Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup: difference between revisions

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
(De Morgan's laws: Thanks. Done: http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=De_Morgan%27s_law&action=historysubmit&diff=11928636&oldid=11928615)
Line 717: Line 717:
:Now tagged the whole article, English, Italian and Portuguese need clean up. Translations, templates, also, why does {{temp|pt-noun}} not accept f= for feminine forms? [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 11:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
:Now tagged the whole article, English, Italian and Portuguese need clean up. Translations, templates, also, why does {{temp|pt-noun}} not accept f= for feminine forms? [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 11:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
::Can the clean-up tag now be removed? —[[User:Jakeybean|Jakeybean]]<sup>'''[[User talk:Jakeybean|TALK]]'''</sup> 04:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
::Can the clean-up tag now be removed? —[[User:Jakeybean|Jakeybean]]<sup>'''[[User talk:Jakeybean|TALK]]'''</sup> 04:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The entry for "negro" is not sound, it's semperblotto's personal political statement. Negro is not an offensive term, it is being portrayed as offensive as part of a deliberate political act to co-opt the word "African" to mean negroid. This is truly offensive as there are Africans of various ethnicities. Semperblotto is acting on his personal politics and not in the best interest of knowledge.
== [[:fanfaronade]] ==
== [[:fanfaronade]] ==

Revision as of 18:01, 17 February 2011

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for cleanup

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification
add new | history | archives | old index

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} -

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5
Broom icon.svg A user suggests that this project page be cleaned up, giving the reason: “page is more than 200 000 bytes long, with unresolved issues from as far back as 2008. needs a lot of cleanup”.
Please see the discussion on Requests for cleanup(+) or the talk page for more information and remove this template after the problem has been dealt with.

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for cleanup

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification
add new | history | archives | old index

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} -

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

This is a manually created and maintained list of pages that require cleanup.

Adding a request: To add a request, place the template {{rfc}} to the messy entry, and then make a new nomination here. Include an explanation of your reasons for nominating the page for cleanup, but please put any extensive discussion in the discussion page of the article itself.

Closing a request: A conversation should remain here at least for one week after the {{rfc}} tag is removed, then moved to that page's talk page from here. When the entry has been cleaned, please strike the word here, and put any discussion on the talk page of the cleaned entry.

Pages tagged with the template {{rfc}} are automatically placed in Category:Requests for cleanup. They are automatically removed from the category when the template is removed, or, if the template has not been used, when Category:Requests for cleanup has been removed from the page.

If an entry needs attention from experienced editors in a specific language, consider using {{attention}} instead of {{rfc}}.

See also Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion process, Help:Nominating an article for cleanup or deletion, and Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion elements. Category:Pages with broken file links should also be cleaned out periodically.

Oldest tagged {{rfc}}s

pET plasmid
jumping Jesus
Salafi Christian

Lhermitte sign
bum roll
Georgie Porgie
Sasang typology
give out
over de kling jagen
echarse al plato
daylight savings time
burn in hell
job aid
bur block
vitam impendere vero

holla back
California spangled cats
hit the ball twice
social profile
hear both sides
cut out
Mayberry Machiavelli
spur on
alone in a crowd
drive-by media
got it going on
Sermon on the Mount
summa cum laude
risk tolerance
up front
sleep under the same bridge
framan af
Nican Tlaca
sola gratia
black hat
static random access memory
ignotum per ignotius
abstract verb
warm-hot intergalactic medium
third person
the one

Master of the Universe
Still's murmur
endogenous retrovirus
zincirleme ad tamlaması
text file

Marŝalan Insularon
squatter camp


September 2008


need to be split by accent, preferably also reducing space. Are PoS headers needed (2 lines taken up)? DCDuring TALK 17:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Current BP discussion favors using ===Pronunciation 1=== and ===Pronunciation 2=== as section headers. --EncycloPetey 20:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


Same split by accent, not phonetic alphabet as above. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

October 2008


The rfc asks "translations or related?" for the "See also" list in the entry of selected abbreviations of legal entity names for various countries. It seems to me that we should have an appendix for these that each individual entry could refer to in its "See also" section. I would also think we should have Latin/Roman spellings, whatever the original script, whatever the result of the more general decision about romanizations and transliterations. There are likely to be standard romanizations that are broadly agreed/accepted in international commerce. DCDuring TALK 16:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

See relatedly User:Msh210/Sandbox.—msh210 17:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
You motivated me to find w:Types of business entity. DCDuring TALK 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


The usage notes section is pretty long, and has some unverified comments too. --Jackofclubs 11:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


Definition line needs an accuracy check, please.—msh210 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008


Heading for a noun instead of an initialism, could use some more explanation of what QEX actually stands for. Nadando 23:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed the heading to Initialism. I think it should probably be capitalised, too, but I have not checked that in detail. Equinox 19:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

frugging (+ sugging)

Categories: Entries with level or structure problems | English words needing attention Mutante 23:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC). Also see sugging please.

thousand one

I have no idea what such an entry is supposed to look like, but, as is, deleting this would be better than keeping it. DCDuring TALK 03:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussions I've seen disfavored the inclusion of these sum-of-parts numerical entries. The information could be better handled with an appendix on constructing and using such numbers in English. --EncycloPetey 19:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


Needs a few things as outlined in the tag in the entry. Also needs some wikilinks if it is to be counted by the software so when you fix it be sure to remove it from Articles not counted as "good" by the wiki software --50 Xylophone Players talk 19:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


Can the material on this orphaned talk page be somehow used to create an entry komilla? Such an entry has never existed, as it seems. -- Gauss 22:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: There is always a first time!!! The word 'Komilla' exists in many ways and in many countries. So, As long as the content is not wrong, what’s the harm in creating an entry that did not exist till now? --—This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 22:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)..

I basically called for the creation of such an entry by someone knowledgeable because the material on the talk page is too confused for me to make any sense of it. Have a look at other entries how an entry is supposed to be formatted. Questions to answer (in an entry, not here!) are, for example: Which language is komilla supposed to be? Is it a proper noun (hence capitalised) or not? For what concrete meaning is the word used? For your information, talk pages without corresponding article are normally deleted without much ado. -- Gauss 23:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Better???

Stephen thanks for your help with the Arabic Pronunciation. Although the word would be pronounced diiferrently in different languages, but can anybody help with a basic pronunciation (in phonetic symbols – British RP as well as IPA) of this word. I think the Spelled Pronunciation would be something like /kaw-me-laa/ —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 15:43, 17 November 2008.

Better, but still not clear enough. First, it is still on a talk page. Second, it is unclear which parts belong where. There is a section proper noun, which should probably end up on a page starting with an uppercase character, such as Komilla or Comilla or Komila or ... Then, there is a section adjective, which has a definition line full of nouns. That can't be right. Third, the links you provide lead to komala and kamala. So, is komila even the right form? I'm afraid I'm completely useless at sorting this. -- Gauss 15:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


Definitions given are way out in left field. From a stationary gun, you strafe an advancing line of attackers. Video games have had absolutely nothing to do with "shifting" meaning of WWI era terms that have remained in common use, for about a century. --Connel MacKenzie 12:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


The entire section seems to have been copied from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/acquaintance

Is it correct to say that such copying can't be done? Nikitakit 23:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The copying was actually from acquaintance in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam, 1913 That source is in the public domain; for politeness' sake, we should indicate that we used it, but it's not a copyright violation or anything. I don't know why Dictionary.com tags it copyright 1998. *shrug* But yeah, our entry does need clean-up. —RuakhTALK 02:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I did some clean-up (and removed the rfc tag). I think the entry makes sense now. Someone should probably cite the source, but unfortunately I don't know the right wiki format. Nikitakit 04:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Not done yet. Ponderous usage notes. Added Webster tag. DCDuring TALK 17:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


Sort synonyms, antonyms by sense; general modernisation of 1913 language. DCDuring TALK 21:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ie, still Websterian. DCDuring TALK 17:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

religious naturalism

Encyclopedic. By the same editor as neo-Pantheism. —RuakhTALK 23:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

spiritual naturalism

Note: the title of this section was previously [[Spiritual Naturalism]].

Same editor as neo-Pantheism and religious naturalism. —RuakhTALK 20:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  • This, together with ALL the contributions of User:Jlrobertson need attention. Nouns defined as proper nouns, capitalization chosen at random, encyclopedic, strange section names etc. Is it worth the bother or shall we just delete them? SemperBlotto 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Just moved it to spiritual naturalism; the capitals aren't part of the phrase, and it's not a proper noun. I don't feel very qualified to do cleanup though! Equinox 23:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed caps but they are proper names of religions, added refs. Hay, I'm learningJlrobertson 17:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of the claims in this overly encyclopedic definition are paradoxical to say the least. I don't see how a world view can be devoid of supernatural assumptions while simultaneously allowing religious interpretation and a concept of god. This strikes me as borderline gibberish. -- WikiPedant 05:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

December 2008

Any Chinese folks have any idea how to do this? I'm rather lost here. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


I am continuing to find well-meaning but wrong entries for Latin "suffixes". I'd like some input on how to revise this entry. The first definition is incorrect, in that it implies "-ium" is a formative suffix used to form nouns. However, the first example goven for this (auditor - auditorium) is clearly incorrect. The correct sequence is that the noun auditor (one who hears) became an adjective auditorius (pertaining to listeners), whose neuter singular nominative has the inflectional ending "-ium". It is rather common for the neuter singular of adjectives to take a substantive (noun) sense. So "-ium" is not a formative suffix in this situation. I cannot tell whether the other example (castellum - castilium) is valid, since "castilium" does not appear in my Latin dictionaries (for either Classical or medieval Latin).

The second definition, for forming chemical elements in New Latin would need support. By the time these new elements were being named, Latin was no longer the international language of scientific communication. I am not sure that the "-ium" element names are actually New Latin at all, since those names aren't used in the languages I'm familiar with (e.g. the Spanish name for osmium is osmio).

So, what do people recommend doing with the entry? --EncycloPetey 04:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If there's an ISO code for dog Latin, this would probably qualify. :-) Otherwise I'm not sure what to do with "suffixes used in some modern languages to make up Latin-looking words." The chemical sense could perhaps be Translingual, though as you note it is not used in many languages. -- Visviva 05:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, to begin with, it seems like this suffix could be considered a combination of -i- and -um, with -um being a second declension neuter (nominative, accusative, and vocative, right?) stem, and.....I'm somewhat confused about what -i- means, but I suspect it is similar to what's currently presented in the entry. Otherwise, it could simply be considered the neuter form of -ius, meriting only an inflected form entry. Note that I'm only talking about Latin, not English. I suggest that someone (someone being an utterly unambiguous reference to EP :-)) write good entries for -ius and -um, and see where that takes us. The English seems ok to me. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
What part of speech is an inflectional ending? Generally, we haven't ever included inflectional endings as their own entries, unless it was a formative suffix. In Latin, the -us would indicate (usually) masculine nominative and second declension, but is not tied to one part of speech. It can show up in nouns, numerals, adjectives, and participles, but there are several verb forms that end in -(am)us, -(em)us, or -(im)us. The comparative of many adverbs ends in -ius. In short, there isn't anything useful or specific that could be said in an entry about the ending. The ending appears in every major part of speech and it is only part of an inflectional pattern in each (except adverbs, which technically do not inflect). --EncycloPetey 22:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

moved to RFD -- Prince Kassad 18:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


Needs to be split by etymology. —RuakhTALK 01:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Aboriginal American

I don't know how we handle demonyms. Is this one SoP? Is the more common capitalisation of the collocation ("aboriginal American") SoP? The adjective PoS seems not always to be attributive use. DCDuring TALK 00:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the first-'a'-lowercase version is SoP, to answer your second question. The first-'A'-uppercase version I think is not SoP: although it has the same referent as Aboriginal + American, it gets at that referent via a different reference (if that makes any sense).—msh210 19:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


A jumble, especially of etymologies. DCDuring TALK 13:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


Help! Supposed to be Kikongo (a macrolanguage according to w:Kikongo); given definition is not particularly intelligible and difficult to verify. -- Visviva 12:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

kick up

4 defs, some amateurish. Too specialised. Some SoP. DCDuring TALK 01:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


Synonyms section needs splitting by senses, and hyponyms need to be spun off into their own (also split-by-sense) section. —RuakhTALK 09:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


Knowledge of Ukraine would help. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 01:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As a proper noun I know of it. Is it also a common noun in English? —Stephen 20:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


This entry was for some reason treating this forename as primarily Czech, which is nonsense, even stating it's "often used in Czech Republic,...", which is utter nonsense (10 people thus named in Czech Republic phone book [1] &c). I removed all the mentions relating to Czech (language or republic) and leave the rest to those who might know in which languages it's relevant. --Duncan 20:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


Labelled as "Gaulish", it does not specify which Gaulish. Each branch of Gaulish has its own ISO code. --EncycloPetey 22:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009


Tagged, but not listed: overlong usage notes; ety includes alt form? usexes uninformative as to meaning (I suppose usexes = usage examples) H. (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned it up partially. The usage notes section is still a bit unruly, but less so. —Internoob (DiscCont) 02:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


The citations should be moved to the Citations namespace and use the proper format. H. (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


Needs more information. Currently it sounds as if this is a general term for any Tarot card, which I don't think is the case. (Also, should this be at Tower?) —RuakhTALK 23:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


RuakhTALK 02:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


Has been tagged for a long time. What is the status of that Shorthand header? Can’t we simply put that under Trivia or some such? The relevant reference I could find was Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2007/October#Shorthand, seems like it got abandoned. I do think it is useful information to have, though. Maybe just get rid of the L4 header, as suggested in the archive? H. (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be possible to change all the "Shorthand" headers to "Alternative forms" and handle them that way. --EncycloPetey 05:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
That's for alternative forms in en-Latn. Shorthand is a specialist notation – does our mandate include it? If so, how many different shorthand notations are going to eventually show up in English entries? Are we also going to include Morse code, semaphore, pig Latin, etc? Michael Z. 2009-03-05 15:43 z
Shorthand seems as quaint as a mimeograph machine, doesn't it? Somebody once wanted to do it, won some level of consent, started, then abandoned the effort. It's an interesting relic and an object lesson in how projects can turn out.
You don't have any actual experience that would suggest that we run the risk that some antiquarian could decide to add all kinds of obsolete formats beyond the reach of search engines and the interests of users, do you? DCDuring TALK 19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

angels dancing on the head of a pin

There seem to be multiple senses here, even if we’re just taking into account the three quotations provided.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


An anon (varied IP) has been adding numerous translations for numerous languages, many of which are suspect. Could experts in various languages please look over and correct/remove translations? --EncycloPetey 04:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

March 2009


Old cleanup tag. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

picture framing

This is probably an easy one for someone who knows anything about the topic — which I don't. —RuakhTALK 16:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

  • This is one of many articles by the same user. They all need looking at - but I haven't got any enthusiasm for the job. SemperBlotto 16:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Of the ones I know something about, the content isn't bad, though a little wordy. I'll put his new pages on my tasks. DCDuring TALK 18:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

ballpark figure, ballpark estimate

They are the same, but the etymologies are quite different, as are the regional remarks. H. (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

These look like sum-of-parts expressions with attributive use of ballpark (2).
I'm starting to perceive a problem with definitions like this being distributed over four or more various entries. I think we need a form-of template like {{common expression including}} to link them all to the lemma. Michael Z. 2009-04-09 14:25 z
We can already do that for any idiom. Just set up one main entry containing the defn, with ancillary {{alternative form of}} entries. I completely agree that redundant full entries for the same thing are bad news (since they always get out of sync). -- WikiPedant 22:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think ballpark figure is sum-of-parts, because both portions have multiple senses, but only one combination of them applies. I agree with you about ballpark estimate. --EncycloPetey 22:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't interfere with our usual application of “sum of parts.” It may feel obscure because ballpark is not used in its literal sense, but this is a reasonably common expression. It would be useful to mention or define this set phrase for the sake of English learners, however, but we don't currently have any guideline which recommends or allows it. Michael Z. 2009-05-14 14:00 z


Derived terms need to be split. Modernise, check senses seemingly from MW1913. Etystub, rfp. DCDuring TALK 01:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

nota bene

All the non-English language sections need cleaning up; viz., the definitions need correcting, appropriate POS headers need to be used, and they need expansion and elaboration generally.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed definitions. —Stephen 03:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


Needs cleanup; Mandarin word. --EncycloPetey 22:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Also English. It’s the English name of one of the Chinese languages, like Hakka, Wu, and Cantonese. Gan (赣语) is named after the Gan River, which flows through central China. —Stephen 07:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


What language is this? Looks just like a transliteration. Kamboja has also been tagged since December 2007.--Makaokalani 16:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

button punch

The POS is "verb", but the definition reads like a noun. I believe this should also be "to button-punch". — Paul G 09:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


There are now five definitions, entered in this series of edits. Is this wanted? --Dan Polansky 13:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OED has one computing sense. It would take an expert to say whether there are any real distinguishable technical senses here, but they all look the same to me. Michael Z. 2009-05-17 17:24 z


Format of references, combine philosophy senses, more ordinary sense needed. DCDuring TALK 16:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


I'm not certain that especially the first two definitions under determiner and adverb belong to each, and there seems to be the pronoun POS missing altogether. Can anyone have a look? (I'd rather not meddle with it myself as in my native language "determiner" is only considered a function, not a POS in its own right, so I'm afraid I might make more damage than good.) --Duncan 10:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A determiner can serve in a pronomial capactiry (in English and Spanish), so the pronoun sense isn't missing. It looks as thoought the pronomial sense has been listed as a "Noun", and I'm not sure that's correct. I'll have a look at the entry. --EncycloPetey 17:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I've combined the apparently synonymous defintions, which reduces the number of definitions to 2, 2, and 1. Does that look better? I do think, however, that we might want to call the "noun" sense a "pronoun" instead, but that would affect a number of entries if we do. --EncycloPetey 17:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, it's much better now. Yes, I think that the "noun" sense is in fact either a pronoun or an adverb, but certainly not noun - at least not in the examples given. --Duncan 20:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
In the definitions, "more many/more much" - this sounds horrible --Volants 15:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. Comparative form of many: more many., in greater number. (for a discrete quantity)
  2. Comparative form of much: more much., in greater quantity, amount, or proportion. (for a continuous quantity)


  • Synonyms (and derived terms?) should be split up in senses.
  • Verb sense should be merged with weird out, and ‘weird out’ should be derived term. H. (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009


Most of the content needs to be moved to Oriental. —RuakhTALK 14:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, an anon at RFV objected to the interlinear usage notes, on the grounds that oriental can only be considered objectionable when used as a racial term, not when used otherwise. (Use as a racial term doesn't have distinct sense lines.) —RuakhTALK 16:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


Most quotes not of headword or are mentions, move to Citations page under appropriate headings, at least. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


Some quotes not of headword. DCDuring TALK 14:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

They should be kept together to demonstrate the history of its usage, capitalization. The first English usage of this word happens to use an obsolete spelling. I'll move them to the citations page. Michael Z. 2009-06-12 02:26 z


Is it the filing system? The card? The file of cards? More than one of these?msh210 20:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please inspect. Also, see -ex. DCDuring TALK 21:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Now there are two senses, both meaning "a system...". (Actually, I'm not sure how whether the first is not a special case of the second and removable.) But google:"on the kardex" seems to show that the card is also called "Kardex", and google:"in the kardex" seems to show that the file of cards (or some sort of file) is. But I'm not sure.msh210 22:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
At the very least the medical system should get an "especially" because it is discussed in many 21st century nursing/medical-office-administration books. The cards do have that usage, but so also do a rotary card holder, desktop card drawer cabinet, etc. I wouldn't mind if someone who knew something about this would finish this or let us know about usage in medical offices, hospitals, libraries, other offices. This is not a term other OneLook dictionaries have (except one medical dictionary), nor Wikipedia. DCDuring TALK 23:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Also Kardex AG (possibly the current owner of the paper-system trade name) is making various space-saving physical-storage devices, which may also be referred to as "Kardexes" by users. DCDuring TALK 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

July 2009


As stated, is this English, French or both? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly this is French, at least. --Volants 14:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


Shift some quotes to citations page. Usage notes are etymological (Move to ety section, under show/hide?) DCDuring TALK 11:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

could one be any more

Useless entry as is. This archived RfD of May-June 2008 was never implemented. There were supposed to be a "boatload" of redirects to make the entry findable, of which none were added, no one accepting responsibility therefor. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

on one's feet

Adjective definitions in adverb PoS; No Adjective PoS section. Usexes only for "back on your feet". DCDuring TALK 01:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

today we are all

today, we are all X

I moved what I found at today, we are all X to today we are all. I looked at the redirects and found many. They look useless to me for search, but someone else might see something in them. I can't imagine someone ever typing in "X" for this kind of formula, nor commas. DCDuring TALK 02:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


Many little things. + usage notes not about usage but about etymology, including conjectural etymology well covered in WP. DCDuring TALK 17:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And the language, too, it might have to be changed to English ("ck" is not used in Luo, and Robert Ullmann has promised to check the Luo spelling). Lmaltier 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a slightly-common English name now (see [2] and [3]) so I changed the header to English. There should be a separate Luo section (but the translations should stay in the English section). I added to the ety that it was an "Anglicization of a Luo given name". --Bequw¢τ 20:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

August 2009

0800 number

Anyone wanting to {{rfd}} this go ahead, but at the very least, it needs some cleanup. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Appendix:Glossary of chess

Partial cleanup John Cross 18:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

capital of the world

partial cleanup has now been done John Cross 18:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Somer derived terms don't meet CFI --Volants 14:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

predictive coding

Clean up, unless it doesn't meet CFI anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

gravitational convection


Encyclopedic. RfD tagged in Feb, 2009; not yet discussed here. DCDuring TALK 01:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mostly needs a good whacking of the trimmer, but probably worth a definition. Circeus 05:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree, keep. Mglovesfun 14:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I wasn't aware gravity convects. Actually it doesn't intransitively, only transitively. I.e. the fluid is convecting, and gravity causing it. Not entirely obvious. DAVilla 08:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Is our new procedure to take a vote as whether anyone is unfamiliar with the term? Is that in WT:CFI? Is WT:CFI a dead letter? Why isn't this just an "only in Wikipedia" entry? DCDuring TALK 11:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You're confusing "having too much encyclopedic content" and "not satisfying CFI". The former is ground for trimming, not deletion. I have no idea where in WT:CFI you can read it is. Circeus 01:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
My comment was tongue in cheek. I wasn't aware gravity convects because gravity in fact does not convect (itself, i.e. intransitively), but it does effect convection on something else. Or maybe it does convect, in some sort of wave phenomenon? But that would have nothing to do with liquids or the sense in question.
Two nouns like snow train can have different interpretations depending on how you think the parts might fit together. Does it carry snow? Is it made of snow? Does it plow the snow aside for a regular train? Sometimes you have to forget you know what the term means, and see if the correct answer is attainable and certain, if it jumps out at you. This one does not, as it would seem to pertain to the gravity field itself.
I did not mean simply that I was unfamiliar with (the science of) gravitational convection, and I would find those terms shaky if used to decide these matters. (Stephen's comments are excused on the basis that he almost always votes to keep.) DAVilla 13:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep and trim. I don't see what makes this any less valid than forced convection, free convection or natural convection. It just has a lot more words. The entire description of what gravitational convection is doesn't need to be there, just the most important parts. Summarize. Concisely. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein
I'd be happy to run the other convection terms through the process for "fairness". Each entry should be standing on its own, however.
Is this an idiom? Can a dictionary definition do it justice? Does it make sense to someone who "understands" gravity and convection? Would template {{only in}} be more helpful or less misleading than a two-line definition? DCDuring TALK 03:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Kept and tagged for cleanup. Copying this conversation to WT:RFC.​—msh210 21:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


Category:Dutch compound words

The category contains many words that are formed as prefix + stem, which is not compounding. These should be marked using {{prefix}} instead of {{compound}}. Example: bemerken, opbouwen. --Dan Polansky 09:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


Mglovesfun (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Renamed to Gråen (but still rubbish). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

size matters

Has passed rfd, but needs a much better definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


Very verbose etymology. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


This entry’s quotations need page numbers and links.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


Mglovesfun (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


Something is wrong here. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How about now? —RuakhTALK 20:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
So the -e- doesn't get elided (broguing)? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


criketsens:pl insert plain engl4/so laymen getit2..--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


Noun sense: "One who favors involving multiple parties when approaching foreign relations". This is pretty hard to comprehend. Also, are we sure this doesn't just mean "one who supports multilateralism"? Korodzik 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


Hello. What is the problem with the article as it stands now? —This comment was unsigned.

  • There is no headword template - therefore the term is not in any category.
  • The definition entry contains what should be in an ===Etymology=== section, but does not define the term. SemperBlotto 11:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Also I don't think it needs a capital letter, does it? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Renamed, using span to link here. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


Etym., pron., and Mason & Dixon quot. all need clean-up; Introducing Foucault may need a separate sense, since the one we have is pretty vague, and the sense used seems more specific.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)



By the same author. Looks genuine but the head word in the article and the page names aren't the same. Mglovesfun (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2009


A draft of the evolution of the meaning of the term, without context tags and dates, and insufficient support for the senses. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Messy transwikied entry. 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

echarse al plato

The problems seem to be that the first two examples don't use echarse al plato, they just use echarse. Other than that the idiomaticness seems doubtful as this just means to serve to oneself on a plate. However if the idiomatic meanings are correct it must be kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


I've done what I can, without knowing the language. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:French idioms

This needs splitting into its subcategories [[Category:French expressions]] and [[Category:French similes]]. But I'm not entirely sure how. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

technological singularity

Mglovesfun (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

November 2009


The verb section seems to be the original Websters entry. Nothing very clear, and overlapping definitions. -- ALGRIF talk 14:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


Usage notes are too long. Maybe worthwhile in the etymology, but shorter. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


Looks like it might exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:US State Capitals

This topical category that is a subcategory of Category:Capital cities needs a rename, but there are several logical possibilities, so I wanted to get some input.

Category:US state capitals
The simplest rename, but still somewhat clunky and not well suited to be paralleled for similar topical categories covering other countries. Plus I'd prefer to avoid using US in category names.
Category:American state capitals
Better suited to paralleling, say for example in Category:Canadian provincial capitals, but unlike Category:American English, I don't think the ambiguity of American can be justified on the grounds of euphony.
Category:State capitals of the United States
Form that I'd happen to prefer. However...
Category:State capitals in the United States
... is the form used on Wikipedia, but the equivalent categories for other countries are a mixture of in and of so I don't see a compelling reason to blindly follow Wikipedia here.

In short unless consensus calls for another choice, I'll see about moving these over to Category:State capitals of the United States in about a week or so. — Carolina wren discussió 03:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I prefer an option not listed: Category:Capital cities of US states. --EncycloPetey 01:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


Part of speech, plural, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

bust a move

Related terms need organising. Maybe some sense could be merged, maybe not. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Take a look. Heyzeuss 14:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:United States of America

As I work to replace the deprecated {{nav}} with {{topic cat}}, I have come to this category which causes problems. In and of itself it isn't a problem, but the per language subcategories aren't all in agreement with it. The codes eo, hu, ja, nl, and pt use United States of America, but el, zh, zh-cn, and zh-tw use the plain United States. It will be some work to convert it either way. I have a preference for the shorter United States, but since {{topic cat}} is inflexible concerning parents, uniformity is essential one way or the other. Leaving a note on the Beer Parlor, since this should affect other categories that use the country name. — Carolina wren discussió 22:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The term "United states" as a calque is ambiguous, since there are other countries whose official names begin (in their languages) with "United States of...". the full name is thus preferred for clarity, even if it is a bit longer. --EncycloPetey 01:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Who is talking about a calque? Category names are in English and this is the English Wiktionary. Provide some actual examples of United States by itself being used in English to refer to the United States of Mexico or any other country besides the United States of America, and then I might see some merit in such hyperclarification. At least those who object to using American as the related demonym can point to actual usage of it as something other than pertaining to the United States. As a point of comparison, neither Wikipedia nor Commons has a problem with using a plain Category:United States. — Carolina wren discussió 23:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the longer form seems to be the one that has virtually chance of causing some kind of difficulty whereas one could imagine difficulty with the short form, especially over a long time horizon. But I suppose we could opt for the short form on the grounds that eventually there will be enough technical resources available to make whatever renamings might be required less troublesome than they seem to be now. DCDuring TALK 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
If it were a straightforward category rename, bots should be able to handle if needed. However it could easily be argued that the long form would be the likelier to be a problem over the long term. Imagine that Wiktionary were now three centuries old and we'd had to rename Category:United Kingdom of Great Britain to Category:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to Category:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland instead of just having Category:United Kingdom. Let us also not forget Category:United Kingdom of Denmark-Norway, Category:United Kingdom of Sweden-Norway, Category:United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves, Category:United Kingdom of the Netherlands or Category:United Kingdom of Libya. With all these other United Kingdoms if one is going to argue that United States is too vague, then by that same standard Category:United Kingdom is in need of a rename. — Carolina wren discussió 00:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Less ambiguous is good, no need to revise decisions is good; shorter is good: 1 and 2 conflict with 3. The ambiguity is very low now and the likelihood that will change much seems low. The likelihood that there would be a need to revise the categories is thus low. If that revision could be accomplished at reasonable cost than the shorter label seems fine.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that we have tolerated the sloppy use of UK. DCDuring TALK 01:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


Sense #2 definition & example needs work, as well the translations. Tooironic 01:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


Reason explained in the rfc-box in the entry. --Hekaheka 02:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Intensifier isn't a part of speech. Some intensifiers are adjectives, some adverbs, some both. The class of adverbial intensifiers include some for which the term "intensifier" is a misnomer, eg. "quite", "rather", "barely". The term "degree adverb" includes intensifying adverbs and those other grammatically similar non-intensifying adverbs.
Although I would greatly like to remove items from Interjections, "damn" seems to be used as an interjection. It is also sometimes used as a noun: "a tinker's damn", "Not that I care three damns what figure I may cut" (Goldsmith). DCDuring TALK 03:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


All of the definitions are worded as adjectives. DCDuring TALK 16:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Its peculiarity may be that it modifies a statement about the truth or untruth of a proposition. Thus we need some formula other than "in a manner that".
All the examples and synonyms are focused on the future. How about "Sarah possibly has my keys." or "John was possibly asleep at the wheel."? Pingku 17:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Also, consider: "What you said is true, possibly." and "What you said is possibly true." It does not have to modify a sentence (or clause).
CGEL classes it as a modal adverb among perhaps 30 others. Modal, domain ("linguistically", "professionally") and evaluative ("fortunately", "ironically", "ominously") are their other adverb-containing subclasses of adjuncts of clauses. Reviewing the adverbs one subclass at a time is enormously revealing of defective entries. DCDuring TALK 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I've come across modality before in the context of logic. I note that "possibly" has an obvious link to the epistemic (aka alethic) modal pairing possibility/necessity. (And from modal logic, "not possibly not" = "necessarily", and vice-versa.) It occurs to me that "possibly" could, just by itself, be expressive of a range of modal concepts in the epistemic domain. Maybe it can encroach on the deontic (may/must) as well?
Modal adverbs sound interesting from the point of view of attaching themselves to a variety of verbs, particularly non-modal verbs, thereby attaching an aspect of modality. Pingku 16:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I am addicted to the weasel words semantically weak modal adverbs (possibly, seemingly, evidently, etc), especially in written communication, because they seemingly (!) soften what might be too direct a statement. They seem slightly less ambiguous than the weak modal verbs.
I have created and partially populated Category:English modal adverbs. Most of them are based on CGEL. I have added a couple of synonyms. Any phrasal ones are not CGEL. It might (!) be useful to break them into syntactic/synonym subgroups (possibly overlapping) to support quality improvement by sense comparisons and to facilitate translations, especially using trans-see where appropriate. Perhaps (!) an Appendix or a couple of Wikisaurus pages would do the job. DCDuring TALK 19:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Getting back to the case in point, how about, for a start:
1. (modifying a sentence or clause) {{non-gloss definition|Indicates that the proposition may be true (is not certainly false) regardless of any facts or circumstances known to, stated by or implied by the speaker}}
2. (modifying a verb) {{non-gloss definition|Indicates that the action may successfully be performed (is not impossible) regardless of any facts or circumstances known to, stated by or implied by the speaker that might limit the performance}}
It doesn't fix the problem of wording it like an adverb, but at least it will be flagged. Pingku 16:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Good finessing of the problem. I've been using {{non-gloss definition}} quite a bit for hard cases. It is easy to justify for all kinds of sentence adverbs. Modals, too, even when not being used as sentence adverbs. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added the above, plus one for adjectives, but couldn't remove the old defs - they link to the glosses in the Translations section. From a brief look, the Dutch seems to be an adjective, the Russian may be OK for a general translation, but the Finnish and Swedish have different translations for different glosses. Pingku 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I think we have to give due process (RfV?) to the bad senses anyway. I don't see how we can avoid ttbc'ing the translations if the senses are wrong. I had optimistically hoped that translators look at the PoS in addition to the gloss, but my optimism seems unwarranted. There is no reason to keep erroneous definitions, just because there are translations. We can keep the existing trans tables with the bad glosses, insert a check-trans notice above them to discourage more translations from being added to the bad glosses, ttbc the translations of bad glosses, and trreq translations of senses we have confidence in. Argh. I hope some of those who translate are watching this. DCDuring TALK 17:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

December 2009


Split by etymology; structure; missing inflection templates; PoS? DCDuring TALK 23:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Latin section also needs cleanup. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


Could our Czech and Polish contributors help with this entry? We have an anon who keeps shifting IP and needs assistance with basic Wiktionary entry formatting. The Czech section has no definition, only an etymology. The Polish section has several oddities, including Wikipedia style footnoting of references. --EncycloPetey 04:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

My provider doesn't give static IPs. Can You give link to example or instruction about format of footnotes in wiktionary - I usually contribute to Wikipedia.-- 05:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
We tend to avoid footnotes. When we include Citations to show the use of a word, we use a format that you can see examples of at the entry for listen, or you can see a non-English quote (with translation) at biceps#Polish, biceps#Latin, or biceps#French. We support our entries with direct examples of use from published literature, rather than citing other dictionaries, whenever we can. For example, if the gender of a noun is variable, then it helps to have citations showing use of the noun in each gender. This is much better than adding a footnote, and makes the footnote unnecessary. --EncycloPetey 05:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
about Polish section: reasons of large number of references, (word in fact is "odd", and thus this entry will always contain "oddities"):
  • the word is very formal, but at the same time has vulgar [or slang] meaning
  • the word has different genres for different meanings
  • the word is region (or even village)-depended, has local modifications, and thus hard to global defining (it's simple folk instrument)
  • referenced Polish dictionary gives only etymology for one entry [not meaning]. -- 05:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The question then is: Can the additional senses that you want to add be supported with Quotations? Our Criteria for Inclusion policy requires that a sense be attestable with three citations. You might start by gathering published citations, and work from there. If there a folk usages in villages that have never been published, then those senses will not be attestable, and will not meet our policy for inclusion. --EncycloPetey 05:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that current definition is quite good - to catch all meanings in one definition Polish dictionaries use terms: often, usually, typically, etc. I agree that formating is bad and needs cleaning but word is not typical. References were added because of demand of wiktionarian.-- 05:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The person who "demanded" a reference has only four edits on Wiktionary, averaging about one edit every six months. Most of the active Wiktionarians do not use the {{unreferenced}} template. --EncycloPetey 05:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
IMHO References are important here because one should not take responsibility for vulgar [or slang] meanings and at the same time very formal meanings for example in citations of Catholic priests-- 06:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
But the References don't help if Citations/Quotations can't be found. Our key policy of WT:CFI requires that a word be attestable. Even with lots of references, an entry definition with no citations would end up being removed. --EncycloPetey 15:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Attestation criteria looks met, also citations are provided more of them are easy to find for example using Google with commands "site: .pl" [, or better http://google.pl ] for Polish language (WARNING explicit [or even ILLEGAL] material [not always catched by SafeSearch filter] is possible [as result] because of vulgar [or slang] sense) or "site: .cz" [or http://google.cz] for Czech.-- 14:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed the Czech as there was no definition. Feel free to add it back with a definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This is probably also an English word --Volants 15:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


An editor has noted that the word "may refer to any of the senses of the adjective". As such, this adverb has multiple senses requiring multiple definitions and a Translations table cleanup. --EncycloPetey 05:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't trust the senses at spiritual enough to take that approach. For now, could we settle for usage examples or citations illustrating use modifying at least verbs and adjectives (if not adverbs) and clauses/sentences? That would satisfy one kind of need. Adverbs are a bit like inflected forms, but more reminiscent of English verb -ing forms and past participles. It seems like a bridge too far to give such entries a full set of senses and translations. Working on adverbs has reminded me of the importance of stem-word entry quality (especially definitions) for the entry quality of morphologically derived terms. DCDuring TALK 12:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's a quote from Churchill:
The first step in the re-creation of the European Family must be a partnership between France and Germany. In this way only can France recover the moral and cultural leadership of Europe. There can be no revival of Europe without a spiritually great France and a spiritually great Germany.
I don't think he wished to imply that a country might literally have a soul, or that these countries must necessarily closely align themselves with a (the same?) church or look to God to guide their policies. Perhaps instead he implies a lesser meaning of "spiritual" that applies (in this case) to countries. Presumably, providing leadership in moral and cultural matters suffices.
Thus two possibilities present themselves: (1) Churchill intended a different meaning of "spiritual" that applies to countries or other collective entities; (2) in this case, "spiritually" is only an approximate (not literal) reference to the adjective. Pingku 15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Grand Slam

Questions of accuracy, notability and correct wording of definitions surround this entry. This, that and the other (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


An oenophile's delight. The "see also" items need to be sorted:

  1. Types of wine should be hyponyms under wine#Noun
  2. Cognate terms might go under related terms, though the cognate relationship is more remote (vini- and oeno-prefixed words?)
  3. There seem to be many low-value terms (butler, cantina)
-- DCDuring TALK 11:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


The second definition isn't a definition, and seems to be redundant to the first one. But it's hard to tell, as I can't work out what it means, if anything. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to show that as far as NATO is concerned, munitions refer strictly to fireworks and not guns. But I don't know if that's actually the case. —verily nest no settingsuns [ mai tok paeij ] 16:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


The quotations don't all seem to correspond to the senses they're attached to. Note that I just closed an RFV discussion for this entry; depending on how the cleanup plays out, we may need to return this to RFV. (That is, the RFV-passed sense may turn out not to have three cites.) —RuakhTALK 19:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I think the key question to focus on, in distinguishing these senses and assigning quotations accordingly, is what the patient (~direct object) is. Information or text can be wikified by putting it in a wiki; content that's already on a wiki, or an entire wiki page, can be wikified by formatting it so it's consistent with the rest of the wiki; and so on. Sense 3 seems to be patientless. —RuakhTALK 19:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


AFAICT this does mean something, but I can't vouch for the defintion. At best, it's much too vague. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


Originally tagged as no language. Now has a language, but is not well-written. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned this one up some. Please review to see if the changes passes muster.Dcmacnut 01:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

red book

Mglovesfun (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


Before a rewrite, we should remove any sentences (not headings) that actually contradict any policy, practice, or consensus, documented or not. See WT:RFDO#Wiktionary:Tutorial. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 15:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


Verb section needs a total rewrite. --Ivan Štambuk 07:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've revised the tennis definition and added a quote. If everybody could tackle just one sense like that, this would be much easier for all concerned. --EncycloPetey 21:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I've inserted trans/intrans tags, 1 context, 2-3 obsolete/archaic; split 1-2 senses; moved their "usage examples" to separate lines, added a couple of wikilinks and added some verb type information for each sense as comments. All of this requires relatively little effort and not too much knowledge or judgment. Some of it might be wrong. Is it a help to others? I find it helps give me some signposts when I get to doing the real work.
Other preliminary steps might be to:
  1. extract synonyms in the entry;
  2. identify optional (or disallowed) complement types (PPs, to or bare infinitives, that or wh- clauses, participles, gerunds, adverbs); and
  3. identify synonyms not in the entry.
Again, nothing too hard. A next step might then be to find a modern dictionary strong on grammar, like Longmans DCE, or on modern senses like Encarta, or just comprehensive/definitive like OED to verify what's in and to find what might be missing. Adding obviously or apparently missing modern senses might clarify what is really wrong with the Websters 1913 senses. By this point it should be possible to make real progress. It should not be necessary for one person to do all of it.
I wonder whether this kind of decomposition of the tasks would make it possible for more folks to participate in improving this kind of entry. Obviously, someone with particular knowledge about a specialized sense (or any other reason for confidence in addressing part of the job) could skip the preliminaries and get on with it. Any thoughts on other preliminary steps that might make the actual definition writing easier would be appreciated. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 23:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


It looks pretty, but it lacks senses, especially at the verb senses. (See all etymologies. Not sure they should be distinguished.) DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 12:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Fused two redundant etyms. --Jerome Potts 21:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


Several nautical related terms with definitions should be separate terms if they meet CFI as seems likely. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 12:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


Dated wording of senses. Usage note does not discuss applicability by sense. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 15:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Appendix:Year pronunciation

Pretty much needs to be entirely renamed with all the content replaced. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

turn up one's nose

Needs more intelligible citations, grammar info, etymology. One def is "sneer", which creates interesting image and confounds two distinct attitudes. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 13:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Etymology. Etymonline seems to be a trifle confused about its history: depending whether you look up "turn" or "nose" it is said to be attested from 1779 or 1818. Earlier (1579) is hold up one's nose.
I thought it might be related to look down one's nose (conjecturally, to tilt one's head so as to appear to look down on), but this is somewhat later (1921). Perhaps the original imputation was of smelliness, then. Pingku 14:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Citations. Added some, including for an added intransitive sense. Pingku 15:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Definitions. I'm strongly tempted to change them. I've added an extra one for an intransitive sense - to perform the gesture (suggested by citations). It might still be idiomatic, since there seems no way of telling from the words what the actual gesture is.
For the others, I think the emphasis should be on contempt and scorn (or the inclusive disdain) and perhaps disgust. I think the sneer is an optional extra, not a necessary part of the gesture. Pingku 15:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The intransitive sense is clearly supported. As you say, the connection of any of the quotes to the sneer facial expression is not apparent. The sneer quotes could as easily support the third sense, though its wording may need more work.
I think that to sneer and to turn up one's nose are two ways of expressing contempt. To turn up one's nose is a way of expressing one's one superiority therewith. To sneer conveys anger and menace therewith. The two bodily expressions are not literally the same and senses derived from them don't seem likely to lose their association with the facial expressions. I would not call the two terms very close synonyms. Following Darwin (w:The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals) and w:Paul Ekman, I would expect the facial expressions to be cross-cultural and even trans-species. Accordingly, I would think that they should translate distinctly into virtually every language.
These terms and other similar ones (curl one's lip, snarl, grin, smile, laugh, leer, agape) should be among the easiest to "translate" because the translator should not need to rely on the words but instead an "ostensive" definition in the form of one or more pictures. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 17:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Also interesting is  File:Plutchik's Wheel of Emotions.png on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons: File:Plutchik's Wheel of Emotions.png, which puts contempt between anger (sneer) and disgust (more like "turn up one's nose"). I find a difference between turning up one's at, say, bad food and turning up one's nose at a person, though turning up one's nose at something associated with a person (esp., some kind of offering) is tantamount to expressing one's superiority to or dislike of the person. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 18:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree. I came up with a similar distinction between person and object (my citations proved that object to be food). For definitions, I was thinking along the lines of (as currently numbered): 2: To regard with contempt or scorn; and 3: To refuse, especially with contempt, scorn or disgust.
Interestingly, the citation that best supports the "refuse" notion concerns an animal.
On the other hand, I wasn't sure how to handle the pre-existing 'citation', so I perhaps erred on the side of conservative editing. Pingku 19:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Most of the most basic things about emotions I've learned have been from observing and talking about dogs' interactions with each other.
This illustrates how hard defining is for verb-like terms, especially without numerous models. Brand-new definitions are difficult. And thorough revision isn't much easier.
I agree with the direction, but I think the definition needs to make explicit the overt display aspect. My inclination was make that primary, but the result could be primary as well, especially if there are two "pseudo-transitive" (with at) senses. (Should "turn up ones' nose at" be a separate phrasal verb?) Also, I think the "up" could move to after "nose" for an alternative form. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 20:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010


The Interlingua and Latin sections have almost no content; no part of speech, no categories. I imagine they are nouns. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


Afrikaans section. Something about it makes me think it's supposed to be two sections, one ==Afrikaans==, one ==English==, with the latter using {{South Africa}} and mentioning the former in its etymology. —RuakhTALK 23:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


This page may have too many definitions. I poorly express in English, So help editing.--KaleidoWaterMachine 06:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Portuguese: needs templates and structure. I'll do it myself later if necessary. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Now tagged the whole article, English, Italian and Portuguese need clean up. Translations, templates, also, why does {{pt-noun}} not accept f= for feminine forms? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Can the clean-up tag now be removed? —JakeybeanTALK 04:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The entry for "negro" is not sound, it's semperblotto's personal political statement. Negro is not an offensive term, it is being portrayed as offensive as part of a deliberate political act to co-opt the word "African" to mean negroid. This is truly offensive as there are Africans of various ethnicities. Semperblotto is acting on his personal politics and not in the best interest of knowledge.


Format looks like it might be a copyvio - but I do not have access to the reference given. SemperBlotto 08:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

US pronunciations of non-US words

Please see the list at User:Msh210/US pronunciations: it has 33 entries on it, and I thank CI for generating it. These words are listed as non-US but have pronunciations labeled as US. Are the words in fact used in the US (so the context tags are wrong), or are the pronunciations actually non-US? If neither — that is, all current labels are correct — then pronunciations should be removed (as they are foreign pronunciations, like a US pronunciation of an Estonian word, which we surely shouldn't have). Please feel free to remove items from the list as they're fixed.​—msh210 22:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see what the big deal is - they are, after all, the same language! (And thus cannot be compared to English and Estonian!) But if it encourages more non-US people to add pronunciations, then more power to you. Although the dominance of US English pronunciations on Wiktionary can be annoying (I should know - I added the Australian pronunciation of Australia quite some time ago), it is a reality we have to live with, and sometimes having both US and non-US pronunciations can be very interesting and helpful for users IMO. Tooironic 06:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
But a word like millilitre, which is simply not used in the US, is therefore not pronounced in the US except by someone deliberately saying a Briticism. So it is like an American's speaking Estonian. (Anyone else, feel free to chime in.) The words remaining on the list are listed above now.​—msh210 15:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I've now commented out all the US pronunciations of these words. (And removed the space-taking list of entries from this section; it remains, for now, at User:Msh210/US pronunciations.) Striking.​—msh210 16:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Unstriking, I completely object to the removal of these pronunciations. People who share a language have cause to use each other's words, and there is no contradiction in having a US pronunciation for a word associated with Scotland or England or Canada. A word like trifecta may not be used much in the UK but we are still likely to come across it in books or elsewhere and have a pronunciation associated with it, whether internally or used in speech. Ƿidsiþ 17:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course millilitre is used in the states (although it's spelled differently there). And what would an American call a bonspiel, for example w:The Bonspiel, except bonspiel?

Even real regionalisms get used outside their home region. Canadian English is not Estonian. Ideally, we'd base our “foreign” regional pronunciations on attested usage, but most of us know how our varieties of English are pronounced. Michael Z. 2010-03-18 03:09 z

Note concurrent conversation on this topic at [[User talk:Msh210#Removing_.22foreign.22_pronunciations]].​—msh210 15:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wiktionary policies

The three categories that were at RFDO I've tagged with {{movecat|Wiktionary policies}}. Does anyone object and think these need separate categories? Or if they do think that, what should the categories be called? I'm having a go at getting rid of all the bad capitalization on Wiktionary pages. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've add a {{{cat|}}} option to {{policy}} that means to divide it up you can put cat=Language considerations. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
FWIW this is me covering my ass in case I delete this and someone wants to restore them afterwards. So? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

buttery bar

The etymology and definition seem mixed up with each other. Equinox 04:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


A long list of definitions with no structure. Perhaps it should split by etymology? Chambers lists five. Pingku 19:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Dutch nouns with incomplete gender

An awful mess, sadly. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mg, if you are referring to the bulk of 'introductory text' in the beginning (, middle and part of the end :-)), then I think I agree with you. This is simply a (temporary) category for nouns that don't currently have a gender assigned to them; ergo, there is no need to introduce people, especially editors like me, to a lesson in the Dutch gender system, before getting to the relevant content.
I think, however, that this whole essay is in fact invaluble information for learners of Dutch. Maybe we could consider moving it to wikibooks while removing it from the category? JamesjiaoT C 05:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


French section, seems to be a feminine only adjective. Is that right? It also needs the sense missing at fr:lette. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


remove "uncountable" categorization from first definition The term Authorization has multiple defintions. The first definition, "1. (uncountable) The act of authorizing" should not be classified as uncountable. Both definition 1 (the act of authorizing) and definition 2 (formal sanction, permission, or warrant) should be classified as countable.

Rationale: authorization is both an action/process (definition 1) and the result of that process (definition 2). As a result of having been authorized, a user has an authorization.

  • The process can occur many discrete times ("BigBank NA performs 3.4 million credit authorizations per day") and thus definition 1 is countable.
  • The result can occur many discrete times ("Jim has authorizations to fly an airplane, drive a commercial truck, and ride a motorcycle") and thus definition 2 is also countable.

Parcheesy2 16:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that both senses are primarily uncountable. Consider these examples:
Even for a simple procedure, authorization frequently takes days.
Even for simple procedures, authorization frequently takes days.
He planned to participate, whether or not he received authorization.
They planned to participate, whether or not they all received authorization.
In all of the above, a countable formulation ("an authorization" or "authorizations", depending) is possible, but I think it's a bit awkward (and doesn't mean quite the same thing).
RuakhTALK 18:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
A Google search for authorizations brings up hit #4, which deals with education, saying "... allowed the Commission to issue Subject Matter Authorizations as another option to meet this requirement...". Hit #1, dealing with health care, also uses an article before the noun: "a prior authorization". Yahoo Store says "For each order, you can perform authorizations, sales, voids, and issue credits." The fact that there are legitimate differing categorizations for the same sense proves the point that countable/uncountable is not a useful categorization for the senses of this word.
Since light can sometimes act like a wave and sometimes as a particle, wave/particle is not a useful categorization for electromagnetic radiation -- light is both. But since both light waves and photons have no mass, matter/energy is an appropriate classification, and electromagnetic radiation is quite definitely energy, not matter.
Similarly, the process by which the Motor Vehicle Department determines that you know the rules of the road and can parallel park may or may not be countable, but the process is definitely intangible. Once they have decided that you can drive, the result is something tangible, a driver's license and a record in a database. Sense 1, the authorization process, is abstract, and sense 2, the recordation of the outcome of that process, is tangible and concrete. (The license itself is not a definitive authorization - if a police officer radios in to discover that the license is revoked, then you do not have authorization to drive even though you have a license. But both the license and the database record are concrete, sense 2 authorizations. One is just more current than the other.)
Parcheesy2 16:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

vitam impendere vero

The Latin is sum of parts, but giving the citations it could be considered translingual. Plus of course, impendere is an infinitive. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I created this for the sake of this policy discussion. Please do not edit the entry without commenting in the Beer Parlour.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


Totally wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

February 2010


The definition is only occurring in set phrases, which of course, isn't a definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


Esperanto. It gives the header honte al and the translation shame on. Should this be moved, or just cleaned up? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


I changed rfv to rfc, as this seems to exist, but there's a debate over the part of speech. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

two dimensional universe

I'm not sure if this is sum of parts or two encyclopedic. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


Tagged 2007. In Wikipedia the city is known as Horki. --Hekaheka 10:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an alternative spelling/synonym like with many Belarusian or Ukrainian names. In Belarusian Горкі, in Russian Горки. Gomel and Homel (Гомель), Kharkov and Kharkiv (Харьков, Харків), Gorlovka and Horlivka (Горловка - Горлівка) are based on Russian and Belarusian/Ukrainian pronunciation or spelling. Historically names were transliterated from Russian but many are now being renamed. --Anatoli 00:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


Definitions need to be correctly assigned to etymologies and reviewed. DCDuring TALK 02:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Separate rfc-sense tag (separate from page rfc tag) on complex analysis definition has been cleaned up, please verify the new definition. 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(As far as the page rfc goes, it looks a lot different from a year ago, it probably just needs a good review at this point.) 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


The quotation provided in the entry lacks a date, page number, and other citational information.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~  · ⓣ  ·  ~ 21:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


Can't really be a phrase can it? Maybe a contraction? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding ninakupenda. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
These are verbs with attached subject and object pronouns. Definitely not contractions. —Stephen 01:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


It does seem to mean something. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Cleaned up. I am not familiar with the noun sense (I'm only an amateur genealogist). SemperBlotto 12:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

l'esprit de l'escalier

At the very least needs two categories. I'm unsure if this is a bad entry title, should it be esprit de l'escalier or not? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


I've formatted the English, but it might be a hoax (or just wrong) plus the Scots was previously at RFC under Lippen, which is now only German. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Scots is right. I'm not sure if the archaic tag should be there, actually, but neither am I sure that I'm qualified to remove it; as a non-native speaker, it's easy for me to conflate literary usage (which is especially out of date when it comes to Scots) with everyday usage. Is it possible that the English should be tagged as Scottish English? embryomystic 01:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

oleum phosphoratum

Is this Latin or translingual or what? The obsolete tag seems redundant, given Latin is almost never used now. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Latin, yes, and so should not have an "obsolete" tag. Howver, it's New Latin, since the white phosphorous allotrope was unknown prior to about 1669. --EncycloPetey 23:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

action man

I've done what I can, I'm unsure if the definition is accurate and/or if this should be Action Man, from the trademark sense (which I removed, as that's definitely capitalized). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Act of Parliament

Is this a common noun, if so is it redundant to the lowercase spelling? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


The part of speech given is "valediction", among other formatting problems. --EncycloPetey 04:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

air mass classification

Mglovesfun (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


Rfc-sense: To make grotesque? Sole known use is in Antony and Cleopatra. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:audio

My, what an ugly, space-consuming image. The old version was way better than this monstrosity. Does anyone have any better ideas? DCDuring TALK 01:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. It's a play button, what else would it look like? ---> Tooironic 21:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It could look like a button that actually fits on one line, rather than a massive multi-line mess. Oh, and did anyone notice that clicking "more" after the audio starts makes the whole thing look ridiculous since the button (and thus the player) is inside a cell? And the fact that the (file) link is unnecessary because one could easily go to the same page by clicking "more" and then clicking "about this file"? But the real problem is that it takes up two lines. --Yair rand 00:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The cell is opaque too, which causes some problems, and the thing itself somehow makes table cells extremely wide, and tall, and somewhat silly-looking. --Yair rand 22:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
On my screen at least, it pushes everything onto two lines instead of the previous one. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I've got Firefox, and see the same as Gloves. Still think it's an improvement, tho--Rising Sun talk? contributions 01:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


I can't understand the current definition. By any chance, is this a rare synonym for compactness? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, it seems pretty clear to me. If you picture a jar of sand, the grains aren't all nice perfect cubes, so a significant portion of the jar is filled with air. The compacity is the volume of the grains of sand divided by the total volume of the space they take up. —RuakhTALK 14:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Your definition (well, explanation) is clear, the entry is not. But now I know what it is, I should be able to do it myself. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

arctic front

Arctic front or arctic front? Head words do not match page name. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


The entry needs basic Wiktionary format. --EncycloPetey 23:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


The entire article. Is Transformation a valid header? Is that an etymology in the definition? -- 05:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


RFV discussion:

Rfv-sense: The front of a queue. Is this ever used without words like "of the queue" or "of the line". Ie, "You can come to the front", unambiguously meaning "of the queue" without saying so. DCDuring TALK 12:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lisp uses head and tail to refer to the endmost items of a list or queue (data structure). I'm probably clutching at straws! Equinox 13:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It's possible that there is a specialized sense needed for that even if the RfV's sense is arguably unnecessary. If so, we should keep this sense with its current wording to include both senses, if that does the computing sense justice. DCDuring TALK 14:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
So what if it isn't? You can't possibly be suggesting that head of the line, head of the queue, head of the waiting line, head of the sequence, etc. are all idioms that warrant their own entries? Or are you just saying that this sense should be merged into sense #4? —RuakhTALK 13:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
No, they don't seem idiomatic to me. I'd argue for merging senses. Perhaps substituting usage examples or having multiple usage examples that were not full sentences on the same line in an appropriate sense. A long entry like this could use all the help it can get to shorten it without omitting anything truly useful. If we had something like a "quick definitions" show/hide, I wouldn't be so persistent.
Maybe I should just try to come up with some more general approach to enhancing usabilty for long entries that doesn't violate too many of our prevailing norms. DCDuring TALK 14:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is used without "of the line" or "of the queue". I'm reminded of a TMBG song "Mrs. Train", which includes the line: "the line has a missing head" (because no one wants to be first in line). The word line is still present, but not in an adjectival prepositional phrase modifying head. --EncycloPetey 18:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved to RFC.RuakhTALK 14:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So, does anyone want to tackle either (1) cleaning up this sense to remove the problematic implication, or (2) merging this sense with another one? (And if someone wants to track down the cite that EP mentions and add it to the entry and/or citations page, that would also be nice.)
RuakhTALK 14:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The usage example continues to seem wrong, which suggests some limitations of the distribution. I have slightly reworded the sense to "The front, as of a queue." Does the usage example not bother anyone else, say, from the US. DCDuring TALK 11:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It does bother me. —RuakhTALK 12:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

big boys

Plurale tantum sense. Seems redundant to {{plural of|big boy}} to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

How are physical size and influence the same, or even close in meaning? DCDuring TALK 10:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
To put it another way, is this definition right, and right to be here, not under big boy? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the sense now presented as p.t. being used in the singular. It is certainly not close to the typical relative frequency of a singular. In my experience, the idiomatic "big boy" (close to "bad boy") is used in the plural normally, as the entry suggests. DCDuring TALK 11:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


The definition "Clipped form of hashish, a drug derived from the cannabis plant" should go under a different etymology. I started doing this, then got disheartened as I felt I was creating an infeasible number of heading levels that no reader could keep track of and/or relegating the "hashish" definition to a position where it was completely "lost". Anyway, just thought I'd mention it in case anyone else wants to tackle it.


RFC-sense: Template:slang An attractive young female, especially: a girl who is "down", who is counted among close male friends and sometimes loose sexually; or, one's "girl", one's "boo"; or, a girl that a male does not know but wishes to meet.--Rising Sun talk? contributions 20:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:eo-conj

In two regards this template is gracelessly executed:

  1. The greenish color departs from the usual, drawing attention in the style of advertising to Esperanto vs. other languages. Surprisingly, an anon even complained on the talk page about it.
  2. The show-hide bar does not play well with others, greedily appropriating the full width of the screen, thereby not working well with right-hand elements such as the optional rhs ToC, sister project boxes, images, and rhs example boxes. DCDuring TALK 14:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Making it more like {{fr-conj}} or {{es-conj}} (these two are just about identical) would be good. Having said that, I like the green color, but I suppose that's not the point. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010


Definition might need attention. Also marked it for WT:RFV. I removed some of its definition which seemed encyclopedic, could someone more experienced check? -- 07:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


Hmm. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wha...? In normal words, what problems do you see here? Dzied Bulbash
Fair question. Thanks for not removing the rfc tag. Personal noun is not a valid header, should be proper noun. It's not in any categories (English proper nouns) and the etymology goes under the header ===Etymology===. That bit I can do myself, but I'm also unsure about the definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


No consensus at RFD for more than a year now. I think if someone had a go at this it would be ok. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


We have four verb senses for this. Some of them seem redundant or at the very least unclear. I wasn't sure whether to RFD or RFV, or even which senses to RFD and RFV, so I brought it here. How many definitions are dictionaries Oxford and Websters giving this? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Only the 1st and 4th have any real connection, with the difference being whether or not an object is used. The second definition refers to metabolic (chemical) respiration, not mechanical respiration. I'm not familiar with the 3rd sense currently listed, and so can't address it without seeing citations that use that meaning. My Collegiate Webster's has four deifinitions, but they don't match up with ours. They're missing the chemical process sense, and list (in summary) v.i. "breathe in and out", "breathe freely", v.t. "breathe", "breathe out", which seems far more redundant than what we have. --EncycloPetey 18:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


Says: "By extension, a profound or transformative religious thinker", but no context for the extension is provided. There is a definition in the previous section about the philosopher, but it is under a different POS header and is marked for deletion. --EncycloPetey 19:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The three citations seem to support this sense. If the first sense fails RFD, this should be kept with the three definitions, and that second definition moved to the etymology. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

the die is cast

Etymology has turned into an essay. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


Apparently an abbrvn for history. Needs context --Rising Sun talk? contributions 11:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


needs 2b wikified, updated to current layout. thx --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


Portuguese entry. Inflection template doesn't exist, and is nominally for an adjective. Is this lowercase? Is it a noun?​—msh210 18:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


From hits, looks like it should be İpek. (Cf. ipek.) Not sure though, especially as I know no Turkish.​—msh210 18:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


English section. Noun sense means "a person of Serb descent", referring to the adj sense, which is "pertaining to the culture of the Serbs" which (should be "pertaining to the Serbs", but which in any event) begs the question.​—msh210 18:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


A recent addition to the etymology section is written in an informal tone and seems to contradict the pre-existing etymology, may need verification/referencing and editing. -- OlEnglish 08:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


I find the given etymology rather suspect, as the earliest publications on the topic were in Latin. see e.g.. Please don't tell me that the Dutch republic did not have enough scientists able to read Latin in the later 17th century.... Jcwf 23:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

headings / POS / templates / categories Mutante 06:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Appendix:Indian surnames (Arora)

The formatting is a mihsmash. (Do we really want this page?) H. (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

  • It gets an incredible number of updates. I always assumed it was like a sandbox, and we didn't really mind what happened there. SemperBlotto 14:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Haha yes I've always thought the same. I would RFD it, but it's too uninteresting even for that. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
How's that? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Very bad. A precedent for deleting a whole appendix from two careless rfc comments. Please put it back and rfd it, so the contributors have at least a theoretical chance of defending it. They have a good reason to hate the Wiktionary if they're led to believe for years that their contributions are OK, and then it disappears without any warning or explanation.
There are about ten similar appendices, so why pick out this one? They look harmless to me. Whatever Arora or Khatri surnames are, here are lists of surnames with similar lingustic and cultural background. Some day some contributor who cares about Indian surnames might find use for them.--Makaokalani 13:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Done. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


===Adverb=== sense: therefore: He ate too much cake, so he got sick; He wanted a book, so he went to the library.

Isn't this a conjunction? I mean, therefore is an adverb, but this is not used the same way: therefore is used only to modify a sentence ("He ate too much cake; therefore, he got sick"), whereas so is used only to connect sentences. If I'm right that this belongs under ===Conjunction===, then its definition and translation table need fixing also.​—msh210 17:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Silicone Valley

This can't make its mind up what it is. Is it erroneous, archaic, or both? If it is a misspelling, how common is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

shoot oneself in the foot

Neither of the definitions seem entirely correct, or well written. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Definition 1 seems more like an etymology, though it may just be a folk etymology. I think of cases such as the NY Giant football player, w:Plaxico Burress#Accidental shooting, who simultaneously literally shot himself in the thigh at a nightclub and figuratively shot himself in the foot by breaking the law in a way that could not be covered up. I associate an element of blundering clumsiness with this idiom. DCDuring TALK 15:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Another possible example (written up in secret of Polichinelle) is: "It is said that Polst fell because he revealed in an unlucky interview the Secret of Polichinelle, the secret which all the world knew, the secret that there was a claque at the Metropolitan Opera House." Pingku 16:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
As clumsiness and intent are important to this IMHO, it would be necessary to know more about the incident. DCDuring TALK 17:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Insomuch as it might be an example of "shooting oneself in the foot", the citation seems to be a judgement about someone else's action, so the "intent" is a subjective consideration. The imputation seems to be of bad judgement (diplomatically described as bad luck) on the part of the person making the mistake. Pingku 19:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I have added and cited a third sense: "accidental self-sabotage", which is the only idiomatic sense I am aware of. I've never heard of this being used as an idiom to refer to intentional self-sabotage and have accordingly RfVed the second sense. If it does not survive then the literal first sense doesn't even belong in an etymology. DCDuring TALK 17:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to break it to you but all of the above is wrong in a historical sense. The phrase "to shoot oneself in the foot" derives from the Great War (WW1), where a soldier would deliberately shoot himself in the foot to avoid having to go "over the top" to certain death. It is, therefore, cowardly act that involves self-harm and pain as an alternative to something much worse. Unfortunately, the phrase has been badly misused over the many years since it was first coined and has now been taken to mean a blunder. It doesn't involve anything accidental, but is deliberate self-sabotage, something even Plaxico Burress isn't stupid enough to undertake. [17 September, 2010 - B Mathieson] —This comment was unsigned.

The literal sense is not in itself dictionary-worthy as it has no meaning apart from its components. How the idiomatic sense came about could perhaps be traced through the written record. Getting some citations of all the senses would be helpful. DCDuring TALK 10:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


According to the documentation, Yoruba uses Greek and Cyrillic script, which is wrong. --EncycloPetey 18:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


According to the documentation, Welsh uses Greek and Cyrillic script, which is wrong. --EncycloPetey 18:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


The examples aren't examples. --EncycloPetey 18:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Etymology 1 seems to say that the Old English source word comes from proto-Germanic, which in turn comes from Latin, which in turn is a form of an Old English word... what?!? --EncycloPetey 05:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

  • This is User:Leasnam, who is well-meaning, and clearly has a stack of reference books, but is not very good at writing succinct summaries of what he's read. I've cleaned it up and drastically simplified it. Ƿidsiþ 06:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • His etymologies really go on a bit. I mean they're good, or seem to be, but not what you'd call easy on the eye. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


Rfc-sense: French "fundament, human bottom". Huh? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Apparently these (14, so far) are just copied from Wikia, which in turn are copied from somewhere else. What should we do? Delete them? Clean them up, or just leave them to rot? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok he's the author. Still. I fancy just deleting them, they're an awful mess and a lot of the terms wouldn't meet our CFI, they're more like sentences than idioms. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Perhaps the could be moved to Appendix:Interlingua. Conrad.Irwin 14:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Or WT:Requested entries (Interlingua). We already have a similar list of (mainly) red links for French. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


Full screen of Pronunciation. DCDuring TALK 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So you want the homophones added?  :P --EncycloPetey 19:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

hit the ball twice

Isn't this an adverb? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


This was tagged by someone else. Needs the ===Verbal noun===, ===Verb===, and ===Noun=== headings dealing with. Conrad.Irwin 01:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


Format. Definitions unintelligible to me. I think this means something like "country boy". Two adjective definitions seem to be of positive- and negative-valence attributive use, AFAICT. Is attributive use of nouns not as universal in Spanish as in English? I would not expect that mere valence differences warrant separate definitions. DCDuring TALK 18:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


There is a Translingual pronunciation section for an IPA symbol.

  1. Is the name of an IPA symbol its pronunciation?
  2. Did the contributor intend to provide an example rather than a pronunciation?
  3. I thought that the pronunciation of an IPA symbol differed a bit according to the language being represented.
  4. How do symbol and letter entries don't seem to fit into WT:ELE? Should they be deleted?
  5. If they are to be kept, are such entries to be opportunities for formatting experimentation?

Help! DCDuring TALK 18:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Place names

There's a very random mix of place names placed directly in this category. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


A type of weave. Not a very helpful def. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Let's sort out if "quasi adjective" (or quasi-adjective ?) is a valid heading now and if the category should be created etc, how to treat them in general. Mutante 16:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer these to just be adjectives - that is certainly what the definition reads as in English - but I have no knowledge of Japanese grammar. For reference, all the words with this header are Japanese:
We have an English defintion for this term that fits this use. I say keep 'em all. Maybe the header should link to the common noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
A bit late, but by way of further reference, Wiktionary:About Japanese does include quasi-adjective as a POS. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 02:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, it also says "Use L3 or L4 header Adjective". -- Prince Kassad 17:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Conrad's edit summary says it all really. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


needs a bit more information about the provinces --Rising Sun talk? contributions 11:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought the deal was to keep the focus on linguistic content. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Right. OTOH, if "smells like a Limburger" were a common phrase, then it might be noted in the definition line that people from Limburg are known for being malodorous.​—msh210 15:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


Mglovesfun (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010


Get rid of the cause subdivision. Can’t we remove the webster tag by now? Split up derived terms and translation sections. H. (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All Webster tags should be considered tantamount to rfc tags, IMHO. When I am ambitious, I tackle one. (I tried at accident. Does the new version seem better?) It is quite time-consuming. The wording is usually stilted and using words and wording likely to communicate effectively to few users. Modernizing the formatting only or removing {{Webster}} only serves to make such problematic entries harder to find and correct and perpetuates the illusion that we have a satisfactory monolingual dictionary.
If I were translating, I would avoid such entries as a matter of course and add them to this list if they are important to you. Correcting them may take time. I would be happy to make any entries that appear here as having {{Webster}} a matter of priority for my efforts. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, all webster entries need modernising. Exactly the reason why I don't want a great batch of similar entries generated from the old medical dictionaries (see Grease Pit). SemperBlotto 15:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
And some of the Webster tags have been removed prematurely. The medical dictionary entries would probably languish unless we recruit and train (!) some medical types. Perhaps other templates and a process for updating would give us some hope of eventually getting such entries right. DCDuring TALK 16:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
If anyone is simply dumping definitions from the medical dictionaries, I'll be happy to join in the collective administration of a cluestick. So far, with just us regulars working through the list, I haven't seen any evidence of that. -- Visviva 17:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

quid pro quo

A well-meaning user has merged several definitions and translations, one of which was a legal definition. This can't be easily undone because he's also added a lot of other content. --EncycloPetey 03:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


the alternative spellings are only for certain senses. How to handle this? the first two senses are actually nouns and should be under a noun header, I think. But the games sense is more difficult. H. (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd use {{sense}} on the alternative forms. We have player versus player listed as a noun, fwiw.​—msh210 (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


citations here and at clue stick, make one secondary on the other. H. (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


rfc-sense: (plural) The area of law dealing with such wrongful acts.

Does it mean torts or that tort is treated as a plural noun? Clearly, the definition for torts should be at torts. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It means torts. The definition should be s.v. torts only, but with a prominent link from [[tort]]. Arguably, though, this is not distinct from the plural torts.​—msh210 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010


Adverb sense "On or towards the outside" and preposition sense "On the outside of" both make use of the noun outside without specifying which noun sense is meant, and should be reworded (or use {{gloss}}) and possibly split.​—msh210 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


Determiner section. The usexes "I haven't got any money. It won't do you any good." don't match the definition "A guaranteed selection from (a set). At least one, sometimes more (of a set)" and might belong under a (currently nonexistent) adjective section instead (though I don't know, as I honestly don't know what a determiner is exactly).​—msh210 (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


Equinox 12:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


needs templates. Uncountable or countable? --Volants 12:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


needs templates, also maybe is lowercas, One adjective definition looks like a noun definition. --Volants 12:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

tough luck

This needs more information than "Template:idiom bad luck" --Volants 17:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


The definitions have been bouncing back and forth between an older version that was deemed inaccurate and a newer version that is circular (definition using the word itself). Can people please help with cleanup? --EncycloPetey 20:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, because you fixed it before adding the tag and posting here, but either way, it's fixed, so, striking. —RuakhTALK 21:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Please don't strike an entry until it's been dealt with. I only made changes to part of the problem. Please don't push your point of view by shunting people away from this cleanup item by misleading people into thinking it's been completed. --EncycloPetey 03:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Fine. The entry now explains in three separate places that Sinhalese relates to “the majority ethnic group of Sri Lanka”. Ya happy? —RuakhTALK 03:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Happy about the gratuitous abuse you wrote while doing so? No. That was very rude and uncalled for. Happy about the entry wording? Yes, it's an improvement. This item should now remain for a few days, at least, to allow others to contribute. --EncycloPetey 03:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
You repeatedly restored inaccurate wording even after it was pointed out to you that it was (1) wrong and (2) offensive. Only after several reverts did you make anything resembling a constructive change (i.e., removing phrasing you didn't like, replacing it with — nothing), and then you further brought the entry here claiming that the older version was merely "deemed inaccurate". Maybe in the morning I'll feel differently, but at the moment I'm pretty happy with the gratuitous abuse. Good night! —RuakhTALK 04:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
You've done a very good job of also describing your own edits, which repeatedly replaced a previously-existing actual definition with (effectively) "Sinhalese means Sinhalese". You didn't seek anyone else's opinion, and tried to suppress the involvement of others when I asked others for assistance. So, not only did you eliminate content, persist in circularity (even after that problem was pointed out), but you actively tried to keep other people from providing assistance and then abused me for asking for help. So, who here was actually being rude? --EncycloPetey 04:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. The very first definition on the page explained that Sinhalese are the majority ethnic group of Sri Lanka; further-down definitions had some problems of circularity, but even they made clear that the term relates to an ethnic group (which, in some sense, is all you can say — ethnic groups really are somewhat self-defining). I don't know what you mean by "You didn't seek anyone else's opinion"; I became aware of the situation after a discussion was already underway. I also don't know what you mean by "You [] tried to suppress the involvement of others when I asked others for assistance" and "you actively tried to keep other people from providing assistance"; you must be referring to my striking this section and removing the {{rfc}} tag, but I didn't remove this section, so that hardly suppresses anyone else's involvement. And I think I was right to strike this section, given that it falsely claims that the word was being defined using the word itself: no, the noun was defined using the adjective, the latter having been defined higher up on the page. But yes, we were both being rude. I have no regrets. :-)   —RuakhTALK 07:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


Needs various formatting and dates for quotations. --EncycloPetey 03:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Good now?​—msh210 (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


I think the calques are descendants, but they might be translations, if they exist. The derived terms might be descendants, if they exist. The article also has a long etymology. DCDuring TALK 20:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


There's some weird history for this entry. I don't know exactly what's going on. But the translation tables don't match the senses, at least not for the adverb.​—msh210 (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


maybe adjective and noun are the wrong headers. --Volants 19:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


Etymology section needs to be checked, templated --Volants 19:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

passion pop

weak definitions --Volants 19:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


The definition isn;t clear about what the word means. Is it a person, an abstraction, a form of government? --EncycloPetey 04:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A status of a person and a person with such status. DCDuring TALK 19:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

cut out

Encarta has 11 senses; we have three. Also, is the adjective sense separate from the verb senses we should have? Is it a true adjective? DCDuring TALK 19:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


Major surgery required - looks like it could have been lifted from Wikipedia or somewhere else so check for copyvio or transwiki. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

life's not all skittles and beer

Need rewording, synonyms. DCDuring TALK 10:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

See also beer and skittles. Pingku 11:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


I'm currently working on converting the redirects in this list into full entries, or deleting them. Almost the entire contents of Wiktionary:Todo/Redirects with macrons were created by Drago. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Also, many of his definitions and translations are just plain wrong - they all need to be checked! SemperBlotto 10:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


Etymology should have its own section, not mixed in with the definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


Five definitions, one of which is for an adjective, and three of which seems to be the same (faithfulness to X, where X varies a bit). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just as we have full entries for adverbs, where many dictionaries just have run-ins, so also this contributor has expanded "the quality or state or an instance of being loyal" to show the senses and subsenses, based on the senses/subsenses of loyal. I think we would find different synonyms were appropriate for the senses/subsenses. DCDuring TALK 11:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Are synonyms reason enough to keep these senses? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
They suggest distinctions in meaning, don't they? DCDuring TALK 11:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I get it now, a normal dictionary will just says 'the property of being loyal' no matter how many entries there are for loyal. So, the real question is how many distinct meanings loyal has, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


Senses "An upwelling of molten material from the Earth's mantle." and "An arc of glowing material erupting from the surface of a star." Aren't these actually two different uses of the same sense? If not, how do they differ? When it's not in an arc shape, is there a different word for it, or is the fact it's an arc just incidental? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


Sense: "A space occupied by the animals, wagons, pontoons, and materials of all kinds, as ammunition, ordnance stores, hospital stores, provisions, etc., when brought together; also, the objects themselves; as, a park of wagons, a park of artillery; by extension, an inventory of such materiél, such as a country's tank park or artillery park (rare in US)." I'm guessing this is something to do with military or war? Is it current? historical? Does it need a context label? It certainly needs adjusting as it doesn't quite make sense as it stands. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010


Includes bits of commentary suited to talk page. Equinox 15:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


It can't make its mind of if it's English or German. The Wikipedia link suggests this is valid in English, but it uses the header ==English== but {{de-noun}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I fixed it. - Theornamentalist 15:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
If it's capitalized it needs to be at Voorleser. Also is it really from German? It looks more like Dutch. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought the word was originally german, but was used by the dutch as well, I may be wrong though. - Theornamentalist 16:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


I think the usage notes need work; for example, they include the word "racist", but the syntax is so poor that it's not clear who's being accused of racism. (I imagine the intent is something like, "This Wiktionarian thinks some of the attitude toward ain't is due to racist attitudes toward AAVE", but it's really not clear.) There are no references, so I'm half-tempted to just remove them, but I think there's something useful to be said here, and the current notes may be a start in that direction. —RuakhTALK 19:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


Rfc-sense. This is probably tosh (or redundant to the first sense), but I can't tell, as I can't understand what it's talking about.​—msh210 (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the noun for playable: "of a game, able to be played and enjoyed"; therefore it's covered by sense 1 and I have removed it. Equinox 08:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


Also flagged. What is the scope of the Etymology supposed to be? DCDuring TALK 09:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Usage examples and citations not glossed. DCDuring TALK 09:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
That's some serious sh*t. Is the contributor just saying that there are several different hiragana and romajis for the kanji meaning "deer". It's pretty tempting to delete the lot and add a note to the talk page saying there might be a Japanese entry for this word. Or a 'good' version in the page history. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


Definition needs rewording: seems encyclopedic (especially its second sentence) and is hard to understand (links and {{gloss}} might help). Also, definition says it's a method — but it has a plural. While that's possible, it seems unlikely.​—msh210 (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


The following block-quoted text has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification. —RuakhTALK 23:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know this is an impersonal verb, i.e. it only occurs as het spijt me just like "it rain" with an indefinite pronoun. Can the template be altered not to produce non-existant we rain and they rained forms? Also the translation is rather imprecise. "It causes me regret" is closer. Jcwf 23:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So it's a cleanup rather than a verification job. Maybe ask AugPi (talkcontribs). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Few if any impersonal verbs in Dutch are strictly impersonal. A construct such as zijn daden speten hem (he regretted his deeds), with an explicit subject, is possible. I've made some changes now, to clarify. —CodeCat 14:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


rfc-sense: To stop or restrain a horse. Also used figuratively

Should this be at rein in. Also can you rein/rein in a horse without reins? Because if so, that sense should me merged into the sense above (which says just that). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


The definition at present is too vague.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Been fixed by various people.


(French section) Looks like the definitions suffered a few passes through a Google translator or something. (keeper leather industry? chance guest hospitality? built-in bail medicine?) —Internoob (DiscCont) 23:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I basically just deleted them all. Ƿidsiþ 11:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

drive-by media

Tone is too informal and aggressive. Equinox 13:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


Where do I start? The entry's a bloody mess.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Better? —RuakhTALK 19:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


Isn't this mostly or entirely uncountable in main etymology. The senses and glosses are mostly not so worded. DCDuring TALK 11:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Also Derived terms and Synonyms don't seem properly matched to etymologies and properly located. DCDuring TALK 11:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonstandard Middle English verbs

Should end in -en, right, should be accounten, not "to account". Mglovesfun (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding swyfe, there may be more. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
There seem to be quite a few of these, I won't list them all here but withing looks hard to fix, unless it's easily citable as a verb, it'd want to delete it as unattestable and/or wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


Definition needs trimming. I suspect that we can just cut off the last few sentences, but I figure some of y'all are probably familiar with the topic and can do a better job? —RuakhTALK 15:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I did some work cleaning this one up and found another sense, but my research suggests that the original sense should just be deleted. I added an rfd-sense. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 17:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

bums in seats

Two of the three cites do not match the claim that this is a noun meaning "Spectators, passengers, or customers in attendance", as they use put bums in seats without indicating where those bums in seats will be put.​—msh210 (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be a little awkward, but they put/place/situate customers in a state of attendance. Works well enough for me. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 19:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I extended the defn a little bit. Does that help? -- Ghost of WikiPedant 19:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
"Bums on seats" is vastly more common. Singular exists, less commonly. Also, less commonly, "into", "onto", and "bums and seats". DCDuring TALK 20:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Very interesting, DC. I don't think I've ever heard "bums on seats" here in Canada, but a Google news archive search certainly confirms that it is much used by Brits and Aussies. I'll do an alt form entry. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 21:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't too familiar with it either, but was wondering just how variable the construction was. DCDuring TALK 13:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I see what msh210 is saying. "Put bums in seats" is not "put { bums { in seats } }", but rather "put { bums } { in seats }". "In seats" is not an adjectival attaching to "bums", but rather a complement to "put". "Get bums in seats" is technically ambiguous, but I think it's the same. See google:"bums onto seats", "bums into seats"; contrast google:"seated bums", "sitting bums", "bums with seats". —RuakhTALK 14:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
True, true, Ruakh. I understood and understand the distinction. If someone says "we need bums in seats" then "in seats" is an adjectival phrase modifying the noun "bums", and if someone says "we've got to come up with a strategy to put bums in seats" then "in seats" is an adverbial phrase modifying the verb "put". Maybe all of this could go into a usage note, but I tried to write the defn so that it was ambiguous enough to cover either kind of usage and, even if there is a bit of a double take involved for anyone who looks closely, the entry works well enough for me as is. (I suppose the only good alternative strategy would be to create 2 separate entries, one for bums in seats and one for put bums in seats, but that opens the door to a lot of alt forms.) -- Ghost of WikiPedant 15:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe have bums in seats called a =Phrase=, a member of category:English non-constituents, and defined as "Spectators, passengers, or customers, in attendance" (with the comma before "in", to my mind at least, showing the non-noun-ness of the phrase). Or something. In any event, if we keep it at its current title we should probably redirect to it from the common VPs.​—msh210 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
But it can also be a simple noun phrase, ie, a constituent.
Semantically, conceptually the core elements of the construction are "bums" and "seats". They can be put together is quite a few ways. Any of the static forms work as a noun phrase, ie, linked by "and", "in", or "on", as in "It's all about "bums (and, in, on) seats.", "Bums in seats is the name of the game.". These can be after many copulas. Some verbs ("have", "keep") work with the static prepositions. Other verbs work with all four prepositions ("get", "put"). Others only with the dynamic ones ("lure", "draw", "pull"). There are singular versions. I don't think I've exhausted the possibilities.
IOW, there is a construction lurking that we cannot remotely call a set phrase and which doesn't fit well (AFAICT) on the procrustean bed of our entry structure. "Bums and seats", "bums in seats", and "bums on seats" should suffice to ensnare most searches for one of the constructions. I wonder whether this wouldn't be a good construction to put in an Appendix and have some of the collocations have {{only in}} or a redirect take the user to it. This would allow much more flexibility in titling the page and establishing a correspondence to other languages expression of the concept (NOT the words). DCDuring TALK 17:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Who would have thought, DC, that a harmless, dumb-ass little expression like "bums in seats" would so strain our lexicographic brains? -- Ghost of WikiPedant 17:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an extension of the problem we have always had with constructions with multiple slots. Usually it is grammaticized elements that are fixed. This time both open-class elements (for "bums": "fannies", "butts") and some grammatical elements ("in, "on", "and"), as well as verbal complements (copulas, "get", "put", etc) are variable to some extent. There is something idiomatic, but it seems to require the machinery of w:Construction grammar to address it completely. We don't have to address it completely. We could come up with some way of helping users that violated some less-essential practices and kept within our entry structure. But we already have rejected many proposed entries that could possibly be addressed better by an appendix with redirects than our traditional entry layout. I should be able to find them by searching for "X", "Y", "NP", "VP" and similar abbreviations. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The word I was looking for is snowclone, but I think it is pejorative. I prefer "construction" until someone shows me the error of my ways. DCDuring TALK 20:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Note that this problem is specific to us. Other dictionaries don't have this problem, because they use run-in entries under key words. For example, an entry for right might contain a run-in entry for right angle, or an entry for vintage might contain a run-in entry for vintage car. Even if the user was looking the word up because the text they were reading used “right or obtuse angle” or “vintage Cadillac”, they will notice the run-in entry and be able to make use of it. Here, however, we more or less expect users to predict the exact form that our entry-name will take. I've even seen editors remove a sense from the entry for a singular noun because the sense is found exclusively (or almost exclusively) in the plural, as though someone looking up the word were supposed to just magically know that! —RuakhTALK 21:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I think I remember doing that kind of thing myself (I hope not lately.).
I agree that the problem is somewhat different if one has run-in entries, but only if one's overall layout is also compact. Our "derived terms" are supposed to provide that kind of help, too. Unfortunately, users have to click once to unhide them (if they even get that) and again (with latency) to get just one of the DTs. Print dictionaries were subject to the discipline of economizing on the length and number of definitions and the number of headwords. The also where either a monolingual dictionary or a bilingual dictionary, very rarely multi-lingual and focused on some particular class of users. This gives them an edge now in the online world. The have the skills to address user cognitive limitations: what needs to be economized is user attention. The fantasy that we have no limits is extremely destructive when combined with our lack of information about users and possibly the motivation to serve them.
I am not so sure that our current competition, print or online, does a good job on snowclones. A one-line run-in entry does not do justice to something like the present case. That users need for us to "do justice" to them is probably unlikely. We might benefit from experimenting with alternative presentation formats to gain insight into how to provide users some help with constructions. Perhaps we can figure out some tweaks of our layout or use JS to make a more effective presentation to various types of anons. DCDuring TALK 22:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

g something precisely and thoroughly at a "deep" level. Sometimes it helps us learn and thereby do a better job for users. Often users are not helped directly.

September 2010

got it going on

Some of the defs are for adjectives; and several of the cites have various forms of "have got it going on". I'm not sure how best this should be handled. —RuakhTALK 18:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


German. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Lower Case Main Entry for "Anti-Story"

The main entry for "anti-story" was created with incorrect capitalization (Anti-Story). This simply needs made lower case. I'd do it myself, but can't figure out how even after searching help pages. --MikePaulC

It needed a page move. Done. Equinox 09:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
IPs can't move pages (I've tried). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it Equinox. As far as I am concerned that completes the action I originated. -- MikePaulC


The ety is mixed with the definition, which itself is too vague. Citations would be lovely. Equinox 21:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


Two separate issues; the English "adjective" is defined as (music) Slowly, which is an adverb, while the Finnish noun is defined as lento, but there's no noun section for the English. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed the English section by splitting adjective and adverb into separate sections. —RuakhTALK 14:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


A good old fashioned mess. I deleted jam jar and jam-jar which redirected here. Under what basis is jamjar a misspelling? Shouldn't it be a (not very common) alternative spelling, and of which one? Are all three readily attestable? Also should the car sense use {{trans-see}}? IMO no because car is standard English, and jamjar isn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the last thing we want are translations of the car sense of jamjar. How would you propose to discourage them? DCDuring TALK 16:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
As long as they were colloquial they'd be fine, like French bagnole. Perhaps trans-see, but to another synonym of car that's more colloquial. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha. DCDuring TALK 16:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


English: "A self-descriptive adjective, or a singular emotive response to a pleasing situation or event." What in the world? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Verification seems essential. How could this be rendered fit for use by someone not from NZ without it? DCDuring TALK 11:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


Overstuffed ety section. Needs proto appendices to offload cognate lists to. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I sometimes remove cognates. FWIW the RFC tag now takes up more place than the cognates. Codecat might be able to help with the Proto-Germanic link. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure it will be promptly removed by our crack squad of etymologists, once the entry is clean up. If not, then deletion of the cognates seems appropriate. DCDuring TALK 16:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Created Appendix:Proto-Germanic *swerdan, and added all the descendants I could find to that (anyone happen to know the West Frisian and Afrikaans words?). Do with the original what you wish. :) —CodeCat 16:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Now all we need is PIE. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


rfc-sense: "Sad feeling when leaving something or someone loved". The citation doesn't really back this up. Perhaps it just means 'a sad feeling', though I'd go for something more like 'a trying, difficult experience'. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. A few physical-movement words have this kind of figurative use relative to emotion (eg, pull, tug, rend, jerk, twist). gut-wrenching makes this metaphor explicit. DCDuring TALK 11:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


Many of the items in the list of "synonyms" are at least misleading, if not outright wrong. Some need to link to specific Etymology sections at the target suffix entries to avoid wasting users' time and confirm the claimed synonymy. DCDuring TALK 11:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


I did a cleanup on the whom page, whose template was RFCed in 2009 but didn't seem to get added here, so I'm not sure whether to use that date or the current one. In any case, for the moment I changed the whom page to not use the template and cleaned it all up, more on Talk:whom. Sabretoof 11:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

your honour

PoS, capitalization. Alt spellings seem incomplete, usage notes needed. DCDuring TALK 00:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. I notice among other problems, we don't have a definition relating to being vocal about something. "Being vocal on the issue of abortion" for example. Looks a lot like a bot import that's never been checked. Also, when we sort out which definitions this entry needs, we need translation tables, which I deliberately avoided adding because the definitions don't look right to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


Needs multiple etymologies, etc. Probably not only such instance among given names. DCDuring TALK 13:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This one really needs needed multiple etymologies, but many given names have several possible derivations, and if the names are used the same way, it would look stupid to have a separate etymology and definition for each possibility. Better list them all in the etymology. --Makaokalani 12:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Striking, since this discussion page needs a clean-up.--Makaokalani 16:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


I'm not sure what the definitions all mean. Sense #2 in particular ("Any of several aboriginal peoples of India and Sri Lanka thought to have spread in India before and after [Aryan] migration") seems unlikely, at least as a proper noun. I suspect that the entry needs to be split into three POS sections: ===Adjective===, ===Noun===, and ===Proper noun===. Some senses may be missing. Representative citations or decent example sentences would help clarify the issues. —RuakhTALK 14:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010


Etymology. Needs templates, economy, research, judgment. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


Template talk:en-categoryTOC

This template discriminates against any with impaired vision or fine-motor skills. For the rest of us it is just hard to use. In addition, in many applications, the capital letters are simply unnecessary. If it cannot be repaired, it should be replaced in most applications with an all upper- or all lower-case TOC. See Category:English prefixes to compare. The second ToC is even "compact". Imagine what a well-designed TOC would be like.

If this isn't the right forum, what is? DCDuring TALK 18:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


Not sure about caps on sense 1, or inclusion of sense 2 at all. Equinox 23:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hundreds of Esperanto adjective forms mislabeled as verbs

If you’ve been using subst:new eo form to generate adjectival participles [-inta(j)(n)/-anta(j)(n)/-onta(j)(n)], bad news: the script was generating Verb part-of-speech headers for those endings instead of Adjective. (The good news is, I’ve fixed the bug.)

What’s worse, it seems that some time ago, Darkicebot mass produced a metric boatload of these pages, all marked with the wrong part of speech.

To fix this mess, we're gonna need a bigger bot. — Robin 01:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What exactly makes Esperanto participles count as adjectives but participles from other language count as verbs? --Yair rand (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
That's what I was gonna say. Convince us you're right. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
In Esperanto the final letter(s) of the word unambiguously determine the part of speech. Adjectives always end in -a, and a word ending in -a is always an adjective. So there can be no confusion. —CodeCat 15:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, for non-Esperantists, the participle markers in Esperanto are -int- (past), -ant- (present), and -ont- (future), which are then followed by a part of speech ending, -a (adjective), -o (noun), -e (adverb). An example of each sort of participle, with suffixes indicated:
  • vojaĝ·i = to travel
    vojaĝ·ant·a famili·o = a family that is traveling
    vojaĝ·ant·o = one who is traveling
    vojaĝ·ant·e mi serĉ·as bov·in·o·j·n = travelingly (while traveling), I look for cows.
They are formed from verbs, but their part of speech is explicit; they are not verbs. - Robin 15:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be the same case as English. "traveling" (like "vojaĝanta") is a participle that functions like an adjective, yet it is labeled as a verb. How are Esperanto participles different? (I actually don't understand at all why all participles are labeled as verbs, but if we're going to have them labeled like that we might as well be consistent about it...) --Yair rand (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
"Verbs functioning as adjectives", that’s an English mindset where verbs can't lose their verbness even when they turn into adjectives.
Esperanto is like a world of roots which only gain a part of speech from an ending:
Unlike English, if you know the word for "sight", you also know the word for "visual" and "see"; the root "vid" can become any part of speech. It’s entirely determined by that last letter.
So vojaĝ·ant·o isn't a verb acting like a noun, it is a noun, -o turns whatever you attach it to into a fully-fledged noun. — Robin 07:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Still a problem. There are tons of adjective forms with a "Noun" L3 header. -- Prince Kassad 18:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


A lot of the derived terms listed here don't look to me to have been formed with the suffix -icity, rather, -ic and -ity. — lexicógrafo | háblame — 00:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a difference? I mean, if some of them ended in /ˈɪ.kɪ.ti/ I would see the problem, but as it is, it seems that -icity is the suffix you get when you add -ity to a word ending in -ic, no? —RuakhTALK 00:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It would help if we had some semantic content to the "definition". Several of our affix entries have no semantic content whatsoever, [[-ity]] being an example. I don't think the facts usually justify that, certainly not "-ity", which most define as forming nouns of "nature or condition or state, quality or degree" from adjectives. I would be fascinated to hear the semantics of -icity.
This does illustrate a problem with our poor conceptualization of what we mean by derivation in general and affixation in particular.
  1. Is derivation supposed to be a historic process or a morphological one?
  2. For words formed in the same language do we have different rules than for cross-language derivation?
  3. To understand historical derivation of words formed by affixation we would have to do a great deal of research using OED and our own corpus research as most other dictionaries don't bother.
If we take a historical approach to this we would need to investigate each word to determine whether the word ending in -ic preceded the word ending in -icity. If we found some attested ones or numerous nonce coinages illustrating productivity we could justify an entry.
If we take a morphological approach maybe we could direct user to the components for the "normal formation". DCDuring TALK 03:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess the thing is … the suffix -ity, when appended to a pre-existing word, does three things:
  • it moves the stress to the last syllable, then appends /ɪ.ti/.
  • together with the stress shift, it causes a whole bunch of random vowel changes that only make sense in terms of historical forms and etyma. (Think of "real" vs. "reality", for example, where the stress gets shifted into the second half of an normally monosyllabic word; or "urbane" vs. "urbanity", "humane" vs. "humanity", "-ose" vs. "-osity".)
  • it combines with various other suffixes in specific ways. ("-ose" + "-ity" = "-osity", "-ous" + "-ity" = "-ity" or sometimes "-osity", "-ic" + "-ity" = "-icity".)
In a sense, even if a word in "-ic" predates a word in "-icity", the derivation is nonetheless kind of [word minus -ic] + -icity; for example, "toxicity" is formed from "toxic" by dropping /ɪk/ and adding /ˈɪsɪti/. Because it's not possible to add -ity to a word in -ic; when you try, you get -icity.
There are surely words in -icity that don't come from words in -ic (for example, multiplicity comes directly from French, multiplic being quite rare), but I'm not sure if there are words that come from -icity directly without coming from -ic. If so, then they should probably have their own special table, but that doesn't mean the rest of those words should be removed from the entry.
RuakhTALK 11:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
You could certainly look at it that way. I almost always ignore pronunciation considerations, probably wrongly. Partridge's Origins, which has a good section on affixes, has an entry for it, too, but not Quinlon's "Affixes" web resource.
OTOH, affixes also can change the pronunciation and even the spelling of bases. Origins also has -acity.
I would venture that all or almost all the derived terms are historically either derived from English (some vintage) words ending in -ic or (-ice ?) or borrowed and respelled, especially from French (some vintage). In the source language, or farther back in derivation, such endings are always sequential, AFAICT (eg, [la] teneo > tenax (tenac-) > tenacitas > [fro] tenacite > tenacity <??? ten + -acity). To me taking a synchronic view of such probably-never-productive-in-English units seems highly questionable.
But, maybe we should encourage the creation and use of such compound suffix entries to shorten the largely unusable lists produced by {{suffixsee}} when applied at [[-ity]]. DCDuring TALK 12:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Move to rfv or rfd. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

moved to rfv -- Prince Kassad 15:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


The phrase "Temper the acrimony of the humo(u)rs" is used in a lot of books, and seems to have been first said by Hippocrates. There used to be a usex that was from here. And does anyone know if this is an adjective or a noun? —Internoob (DiscCont) 17:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


Sense "To rescue from a state of decadence or decrepitude." Sounds like it's out of a 19th Century dictionary. IP added a poorly worded definition which I removed, but in fairness, this definition doesn't cover it, as it's also poorly worded. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I just rewrote the page. Ƿidsiþ 05:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


The noun sense would need a lower case entry, but I'm not sure if the word really exists.--Makaokalani 12:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Never mind, I made the entry anyway. Makaokalani 16:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:de-proper noun

Lots of stray markup, needs doc. —Internoob (DiscCont) 16:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically copied from {{de-noun}} with an attempt to get rid of some parameters, which failed. I think it's ok now, no bugs at least. More parameters could be added but that should be discussed on it's talk page, not here, IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Doc on the way, perhaps tomorrow. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

de facto

Basically definitions are vague or too specific. De facto president isn't special case of de facto, it's a standard case. "Actual" and "virtual" are massively inadequate too. Sometimes I think English is our most neglected major world language. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Basically I deleted it all and rewrote it as a single definition. Ƿidsiþ 05:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


Definition 4 & 5 looks the same to me. In general, 21st Century wording would be a fine thing. The entry looks like it was written 200 years ago in some respects. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


Total mess. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the OED records several valid spellings for this including makaph, makuph, maccaph, maqqeph and makaf – but not maqaf. So possibly RFV? Ƿidsiþ 13:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


This and the entries that use it are absolutely awful. I doubt I can sort all (any?) the entries out without knowing any Malayalam at all. I can probably fix up the template, though. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don’t see what you mean. What is wrong with the template and the entries? —Stephen (Talk) 18:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


Non-encyclopedic rephrasing of the defs needed. H. (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


Definition looks mangled. 18:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. An anonymous editor had moved the first definition to the end, but left its quotation at the beginning. (See include?diff=9936389.) I've now moved the quotation to follow the definition. —RuakhTALK 18:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


Uses aren't verbs. 22:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, seems to qualify for speedy deletion. But then we'd have to delete fonded and fonding. Is there another meaning which isn't complete nonsense? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The contributor may have confused this with fawned. 20:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The verb is valid but I couldn't be bothered to track down cites; I just removed the faulty usexes and added an obsolete tag. Ƿidsiþ 11:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

draught and draft

Either the senses need to all be at one entry, or all duplicated at both. Right now it's kinda messy. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 01:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


rfc-sense: "That part of an object furthest away in the opposite direction from that in which an unsupported object would fall. " tagged by someone, seemingly two different users, with the following invisible comment: <!-- This is gibberish. What does it mean? Answer: this definiton works for any celstial body, be it the earth, moon or mars, etc. because of the direction of gravity! Excellent definition.-->. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, I tagged this years ago with <!-- This is gibberish. What does it mean?--> It is still gibberish to me. If I stand a pencil on one end and watch it fall, the opposite direction from the way it falls is not the top. In orbit around a celestial body, a water bottle has a top and a bottom in spite of the fact that there is no gravity to cause it to fall in any direction. —Stephen (Talk) 04:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
On earth, if you lay a cereal box on its side, you can talk about "the side of which is currently its top", as well as of "the top of the box, which is now on the side facing you". These are two senses of top: one, the side currently facing away from the pull of gravity, and the other, the side which is usually facing away from the pull of gravity (or some better definition than that, most likely). The first corresponds to our tagged sense.​—msh210 (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it does, but wording could be better. In fact I've read this about ten times, I still don't get it. "Furthest away in the opposite direction" looks bad to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it's worded opaquely; I was commenting only on SGB's implication that the definition is wrong. As to the opacity, perhaps "That part or end of an object which is farthest from the source of gravity"? (But physicists will cringe.) By the way, we're missing the other sense I used in my cereal-box example: the usually-farthest-from-the-'source'-of-gravity sense. And I think our currently second sense (The part viewed, or intended to be viewed, nearest the edge of the visual field normally occupied by the uppermost visible objects: Headings appear at the tops of pages; Further weather information can be found at the top of your television screen) is nonexistent, or redundant to our first.​—msh210 (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's not forget that the top of a box is still the top if you turn it upside down. Certain things just naturally have a top side, which is the easiest-to-open side, the side where the writing is the right side up, etc. —CodeCat 00:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You're right that there are two senses of top, it's got nothing to do with gravity though. Whoever wrote this just meant "uppermost" or "highest". Ƿidsiþ 10:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010


Tagged in 2007 by Blotto; not listed. Equinox 21:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Cleaned.


German section is very messy. Many redundant definitions are here which should probably be merged. -- Prince Kassad 23:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the entry to match de:glatt. — Beobach 03:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

coward's gambit

Though it may not look like it, I've cleaned this up a bit. If anyone knows the term, it would help, as I'm basically making guesses whilst trying to wikify the definition(s). Mglovesfun (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that the quotation doesn't seem to support this as anything but sum of parts. A b.g.c search turns up only three citations, none of which look as though they are more than sum of parts either. Two of them have "a coward's gambit", just like the currently included quotation. --EncycloPetey 00:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


rfc-sense: parlour. Which sense thereof, we have five senses. Included the commented out comment <!--really?--> which is what led to me tagging this. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Appendix:ISO 639-2 language codes

This list was imported from Wikipedia. The links still need to be fixed. -- Prince Kassad 23:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there an original source online? I'm thinking it would be easier just to start over. Nadando 23:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Bien sûr, voyez dans le Library of Congress. -- Prince Kassad 23:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC) This is the first time I've spoken French for two years...


rfc-sense: "Template:medicine A work shift which requires one to be available when requested (see on call)." Includes the now-customary invisible comment <!--Any service profession, right? Should be at [[on-call]]?-->. Per the entry itself, is this actually called a 'call'? You can be on-call, no doubt, but the call doesn't refer to shift but being contacted (called). I'd post this at RFV but perhaps I just don't know the sense and other people too. Oh and it's certainly not restricted to medicine, again, per the entry itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


Definition number 2:

  1. sympathetic pregnancy: the involuntary sympathetic experience of the husband of symptoms of his wife's pregnancy, such as weight gain or morning sickness.

should either be on it's own page or be listed at Couvade syndrome I think, not at couvade. - TheDaveRoss 00:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


The etymology, and the entry structure in general — lexicógrafa | háblame — 16:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

deel uitmaken van

"See uitmaken" isn't a definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I need a bath

This is too vague. What kind of bath does the speaker need? Does the speaker need a bath tub? Do they need to wash themselves? Do they need a bathroom? —CodeCat 14:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as bath has three wildly different meanings, this cannot ever be accurate. It would fail the proposed phrasebook CFI, so send to RFD -- Prince Kassad 15:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
There is also I need a guide, which simply lists two possible senses. Couldn't the same be done here? —CodeCat 15:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
For I need a guide it's better because the two meanings are very similar, and from the word guide you can understand the person wants something to lead him, be it a book or a person. You can't do this for bath - you have no idea what the person wants. -- Prince Kassad 15:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

learn to play

Tagged by Equinox. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


According to a recent edit to this page, there is no such French verb as accouter. If this is correct, then the conjugated forms of the verb (visible from older edits) need to be deleted. --EncycloPetey 02:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


Does not yet conform to WT:ELE. -- Prince Kassad 09:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Striking. Now it should conform. Feel free to correct any remaining non-compliance. --Dan Polansky 17:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


tagged but not listed. Not only does it need proper formatting, but it needs its vowel marks stripped. -- Prince Kassad 11:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sindhi spells some words with the vowel marks included, unlike Arabic. Only someone who know the language can decide if the vowel marks are needed or not. —Stephen (Talk) 18:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I've formatted the page and reworded the rfc tag's comment to match this discussion.​—msh210 (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


rfc-sense: Latin "war, battle". Listed in the proper noun section. I suspect that it's a common noun derived from the proper noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

  • You are correct. The common noun is also capitalized according to Lewis & Strong. Fixed. SemperBlotto 16:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


Esperanto proper noun ending in -a, not -o. Worst part is the Wikipedia entry seems to back this up, which it shouldn't of course. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Atena?diff=11059247RuakhTALK 03:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Empowered Student Ministries

Proper noun that just needs a definition or does not meet CFI? Mutante 01:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Who knows about CFI for proper nouns? The only sure thing is: if it might make money we don't want it. (See WT:BRAND.) DCDuring TALK 01:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Amen, brother. Equinox 23:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

that's a wrap

needs a better definition line Mutante 01:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


I don't know this one; is it really usually capitalized? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This may have been discussed before, but I don't see it on this page or the talk pages of those entries: we are inconsistent in our treatment of the digits 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9:

  1. In the translingual section, we give 0 the header "symbol" and define it as (1) a cardinal number, (2) a digit, and mathematical things; in the English section, we give it the header "noun" (and adjective), and the senses "cardinal number" and "numeral".
  2. In the translingual section, we give 1 the header "symbol" and define it as (1) a cardinal number, (2) a digit, and mathematical things; in the English section, we give it the header "symbol" (and adjective), and the senses "cardinal number" and "numeral".
  3. In the translingual section, we give 2 the header "symbol" and English example sentences, and define it as (1) a cardinal number, (3) a digit, (2) a numeral, and mathematical things; in the English section, we do not treat it except as a representation of to or too.
  4. In the translingual section, we give 3 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number, and we have no English section.
  5. In the translingual section, we give 4 the header "symbol" and an English example sentence, and define it as a number (but not a cardinal number); in the English section, we do not treat it except as a representation of for. There is also a note on the talk page about a Russian sense we should consider.
  6. In the translingual section, we give 5 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; in the English section, we do not treat it except as a (doubted) representation of MI5.
  7. In the translingual section, we give 6 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; in the English section, we do not treat it except as a (not-doubted) representation of MI6. We also have an Italian sense that should be checked.
  8. In the translingual section, we give 7 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; we have no English section.
  9. In the translingual section, we give 8 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; and we have no English section, although we could note that it is sometimes a representation of ate.
  10. In the translingual section, we give 9 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; we have no English section.
  11. (NB, we give 10 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number, but also give it the sense "perfect, on a scale of 1-10", although we don't have corresponding senses at the other numbers.)

So... what should we standardise on? What senses should the translingual sections have (numeral, cardinal number, both, etc)? Should we have English sections for the numbers? If so, what headers (symbol vs noun, vs eg numeral) and senses (numeral, cardinal number, etc) should they have? Should the translingual sections have English example sentences? Note that 0 and 1 have translingual example sentences. — Beobach 21:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

NB also Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2010#Entries_for_cardinal_numbers. I will standardise all of these soon. — Beobach 06:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I have for the most part standardised 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. I now turn to zero, one, etc. — Beobach 01:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I have now for the most part also standardised zero, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten. I have yet to look at higher numbers. — Beobach 02:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

2007 entries which still need attention

I am archiving the 2007 discussions. Most are resolved. The few that are not resolved are unlikely to get attention unless they are re-listed here, at the bottom of the page, as new requests. Therefore: — Beobach 02:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


— Beobach 02:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorted. Ƿidsiþ 12:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! — Beobach 05:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


— Beobach 02:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


— Beobach 02:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


It was said that "The noun and verb senses need standardising" and sorting, "particularly the noun sense which is almost exclusively used in plural". — Beobach 22:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

French, Basque, Irish, …

The comments were "These words can be used for ‘the X people collectively’. However, most of the translations for these definitions mention singular persons." and "Practically all our entries that are language names need to be redone thoroughly." — Beobach 06:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


— Beobach 06:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


The comments were "missing a slew of derived terms (medicine and botany)" and "the definitions given, themselves seem sketchy". — Beobach 06:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Cleaned. Ƿidsiþ 12:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! — Beobach 05:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


The comment was that it was "not clear that noun sense 4 under etymology 1 does in fact belong under that etymology. We need either to remove this claim, or to back it up with one or more references." — Beobach 06:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

  • This seems to have been fixed already. Ƿidsiþ 10:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


— Beobach 08:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


— Beobach 08:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


It was noted that "Someone with easier access to OED" should check whether "the 'references' simply repeat verbatim". — Beobach 08:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


17 senses? --Connel MacKenzie 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Reduced to 8 senses, two of which are RFV'd. Moglex 20:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 ?? Did you forget to save your changes, or something? —RuakhTALK 22:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Evidently. (Arrrgggghhhh). Moglex 08:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's clean now. — Beobach 08:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Some or all translations are for August (month), not for august (adj.). DCDuring 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about concepts, not words. It looks like the real problem is that for some languages for which the 8th month on the Gregorian calendar is written "august", there is no entry under "august", though there is a translation shown under "August" (Interlingue and Sundanese). I don't trust myself to get it right, so I'd rather someone with a firmer hold of this make the remaining changes. Someone should just look to make sure that the translations and entries are consistent. I suspect that there other kinds of inconsistencies as well as the one I mentioned above. DCDuring 15:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Almost everything in Category:Cuneiform needs substantial cleanup. — Beobach 18:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

... or deletion on the grounds that there is "no usable content given". — Beobach 18:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


We have attracted users with strange etymological and other theories before, like KYPark (most of his entries have been corrected or verified, but NB these few remain to be checked by someone knowledgeable: , bal, 불라, bakke, 헤이그, hof, ). User:Nemzag[4] is not new — Stephen commented above in 2008 — but I am now making a unified list (as was made for KYPark) of those of Nemzag's entries which need the attention of someone knowledgeable, due to nonstandard formatting or questionable content: coerator, hipje, hypje, hipi, خواجه, truni, נחש, lirë, njeri, ملكائيل(!). I am double-checking to see that I have not missed anything, but I believe that the remainder of his main-namespace contributions from 12:28, 3 November 2008 or later (up to 3 December 2010) have either been corrected or verified. (I have not yet checked his pre-3-November-2008 contributions.) — Beobach 03:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The following entries from before 3 November 2008 also need to be checked: پری, njer, זונה, أن, and الكون الاعلى(!), and شیطانه. The rest, as far as I can tell, have been verified or corrected. (I repeat that I have checked only main-namespace contributions.) — Beobach 03:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have dealt with the following things which were previously listed above: hypi (I restored the last good version of the page, by Jyril), Перун (I restored the last good version of the page, by Ivan Štambuk), אלהים, kuti (I restored the last good version of the page, by Conrad.Bot and Hekaheka), ملائكة (restored last good version by Interwicket and Hakeem.gadi), pret (restored the last good version by Conrad.Bot and Opiaterein); (mpret, mret); חשמן; الارفع (I have restored the last good version by Stephen). — Beobach 23:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the Pulaar section of ملاك (the Pulaar section: is it displaying improperly for me, or do we really have an Arabic-script singular and a Latin-script plural as the headword line?). — Beobach 03:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Vahag and I have cleaned mbret. — Beobach 03:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Stephen has cleaned curator. — Beobach 23:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
NB this discussion. — Beobach 03:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


Do we use Croatian as a language, or Serbo-Croatian? It should be put into appropriate categories. — Beobach 01:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a consensus among editors to use Serbo-Croatian. Generally speaking (but not 100%) people who object to unified Serbo-Croatian on this site are not editors; they just leave messages on talk page and disappear again. The fact that when certain editors, mainly Krun but sometimes me and Opiaterein merge Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian into Serbo-Croatian those edits aren't reverted suggests a pretty wide consensus IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

brass monkey

In a word, "everything" needs redoing. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with the etymology and references? DCDuring TALK 03:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing, but only because I fixed them. — Beobach 21:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, and Ruakh, too. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 00:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


Neapolitan, the head word is vàso so I'd imagine that's the correct page name. Since I don't speak any Neapolitan, I don't know if I'm right. Who added this? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

User:E. abu Filumena, apparently. Pingku 02:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Ditto cucino. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

carrot cruncher

"Usage notes" are terrible. Tidy or remove? Equinox 12:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup

The page is almost 300 000 bytes long (at its worst, it was some 450 000), with unresolved issues from as far back as 2008. It's going to need a lot of cleanup... — Beobach 22:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please add Wiktionary:Requests for verification and Wiktionary:Requests for deletion as well. -- Prince Kassad 22:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not this page that needs cleanup; in all honest I could list way more stuff here than I actually do, but it doesn't often get dealt with. What needs clean up is the entries listed on this page... Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

agente provocatrice

Dunno what to make of this. "Almost never used in French", "chiefly used in English". Should we change the header? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. Is it an idiom in French?
  2. Do you want to RfV it as English? DCDuring TALK 22:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't decide, which is precisely why I listed it here. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

summa cum laude

Latin section. I don't know how this fits as a Latin entry. I have added an English L2 section. DCDuring TALK 19:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

background knowledge

I don't know if this is a neologism or not, but can someone verify it? - Lo Ximiendo 20:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As there is no entry there is nothing to either clean up (what this page and {{rfc}} are for) or verify (See WT:Attestation. DCDuring TALK 22:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
From Wordnet--Noun 1. background knowledge - information that is essential to understanding a situation or problem. It is certainly an established term. Leasnam 22:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
It is clearly not an English idiom. WordNet is a semantic network, not a dictionary. Dictionaries are about lexical units, not conceptual units.
A straight vote on the question of which nonidiomatic English terms are worth including would be fine with me. Instead we have various items that are whimsically suggested as being worthy of inclusion even though they conform to no standard for inclusion. If we have some standard that is removed, there is neither a replacement, nor an effort to systematically populate the class allowed. We can't even get a serious effort at a Phrasebook. Instead we get fictional-universe terms. DCDuring TALK 23:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

risk appetite

risk tolerance

Volunteers? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

They look to be encyclopedic if accurate, SoP if defined at dictionary length. But I look forward to being surprised. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

idée mère

Seems to be a mix of English and French, obviously General American is not a valid pronunciation for a French word. Some suggestion of SoP in French, so I think the English and French should be split providing both are attested. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)



People have started adding their protologisms to these pages. —Internoob (DiscCont) 23:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm satisfied of most of them, and some of them would be quite hard to search for. —Internoob (DiscCont) 19:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Better there than in principal namespace. I'd be surprised if they didn't have some usage somewhere, at least at one time. DCDuring TALK 00:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

early grave

Two senses:

  1. An act of sentencing of someone under the who was under the age of 18 at the time of the crime to death row. Early death row.
  2. An execution or death sentence of someone who was under the age of 18 at the time of the crime. Early capital punishment.

First of all, how are these distinct, second of all, how would/could one use them? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thirdly, how do we know they are real? Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 00:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Logic of moving it here is you can't cite something if you don't know what it means. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
How do you know what something means if you don't see it in use and it isn't in, say, any OneLook reference in the sense involved? The more "novel" proposed senses and entries we have, the more we need to use citations and the less we can rely on, erm, borrowing definitions from other sources. I am increasingly an admirer and user of Wordnik, which almost always has real usage examples, which sometimes reveal meanings that they have not yet added. DCDuring TALK 12:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


Pronunciation is nonstandard and defintions are well, weird. Mglovesfun (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


Needs actual definition. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


Definition "to spontaneously release pressure or tension" needs improvement --Downunder 20:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


Last noun definition is "ball of the foot". This needs to be clearer? --Downunder 20:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


The table of derived terms needs merging into the category Category:English words suffixed with -istic. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 21:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

sleep under the same bridge

Marked by SB. Originally not defined as a verb. I am not very happy with my definitional efforts. Maybe this needs a non-gloss definition., DCDuring TALK 03:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

friend with benefits

Could someone familiar with the term match quotes to senses, if indeed two distinct senses are warranted, remove one or both rare tags? DCDuring TALK 22:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely one sense. I've heard it before in casual conversation, though not in writing. Also, there's friendship with benefits. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't doubt that there was a good entry just a few edits away, just not mine. DCDuring TALK 23:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

cathode and anode

On both pages a number of definitions are given that are actually all synonyms of one another. Cathode comes from κατα and ὄδος: the path down and anode from ἀνα and ὁδος the path up. This refers to the conductive path that leads electrons down into or up out of the electrolyte (or vacuum). The 'definitions' are simply different examples of these processes. Jcwf 02:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

wheel of Fortune

2 senses: 1. "A concept ...." 3 sentences, encyclopedic. 2. "A Tarot card" not specific. DCDuring TALK 22:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Homer Simpsonian

The overlong, attribute-laden definition is not supported in most regards by attestation, which does not even fully support an attribute like "dumbed down" or "exhibiting typical behavior of average human beings". DCDuring TALK 10:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


The two subsenses of the main sense are almost completely unintelligible IMO. DCDuring TALK 15:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

See also #top, here for the same reasons. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


Serbo-Croatian. Not sure whether the entry is intended to have two etymologies. DCDuring TALK 16:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned up. Digging a bit in the history makes clearer what happened: this edit added a more complete etymology, but at a different place in the entry from the etymology that was already there. KassadBot (the new AutoFormat) obscured that by interpreting the two ===Etymology=== sections as separate etymologies, and trying to clean up the entry accordingly. —RuakhTALK 20:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


Alleged adjective sense. As currently defined and exemplified, it doesn't look like an adjective.​—msh210 (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

West Frisian

Second sense is worded poorly, someone who knows the topic should reword to ensure accuracy. - TheDaveRoss 14:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

mad cow

Is out-of-date, lacking format, and needs a copy-edit --Mat200 13:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


Sense: A valuable member. Usex: That engineer is a credit to the team.

Definition is not substitutable in the usage example and could not be substituted freely for "a valuable member": "He is a valuable member/*credit of the association". DCDuring TALK 00:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The definition is along the right lines, but doesn't work, as you say. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Changed definition to "A source of value, distinction or honour." Now works with ... to ... SemperBlotto 08:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

framan af

No part of speech header, bad categories. Delete? -- Prince Kassad 20:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


The quotes are no good, second etymology has no definition, needs a lot of work. - TheDaveRoss 23:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:ja:Chemical elements

Most of the entries in this category need {{ja-noun}}, infl or a written category. I could do it myself but I have four projects I'm currently working on. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This should be a noun too, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:de:Chemical elements

These need {{de-noun}} and also {{elements}} instead of written text. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


We have seven senses, one that I've just added, one that's at RFV and seems to be just plain wrong, and these:

  1. Slightly wet.
  2. (of air) damp or humid.
  3. Filled with, characterised, or suggestive of liquid or moisture.
  4. Not dry, not dried out

Not sure how these four are separate. Isn't air moist are slightly wet? What does suggestive of liquid mean? Not dry surely just means "slightly wet". Oh and finally

  1. (of the eyes) tearful.

Really? How. Google Books gets a lot of hits for google books:"eyes are|were wet", but most of them just seem to be for various reasons (rain, straining them, etc.) Mglovesfun (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Only 3 and 4 are not found in MWOnline. "Moist" could have about as many senses as "wet" (12 @ MWO) or "dry" (32 @ MWO) do or at least as many as are on a continuum defined by "wet" and "dry" as poles. For example, "wet" as in "wet paint" is distinguished from other senses of "wet" and "moist paint" has 300+ hits at bgc. Is that included in "slightly wet"? It actually seems closer to sense 4. "Moist", "wet", and "dry" all seem to have senses that are relative to what is "normal" or "typical" for the nouns which they modify. I could imagine two generic senses: "slightly wet" (sense 1); "not completely dry" (sense 4, modified); "tearful"; and some other senses where neither "wet" nor "dry" are normally poles of the same attribute.
On a hunch, I just looked "moist goods", by analogy to dry goods. More than 300 hits at bgc. That might be a set phrase in special contexts, but it suggests that "moist" probably shares many applications with "wet" and "dry" do. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
That seems relevant to the entry though not relevant to my questions. There might be, eventually, 30 definitions of moist, I'mnot challenging that. I'm just challenging the current ones. If some of these are distinct, the wording doesn't tell me how. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Au contraire. A definition is not independent of the other definitions for the PoS that appear in the entry. The issue is how to we achieve coverage of the range of usage. In this case, there are two approaches to covering the range of usage. One is to define "moist" in reference to "dry" and "wet" wherever possible. The other is to have a structure of definitions that parallels MWO's approach to "wet" and "dry". DCDuring TALK 19:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Not dry surely just means "slightly wet". --well, not exactly. Moist lips are lips that are not dried out, but they are not necessarlly slightly wet: they are suggestive of containing or being filled with moisture. I think senses "Filled with, characterised, or suggestive of liquid or moisture" and "Not dry, not dried out" can be on the same line. Leasnam 16:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this already occurred to me.If I poured a larged bucket of water over a small sponge, it would be not dry, but unless evidence shows otherwise, it wouldn't be moist it would be soaking or drenched (etc.) So (IMO, unless evidence shows otherwise) this sense of moist only applies to things that are slightly wet, hence it is redundant. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I see where you're going. It would be ambiguous and is probably not a good definition because it leaves an open end...A better one then might be "containing some moisture, as to not be dry or dried out"? or a qualifier for (of skin, lips) might be needed. Leasnam 15:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, I gave this page a decent going-over. Tried to incorporate the above. Go ahead and remove the banner if you're happy. Ƿidsiþ 15:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll assume that you are. Stricken. Ƿidsiþ 18:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

fast Fourier transform

Definition needs rewording AFAICT: an FFT is a family?​—msh210 (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked the def to say that it's a member of a certain family of algorithms, and to specify discrete Fourier transforms. Is it O.K. now? —RuakhTALK 20:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
(If you're asking me:) If you say so. I don't know what an FFT is.​—msh210 (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I do say so. :-P   —RuakhTALK 15:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


What does slate blue have to do with anything?​—msh210 (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  • What does it do? Why is it in slate blue? Why don't we just delete it? SemperBlotto 19:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
    • It provides a list of semantically related terms for listing under "Coordiate terms" or "Hyponyms" or whatever. All the terms seem related, except slate blue, which is listed as the hypernym.​—msh210 (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


The order of the senses and those of the translation tables do not match, which makes the page very confusing. -- Prince Kassad 09:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


What's all this pre-etymology stuff? Also I've commented out some stuff that may be useful for the person cleaning it up, but really shouldn't be there. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned, cleared, sorted. There are numerous other potential derived terms that could potentially be added, but I'm not up on Buddhist terminology, and the derived terms I've already listed could definitely use another few pairs of eyes to go over the glosses. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 01:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The entry appears stable, so I'm crossing this one off. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 02:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


The oldest entry tagged with {{rfc}}, surprisingly never listed. Needs proper formatting. -- Prince Kassad 21:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming the tribe is Kaw - kaw is something totally different. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Kaw with a citation for good measure. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

black hat

RFC-sense for the "A malicious hacker who commits illegal acts" sense. See the entry's talk-page. Was previously tagged, everyone seemed to agree that the definition was problematic . . . and somehow it got de-tagged without any changes being made to the def. (It did get reshuffled etymologically, but actually that just added more problems, in that our entry now implies, on top of everything else, that malicious lawbreaking hackers are "villains" who have traditionally worn black Stetsons.) —RuakhTALK 21:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

như thiết như tha, như trác như ma

Completely illegible definition. -- Prince Kassad 21:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a literal translation of the proverb into English - which as you say, means nothing. Perhaps a Chinese speaker could enlighten us. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Or a Vietnamese speaker. Or, for that matter, a Japanese speaker: we have the exact same definition for 切磋琢磨. —RuakhTALK 21:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Google finds "Sessa-takuma [...] consists of four Chinese characters: 切磋琢磨 The first means to cut (a bone or elephant tusk), the second to rub, the third to crush (a stone or gem), the fourth to polish. As a whole, it describes how various hard materials grind each others and during this process are all refined. Interestingly, using online translation services yealds a variety of results. Babelfish has two different versions. The rather simple Japanese-English translation is "Hardwork". When I tried the Chinese-English option, I got "Learn from each other by an exchange of views" as a result. Google translation has "Friendly competition". Websaru has "gradual improvement by slow polishing (idiom); fig. education as a gradual process" for the Chinese term, "apply yourself diligently with everyone" for the Japanese." - -sche 22:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I don’t think it’s anything like "friendly competition". It seems to say something like: (studying is) like forging and casting, grinding and filing. —Stephen (Talk) 04:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
are processes in the manufacture of bones, horns, jades and stones. 切磋 and 琢磨 both mean "to refine, to improve", especially "to improve through discussions with others". 如切如磋如琢如磨 means "Something is like the refining processes of the ornaments. The more you discuss and exchange your ideas with others, the more you improve."
The current etymology "From Middle Chinese .." doesn't make sense. Middle Chinese is spoken. It should be "From Classical Chinese" instead. Wjcd 04:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
"Classical Chinese" could be confusing because the term can also refer to the Chinese used from Zhou to Han. Maybe "literary Chinese," but the implication of "Middle Chinese" is that it came into Vietnamese during the time Middle Chinese was spoken. So there should be a very easy way to fix the entry (and others like it), just making clear when it came from Chinese to Vietnamese. 06:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
In Mandarin 切磋琢磨 (qiēcuōzhuómó) - "learn from each other by exchanging views", from ABC dictionary (integrated into Wenlin software). --Anatoli 12:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The Japanese Edict dictionary gives: 切磋琢磨 (せっさたくま, Sessatakuma) "cultivate one's character by studying hard"; diligent application". In Japanese described: 互いに鍛え合い高め合う. --Anatoli 12:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


Slovak section need its inflections inside a template. Etymology can be copied from dub#Serbo-Croatian. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


Done though I haven't copied the "primary among" definition (as in arch-nemesis) as I'm unsure about it. Is it a prefix? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Some of this is probably etymology rather than definition. —RuakhTALK 03:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Better? Maybe use nodot=1 and then {{gloss|an absence due to disconnection}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Is this the proper lemma? Surely there should be at the very least one in Japanese characters. -- Prince Kassad 18:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The entry isn't wrong 'per se', it would just benefit from having Japanese scripts as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
But does Japanaese romaji really capitalize proper nouns? I thought it didn't. -- Prince Kassad 22:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Proper nouns in English are capitalized, and romaji renderings in Japan follow suit -- sometimes excessively so, like Sony's insistence on spelling the name SONY all the time. But names in Japan, when rendered in romaji, definitely use initial caps. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 02:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


The current definition looks like a compound of maybe three, German speaker want to sort it out? - TheDaveRoss 20:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd just remove the added definitions (see version history). They look nonsense to me. -- Prince Kassad 20:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Even Mutante's original definition included "frogman, scuba diver, combat diver, combat swimmer", and while the first is a synonym for the third and closely related to the fourth, the second is troublesome. Does this mean any kind of scuba diver or only a combat scuba diver? Is it restricted to combat divers who use SCUBA? Are combat snorklers OK? Seems like it is the German version of SEAL but I can't make that assumption. - TheDaveRoss 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Many of the related terms listed here are blatantly SoP. Someone needs to check all of them and look for idiomaticity. -- Prince Kassad 17:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


  1. Template:mathematics Proper to be added; positive; -- opposed to subtractive.

I have no idea what this means. Anyone?​—msh210 (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it means 'suitable to be added', but like you say, hard to tell. I assume not added by a native English speaker. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Cleaned (rewritten/merged with following sense). Ƿidsiþ 11:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

crankcase emission control system

Tagged but not listed. No proper definition. -- Prince Kassad 21:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. The definitions are totally wrong and imply the only Creoles are the Louisiana ones, while in fact there are many more in the world. -- Prince Kassad 21:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Danish only, AFAICT definition are actually written in Danish, if they even are definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

sexual abuse

The forcing of undesired sexual activity by one person on another.

Definition does not approach adequacy for a topic that warrants w:Sexual abuse, especially with regard to seduction of minors or those not deemed competent. Obviously, too, at least one party desires the activity. The inadequacy of the definition reflects the absence of citations. There would seem to be a need for legal definitions in addition to the general-use definitions. Some questions include whether the term is used both as a hypernym and a coordinate term of rape and other specific bad behavior of a sexual nature and whether it can be purely verbal or conducted via telecommunications (eg, Child Abuse on the Internet [2001]). DCDuring TALK 13:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, I copy-pasted the def from Wikipedia but actually I think it serves pretty well. You object that one party does desire the activity, but that doesn't stop it being undesired by someone, and that's precisely the point of the definition. I think your point about minors and so forth is interesting but encyclopaedic -- it really has to do with various groups or lawmakers deciding how they are going to classify "forcing" and "undesired" and indeed "sexual activity", but I reckon it's better to leave those distinctions to them rather than us. But you're definitely right that citations would help all this. Ƿidsiþ 15:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Same, I'm not convinced that we need 'legal' definitions. That would vary by country, so we'd need (or at least want) a different definition for each country that has its law written in English. Perhaps DCDuring if you referred to specific definitions that we don't have, rather than what would be the nature of the definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The RfD called for improvement of the definition. I took that as not mere rhetoric. I'd be happy if it were deleted if it could not be brought up to standard. As it stands other dictionaries do a better, though not adequate, job. Legal definitions are per se includable based on one of the Pawley idiomaticity criteria, if attestable. In the US and its territories, applicable law is at the state level for the most part so, in principle, more than 51 definitions might apply. DCDuring TALK 18:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


I have attempted to fix the mess, but there's still a lot. The context templates are probably going to require some esoteric syntax. -- Prince Kassad 22:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit wordy, sure, but it's not too bad. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Besides the definitions, the Pronunciation and especially the Synonyms section (that is a total atrocity) needs serious cleanup. -- Prince Kassad 18:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


The definition doesn't help anyone, IMHO --Plowman 17:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed (there are about 400 of those). Definition well, isn't a definition. Etymology should be under the etymology header. Also Nicholaitan. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Done the 'easy' bit, now all we need is a definition and an etymology. Does anyone know what it means? Surely it must come from Ancient Greek. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Cleaned, pretty much. Ƿidsiþ 09:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


Sense: (US Army slang) To smoke : to order a recruit to exercise until he "gags" (usually spoken in exaggeration).

I don't get whether this is one or two senses. Of course we don't have any citations. DCDuring TALK 15:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the intent is "To order a recruit to exercise excessively" with etymology "to order a recruit to exercise until he gags (chokes)" and synonym "smoke". Not sure, though.​—msh210 (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Balhae Old Korean

All these seem to be very badly formatted entries on proper names of kings. My thought is we don't include such stuff (可毒夫 already failed RFD). The second point is that it's questionable whether these are actually attestable as Old Korean terms. -- Prince Kassad 14:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Warship translation for Romanian (+ some more)


I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I'll give it a shot.

I've been monitoring translations made by a Romanian contributor and noticed a couple of translations looking like this:

E.g. (Warship =) Romanian: navă militară f.

This just doens't look good to me, taking into consideration that in French, Italian, Portuguese etc. the entire term is linked.

I've tried fixing contributions that look like this, but he keeps undoing my edits.

I just want to know what conventions are to be followed and if this contributor should receive guidelines if his style of editing isn't up-to-date.

Best Regards,

--Robbie SWE 12:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


The sample sentence for this article is ableist and hostile to people with bipolar disorder. Request the sample sentence be removed and replaced with something that does not further harmful stereotypes about the mentally ill.

I agree it's potentially offensive. I've replaced it with a real citation from a book. Equinox 01:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


Etymology for the most part, isn't one. It's just general discussion about the word. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

De Morgan's laws

This term is not a plurale tantum, and needs to be reduced to a soft redirect as a plural of De Morgan’s law, quod vide for a citation of the singular form (the August 2004 quot.). I'd clean up the entry myself, but I don't know enough about set theory to rewrite the second definition for the singular form with confidence, and nor do I consider myself qualified to correct the translations (assuming that they aren't pluralia tantum either). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added the sense to the entry for the singular and reduced the entry for the plural to a form-of entry, detagging it. I've simply dropped the transliterations. They remain in history. (...where of course no one will think to look for them. Shall we add them with {{ttbc}} to the entry for the singular?)​—msh210 (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)