The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process..
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
- Not at all. Chimps are either paniscus or troglodytes. However, I'll see if I can add a Translingual section. SemperBlotto 06:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- EP has consistently followed and enforced the practice of displaying epithets used in taxonomic names only as Latin. These epithets apparently usually don't have an independent existence in multiple languages, which would be required for a Translingual section. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Sapiens" is used as an invariant English noun meaning Homo sapiens. I don't know whether it ever appears in a context where Homo sapiens hasn't appeared before. If it only appears in such a context, having an entry for it is arguably like having as definitions for "Arthur" "King Arthur", "Chester A Arthur", etc. There are usages after "too", "very", and forms of "become" that are consistent with it being a true adjective. Some, but not all, of the adjective usage seems like mere wordplay. In addition, the usages all seem to suffer from the "Arthur" problem. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 19:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)