, but none are English - mainly Latin with a couple of ones that look like French and German. Thryduulf 08:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Looks like nonsense to me, and I can find no word in Latin spelled this way. The only references I found were for a hill called Arbium in northeastern Iberia. --EncycloPetey 06:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

 * deleted --EncycloPetey 00:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

schvatza
Misspelling of Schvartze - probably not common. Also, has this word crossed into English? bd2412 T 05:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I think it should be listed as ==Yiddish==, if kept. --Connel MacKenzie 18:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Yiddish words aren't spelled with Latin letters.—msh210 ℠ 22:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Some senses are definitely nonsense, and I'm deleting them. Also neatening the page. Although I highly doubt it'll pass CFI.—msh210 ℠ 22:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 20:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

SV Dynamo
CFI? SemperBlotto

RFV failed, deleted. Also, page title protected, since this has been re-created by the same editor every time it's been deleted so far. —Ruakh TALK 05:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

overweight
Describing a vehicle: I think this might be two words ("over weight") and not idiomatic. — Paul G 16:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Pretty common in USA, but should probably be tagged as transportation jargon or something. I don't recall ever seeing it as two separate words.  --Connel MacKenzie 16:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Cited. Rod (A. Smith) 22:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. Thanks, Rod. —Ruakh TALK 05:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Julie Andrews
--Connel MacKenzie 16:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 05:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoopi Goldberg
--Connel MacKenzie 16:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I would move both of these to whatever that page is where we stick jokes and other nonsense. Widsith 09:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd just move then to RfD. Neither is entertaining enough for BJAODN. --EncycloPetey 06:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * These were cited in WP a while back (but removed. I don't know whether they were removed because of lack of verification of accuracy or because the facts were not relevant to the actresses' respective articles (in the Great Trivia Clean-Up)). See e.g. . However, that certainly doesn't mean that it passes cfi, which I frankly doubt, but which I haven't done the research into. —msh210 14:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 05:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

baker-knee'd
--Connel MacKenzie 16:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 05:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

FOSSer

 * Note: this section was previously titled Fosser.

(and Fossers) All the citations are for FOSSer... Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * This was previously RFV'd in March 2006 (when, admittedly, we were still trying to figure out precisely how RFV should work.) You can certainly move it to FOSSer, but I don't understand the reasoning for the re-nomination.  Hmmm.  That also predates our pseudo-archiving scheme of RFVs.  If you intended this for RFD, then I'd say it can be deleted right after Microsoft is deleted.  :-)     Otherwise, the nomination would not seem to have a NPOV.  --Connel MacKenzie 05:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved to FOSSer and redirect deleted; no other action taken, as it doesn't seem to have been requested that FOSSer be verified. (I'm not sure all those quotations are actually durably archived, but I'm not complaining if no one else is.) —Ruakh TALK 05:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

experience
I can't make head or tail of the supposedly intransitive sense of the verb "experience". The OED does not show any intransitive usages of this verb. -- WikiPedant 14:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I have come across this. I kind of associate it with hippy or new age babblings ("Don't think, just experience, man!"). I could only find this one example, but it's quite a tough one to Google for:
 * It gives them a chance to think about things, or the opportunity to not think and just experience.

 * Matt 00:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

 * I found another very similar one through Google Books in "Boost Your Self-Esteem" by John Caunt, 2002, page 82:

 * Don't think, just experience.

 * Matt 20:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC).

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh TALK 22:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

be
I'm not convinced that the last sense "Used to form the subjunctive" is a distinct sense. Every verb (except maybe modal verbs) has the same form in the subjunctive as its infinitive.

The original example for this sense was the incomprehensible (to my mind) "Be she more patient", which I take it is meant to mean "May she be more patient", which is indeed in the subjunctive. I have changed it to the much more understandable "I must insist that you be quiet."

Whichever of these sentences is used, all we have here is "to be" in the subjunctive, rather than being used as an auxiliary, which would apply to another verb to turn it into the subjunctive. There is no other verb in these examples, and I'm not aware of how you could use "be" in this way.

So I think this sense should go, otherwise we might as well have "Used to form the past" and then give an example using "was". (Incidentally, that usage is already covered by "be" used to form continuous tenses, which is a legitimate sense that should certainly stay.) — Paul G 15:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Although the infinitive form of the verb be is used to form the subjunctive, you are correct that the subjunctive mood is not solely dominated by use of the single verb be. It's only that be looks so different when it inflects in the present, so it's use to form the subjunctive is more often noticed.  This merits some sort of note, I think, though not a separate definition.  BTW, your change of the example isn't entirely a good one.  It changes the verb to a mandative construction that borders on the imperative, albeit a weak version. You would preserve the distinction better by avoiding the second person pronoun.  --EncycloPetey 21:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. However, subjunctive "be" does have some special properties — for example, "be it/they" = "whether it's/they're" — that might warrant a usage note. —Ruakh TALK 15:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

kebab
Second definition - vagina --Keene 18:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Never heard it before, but Google searches on "her kebab" and "flashing her kebab" generate lots of plausible hits. -- WikiPedant 19:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was used by the Big Brother contestant Jade Goody here in the UK (specifically, she said "You can see my kebab", so search on that phrase), but whether it was around before then or was her euphemistic coinage, I have no idea. The woman has a reputation for being not very bright, so it could even have been a malapropism on her part. — Paul G 11:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is one of those profanosaurus/urban dictionary terms, although very entertaining, should really reside on the wikisaurus for vagina rather than in the main articles.--Williamsayers79 13:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh TALK 18:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

lolcat
--Connel MacKenzie 00:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I added this. I'm kind of new here... exactly what "verification" is required (beyond 1,080,000 Google hits, I mean). Matt 00:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC).
 * We require three durably archived uses that clearly so the term being used (rather than mentioned) spanning at least a year. See the Criteria for Inclusion Thryduulf 00:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No google groups hits from prior to 12 April this year, although the earliest hit "LOLCat builder ... Create your own LOLCat memes" indicates it has been around longer, likely in blogs.
 * The hits do verify the meaning given, but with only 3 months of durably archived usage it is clearly a neologism and so doesn't meet our CFI. Do we have a list of neologisms as we do protologisms? Thryduulf 00:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at the google blog search results (are these durably archived?) the earliest hit which unquestionably conveys meaning is from 26 January 2007. At least one hit suggests the term wasn't in widespread use yet by 8th February, an earlier term apparently being "cat macro", although this gets far fewer blog hits and I'm not certain that it was used in this sense before December 2006 (a slightly earlier use was a program to randomly insert random characters into what you are writing, to mimic a cat walking across your keyboard). Thryduulf 01:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I would have thought neologisms were exactly the sort of entry that should be in Wiktionary. What's the point of having something instantly updatable if you can't update it when new words come along? Even if this word has a short lifetime, I do not see any downside in including it. Matt 00:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

 * We are not here to record internet memes, nand so it was decided long before I was active Thryduulf 01:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC) here that we are not interested in words that do not last at least a year in actual usage. See WT:CFI for all this.

 * Huh? Surely Wiktionary aims to record every (eligible) word, whether associated with an internet meme or otherwise. Of course, there have to be some criteria for inclusion. We don't want to include words that someone made up one afternoon and used once in a chat room. However, due to its widespread use "lolcat" easily satisfies any reasonable inclusion criteria in my view. It's possible that "lolcat" may never appear in any standard dictionary, and yet in twenty years' time someone might be very interested in finding out what it meant and what its origin was. In this sense this entry is potentially much more valuable than the reams of Wiktionary definitions that are already readily available in dozens of other dictionaries. Matt 17:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC).

 * Indeed we aim to record every eligible word, and the emphasis is rightly on "eligible" here. As you so rightly point out we do have to have some criteria for inclusion, and one of these is that usage of the word spans at least one year, which isn't the case of "lolcat", at least not yet. It is the job of Wikipedia to explain the origins, coverage, etc of notable memes - they have no criteria relating to the length of time something has to be around; notability or lack thereof is irrelevant to the criteria here. Also, the origin of the meme is not something that would be recorded here (that's Wikipedia's job), we would record the origin (etymology) of the word "lolcat", which will probably just be "loll + cat" plus a note about the earliest recorded uses.
 * Come back in mid-February next year and, if use of the term continues to then you should be able to argue for its inclusion. Come back on or after the 12th of April 2008, and assuming the term has continued in use until then, there will be no question it meets the CFI's "usage spanning at least a year" criterion. It is irrelevant whether or not the meme lasts that long, as long as people keep talking about it in durably archived locations (newsgroups are a good place for this). Thryduulf 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Just to nitpick: I would assume (not having checked) that the etymology is actually LOL+cat rather than loll]+[[cat. —msh210 14:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Firstly, note that we do include words that appear in a refereed academic journal, and this sidesteps most of the other requirements; so if anthropologists or linguists actually write about this phenomenon and use or mention the term lolcat, we can be a tertiary source. (See Criteria for inclusion for details on our criteria. They're a bit complicated, and have less consensus than you might expect considering how long they've been established policy, but overall they're pretty O.K.) Secondly, the lasts-at-least-a-year requirement is a generally a pretty good one; remember that we don't require that the meme last at least a year, only that the word be used over at least a year. If no one ever talks about this meme again, or if they use a different word to refer to it, then I guess we're right to exclude lolcat. —RuakhTALK 19:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * In case it was unclear, my "huh?" comment was in response to the statement "we are not here to record internet memes" which seemed like a blanket, unqualified statement. I absolutely agree with you about the need eligibility criteria; our difference is about what those criteria should be. In my opinion this word is eligible for inclusion now due to its very widespread use on the Internet, irrespective of what happens in the future. However, I appreciate that others take a different view. Matt 19:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC).

 * My "we are not here to record internet memes" is true - we are here to record the words they use if they meet our criteria for inclusion. Eligibility "due to very widespread use on the Internet" is a valid argument for inclusion on Wikipedia where notablity matters. The criteria here are more objective than on Wikipedia. Thryduulf 20:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 18:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

integritous
I couldn't find any examples. --EncycloPetey 06:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's because it isn't a word. Deleted SemperBlotto 07:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

keet
Not in the OED or in any of my dictionaries. SemperBlotto 07:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I've found the cites below for the Americanism guinea keet (capitalisation and hyphenation vary) meaning guinea fowl, apparently of any age. It seems like it might be regional ("particularly in the south") as well.

 * 1) *c. 1919-1924 (published 1926), Blanche Colton Wialliams, Best American Stories, 1919-1924, Doubleday, Page 203
 * “Say, Annie, do you know a chicken when you see it walking round? Or a turkey? Or a guinea keet? We got em all, Aunt Dolcey, she takes car of ’em”
 * 1) *1963, Cecil Robinson, With the Ears of Strangers: The Mexican in American Literature, University of Arizona Press, Page 77
 * ...but after they've calved a time or two they swell up like a cow in a truck patch an’ you need a wagon to move ’em. They do nothin’ but eat and holler like a guinea keet....
 * 1) *2001, Richard S. Raffauf, Journal of a Country Gentleman, Trafford Publishing, ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>, page 26
 * George (the male Guinea keet) was half through a hole in the fence losing many feathers to Red, who was trying to help him back into the pen.
 * I have also found the following mention (not use) that notes it can be shortened to keet

 * 1) *1860,, John Russell Bartlett, Dictionary of Americanisms: A Glassary of Words and Phrases Ususally Regarded as Peculiar to the United States, Little, Brown, page 184
 * Guinea-Keet, or simply Keet. A name given in some localities to the Guinea fowl, and probably derived from its cry.
 * As "Keet" is a very common surname and "Keet Seel" is (part of?) the Navajo National Monument I'm having trouble finding relevant results, even excluding "Keet Seel" and the frequently mentioned "Dot Keet". Note though that the Wikipedia article Domesticated guineafowl notes "the chicks are called "keets." As keets they are highly susceptible to dampness...". Although I've not verified "keet", don't write it off yet as with persistence I think it could be citable. b.g.c. searches for keet guinea and keet fowl bring up plenty of mentions, but not seemingly uses. "keet" can also apparently be an abbreviation for parakeet (this usage might be Australian) and one book notes it as a Devonian term for buzzard. I've not attempted to verify these uses yet.
 * separately the article Keet (about an Orca) notes "The word "Keet" means orca in the Tlingit language", which we should have if we can cite it. Thryduulf 09:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The number of online Tlingit texts is rather small, and none of them seem to contain this word (nor could any of them really be considered durably archived, as far as I can tell). On the other hand there are any number of primarily-English texts which offhandedly gloss "keet" as Tlingit for orca/killer whale... I don't suppose there's any special WT:CFI dispensation for such cases?  Pity... -- Visviva 14:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Cited the sense in question. Not sure what to do with the Americanism; should we consider it to be a meaning of "keet" (which happens to usually collocate with "guinea"), or simply treat it as a set phrase?  -- Visviva 14:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that it is sometimes hyphenated, I suggest it should be treated as a phrase with a secondary sense of keet being "a guinea keet or guinea fowl" with a note that it is less common, but I'm not set on this. kleet should be linked from guinea keet as a related term or possibly a derrived term. Of the uses I found the various spellings were "guinea keet", "guinea-keet", "Guinea keet" and "Guinea-keet" with no one obviously dominating. Thryduulf 17:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed; thanks, Thryduulf and Visviva. (Note: Thryduulf's cites have not yet been added to any entry.) —Ruakh TALK 18:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

ivy
(With apologies to Connel if this is a well-known American term; he often posts British terms here that he is unaware of but are well-known in the UK.)

The second sense: "A university in the Ivy League". Is this legit? I see no mention of it in Ivy League. And if it is OK, should it really be "Ivy" (with capital "I")? — Paul G 10:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes and yes. -- Visviva 11:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * And it appears in singular also: (as an adjective, I think),  (as an adjective),  (as a noun with the sense under discussion here),  (as a noun with the sense under discussion here). —msh210 14:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed (but of course y'all should feel free to add this sense at Ivy). —Ruakh TALK 18:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About Swedish/Pronunciation ERROR
About Swedish/Pronunciation seems to be misusing the IPA characters /ʉ/ and /ɵ/. I wrote more specifically about it in Wiktionary talk:About Swedish/Pronunciation. The errors might have be copied from a Swedish erroneous source. Rursus 11:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, RFV isn't really equipped to handle this sort of question. You may wish to bring it up with Peter Isotalo, who added that information. —Ruakh TALK 15:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

caughten
Not in the OED. -- WikiPedant 13:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All but one of the b.g.c hits that I can see are copies or quotes of Middle English text, it was certainly used by Geoffrey Chaucer and hit contemporary John Gower. The one that isn't suggests it might have survived as a dialect term, but as this book only has a snippet view I can't tell for certain. Thryduulf 17:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Only 29 google groups hits, at least two of which note they are not certain it is valid, one is gibberish afaict and I'm not certain about the independence of the last one. That leaves 25 possibly valid uses over 12 years (1995-2007), which doesn't make it valid usage in my book. Thryduulf 17:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The archaic first sense is only found in very old sources, namely: in line 31 of a section entitled Alexander in The Parliament of the Three Ages, written circa 1370 by an unknown author living in the East Midlands (whose surname was possibly “Age”); in John Gower’s Confessio Amantis, written sometime 1386–1390; and in verses 18–19 of chapter 24 of the Biblical Book of Acts of the English translation of the short-lived Latin Editio Sixtina (the revision of the Vulgate ordered by Pope Sixtus V in 1589), written, at the latest, in 1611.
 * The non-standard second sense is only found in fairly recent sources, all twenty-seven of which are various Google groups, with examples spanning 13 years, 2 months, 15 hours, and 27 minutes (10:18am, 21/III/1994–1:45am, 22/V/2007). The 1996 citation which at first looks like “gibberish” is written in a Germanic English eye dialect, of which I have tried to give a “translation”. Judging from context, it is certainly a past participle form of the verb catch, and is certainly non-standard. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I particularly like the one b.g.c. hit from Language Patterns of Poverty Children (I know, I know....) But those Usenet citations?  With alt.suicide.holiday and microsoft.public.windows.server.active directory they are just priceless!  I really enjoy how some of them question if it is a word, even as they use it.
 * I'm not sure the first definition should be listed under an ==English== section, though. It seems more reasonable to list it as ==Middle English==.  If retained as English, it certainly should be changed to obsolete not archaic.  --Connel MacKenzie 04:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The first sense is marked as . Do we have a “Middle English” language header? I like the 1995 citation which redundantly uses “@” (“ At @ 1:30am they found the one person who had got caughten up in…”).

But I'm sure it wasn't used by Chaucer. The Chaucer cite that Google Books throws up is from the Legend of Good Women, but in my copy it reads: But pryvely she kaughte forth a knyf. I don't have a copy of Gower but I wonder if it's either a scanno or a manuscript error. For instance caughten is known to pop up in a poem called Wynnere and Wastoure, but most editors change it as being wrong, see for example line 121, where the footnote reads: ''caughte. MS reads caughten, which is ungrammatical.'' Also this form is not noted in any dictionary of Middle English I can find. Widsith 07:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * RFVpassed. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * What? Not RFV passed (yet). To quote from the text at the top of this page: "A request will remain for one month after nomination. It may be removed sooner if verification has been made—generally about a week afterwards will be given to allow any disputes about the verification itself to arise." To my mind, neither sense has been adequately cited: sense 1 has only one possibly-English citation (in the en.wikt sense of "English", i.e. "Modern English"), and it's a very wonky one (appending -en to various preterites to form, that's right, synonymous preterites); and sense 2 only has Google Groups cites, and not too many at that (Google Groups gets what, 25 relevant hits?), which is not a very good reason to include a misconstruction. (Maybe the bar should be a bit lower for misconstructions than for misspellings, but not this low.) —RuakhTALK 16:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * My apologies; I had forgotten about / was not aware of the one week given for disputes to arise. I agree that the evidence for the first sense is shaky at best. I’m inclined to agree with Widsith that at least the two older ones are manuscript errors; furthermore, all three of the quotations for the archaic sense use it as a past tense form which, considering that the -en suffix is a past participle suffix, suggests that its use as a past tense form is in error. The same cannot be said against the second sense. Google groups search yields twenty-nine hits when searching for “caughten”, of which two are duplications of other hits and are therefore invalid. All twenty-seven valid search results consistently use caughten as the past participle form of catch. Of those, I may concede that two do not count (namely the 1996 quotation written in a Germanic English eye dialect and the December 2006 quotation which comprises “Dover (gotten caught? got caughten?)”). So yes, being strict, a Google groups search yields twenty-five perfectly fine results, spanning over thirteen years (which are twenty-two quotations and twelve years more than are necessary to satisfy the WT:CFI). I am very surprised to read you being prescriptive. Caughten is only a misconstruction forasmuch as because caught exists to serve the dual purposes of both past tense form and past participle form. It exists in a very similar situation to got / gotten — gotten may be non-standard, but it is not a misconstruction; it appends the strong declension past participle suffix -en as can be seen in written, beaten, eaten, and numerous other past participles — caughten is just the same, only rarer and more recent. (But not too rare or too recent for our CFI!) † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm a prescriptivist sometimes, just an open-minded one. :-)  Also, gotten is perfectly standard on my side of the pond, thank you very much! (Indeed, it's the use of got as a participle that's nonstandard here, though have got sees pleonastic use as a synonym for have in many of its senses.)   The thing is — is there a community of speakers that uses caughten as the past participle of catch? Or are these various one-off mistakes by people who, as children, had iodine deficiency in their linguistic thyroids? My roommate my sophomore year of college (an brilliant programmer with no language facility) once used boughten as the ordinary past participle of buy; but this was a speech error, as he readily acknowledged, and not evidence that this was standard in the dialect spoken by people from his town (Medwayians? Medwayers?). —RuakhTALK 03:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Also note that gotten has never been "non-standard" - it is in fact the original past participle as used by all English-speakers until a few hundred years ago when England started doing things differently. Compare forgotten, begotten etc.  On caughten, I suggest we simply label it a   catch and leave it at that.  The first sense is not distinct anyway, since ‘pull out, produce’ is one of the senses of catch.  Widsith 08:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I’m aware of the pedigree of gotten, and that it is (inconsistently, considering that phrases like ill-gotten are standard) deemed non-standard for no good reason. (I knew it was more common in the US, but I still thought that it was frowned upon — thanks to the COED’s usage note for it: “…gotten is … very common in North American English, though even there it is often regarded as non-standard”.) No, Ruakh, I don’t think that caughten is in consistent use by some dialect somewhere (well, it may be, but there is no internet-accessible evidence for it) — not that the CFI require that it be. The twenty-five examples of caughten are, I would say, twenty-five one-offs where that old and oft-forgotten past participle suffix, -en rears its head and attaches to a past tense form. We can see the same thing happening with thoughten and the far more common (and perhaps established in some dialects) boughten. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nota bene: boughten and thoughten also show up in Google Book Searches. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed with appropriate labels, though I'm still not 100% on this. —Ruakh TALK 18:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

name art
Any takers? Two or the three references don't mention the term. SemperBlotto 15:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Two of the three references do cite name art - PhotoText Catalog states, "PhotoText offers high-quality, original name art.." and the title of the page is PhotoText Catalog Name Art. The referenced blog (sticks-and-stones-name-art.com) is titled "Name Art" and has two articles discussing name art.

wrote
Adjective sense (drunk). Is this is in use? If so, is it comparable? If so does it take more/most or -er/-est? Thryduulf 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It may not take either. I've never heard the term used, but it could still be a regionalism. --EncycloPetey 06:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh TALK 16:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

protocol droid
Nominated for rfd by Connel.

There are about 50 novels in the Star Wars, most of which will use this term. Unless it is being objected to as sum of parts. RJFJR 18:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I would say it was sum of parts, but my main objection would be that if it's a Star Wars only term (and it is, because "droid" is copyrighted), it doesn't pass the independence clause of the CFI.  RobbieG 09:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree. This is a Star Wars specific term that has not achieved independent use outside of the genre.  The terms droid, the Force and Darth Vader have, but not "protocol droid". --EncycloPetey 06:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete it already!--Williamsayers79 14:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A rapid deletion may happen from RfD, but not from here. RfV allows time to look for supporting citations, so we avoid hasty deletions here. --EncycloPetey 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't care nearly enough to restore and reformat this, but I did provide three independent cites on the RFD page. Guess I should have taken the time to add them to the entry. -- Visviva 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh, sorry. I'll try to sort this out. —Ruakh TALK 16:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Now cited and RFV passed; re-listed on RFD. —Ruakh TALK 16:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

potable
Sense 2: "ebonics for portable." Rod (A. Smith) 22:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * "Ebonics"? We sometime use the label "AAVE", but seeing the intentionally inflammatory "ebonics" usually triggers the "rollback" button for me.  I don't know if we have any way of describing spoken syncopes though.  (Or is it Synalepha or Synaeresis?)  --Connel MacKenzie 04:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * gets one hit, but it's on a non-preview-able page, so I don't know if it's relevant (this is compared to 's 752 hits). Likewise, gets three hits, but since  gets 10,500 hits, it's easy to write these off as typos or malapropisms. So, I don't think this is real. —RuakhTALK 04:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks. My instinct was to rollback.  Sometimes "assume good faith" doesn't work well.  Rod (A. Smith) 04:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * In all fairness, the term "ebonics" was not created to be inflammatory. The term was originally conceived as a way to free up California state education funds that were exclusively set aside for instruction in English to non-native speakers.  The underlying philosophy was that urban African Americans use a different syntax and grammar from standard American English, so that students coming from such a background should be eligible to benefit from those funds.  While there is some merit in the idea, and convincing arguments that the differences in grammar and syntax derive from patterns found in coastal West Africa, the media backlash was so powerful that the term has since taken on a negative connotation. --EncycloPetey 06:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The term Ebonics actually goes back to the seventies, and was definitely intended to be edgy, though "inflammatory" might be pushing it a bit; it entered the public consciousness due to the Oakland School Board's <cough>linguistically and pedagogically justified</cough> 1996 decision to use ESL techniques and funding to teach SAE to native speakers of AAVE. —RuakhTALK 06:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Struck (this sense having long since been removed by an anonymous editor).

transformer
The sense that seems to be in reference to a current movie and old TV show. Does it see more general use? —RuakhTALK 05:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's from a known unreliable user - delete' sense. SemperBlotto 07:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm of two minds about this. There are actually three old TV series (and associated toys) in addition to the current movie (and associated toys).  However, I want to say that I've heard this term applied to other "transforming" toys that are not associated with either the TV series or current movie (and associated toys).  One instance that comes to mind is from the movie Big with Tom Hanks, in which his character ridicules a toy designer who proposes a new toy robot that transforms into a building.  What I can;t say for certain is whether any of the instances I'm thinking of actually use the word "transformer", or whether they deliberately avoid it to avoid a lawsuit. --EncycloPetey 05:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen some (recent) references to "real life transformers" applied to robots that do, in fact, turn into vehicles. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete. Obvious spam.  --Connel MacKenzie 17:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh TALK 16:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

stogee
Misspelling of stogie, right? --Connel MacKenzie 05:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. SemperBlotto 07:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Deleted.' --Connel MacKenzie 18:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

coaxs
Presumably a typo for "coaxes".

Thanks for spotting that. coax had a bad template and the plural was added by a bot. Fixed. SemperBlotto 13:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

mike
Can you mike someone? I was pretty sure this is only mic/miked/miking (decidedly irregular, but not workable as a regular construction.) Also, the noun seems implausible...it is spelled mic to avoid confusion with the male given name Mike. --Connel MacKenzie 16:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen it used that way. I'll look for citations, but I think the fact that someone can be miked suggests that you can mike someone more than that you can mic someone. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, right, that is the back-formation (from the abbreviation of microphone) that I'm questioning. --Connel MacKenzie 16:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * By my understanding, the original noun spelling was mike (as in e.g. "open mike night"); but switchboards used the abbreviation "MIC", which eventually spread into the populace at large (resulting in e.g. "open mic night"). I've certainly seen both, and use mike myself. —RuakhTALK 17:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's weird - "mike" is not the abbreviation for "microphone." --Connel MacKenzie 16:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * You seem to have accidentally omitted the word "only" from your comment; "mike" is not the only abbreviation for "microphone." ;-) —RuakhTALK 06:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Now cited. —RuakhTALK 18:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Um, thanks. --Connel MacKenzie 16:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * In telly we normally use the form mike up. Widsith 16:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. —Ruakh TALK 16:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fonzie touch
This entry says it was previously RFV'd but if it was, it was incorrectly passed. The assertion that it is used in over a hundred books is blatantly false (I see zero on b.g.c.) and none of the "citations" are durably archived. (Indeed, one of the two links given for the three "citations" is already dead.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * delete - we need to be a little more sensible around here and check up on non-regulars adding stuff that aught to be on one of those so-called urban sites.--Williamsayers79 14:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This was one of my early entries, and I was not then aware of the process for RFV. However it passed at the time. I DID NOT say that there were a hundred book hits, I said it got a 100 hits, which it still does. This is not an urban dictionary term. It was used in the TV series, and entered common usage at the same time, over 30 years ago. There are three cites already, more available if you want.--Dmol 10:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed — one cite was nonsensical, and the others didn't look durably archived — entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 17:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

buck
Sense "A piece put in front of the dealer in the pocker card game." Is this a misspelling of poker? And, is the term actually used this way, or is this just a supposed etymology for the phrases the buck stops here and the buck stops with __? —RuakhTALK 16:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Regarding the first question, I'm all-but 100% certain this is a misspelling of "poker" - Pocker redirects to Poker, almost all the copious groups and web results are in senses meaning "poker" (many noting it as a misspelling); the only other significant use on goolge web is "Pocker" as a proper noun (usually a surname), and this is the case for all the b.g.c hits. Google groups also returns a few results that are obviously typos for "pocket". Given these results, I'm about to create pocker as a very common misspelling of poker. I can't help on whether "buck" is used in this sense in poker though. Thryduulf 18:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * From :

 * Dealer Button (The Buck), known as a lammer. They usually resemble chips and are made of plastic with text--such as DEALER -- sometimes printed on them. This item signifies who should deal next, and whose turn it is to pay the blind(s).

 * Perhaps the definition at buck could be better. It's not terribly clear what "piece" means in this context. Matt 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC).

 * Wikipedia has some information on Button (poker). Algrif 18:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed the definition to be more clear, I'm sure this is meant to be about poker. --Kzollman 02:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to handle this. Various knowledgeable editors have addressed the original question, but haven't cited the term — apparently not realizing that was necessary — and I can't tell if the term is in "clearly widespread use". Most b.g.c. hits seem to be secondary sources. So, I'm going to re-list this and see if it will pick up any cites in the next month. —Ruakh TALK 06:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

MP
I'm not disputing that "MP" means "Member of Parliament", what I am querying is whether it really is "sometimes written out as "empee"". Thryduulf 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can find no cites really supporting that 'writing out' - I found one book on Google Books with does, but only in the context of 'spelling out' the pronunciation of several sets of letters which are never spelled out that way. Lots of scannos for empire or emperor. I shudder to think what they would say of PP. bd2412 T 22:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * There are some writers who consistently write out acronyms in dialog. (I really want to write "dialogue", but Firefox's spell-checker tags that. Is "dialogue" really U.K.-only? How had I not realized?) Piers Anthony does this in Bio of a Space Tyrant and it's very annoying ; were he a writer in a different country and a different genre, we might well see "empee". (Of course, that would be a nonce use, but if enough people use a nonce, it ceases to be a nonce.) It might be worth checking Google News and Google Groups for this — they're probably as likely to write/complain about MPs (MsP?), and we won't have to worry about scannos. —RuakhTALK 03:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Outside of computing uses, "dialog" is not used this side of the Atlantic. I always presumed that "dialogue" was an entirely Commonwealth usage, but perhaps not? The plural of "MP" is always "MPs", "MsP" could be taken as a slight against MSPs - Members of the Scottish Parliament. Thryduulf 08:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, my idea (checking and ) doesn't seem to have panned out; the former gets no hits, and while the latter gets plenty, I can't seem to find any in the right sense. (And I certainly write "dialog box", but I really want to write "dialogue between characters". Is that so wrong?) —RuakhTALK 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, claim removed. —Ruakh TALK 17:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

air display
Random combination of words, or a regional equivalent of air show? --Connel MacKenzie 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To me an air display is a performance of aerobatics, etc. (more than just a fly-past) at an event that is not an air show. For example I went to the British Grand Prix (Formula One) a few years back, and there were air displays by the Red Arrows (Sunday) and the Blue Eagles (Saturday). An airshow being an event where aircraft are the primary focus - e.g the Royal International Air Tattoo. Thryduulf 21:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * That's pretty much my understanding too. Although the term might sometimes be used synonymously with "air show", that doesn't seem to fully capture the meaning. For example, as you say, a performance at a Grand Prix would normally be called an "air display", not an "air show". In the UK anyway. Matt 00:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

 * Alrighty then, moving to WT:RFC instead. --Connel MacKenzie 05:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

buckling
Any takers? In the OED it is a smoked herring. SemperBlotto 07:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I can add the other noun and the verb sense at least. The "young buck" sense sounds reasonable, but doesn't show up in a search of Wikisource. --EncycloPetey 20:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Now cited and RFV passed. —Ruakh TALK 04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

fop
Sense 2, "finest in the shop", sounds to me like a folk etymology for sense 1, rather than an actual sense of the term. —RuakhTALK 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "[F]op, finest in the shop" are lyrics of a song from the play Sweeney Todd. It's unlikely, then, imho, that "finest in the shop" is an actual definition (or even popular folk etymology) of fop. Google shows no results for both "fop" and "finest in the shop" outside of those lyrics, not that that proves that "finest int he shop" is not a definition of fop (as, of course, if it is, so are differently-worded synonyms). Nonetheless, I say get rid of this sense. —msh210 13:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Folk etymologies are tripe and should be expunged when we fid them. delete this sense--Williamsayers79 08:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh TALK 03:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Midas
Sense 2. I've never heard of this, and there's nothing like it in the OED. -- WikiPedant 00:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The figurative sense seems common. There may even need to be an adjective sense added.  I think this would be better, if moved to WT:RFC.  --Connel MacKenzie 18:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. "Midas" is definitely used metaphorically, but our def said that "a Midas" is a kind of situation, and I see no evidence for such a claim. —Ruakh TALK 21:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

roogle
Sounds suspiciously contrived. --EncycloPetey 00:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have tagged this for deletion myself.
 * "Originally roogle was an Australian legendary animal with body of a horse and head of an eagle", neither the horse nor the eagle are native to Australia afair, and so any such animal would have been brought there by European settlers and not be natively Australian.
 * The definition given is both complex and vague, typical of many at Urban Dictionary.
 * I'm always very suspicious of the phrase "This phrase was first coined by", especially when followed by a vague assertion of notability, doubly so when no name for this person is given.
 * Also the whole entry smells self-promotional somehow. Thryduulf 00:31,