User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 8

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


when every verb in a certain tense is also a noun, e.g.

You may interested in Wiktionary_talk:About_Hebrew#present_tense_verbs.2C_and_.22actor.22_nouns.—msh210 20:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've given what little input I can offer. --EncycloPetey 21:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Two things

  1. If you have time please check WT:RFV#Nkinora as the discussion there seems to have died.
  2. I believe that some time ago I stumbled upon Medellia's talk page where I saw you telling him/her that there was a bot for creating Latin form of entries. Is this true? 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Happy new year!

  1. That particular discussion starts up every few months, then dies again. It would be useful if someone took on the issue as advocate and gathered all the previous BP, RFV, and RFD discussions on the issue into a single location (via linking and summary). I expect the discussion will start again sometime around April or May, as it always does. I have too much on my plate to pursue the issue right now.
  2. Yes, I have FitBot for creating those, but haven't been running it lately. --EncycloPetey 22:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. Are you saying it would be good if someone put all those discussions in one place?
  2. This FitBot of yours, does it not create noun form of entries? Also another question about it which I have after reading its user page: Does it work by uploading "prewritten" entries as opposed to making them itself when you run it? 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. Yes, especially if a concise summary of points can be generated as well.
  2. FitBot can add noun and adjective forms, but I have been adding primarily verbs and participles. I've held off on nouns inpart because the declension tables need revision. FitBot uses prewritten data created from a template rather than generating them itself dynamically. --EncycloPetey 19:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... I may go "discussion hunting" sometime soon but definitely not right away as I am far too busy at the moment (particularly in real life). 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"I" forms as translations of Latin verbs

Hi. I've been wondering for a while why most of the translations of Latin verbs are English non-lemma forms (I go, I fall down, etc.), instead of "to" infinitives (to go, to fall down etc.). I do know that the Latin lemma form for verbs is the first-person singular (active indicative present), thus, literally meaning "I am/want/go/etc.", but shouldn't the translation always be the English lemma form because the Latin word is a lemma form? -- Frous 17:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The translation should tell the meaning of the word, which is a first-person form. The link will go to the lemma in most cases, regardless of the preceding pronoun. For example: translates as "I go", where "I" is necessary for the translation, but go is the linked lemma form. So, the lemma is usually linked anyway. If we said that meant "to go" instead of "I go", we would be providing false and misleading information. If we used your infinitive translation approach, then someone translating cogito ergo sum would translate it as "to think therefore to be", which is wrong. And besdies, "to go" is not a lemma form; the English lemma is simply go. --EncycloPetey 19:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Circumflexes in Latin

During the process of my exhaustive attesting of deus ex machina and its relations, I found that a respectable number of authors write the word as deus ex machinâ (i.e., with a circumflex), both in singular use and in plural use (though not, obviously, in the plurals ending in machinis); however, I’ve yet to find anyone who writes deus ex mâchinâ, diî ex mâchinis, &c. Præsumably, they do this to mark machinâ as an ablative singular, distinct in inflexion from the nominative or vocative singular māchina; I suppose this is useful to remind one that its plural is machinis and not machinae, but since it’s only the author who would need to remember this so as to pluralise it correctly, the circumflex seems a bit pointless. So I was wondering: did Latin, in its long history, ever use circumflexes to mark long vowels in real text (i.e., not in learning textbooks), even if just in those few cases where a word’s different cases are only distinguished by vowel length (such as the first declension’s nominative/vocative and ablative singulars, and the fourth declension’s nominative/vocative singular and plural)?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Latin never used circumflexes, and neither have its lexicographers to my knowledge. It's certainly not done in dictionaries or texts of the past two centuries, and Starnes Renaissance Dictionaries (which surveys the development of Latin dictionaries over several centuries) shows no indication of this either. You may be looking at a French influence. If you are looking at electronic sources, it is also possible that the circumflex was substituted (either deliberately or accidentally) because the macron-bearing vowels are not available in standard font sets. --EncycloPetey 19:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

close stool

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Our users just need a way to get from close stool to close-stool. You seem just to have summarily eliminated that possibility. Thanks, 20:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the policy page I pointed you to? --EncycloPetey 20:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you kindly moderate your tone? That type of tone seems to be a problem at Wiktionary. I never use it, myself. 20:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You just used self-assured smugness as a tone. Is that an improvement, then? You jumped to complain to me after I had given you a rationale and linked explanation. And you did not read the document or answer my question. --EncycloPetey 20:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Two notes

Thanks for the corrections. Can you see if the new syntax used in ferrocarril pass the bot check? El imp 21:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WT:BP#Category for possessive noun forms

Please check this again; I posted a question for you. 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Welsh inflections

Okay. Sorry about the formatting errors, I was ignorant of those rules, I'll keep them in mind in future. I'll go through my entries and edit the 'related terms'. As for the template, it looks just about perfect for everything except possibly the occasions when a plural of a noun (i.e. Saeson) has a distinct meaning from a singular noun, however, this is probably easy to work around. What about verb templates? Welsh is mainly very regular, so as far as the template is concerned, you'd probably just need a field for the root. YngNghymru 21:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. It gives all the information I'd expect to find in a Welsh dictionary (apart from possibly a conjugation table in a more complicated dictionary, like the Latin entries here). :) YngNghymru 21:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, adjectives. Well, that I can think of, adjectives can have up to 5 different forms in Welsh, 4 of which are optional: the basic form, the plural form (most adjectives don't, but some do), the equative form (adjectives with 1 or 2 syllables), the comparative form (adjectives with 1 or 2 syllables) and the superlative form (adjectives with 1 or 2 syllables). The last 4, for adjectives longer than two syllables, are achieved with words like 'more' in English.
An example of an adjective with all 5 forms is glas (blue): Glas, gleision (plu.), glased (equative), glasach (comparative), glasaf (superlative).
An example of an adjective with no plural form is hapus. Hapus, hapus (plu.), hapused (equative), hapusach (comparative), hapusaf (superlative).
An example of an adjective with only the base form is gogleddol. Gogleddol, gogleddol (plu.), cyn ogleddol (equative), mwy gogleddol (comparative), mwyaf gogleddol (superlative). (edit: I stupidly said 'mwyaf gogleddaf' rather than mwyaf gogleddol) Admittedly, you're not likely to say 'more Northern', but it was the first 3+ syllable adjective I came across in the category ;)
Not that I can think of. There may be one or two with specific forms but they're archaic. However, adjectives following a feminine noun do take the soft mutation... but whether we want to add that, I don't know (it would add a potential three extra categories to any adjective). However, if we're simply providing boxes for people to type into, similar to the current non-language specific inflection template, then adding these might be a good idea. YngNghymru 22:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah! Melyn. That slipped my mind completely - that is one of a few cases where the feminine is applied mostly constantly. There might be a case for adding a feminine form box then. YngNghymru 16:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The awkwardness of initial consonant mutations. Yes, I did mean that it was cyn ogleddol - cyn causes a soft mutation. The awkwardness of the equative in Welsh is that there are a few words that mean 'as' in 'as big'. Cyn is the only one I know of that you use with the equative ending - apart from a few select adjectives, technically speaking the equative is always cyn (soft mutated adjective with equative ending if one or two syllables). The equative with the ending is quite formal and literary, seen in unaffected, informal speech only generally in set phrases. YngNghymru 18:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The plural of ffrengig is ffrengig, as you've already got. There's no specific plural form for it. :) YngNghymru 19:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the template in action. In almost all senses it seems to me to be perfect, apart from just one thing - do you have the possibility for irregular adjectives? Some have slight sound changes (galed for example becomes galetach, galetaf, galeted), whilst others, like da, have completely irregular forms. I see you've put the option for plural in there, is there a similar one for comparative forms? It was stupid of me not to mention this before, but I thought you were just making a template like the welsh noun one, with boxes into which you could enter words for each form. YngNghymru 19:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit: I've checked out gogleddol and you have, brilliant :)
The forms for da are da (base form), gwell (comparative), gorau (superlative) and cystal (equative). By the way, did you include a box for feminine form? Not that it really matters if you did, since even if we can't find some other way around the problem, I think such adjectives are rare enough that a non-lang-specific inflection template can be warranted? YngNghymru 20:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
There's no specific plural form for da, either. It tends to be more things like colours (for some reason) and 'grammatical' adjectives like 'this'. YngNghymru 20:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I mean that the plural form is identical. Sorry I wasn't more specific there. It's the same for the majority of adjectives, but a significant (if small) minority have distinct plural forms. YngNghymru 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: D'oh. When I typed galed, I meant caled (I have a tendency to apply the soft mutation at apparent random when I haven't slept in a while). So when you put that in the example you'll probably want to write the base form rather than the mutated/feminine/following yn form.

Very nice! I'll start converting adjectives. Oh, by the way, I've noticed the welsh noun template doesn't work for uncountable nouns or plural noun forms - it always requires you to specify a plural. Whilst plural noun forms don't need to be listed except in one or two cases where the plural has a specifically different extra meaning from the singular, there are quite a lot of uncountable nouns. I've hunted around for a Welsh uncountable noun template, but can't find one - have I just missed it?

I mean nouns like 'time' (as in the concept of time rather than 'three times'), 'hair' (as in the hair on your head - hairs plural is instantly interpreted in English as three single hairs), abstract nouns etc. Welsh is a lot better for this sort of thing because it has separate words for a lot of these concepts, i.e. gwallt/blewyn.
Ah. It might be a good idea to add a feminine category, if you're going to have to completely change it. Though I don't know. Should, say, female headteacher (prifathrawes) be a completely different entry to male headteacher (prifathro), linked through the 'related words' section? Or better, we could have three fields, the plural, the gender, and the feminine/masculine (depending on the word) form, all of them acting as links to made or as-yet-unmade entries, just like the mutation/adjective tables do now. That way we could have an entry for each whilst still having reference to it in the main entry. Of course this all depends on whether you a) think it's worth putting feminine/masculine forms of a noun (which, of course, only some nouns have) in the inflection line. And whether it's possible to put something in one field (masculine/feminine) based on what another field was (gender). Just something to think about. YngNghymru 21:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
If that's all right, I think it'd be a good idea. But it'd have to be an optional column, since only a few nouns have feminine/masculine versions. YngNghymru 21:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay! It's not really necessary, anyway. YngNghymru 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. At the moment, because the alternate forms generally have their own comparative etc forms, I've been creating separate entries and referring to them in the definition as 'masculine form of' and 'feminine form of' with a link to the other entry. I've also been putting {{m}} and {{f}} after adjectives, which wasn't working too well. Thanks :) By the way, do you think we should delete from the talk page some of the things we've completed? It's getting a bit crowded ;) YngNghymru 22:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Archive you say? That sounds far more sensible. Anyway. The other template you're unlikely to see in any other non-celtic language is a preposition template. I don't know if you knew Welsh prepositions were inflected for person? It can be a bit of a problem. I don't know whether this would fall under the inflection line (like this: dros (drosta i, drostat ti, drosto fo, drosti hi, droston ni, drostoch chi, drostyn nhw) or somewhere else, I'm not sure. YngNghymru 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay. There're four different types (not officially speaking, as far as I know - this is just based on patterns that I've personally learnt) of Welsh preposition. There're -a prepositions and -o prepositions (which're both modified regularly), mixed prepositions (which work in the same way as -a prepositions and -o prepositions but are irregular) and compound prepositions (which are similar to english compound prepositions). There are also some prepositions which are not inflected at all.
-a prepositions follow the pattern -a i, -at ti, -i hi, -o fo, -on ni -och chi, -yn nhw. These are suffixed to a kind of 'stem' form, sometimes different from the preposition you see with nouns, sometimes not. For example, 'am' (about) is formed: amdana i, amdanat ti, amdano fo, amdani hi, amdanon ni, amdanoch chi, amdanyn nhw. As you can see, the 'stem' here is amdan-. -o prepositions follow a practically identical pattern: -o i, ot ti, o fo, i hi, -on ni -och chi, -yn nhw. For example, 'drwy' (through) is formed drwyddo i, drwyddot ti, drwyddo fo, drwyddi hi, drwyddon ni, drwyddoch chi, drwyddyn nhw. Some of these prepositions (like 'dros') can go either way.
'mixed' prepositions are those like i, which goes i mi, i ti, iddi hi, iddo fo, i ni, i chi, iddyn nhw. These are 'irregular' prepositions.
Compound prepositions are an actual preposition combined with a noun (as in English). For example, 'in front of' is o flaen, something like 'of front', 'from front'. Compound prepositions use possessives: o fy mlaen (fi), o dy flaen (di), o'i flaen (o), o'i blaen (hi), o ein blaen (ni), o'ch blaen (chi), o'u blaen (nhw).
Finally there are a couple of prepositions that have no inflected forms. An example is mewn, the word for 'in' used with indefinite nouns (for obvious reasons). Phew. That was long! Hope it helps a bit. YngNghymru 22:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


I'm rather lost as to how this happened, but this language template was incorrectly created. I'm fixing it, but it's linked to in User:EncycloPetey/Languages, and I guess I felt a bit squeamish about editing your page. However, I suggest that you do so, as I'm going to fix it once I fix the entries which link to it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch, but the template was created correctly and is listed correctly on my Languages page. It went wrong with this edit. Prior to that, it was the correct language. The problem stems from the fact that WM (in their ongoing ISO folly) assigned the code for the Alemmanic Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 18:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

General Latin questions and points

There are three things that I come across that I would like to ask you about:

  1. I presume this entry, abbreviātiō, should be deleted since it contains macrons in the headword?
  2. Why is daemon classed as an I-stem noun when it doesn't follow the parasyllabic or consonant stem rules stated on the wikipedia declension article? Am I missing something here? Some dictionaries say that there's a macron on the "o" - daemōn, daemōnis - but the entry doesn't show this. I looked at the Latin wiktionary and it appeared as though they don't classify it as I-stem and they add a macron on the "o". Also related to this page [1]; nox is mentioned twice when the examples show it to mean feles. I came across more nouns that I was unsure about which I changed to the ordinary 3rd declension template: abactor and libīdinōsitās. Please can you explain any errors I have made here.
  3. With these two verbs ending in -esco, celebrescō and tenebrescō, it seems that the last two principle parts are missing. Which conjugation table is chosen for these? I am guessing that the definition of these verbs have something to do with becoming into something else. I found one source that tried to explain the relationship between verb's in Vulgar Latin ending in -esco and Romance verbs, but it didn't really help that much.

Thanks in advance. Caladon 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  1. I have deleted this page.
  2. The I-stem situation here is messy with many errors. You seem to have located several of them. I have been concentrating on verb and verb template cleanup more than noun cleanup, but there are still a lot of corrections to be made to older entries for Latin nouns.
  3. We do not yet have verb templates equipped to handle inchoate verbs ending in -esco. I do not have a good source to draw on for these verbs, or I would have tried to set up templates by now. It is possible that such verbs are defective and may never have full tables, but most Latin works I have don't explicitly deal with these verbs.
--EncycloPetey 18:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you move this page autoritas to auctoritas because I think it's a misspelling. Caladon 08:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
When a word derives from a perfect passive participle, should you put it in the descendants section of the main verb entry or the perfect passive participle page, especially if it's the case of an adjective? Also with the verb cōnstruō, I was unsure which source was correct in terms of the macrons. Is there a macron on the u in cōnstrūxī and cōnstrūctum? If there is then struō and destruō need to be updated. Caladon 06:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It depends. If the descendant word is a verb derived through a Latin participle, I'll list it under the Latin verb lemma. If the descendant word is an adjective derived through a Latin participle, I'll list it under the Latin participle. It's a little arbitrary, but it matches the POS of the entries, which seems as good a guide as any.
No, there should be no macron over the "u" in cōnstruxī. --EncycloPetey 06:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be any consensus over this; having this same problem again with īnstruō; īnstrūmentum, instrūctiō; and the source [2]; also compare [3] with [4]. There will be numerous changes needed either way in corresponding entries. Caladon 14:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you further but I have two other questions for you:
  1. Should entries with "J" alternatives be created with the alternative spelling layout or should they be left as a red link and all the etymological sections corrected so that they link properly to the correct headword? For example I noticed iūs has an entry for the J form on jūs, so should the entries be created for entries like abjudico in respect to abiudico?
  2. Is there any guide on adding the IPA for Latin words or should that be left to you? And the same for the requested entries; should these be left for you? Caladon 22:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently, we do not create any "J" entries for Latin. They can optionally be listed in an Alternative forms section, but should not be linked, since they don't get entries. The J-spellings of Latin words that do have entries are very old additions to Wiktionary, and were mostly created by one user (who made many errors, and was likely the alias of a now-banned user). There is no guide for IPA in Latin. I've had to piece together (from multiple sources) enough information over the last three years just to do it myself with any degree of confidence. I'd recommend holding off on doing Latin IPA for now.
As for the Requested entries, I'd say that you seem to have a good grasp of Latin and of our formatting conventions. You also know how to set up an entry with more than just the minimal content, so feel free to add whatever you feel comfortable doing. The Latin requests list has become more active lately, and help would be appreciated. I am spending a lot of my time updating the template call on Spanish verb entries, assisting with Catalan and Occitan cleanup, and also adding a milestone of English literature to WikiSource, so my Latin work on Wiktionary this month has been reduced accordingly. --EncycloPetey 22:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominal suffix, etc.

The {{sense}} tag seems to be appropriate. How is -ant- now? Kwamikagami 19:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Already answered on your talk p[age. --EncycloPetey 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


May I ask why you changed this to simply "Yupek"? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that was the result of a lengthy conversation with Stephen G. Brown. --EncycloPetey 08:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I see. I shall take it up with him then. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is the relevant conversation (last section on the page). --EncycloPetey 08:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


Sorry about that. I didn't realise I was doing it. I know the guidelines, and correct them in entries I come across. Guess that makes me a hypocrite. I'll remember in future. YngNghymru 20:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


Hello. I still didn't have read messages obviously from you. Note that you have acted in a very impolite way, by reverting my additions, and then incorporating them as yours. El imp 21:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted, but mistakenly so, since I didn't realize you had a long string of edits. Reversion undoes to the last verion not by that editor, which I sometimes forget or don't realize. I don't understand what you mean by "I still didn't have read messages obviously from you." --EncycloPetey 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
In reply to your first message: "The definition lacked the context tag" There is not a precise context tag, systematics is wrong. You can archive your labels, they don't impress me. I'm going to read your next reply. El imp 21:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You should stop editing until we end talk. El imp 21:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
and 3. You should stop looking server to to spy what I'm doing, and concretely you should not reply to me in your talk page. I'm conscious this edit could delete something you have put here. El imp 21:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The tag "systematics" is correct. That is my field of study. Also, I am not "spying" on you. Everything done on Wiktionary is public. Finally, I replied on your talk page, and copied my reply here for completeness. Please refrain from making ugly accusations. --EncycloPetey 21:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You should stop answering me here. I'm not so noob I'm not know how talk at wikis works. If I'm being slow is because I've more dificulties talking to you in English. El imp 21:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems you are only interested in being angry and not in discussing the page. So, I have nothing more to say. --EncycloPetey 21:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


Sorry, but it's a redirect to philistine, so adding to the latter {{also|Philistine}} serves no purpose... --Duncan 02:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Bold enough for you? :-P -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep. --EncycloPetey 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


I don't want to make mistakes, so... linfocita and linfocito have the same plural but only one is written. I don't now what to do with plurals of different word with the same meaning. And also, with "a" is slightly more used, also by Wikipedia. Can you explain me what to do in this case? Thanks. --Pharamp 20:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made some edits to linfocito and linfocita to indicate this. --EncycloPetey 20:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad.

You're quick. :) And you're right, it should be the lowercase /x/. (In my defence, it's been a while since I learned to use SAMPA. :P)

thank you for quick editing

thank you for quick editing. I really want to know your and other wikipedians motivation to work on wikipedia without any duty.

Partly because we enjoy it, and partly because it assists other people who use the site. But please note that here we are Wiktionarians. Wikipedians edit on Wikipedia, and this is Wiktionary, a separate project. --EncycloPetey 21:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A bit of Latin

I said I'd ask you this since you have a good level of Latin. I was playing the game Tales of Symphonia for Gamecube ealier today (or rather yesterday I suppose ;) ) and noticed one of the bosses has two attacks that sound Latin. The first is Leonazium and the second is Agarazium. Do they mean anything? Are they perhaps compounded words? 50 Xylophone Players talk 01:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

They don't mean anything to me, nor can I find a possible quick meaning. They may be only Latinoid, as the only on-line information about the name I could find also came to this conclusion. (Ohhh, magúfa!) --EncycloPetey 01:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Huh...? magúfa? *look of interest* what language is that? I'm thinking it's Spanish but if you ask me it could probably get away with being thought Hungarian (I say this merely from all the Hungarian I have seen here). Judging by your usage of it I'd say it's something like .50 Xylophone Players talk 02:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
No, it's Simlish and is used in a moment of understanding another person. --EncycloPetey 02:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


Can you create a "Relativity" subcategory under Physics?

I would classify relativity as its own subfield of physics, though it is just one theory, there is a very large amount of specific nomenclature & jargon stemming from it, as there are a large number of phenomena involving either high speeds, gravity, or spacetime. The main idea is having a separate category to describe the many terms associated with the extremes of classical mechanics, phenomena outside of both Newton's & Schroedinger's domains. The closest non-theory-specific terms I can think of would be gravitational physics (which would exclude special relativity) or spacetime physics. Cosmology would be a good subcategory to add, though it also is its own field, and an interdisciplinary one at that, taking ideas from relativity, astronomy, particle physics, nuclear physics, etc. and applying them to describe the universe (& universes) as a whole. Also, can you rename "Elementary particles" to "Particle physics"? "Elementary particles" is very misleading and also incorrect, last time I checked hadrons were hardly elementary. Zhividya 05:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

for some reason, the entry I made for "Wigner's friend" was saved as "Wigner&"; could you rename that? thanks, Zhividya 05:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


Sorry I didn't format the translations in detail. Is there any reason you reverted the addition of a correct definitionMichael Z. 2009-01-10 06:41 z

Subsenses may be controversial, and we can controvert about the format if you like, but incorrect definitions are just wrong. How about restoring my edit? Michael Z. 2009-01-10 06:47 z
You know, I put some work into getting that definition right, and the translations, and I was kind of proud of the result. And then it was late and I was too tired to make the fiddley translation boxes so I just left that for later or for someone else. Reverting all of that over a trivial issue of layout is not only making the content of the entry significantly worse, but it feels like a poke in the eye.
I don't care about the credit. Like any other revert, you just type “reverting” in the edit summary and my original addition is still credited in the article history. Michael Z. 2009-01-10 07:07 z
Sorry for yelling then; I promise I'm not holding a grudge. But I had to let you know that I think you didn't keep your eye on the ball when you deleted content over a point of form. But I'm not the only one losing the edit, am I? It's still the case that the entry is poorer because you removed content, in the hopes that I would come back and do it again the way you'd prefer; you're favouring form over content. I hope you'll rethink this policy, because it's not the best one for the project.
Regarding reverts—it may not help you keep from being yelled at in the future—but anyone who makes a contribution should understand that it could be removed and restored a thousand times, obliterated by successive edits, or just removed permanently, long after they're gone. Whatever edits are made, they will retain their right under Wiktionary:Copyright to have their contribution acknowledged by the inclusion of the article history. If they think any future edit can infringe on this right, they are mistaken. Michael Z. 2009-01-10 20:01 z
I have found that when I make the format corrections, I have to make them over and over, because the same mistakes pop up again and again from the same user. When I allow the user to correct their own mistakes (as I tried to do in this case), the user usually learns something useful and produces better product in future. There is no one magical method for operating on Wiktionary that will guarantee the best results. --EncycloPetey 20:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and removing the etymology I subsequently added was a mistake, too. Michael Z. 2009-01-10 20:12 z
I removed it because you repeatedly insisted that I revert instead of making even a slight effort yourself. you knew that reverting would do this because I told you repeatedly that it would. Please go away. --EncycloPetey 20:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


Hmm… It seems that you’re right. However, I take it that you agree that *prefices is hypercorrect and needs to be labelled as such, yes?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's hypercorrect, just formed by analogy with indices. It does carry a bit of snootiness, but I wouldn't call it hypercorrect. --EncycloPetey 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It’s the misapplication of an otherwise valid rule for plural-formation — the very definition of hypercorrection.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was making a joke that the term hypercorrect does not carry the meaning one expects it to from the components. --EncycloPetey 07:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I assume the adjective is back-formed from the noun hypercorrection, which makes more sense, being as it carries the idea of “‘correcting’ too much”.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Re sibilant

When you added this Czech translation [5], you marked it as "masculine". I didn't think Czech adjectives had an inherent gender. When you mark the gender of a word inside the {{t}} template, you are saying that it has only that gender, which is why we don't usually mark the gender of adjectives (because their gender can vary). --EncycloPetey 19:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought it important to tell the user to which of the genders the form applies to (most Czech adjectives indeed have gender-dependent suffixes, though a not-insignificant minority ends the same regardless of gender), so that the user is not mislead by being at en-wikt and supposing that if no gender is given the same form applies to all. Or do you mean that it should be done like "{{t-|cs|sykavý}} {{m}}", as inserting the gender in the template categorizes it wrongly or something like that? --Duncan 02:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried doing it without the gender yesterday, but it felt like just taking the easy way out, and seeing that Tbot is obviously set to change the [[...]] {{m}} format to {{...|m}} one [6], I continue as I used to - I really believe that it's miles more probable that a user will mistakenly take a masculine untagged form for belonging to all three genders than mistakenly thinking that a masculine-tagged adjective has no feminine and neuter forms. --Duncan 18:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't exactly know what a lemma is. The most usual form is for Czech adjectives to end with , and respectively, thus sykavý, sykavá and sykavé. If lemma is sykavý, because it's the form traditionally preferred as a headword in Czech dictionaries, I'm ready to give in, but if lemma is sykav which means nothing at all...? Or can all three be called lemmas? --Duncan 20:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
All right, in that case the masculine form of a Czech adjective is by all means its en-wikt lemma, so I'm giving in; of course I don't see any reason why Czech translations should have a special format. (And after all it's ooh so much less typing for me ;-)). --Duncan 20:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My edits

ty for correcting them. --PlantOFact 04:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


What should the inflection line template look like for this Spanish noun? RAE says it's a 'nombre ambiguo', but is that the same as having both genders? Nadando 00:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I know, yes. The word is used in both genders, with some people preferring one gender or the other. The Latin root mare is neuter, a gender nearly absent in modern Spanish, and this may be a contributing cause to the ambiguity. --EncycloPetey 00:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Catalan categories

Which categories are being used? I used existing entries as a guide to what to do, but that apparently led to me using the wrong ones earlier on the nouns, and now I want to flesh out some of the entries for some Catalan verbs. Carolina wren 00:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Take for example agrair, it has a table of conjugations, which are mostly redlinks. I plan on making them bluelinks with entries similar to those of cantat and canta. Carolina wren 01:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    We normally use a bot to do that. We have one bot that adds Spanish conjugated verb forms, and I run another one that does Latin and Galician. I'd therefore suggest that your time could be better spent on projects that can't be automated. However, if you wish to pursue this, you could speak to User:Matthias Buchmeier, who runs the Spanish bot that I mentioned. --EncycloPetey 02:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

HI I have now an account

you posted me the notwikipedia.

Please note that "Related terms" refers only to terms with an etymological relation to the word, not to terms with some topical connection.

I wanted to clarify that Linux and Lamp are based on and realted to GNU in etymological. The basis of Linux is GNU/Linux. --James Michael DuPont 13:27, 18 January 2009 (CET)


Hi, am I right in supposing that Translations of the week are no longer an active part of the project, having stopped being updated some time in 2008, so that I was right removing this tag? --Duncan 17:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is no longer an active project. --EncycloPetey 21:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

canonical languages in Translations

I have automation set up to do cases where there are more than a few; I was just checking a list from Ateleas (see my talk page), f you identify others that can be done add comments there. I ran this once before, and I add to the list each time, so they get fixed when they re-appear (as they will) Robert Ullmann 23:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


You forgot the sentence beforehand. The entire paragraph reads: "The normalcy debate of the 1920s is now long gone, and normalcy is now more normal than normality to describe the way things usually are or the way we think they ought to be. After Harding, however, politicians have been less eager to use the word in their slogans, perhaps because Harding's normalcy led to the Teapot Dome scandal, perhaps because normalcy is hard to determine in our Multicultural (1941) world.

So what if politicians are afraid to use it? The teapot dome scandal hasn't prevented regular Americans from using it. Besides my edit didn't even say that normalcy is used more than normality even though that's what says.

Then please notice the ending date on that quote, which is 1941, when the statement was published. It bears not at all to modern word frequency. --EncycloPetey 07:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Got any evidence that proves the source wrong? You are putting original research onto an article. You are abusing your admin powers.
Huh? I didn't put anything into the article; I reverted your erroneous additions. That's ad hominem and now false accusations. Please do not post to my talk page again. --EncycloPetey 07:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
You haven't shown me anywhere how my edit was erroneous. I added: "Normalcy is commonly used in American English. It is very rarely used in the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand however. It is frequent in India." How is that factually wrong?

You haven't read (or understood). This is not Wikipedia. We require support for the new information, not support for the original version that was replaced. You want to make a change, then back it up. Note that a 1941 source will not justify a statement about current usage. Please post your justification for your edit to the Tea Room when your block expires, and not to my talk page. --EncycloPetey 07:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The proliferation and modern acceptance of the word is discussed at [7]. Surely that is a reference which satisfies the proposed changes. (Previous experience tells me I shouldn't criticize any admin action on wikt, but I believe that gaming 3RR is a universal faux pas) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Why? Why can Wikipedians not restrain themselves, and not post to the proper discussion forum, when pointed to post there instead of on a personal user page? And, no, Wiktionary has no 3RR; Wiktionary has discussions in public fora to resolve disagreements of this sort. I have indicated this and the proper forum above. No, the citation doesn't support the proposed change. It says that normalcy was rarer for most of the word's history, and that dictionaries now include it with no usage note. The writer concludes from this that the word is fully accepted, but noted that it is omitted from one usage guide and railed against in another. There is nothing at all in that source about the word being "commonly used", which is what the proposed change would have the article say. --EncycloPetey 18:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You have a very selective way of interpreting commentary. "For most of its history normalcy has been less common than normality. It was rare throughout the nineteenth century and, despite a Harding-induced flurry of usage in the '20s, was rare during the '30s, but appears to have become common after World War II."...A number of prominent recent usage books accept it as standard...Bryan Garner, who is generally conservative, still rails against it in his recent Dictionary of Modern American Usage, but he appears to be in a minority." As I see it, the burden of proof is on you to show that Random House's Word Maven is incorrect, not simply substitute your opinion for hers. To push the point further, you have shown no indication of doing any research to figure out which version is correct.
Why can we not "restrain" ourselves? I don't know. Maybe because I thought that all WMF projects are collaborative and all editorial decisions open to criticism. That's why the 3RR link I provided, if you did not notice, links to a policy page hosted right here, on Wiktionary. So, um, if 3RR doesn't exist, maybe someone should just delete it, eh?
If you could kindly hold back the indignation, I will be glad to keep my comments confined to whatever forum you deem appropriate. Regards, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You have again posted here. I'll state it a third (and final) time: User talk pages are not the place to resolve these issues. Also, if you look at the 3RR page, you'll see a big banner at the top that says "This page is no longer active. This idea was rejected and is not policy on Wiktionary". --EncycloPetey 22:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I stand corrected about 3RR. Please provide a link to the appropriate place to resolve this issue, I am still a newbie here and I cannot read minds. Thanks, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The Tea Room is where discussions concerning etymologies, word usage, and subtleties of definitions are held. --EncycloPetey 22:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

is maith an t-anlann an t-ocras

For the sake of clarity, I wanted to let you know that I've reverted your edit to this page. While the translation is largely literal, it is also a translation into a citable English-language proverb which I have just added. Thank you for your attention, but I believe the matter is resolved elsewise now. —Leftmostcat 07:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw the edits and understood. A related question is now on your talk page. --EncycloPetey 07:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your reply regarding my previous shorthand

ETYMO:MOSTppl dontcare,sowi'vit 1.?? Prk utlams jrarqía, --EncycloPetey 11:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology: most people don't care [ insert: though I do]. So why have it in the first place[Clarification: instead of behind the concerning meaning section]??

Could you now please provide me with a transcript, read written-out version of your three-word reply, if I may ask so? If you care about etymology, then why ask this question? (And thank you for providing a legible version of your question. I could not determine before what the full question was intended to be, and so had to guess.) My reply is "Porqué utilizamos jerarquía. This is (rough) Spanish for "Because we use a hierarchy." The reply was intended to show you how opaque your garbled comments were to most of us. You knew what they said because you wrote them. Most of us had to guess imperfectly at what you intended to communicate. Further, many of our editors do not speak English as their primary language, and those that do come from many countries and regioins where pronunciation often differs considerably. This makes non-English versions of text much harder for most people to decipher. --EncycloPetey 08:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope it is okay to move the pertaining section over here [though I wouldn't know how to do it properly.], as I thought it being awkward to have a further reply on the general feedback page. So I guessed right! Smiley -- I thought you meant hierarchy [in ordering the meanings by origin, right?] but was in the dark about the previous two words. Thanks for writing it out! smiley Please allow me to further clarify:

I'll start with what I think is something very important: I didn't originally mention me personally liking etymology, in order to keep it short and also because I would have expected a reaction as yours, though I think it's good you put it down. Perhaps I'm a bit different from how discussions in general go, in that I not always stress what I like, but what I think most people would like, especially concerning say group projects.

Okay I tried to reply in a logical and flowing way, though I now have to go back to hierarchy. I did realize the meaning sections are organized by Word origin as that's rather common and to me that makes sense. I guess most dictionaries do that, and even so myself I might also [like in "what quite a few people in general do"] go for black/white representations when annoyed, mad, not having time, or just tired, I do not think completely everything is wrong with dictionaries I ever used. My point is that in my experience most people for some reason don't like etymology; believe it or not, the reference dictionary in Flanders, the "Dikke" [Brabantian for thick/fat, but you might know that anyway, going by your Babel] "Van Daele" [Flemish family name, meaning of/from the Dale] refused despite many requests over the years[some people obviously like etymology] to carry etymology of words, disappointing my curiosity already as a kid and not quite helping me gettin' started with other languages.

But what can one say, for example in Taiwan when trying to do what I think is right, and thus trying to tell local people about learning-strategies, including how one can use etymology learning words and remembering them--especially concerning the latter point, I will get a rather negative reaction like "do I have to learn etymology?" Sure, the Taiwanese educational system relies heavily on learning facts, and it must seem like an additional burden to them, which I can understand, and not everybody is prepared to try to learn as many and various things as I do, which might explain one factor behind the aversion I seemed and seem to notice in most people regarding etymology. Also having gone through other people's comments on the general feedback page, quite a few times I noticed people writing that wictionary is to complicated [entry-wise, I can put my finger on something, but that's another can of worms, which I perhaps will leave closed for now, out of concern for the length and readability of this reply], one factor in which may be more specialistic information standing as it were in front of what they are after, the definition. [for me, especially as the text doesn't go around the content box, many things in front of/above the definition, especially when I just want to have a quick look, make me have to move the cursor and click down, which, You guessed it, make my hands hurt --sad smiley]

So summarizing: now being able to dictate, I mentioned the fact that I like etymology to highlight my personal preference, which is likely in line with the one of quite a few editors here regarding etymology. But in the light of most non-specialist people seeming to prefer otherwise, my suggestion would have been to perhaps put the etymology at the end of each section as a kind of a compromise, a bit similar to what I was trying to say about the rhymes section. I have tried to imagine how that would look [not sure], technically, I think it'd be feasible. But then again, I do not expect every my suggestion to be taken on boardspace [already because I'm not always right], especially in an un-changed way, an exchange about them would be nice though Smiley!

Okay, let me edit the above first. Otherwise I will start worrying that my computer might freeze in the mean, so me losing the above, prospect of which in its own right already making my arms tense up, and thus hurt [it's I didn't quite finish what I meant to say --not that I always have 2 smiley -- but unless I figure out to temporarily save the talk page edits, wanting to respect the guideline about not changing already saved and hence the displayed comments, I see no other solution for now. Thanks again for what I hold to be a very constructive reply, thank you!!-- 08:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


Ok, so the past participle right here is incorrect, too? (Since the "-io" nouns are derived from the past participle stems.) -- 01:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Edited. -- 01:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, good catch. --EncycloPetey 01:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Given name question

Hi, thanks for the stimulating discussion about urban Indian. I have an unrelated question.

I'm going to have a son in a few months. While sifting through a list of 3-syllable name possibilities for the boy, I came across an odd one of Gaelic origin: Cionnfhaoladh. Guess how it's pronounced? Kenallee or Kenneally. Notwithstanding that I can't bring myself to give my kid such a flummoxing name (entertaining as it might be), I thought I'd make it a Wiktionary entry, seeing that many entries for given names and surnames exist here.

The trouble is, while I can find several references to it online, the only "archival quality" reference that explains it (besides ancient documents that don't explain it at all) is another dictionary, Dictionary of American Family Names by Oxford University Press.

Is it acceptable for a dictionary to cite another dictionary? Or would this entry be too obscure to bother with? Please reply here; I'm watching your talk page. Anachronist 01:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Given names and surnames have been a thorny issue on Wiktionary. The problem is that most names books are copied from other names books, and most are full of invented names and erroneous information. What I suggest is that you use the "Dictionary notes" section. You can see an example of it in use on the entry for tió de Nadal (although it's being used to indicate absence in those cases). This will allow you to point out that it's included in a particular name dictionary.
I do find that MacLysaght's The Surnames of Ireland has a listing for Kinneally, also as Gaelic Ó Cinnfhaolaidh, which is a "clan affiliation" name meaning "male descendant of Cinnfhaoladh". The spelling is slightly different, but it's probably the same name. The name Cinnfhaoladh" may be a given name from an ancestor, or it may be a byname from an ancestor. The Irish created affiliation names both ways. --EncycloPetey 01:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. -Anachronist 20:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


Definitions of Yale surely belong in a dictionary don't they?

I don't see what your problem is.

Yale is 3 things to my knowledge:

A University A lock company An English School

Are you suggesting that there are not definitions of the word?

Perhaps you need to look the definition for 'definition' up in the dictionary. Oh wait, I'll do it for you: "the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear."

So When I see the word 'Yale' on a lock box, perhaps people wont get confused with the university...

Please read our policy for inclusion of items as entries (WT:CFI). We have have strict requirements for including the names of company and brand names, and in most cases they are not included. --EncycloPetey 14:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I stand corrected. Seems a bit picky to choose some campies to represent the word over others. But I do understand this principle.

Mr. EncycloPetey, you have recently said to me that you were suspect on the dutch and italian translations I had added in the literacy entry. I have confirmed that those translations were correct and I would like to ask you not to erase them anymore.


Thanks; I knew something was wrong but then I couldn't figure out what to do with the alt. spellings, since they normally come before the etymologies. Cheers. Michael Z. 2009-01-26 01:24 z


Mr. EncycloPetey, may I know why you reverted my proper edit to the above template? Can you please explain me how is someone supposed to find the word jocus in the category:Latin nouns, or the word japonicus in category:Latin adjectives, or yet the word jam in category:Latin adverbs without the pair Jj in this template??
It seems you simply reverted my edit without even reading what I had written in the template's talk page. Please reconsider. Capmo 05:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Since EP does not appear to be in at the moment, may I suggest reading WT:AL. It may shed some light on things. Keep in mind that there are a great many Latin entries which do not yet conform to our policies, a fact which EP is constantly working on. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Atelæs, but after reading the policy I still can't understand the logic behind this hybrid standard for Latin:
  1. "...the spelling Juppiter never occurred in [Classical] Latin, so it should not appear as a separate entry in Wiktionary."
  2. "Even though the spelling equus never occurred in Classical Latin, it is the preferred form for Wiktionary..." (??)
Even if you are going to stick to this somewhat anachronistic standard, there are still many words starting with Jj in enwikt, so why not let them be easily found through this template until all of them are renamed? Just my opinion. Capmo 02:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


I've responded at my talkpage.—msh210 23:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


dear PT, [I cannot get my speech recognition to type/display your wiki media alias, sorry for that shies smiley-- and the software is playing up right now, so please bear with me...

The above are two verbs in widespread use in the South Brabantian area[between Antwerp and Brussels; I haven't found a map yet to see the exact location of "South Brabantian." language --wise] I grew up, meaning respectively"play ( in sports)/work really poorly" and "move in an annoying way", like said to children, in that case to stop doing so, or as said of the TV when the latter 's images are overstimulating one's brain.

I guess there will be no entries yet for them in wictionary; would it pay off entering them?

Thank you for all the comments and remarks sent to one of my IP addresses my Internet provider gives me; I do not know whether you replyd to my last comments as I get a bit confused by ol thies IPs semi colon;so I tried an account again.

I also lost track of the questions about English words I originally put on the general feedback page, of whitch I told you it was okay to move them to a more proper place; I checked the tea room, but didn't see them -- did you just revert them, or did I somehow overlook something?

thanks in advance! Sven 70--史凡 04:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for new entries are not put in the Tea Room, they are put on Wiktionary:Requested entries:English, which is where I moved your requests. --EncycloPetey 17:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I checked and noticed that the second word is listed as a Dutch translation for abound, in which sens indeed I have heard it being in use when I worked in Utrecht. the meanings I mentioned are spoken, the first word might be conceived as Iye dialect, in the way I mean, I've never seen it in print, but I wouldn't see a reason why the language I grew up with shouldn't beconserved and put down in writing for posterity

[not that it is a dead language, it is just because of what I see as misconceived language politics, namely "weall band together under the banner of 'Dutch' so we become a more 'important' language , even featuring in the top 20 of languages , arranged by the criterion 'spoken by so many million people"

I think be in importens of a language lies in that it is/has been used as a vehicle for communication, and that the numbers not really matter for the language status [of course, this is a relative argument, like that picture changes wen talking about English as the I guess de facto world language, and which version of it to take as the needed "world standard." I reckon];

As Belgium for most of its history has been ruled by people from abroad, and even after independence in 1830 in landers was ruled by French spoken upper-class [that is why people like Walschap are so important in my view, though I'm not aware of the complete history behind it]; al things, which in general do not tend to lead to a high self-esteem as a people. [The Dutch have less of a problem with that lol]

That is why I feel pretty strongly about the above matter; I noticed that for example for example, Limburg ish features, which is good [Sso I can learn about it, as I would not understand the "pure" local dialect over there, and the same goes for our dialects near the coast], but especially since Brabantian is the actual basis on which this in my view artificial "Dutch" is based [ic Dutch as the language spoken in randstad Holland, and Phrisian is more English than low German, what I thought was interesting to find out], the apparent omission of Brabantian in wictionary baffles me.

Sorry this entry got longer, Sven 70史凡 05:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

PS by the way, did you manage to have a look at the "rile up" --entry I tried my hand on? as said, I have a quote available, namely from "Dogbert", in what reads like nice, when perhaps a bit chatty English, the kind one finds in say newspaper columns [I didn't immediately add that information in as I kept it for a second step -- IP a, unfortunately so, I do not know how to give in; on the other hand, I think I know now how to put the TOC place].史凡 05:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

PPS now I just noticed that not all entries have the TOC anyway, good, that was another short entry, namely, for "stomache" [sic with da misspelling], this is all a bit confusing, you know? -- is it truly not possible, though I realize it was not you who reverted [See the following paragraph], to leave a little note in some form about the reason of the revert, deletion etc. I do realize that such would take up a certain amount of extra time,, on the other hand, I assume that most administrators will not have 2 deal with issues like typing through pain or art dictating themselves[that's a funny misspelling of my speech recognition program, I'm going to leave it in! Smiley], that is, I guess most admins are well established in working with the medium.

[it was not number seven but number 1, trying to put it in a lighter way, hopefully not leading to the impression of being "flippant" -- on a related note, I do think the label "personal attack" is applied to llightly, in the way that commonsense, and also wiki media guidelines, which make a lot of sense to me, would say that it should be okay to call the facts and the persons involved when trying to discuss occurrences; it concerns like one's "good standing in the community" would be felt to be imperild by such, then I think one puts one's perceived personal interests above those of the community, which would be a way of approaching things I would perceive as not so good in the framework of a community-based efforts like wiki media-- so far my two cents about that space smiley

To finish my point of concern, I can see that as well established Wiktionarians, one might like some respect and appreciation to have already helpd make wictionary to what it is, that is a useful resource in my view, and I think most people would like to have some respect, already for the "mere" fact of being human beings; likewise, I think most new be and wannabes wannabe wiki media editors wil have good intentions, when misguided or not, and might actually spend a substantial amount of time, being newcomers, for the ever so little appearing contribution they make, so why not give them some respect for that to, easily expressible by at least leaving some form of feedback coma, I think that might take the sting out of quite some unhappy responses and reactions by newbies.

[Glancing over some of the entries on your talk page, I couldn't help noticing You gettin your "fair" share of such reactions too; I didn't delve into the respective situations background [I wouldn't come to learning Chinese anymore, though today I "sacrifice" so to speak LOL], and wouldn't venture allocating blame and cause, on the contrary, I do take from your responses, as you also did to me, that you spent a substantial amount of your time dealing with actual "unhappy customers", and since I'm sincerely convinced that you as well as the other administrators are fountains of knowledge, me being me,, [I hate seeing time get wasted, basically], it somehow, how to put it, makes my heart cringe , voila!, to see you knowledgeable people also wasting your time basically in a back and full of unclarity's, misunderstandings, and resentments, at least of the part of many newbies.

I've noticed in abuv longer entries of mine, get I tend to lose the thread of my very own sentences, to the extent of it even becoming embarrassing when looked upon through the Iye of the language specialist; please consider that while dictating I have to train my speech recognition. Even one would think the simplest words such as " there/way/pain/leave" Etc., at least for now making dictating not comfortable and convenient as can be [but hey, at least some kind of more standard texts are coming out!], so thank you for your forbearance!史凡 08:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I do think, I realize your talk page might not be the ideal place of trying to discuss such general issues; on the other hand, as can be taken from the above, at least in part, the starting point also departs from discussions and even run-ins had with you, so I left it here in this repository in genuine in good faith [and also on top of that, I don't feel like getting blocked "randomly" as it were in some more public place on wikimedia]; and yes, even being quite aware of the value of one's lifetime,. I do will spend heaps of time and effort withwith things, as well as people, I consider worth while , like the wiki media's various projects!--史凡 08:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


Thought it would make more sense if I put "enormously" in the Impossible definition. Steel Blade 20:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


I have seen it, I will apply to the others, thank you. --Chapultepec 16:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

-ler and -lar. According to the vowel harmony. For instance, kerpeten(ler), sazan(lar). --Chapultepec 16:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have tried it for mercan (mercanı, mercanlar), and it worked. So I can say it is ok, thank you. --Chapultepec 16:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


May I ask you how to put right these pronunciations? Thanks. --Pharamp 17:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


dear PTey [I don't get my speech recognition to write your allias said], I intended to highlight da subject/headline in the Spanish entries You created as of today [at least the ones I looked at I hold for rather helpful, I whish ther were contributors making a similar effort for Chinese!].

I was astounded to not actually see it in the source language, that word. Is that because of some kind of shortcut making/createing an/the entry?

I am not sure whether it is actually well lookd upon to blue-link a word in/part of a header, though after asking myself such, I did notice an actually bolded and blue linked header in an entry. [I could not say now which entry it was]

I looked up preterite [which was my reason behind my wish to blue link it anyway, so as not to have to type it, and also as a service to other users as they might want to look it up to]; if you would find the time to do the same thing [not that I doubt you know in the word], you might notice, and perhaps concur with me about the following: IP a/pronunciation guide is missing.

[Somehow I must have guessed how to pronounce it as my speech recognition program after two goes did display it, so it that I did not actually have to train it, and thus not actually had to type it in manually, which was good, but one will not be always so lucky without having to gold standard, that is pronunciation guide, to one's disposal -- I know whent to the Longman dictionary, the English-Chinese version of which has quite a few mistakes in da pronunciation guide actually, reducing its value quite a bit, and I take that in my first goes dictating, I used the British pronunciation, which I often need to train my program in order to smoothly recognize it] the first page that displays actually does not contain information which one is after, namely the definitions [which are actually more precise than the one provided by my Longman dictionary, so I'll hand the praise where due, as I go by fair is fair], and since my is accessibility and usability, here with my feedback! Smiley.

On another note, I was deeply unhappy, to the extent of being perturbed and losing sleep over it [happens when I'm too upset about things], to have discovered during my first venture into the beer parlor [I dare hope some Belgian beers are on draft though! tong out of mouth smiley] a bit by accident the thread about the "mystery editor" going through the TOC to get a feel for what people discuss over there;

It is not so much the fact that I featured ther, IC that actually positive, as in, that things get discussed and clarify, but it is that I feel your first entry doesn't quite reflect the facts as happened; as I know by experience by now that a hot headed reply doesn't tend 2lead nor foster a constructive with each other, I refrained from putting down a knee- jerk style on- the- spot reply;

As now with an unclear head and a sleep deficit [I do not blame you entirely for that tho] I don't see the circumstances ideal to do so either, also because I will have to go back and read the entire entry with cool head, and reflect a bit about it, preferably after a week or so.

To be fair, your second entry, spelling out my speech recognition acquirement [it was actually acquired long before, like months, but placed on the back burner because people kept telling me it wouldn't actually work and be functional, and not being a computer specialist, I went along their advice and I decided I had already more than enough frustrations to deal with on a daily basis to take on another project, speech recognition and however much I desired it, that looked like a dead-end street anyway] and progress using it, I see that as a to me fair remark, and thank you for it!

concluding, it should be by now abundantly clear that of any things I'm rather eloquent, and I do not quite understand why wictionary insiders do not take advantage of that to create a mutually beneficial situation, instead of I feel goin' for a more wrangling-based approach, especially in the light of that rather direct and head-on replies from newbies do not seem to be appreciated much, to put it softly.

And in case there is a desire to test newbz up on their ability to contribute, I do think there was plenty of scope for that, from whether asking your Taiwanese language specialist about the actual value of my contributions, that is their merit, apart from riding around about the very obviously lack of knowledge about proper formatting, and not that I've seen any help or actually helpful help pages about that, over throwing me some Brabantian and see what come back to actually give me some feedback, most of you being native English speakers, about the English new entry I tried my hand on, which was the "rile up"-one, and I here with stress there was no underlying subliminal message whatsoever, even though it occurred to me that it might be [Mis]construed as such, but part of my training package with my very speech recognition, a text that poked fun of the relationship between managers and their employees.

Now this got longer again, tho to my defense, the nature of the facts I'm trying to address and be part of the solution for the better, doesn't really allow a compact format; and in matters very compact formatting so to speak [I'm referring to my shorthand contributions], I do not need to spell out how disappointing that experience has been to me.

As famous football personalia keep stressing with Arsenal, a storyd London football club which has been experiencing a bit of a trophy drought in recent years and the wich trainer/manager they like and highly respect, they would like to see the club be successful, and such is my commitment and whish to/4 wictionary, and instead of mutually wasteing each other, there is tremendous scope for collaboration and improvements, with me as with quite a few other newcomers I would think, and perhaps the process, procedures and individual policies in dealing with those very new people are sub optimal for now. [I hope I'm lucky enough to find some appreciation for the extent to which I go in weighin' my words here, especially in the context highlighted in matters my beer parlor "discovery".]

Given the importance I feel this subject has, your user page, even as a person concerned and involved, perhaps more involuntary than otherwise, might constitute a sub optimal vehicle for a topic and aspect of the functioning of wictionary that deserves perhaps a wider discussion. Though I have been toying last night with taking it to a specific thread in said beer parlor, in the hope something good and constructive comes out of it, I will likely let some time ago over it, likely a week, or rather a fortnight, also, in order to be fair, I should give the first person concerned and involved a fair chance in a detached, that is, non-emotional context to perhaps provide me with his thoughts behind reverting a new entry like "rile up" comment lessly, but that will also require for me to wait for a day that such seems to be feasible, as, to be honest, I feel offended and hurt in my capacity of being a disabled person by the initial treatment received, which I still feel amounts up to being discriminatory, and since wiki media guidelines in general, and wictionary ones' specificly, lay great value on civility, recommendation and policy I agree with highly, my occasional and admitted overreactions notwithstanding perhaps paradoxically it may appear, I think it will be the clear the latter amounts to a concern of the gravest kind, and I sincerely do not think that any what I perceive as excuses about my shorthand, which I used in necessity will constitute any credible defense in treating with a serious, involved, experienced, academically accomplished, willing to share and disabled person as I am. If it has to do with ignorance or incredibility about the very existence of the syndrome RSI, I could recommend and stress more that Wiktionarians, wiki pedians and wiki medians learn about it in order to actually provide the inclusive community they stand for going by their own very manifesto of intentions.

I know this entry is very long, I am keenly aware of thst; please bear in mind that though plowing through it reading it and hopefully at least getting the gist of my communicativ intentions, it will still have taken up to four or five times for me to lay it down in this repository.

With genuine and sincere intentions, please accept the sincerests of my regards,

[As it seems informal didn't work, please do not think that is the only approach or way I am able with to communicate {would one think I would have been able to publish as a first author in "American pathology", at least five years ago rated as the number two American pathology medical issue/magazine-the right word slips my mind right now, but I'll provide the information anyway, the more so since I noticed there being such a keen interest in Number one and so forth positions in wictionary, competitive obsession almost with quantitative measures, which surprises me in what by all I know is a community based collaborative effort- and as such the de facto number two worldwide}, though I much rather prefer instead of expressing hopefully mutual respect by gestures and words, to assume that such respect is there anyway, in a mutually way, and as such to invest time and effort won, saved and spared in the further improvement and expansion of say wictionary!!]

Sven 70

PS I only made my way to the beer parlor after my lengthy post on your talk page the other day, and as such those two things, namely this and that entry, are unrelated and independent from each other.史凡 08:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

quotations -- no linking of contained words

first of all thank you for the notification! I appreciate the time you spend doing this --you will have quite some reverts on your plate on a daily basis I guess, and many a small makes a [I have torturd my brain by now, this saying, I guess from British origin, keeps slipping my mind], it all amounts to time spent, so thanks again!

The reason I linked it is that in the end, when highlighted, that one click is easier on my arms, and perhaps just more convenient for most other users, than to go to the search mask and fiddle around with my speech recognition to giv in longer words like those; restarting my computer every time to have the software functioning optimally is not realy a feasible option, especially for minor inputs like that [though they still would make my hands hurt more], and given the very nature of the words concernd,I might have to train them with the program, which, since the spelling mode has hiccups, will likely require me typing out the not very useful word anyway[ even though the program has an extensive vocabulary, it is not always very forgiving with say da syllable stress I might get wrong in especially one of those more uncommon words].

I had to restart my computer in the mean, sorry for that; I timed it, half an hour -- can you imagine, every time you want to do something in your computer to have to go thro a procedure like that? Good, it was 20 minutes, during which I constantly need to go back to the computer and check because it might have seemed a good idea at the time to have the computer ask me for a program that is stuck:" Would you like to re- try ending the program properly, or do you prefer to end it now and possibly lose any data contained by the program.", and the other 10 minutes was to finish the cleaning job in the house that I did in the mean time.

Now, the program is running like the a dream/charm, well almost, but the potential is definitely there!

To finish off the topic in the header: since you've been so kind to notify me , as a matter of Cours I will refrain from linking words in the quotations until I'm aware that policy would have changed; if I think your policy in some way might be too strict, I guess the proper place to address this and bring this up is in the beer parlor; I didn't check the entry concernd by the way when posting this now, and furthermore in my 3/4 months here on wictionary [despite training it three times now, my speech recognition keeps writing stubbornly dictionary each and every time; a user of the software needs to have quite a bit of patience with it,sigh] and Wikipedia, I haven't reverted once, let alone engaging in a revert war, and even less I would be inclined to do so in this case, even more so since you were so kind to notify me.

In regard to the quotations, it can be really hard ones, fact of which I do not want to say that such is hundred percent bad, but it's fair to state that they can be quite challenging, even to somebody with advanced English, or even quite a few native speakers i dare surmise, like the Shakespearean one I've found with one entry, I do not recall which one anymore; I think Shakespearean English is interesting on that note, I only don't understand it, wouldn't know if it's middle English, it should have something to do something with incipient English, especially in written form-- whith such quotations a link to a potentially explanatory site elsewhere on wiki media or the Web would be most helpful!

On another note:

Ramekin, word which I found checking the pronunciation of "ramie" in my Longman dictionary, since the IPa was not yet provided in the entry, same goes for "caveat", which I both had to train in my speech recognition program just now, struck me as of Brabantian origin, etymology was not provided in wictionary. Checking Wikipedia, they trace the origin to the French word, which still strikingly points to Brabantian origin, like mannequin does,-ken for -let, as I'm sure you're aware; would you think it's worthwhile and interesting to have a look whether you can find more about the etymology in reference books? Here in Taiwan, I have hardly any reference books to my disposal, and as said, even in Flanders I would have none what so ever for etymology questions!

If you feel like checking the etymology, then thanks in advance for helping feeding my ever-hungry curiosity, along with that of other users, and as said thank you very much for ur notification!!史凡 10:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)what

PS, what I forgot to mention is that the puzzling thing is that I have no idea whatsoever what Brabantian word it could come from, tho I gave that some hard thought; perhaps it's derived from a word that went out of fashion, or an- other origin altogether, somehow me mimicking the Flemish diminutive.

Also, since I've finally figured out here how to diminish the brightness of my TV and computer screens to the minimal setting, so my brain doesn't put me out of work so easily with a migraine headache, I hardly notice the difference between the black and blue highlighted words; I actually have to move the cursor on them to know for sure, so yes, I wouldn't know for sure how it looks on e screen with normal brightness [and I am not going to trie to change the setting to save my hands from pain], but any way史凡 14:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

PpS does it actually pay off to rite something on the discussion section of an entry as I did for "toggle"? i ask because those entry-- related talk pages don't seem to be used as much as on Wikipedia.--史凡 16:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[And just to give an idea: just having been out a couple of hours for the lantern Festival and now trying to use the speech recognition again, my computer just been idling in the mean, the recognition accuracy dropped and drops substantially, meaning that up to every other word I will have to go back to make a (painful) manual correction, just to give you an idea of the effort I continually need to put in to be able to communicate, and just how much it stings to be additionally discriminated.]史凡 16:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Numeral lemmas

I'm about ready to start adding the missing entries for Catalan cardinal numbers and revamping the existing ones to among other things to use Template:cardinalbox. But I have one question before I do. For the numbers 1, 21, 31, ..., 91 should the lemma form be considered the noun form, u, vint-i-u, trenta-u, ... , noranta-u, or the masculine adjective form, un, vint-i-un, trenta-un, ..., noranta-un ? Carolina wren 15:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably both, with links in a Usage notes section explaining the difference. The same issue exists in Spanish, although I haven't looked at the Spanish numeral pages much to see how they are set up. I've been focussing on the Latin cardinal numerals mainly. --EncycloPetey 03:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Anatoli, Kirill

Hi EncycloPetey,

I undid large deletes from these 2 articles (Anatoli, Kirill) done by another user. Please check. Anatoli 21:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The material probably should not have been deleted, but I understand why the anon made the deleions. It looks fine to revert the change as long as all the alternative spellings exist in English forms of the name. --EncycloPetey 03:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

5 homophones!?

Hi! I noticed that {{homophones}} supports only 5 words and ignores the sixth etc. See manger or marier. Is there anything wrong in the syntax I've used or the template doesn't work with more than 5 homophones? It must be changed, French infinitives have 6 homophones each! --Pharamp 10:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The limit is in the template itself. To support 6 homophones, it would need to be changed. --EncycloPetey 03:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, if it is a regular set of homophones that are all inflected forms of the infinitive, should they even be listed? Carolina wren 04:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
If they are all spelled differently and have different meanings, then it can be useful for learners of French to be aware of the fact. --EncycloPetey 04:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
So we put them in a simple list like ELE explains? The "problem" concerns also nouns (ver) and I imagine other languages... --Pharamp 09:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I expect that the problem is much greater in French than in most other languages. French pronunciation seems much more idiosyncratic than most languages I've examined. Specifically, in most languages written with an alphabet, spelling (or written form) is more closely tied to pronunciation than it is in French. So, the only languages I would expect to have comparable problems to French with homophones are ideographic languages like Chinese. --EncycloPetey 00:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi EncycloPetey,

I put an answer to your message on the talk page of IcqBOT. --Polyglot 20:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi, opening the Translation tables at Verb for editing I came across this at the second table: <!--It is probably best to give examples here to illustrate how to translate this meaning-->. The French and German translations really give examples, but is this approved use of Trans tables? --Duncan 18:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No. That idea was abandoned. The examples should be placed on the pages for the French and German translations, not in the Translations tables. --EncycloPetey 02:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. --Duncan 07:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


Why do we need {{pedialite}} when we already have {{wikipedia}}? John1deer 18:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't need it, but we allow it. I reverted for three reasons: (1) You had left behind an empty External links section. (2) As the entry grows, the links (which are expected to be at the bottom) will be further and further from the top of the entry, where the WP box link is located. See the entry for parrot, for example, to see how an entry can grow very long (even though it does not use this method). In such long entries, a separate external links section is useful, and there is no reason not to prepare fpr the future. (3) The community has long been split as to whioch method of WP linking is preferred. Some people advocate the boxes, while other detest them (for a variety of reasons on both sides). The compromise is to permit both methods of linking. --EncycloPetey 19:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hericium erinaceus

Is there a reason not to use {{en-proper noun}}? John1deer 19:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's not English. --EncycloPetey 19:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


I removed the macron on the "u" when I was cleaning up pugnus but I need to ask you to verify this. If it needs the macron then all of the related and derived terms will need to be updated again. The article pugna did not have a macron on the u nor did pugno, I don't think, when I came to look at them. Here is the previous revision [8] Caladon 19:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There should not be a macon on pugnus, as far as I can tell. --EncycloPetey 19:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi. Thanks for defining degreelessness more usefully; however, don't you think it would be better to define it at degreeless and link to that from the noun? Otherwise we risk the redundancy of having the senses duplicated across (at least) two articles, and anyone changing one of them must change all the others — of which they might not be aware. Equinox 15:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the redundancy is unavoidable. We can't pretend the degreelessness has only a single meaning, when in fact it has two. --EncycloPetey 15:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hm, suppose so. I want to say that e.g. degreeless has only the single meaning of "without a degree" (in any sense of degree, whether it means rank or diploma or whatever). I suppose that's risky in a way, though, because some new sense of degree might pop up and suddenly degreeless isn't attestable for that sense, even though "all senses" was a safe comment before. Equinox 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
My personal philosophy is to try to define each word for all its own senses for that reason (and others). Consider that Translations tables are keyed to specific definitions, and that other languages may use very different words for the different senses. --EncycloPetey 16:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

wikify "past of" template

Hi EP. I thought we no longer needed to wikify the "past of" template. By the way, do you have any idea why I sometimes become logged off during a session for no apparent reason? Ciao -- ALGRIF talk 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No idea about the random log-offs. We don't need to wikify the templates as long as the page has the code {{count page|[[Wiktionary:Page count]]}}. Frankly, I think it's easier to just wikify the template. --EncycloPetey 17:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:RQ:Fielding Tom Jones

We seem to have a disagreement here. I've posted my reasoning on the talk page, and reverted to the more specific link. I look forward to hearing your explanation of your view. Feel free to revert the link along with your talk page post. JesseW 21:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


Why Romani? In the Etymology Dictionary of the Croatian linguist, he speaks of cig.=ciganski, whose æquivalent in English is Gypsy. In the South Slavic languages there is the word romski-Romani, but that was not yet the fashion in 1971, as it is currently. Gypsy is no pejorative expression and I thought it was the same case as Slovene/Slovenian and that this is the proliferated English notion for the language and the people. Is not it? Bogorm 18:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Because in English, "Gypsy" is not the name of a language. In etymologies, we list the language from which the word comes. This is not the same os Slovene/Slovenian. We use Slovene (rather than Slovenian) because we have chosen that word to be the standard on Wiktionary. Both Slovene and Slovenian can legitimately refer to the langauge. --EncycloPetey 18:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
In this case, the third definition here is misleading. Shall/May I tag it for RfV? Bogorm 18:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, {{rfv-sense}} seems appropriate for that. --EncycloPetey 18:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


As you know better than I, instances of es-verb-ar are all supposed to be replaced by es-verb. Is there a standard way to do so, such as replace "{{es-verb-ar|first singular=BAR|past participle=BAZ}}" with "{{es-verb|PAGENAME-WITHOUT-AR|ar|pres=BAR|part=BAZ}}", that can be done by bot?—msh210 21:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I see there are very few left. Please ignore previous.  :-) msh210 21:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been going through them by hand because there are multiple template formats (and three different templates) that had to be replaced, some category tags that were superfluous and so had to be removed, etc. As you have noticed, my pass through the Spanish verbs is nearing completion. --EncycloPetey 15:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry to trouble you.—msh210 17:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

problem in User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 7

Hello, it seems that there is some problem in this archive which prevents me from seeing the last 50-60% of the text there. The page ends with User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 7#Index:Galician, and only when I click on view source, the rest of the text (sections - Latin j) appears in the edit box. Interestingly, there are two sections Index:Galician and the second one (at the very end) is hidden as well, i. e. emerges only after clicking on the view source button. Can this problem be solved? Bogorm 14:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Vulgar = Late Latin?

not sure if you watch the page, but I thought you might know the difference in how we use {VL.} and {LL.}.--Bequw¢τ 18:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


I am struggling to get used to all this removal of modern cognates, however considerably it severs the information about the origin of the entry and would even abide the creation of the Serbo-Croatian entry in order to restore there the kinship which was pretty intriguing. What I cannot comprehend in no wise is why you did remove Old Norse, especially since it (and its predecessor) has/have been spoken as early as 5th entury AD. Please, do not remove Old Norse entries as cognates of other ancient IE languages. Bogorm 20:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you won't add them, I won't remove them. --EncycloPetey 20:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Do you really claim that there is a Latin verb silio? As far as I and Dvoretsky's dictionary know, no such word exists in Latin. The only disagreeable thing is that this word was WOTD with that typo (or being WOTD is upcoming?). But you probably inadvertently spelt it that way (although on my English keyboard the letter a is far from i)? Bogorm 23:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

c[a/o]elestis &c.

Hi EP. Do you know why there exist a number of coel- spelling variants for caelestis and its relations? RSVP.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the official reason, but the dual spelling extends pretty far back into Classical Latin. I suspect it stems from the fact that the root word for all these terms is caelum (the heavens) (also coelum), which is easily confused with caelum (chisel) (also cēlum). --EncycloPetey 04:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. That sheds a little light on the matter. Thanks for that. BTW, if you have the time, could you add a list of descendants (especially English ones) to the two etymologically-separate sections of our entry for caelvm please?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
There aren't any English ones that I know of (except ceil). Most English "descendants" of this root actually come from other Derived terms in Latin, and so would be listed as Descendants of those LAtin words, not this one. --EncycloPetey 14:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
celestial? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
No, that is a descendant of caelestis, not a descendants of caelum. --EncycloPetey 02:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Returning to margin…

Hmm, yes; a problem, that. It would be really useful to have a list of all the descendants at the etymological progenitor, nevertheless. Even if it involves redundancy, could we have them listed thus?:

  • caelestis
  • [other derived term]
    • English: [English descendant(s)]
[You get the picture…]

Already, I see problems, but the benefits of providing this information are great; can you think of a better way than this?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The better way is the way we're doing it now. The only words that are listed as Descendants are the direct descendants. Everything else will show up under Related terms on the entry for the descendant. There is no reason for a Latin (or other root language) entry to track all the modifications and variations in all the languages into which the root was passed. Such information tells us about the later language, not about the original one. --EncycloPetey 04:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, yes; the more I think about it, the more I realise how unworkable my idea is. We’ll have to make do with a combination of a compræhensive Derived terms section in the entry for the progenitor, helpful Etymology and Descendants sections in the entries for each of its derivations, and then complete Etymology sections in each of the (English- or other-) language words’ entries. Could you help that along by creating that “compræhensive Derived terms section” in the entry for caelvm please? Thanks.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 05:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to remember to do so this weekend (or you can remind me then). I'm working a job right now that cuts into my Wiktionary time, and I'm signing off for tonight. But you do appreciate why I create long lists of Derived/Related terms for Latin entries (vide equus or nāvis). One of my long-term goals is to have such lists for every Latin lemma entry. --EncycloPetey 05:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it demonstrates the core, root meanings of all those related words — something we seem both to regard as valuable. Good night. I’ll try to remember to remind you if you forget.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 05:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Since you seem to be the keeper of {{cardinalbox}}, then just in case you don't have it on your watchlist, I'm leaving a note here as well as on its talk page. Carolina wren 03:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Gave the examples you wanted on the talk page. Carolina wren 05:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm giving the matter some thought. The technical issues can be overcome, but it might make the template too server intensive to actually use. --EncycloPetey 03:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


It's been used all over the US news broadcasts. Especially in relation to the lack of respect for President Obama's state of the nation speech, with congressmen twittering. 06:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've heard this a few times myself. At least reinstate with rfv, please? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
If there is a reputable citations page meeting WT:CFI, then no rfv is required. --EncycloPetey 06:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Like these? [9] 06:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Like these. --EncycloPetey 06:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

the penii thing

Care to give a new opinion at Talk:penis#plurals in light of Citations:penii ? Circeus 05:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


You say that incendiary is going to be the WOTD for the 25th of March, however, when I went to the page for the 25th of March, it had Rostrum as the WOTD for that day. Could you please clarify this? Thanks, Razorflame 15:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Should this entry exist? We have iniuria as well. Caladon 21:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not as a Latin entry, no. It should exist as a Spanish entry, certainly. However, I note that injuria appears in the English legal phrase damnum absque injuria, so we might need an English section there to link back to the Latin iniuria. --EncycloPetey 22:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Anglicization -- entry

dear peaty, I tryd to amend the above entrie's IPA, goin by the other words mi dictionary lists[it doesn't carry the exact word]; could you have a little look?[IPA mistakes, how easily they are made non-with standing, are very confusing to learners, including me.].

Is there a way. with the spelling variants to specify. What is UK/USA like is done with IPa in general?

I lost track of the replies you send to one of the ip 's. I get provided with; is theira way of retrieving them, that is getting them into my account. [I prefer not lugging out].

Thank you in advance--史凡 04:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry for still not being able to get your alias spelt right And thank you so much for what you did to the entry!! The nicest thing I feel that can happen editing is that other people take what I tryd to doand make it better. So thanks again!

also, it is often easier to learn I feelabout how to" incode The layout by seeing smaller specific changes like the ones you madeand how they translate to the actual user page, entry I mean, so it was a very nice learning experience to me!!

Looking at the entry. To me now. I would infer the main entry being givenin UK spellingas the varyand spelling lists US; would there be a way to make such explicitand inequivocal?. So that any user would readily see what spelling is given, like when having stumbled upon the entry through the random pages functionand not immediately knowin what one is looking at -- would the only solution to that be a usage note, or would there be a more elegant solution you can think of?

My speech recognition snapped out of its glitches temporarily [is rare, but happens smiley] sogot this dictationdon in 10 minutes instead of the usualhol f an hour to for ty minutes! Smiley [though you can readily see that among other things. tHe punctuation remains erratic, sygh]--史凡 13:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

scrollable collapsible boxes

After looking at User talk:Vildricianus's ToC I think we can make the collapsible boxes scrollable. Test out proficio by making the browser window so narrow the conjugation contents don't fit in the display area. Do you get a scrollbar like I do? I added style="overflow:auto;" to the NavFrame div in {{la-conj-3rd-IO-nopass}} (works also by adding that attribute to the NavContents div). I tried to pick an infrequently used conjugation template in case the result is unsightly. Do you think this could work for the other templates? --Bequw¢τ 00:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It works so far. Now I just need to test it in other browsers and OS's. --EncycloPetey 09:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Now that Robert fixed the hidden content issue, if you have no objections I'll continue removing the "clear" styles from the collapsible boxes so they they display well with right-hand side objects. --Bequw¢τ 07:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


I've now added the Related and Derived terms to both etymology sections of caelum, and have created the entry for caelestis as well. --EncycloPetey 21:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I’ve added the eleven derivations which don’t yet have entries to Wiktionary:Requested entries:Latin#C. Attend to them at your leisure; there is, of course, no rush. Thanks again.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


Could you check the Latin translations provided in that article? Thanks Mallerd 15:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


is the left -- right flipped upside down one standard?--史凡 05:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The /r/ in IPA means that the sound is trilled or rolled. Since some English dialects do this, but most don't, we decided it was important to make the distinction and use /ɹ/ for English where the sound is not rolled. --EncycloPetey 13:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)paragraph.

. Thank you -- another one:inunkempt, is it "ɛ" or"e"?, as you can see, for now. There is contradiction between the Rhymes 'n the IPA;. I asked the bot operator. But do not know how active he/she is--史凡 16:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The sound /e/ is extremely rare in English. It shows up mostly in the diphthong /eɪ/, but otherwise in a few Australian words. Most dictionaries don't bother to make a distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/, but we do because we have international coverage. Also, using /e/ would mislead many of our users who don't speak English as their native language. --EncycloPetey 01:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)paragraph

Thank you! Also in this entry, I think I know, one Brabantian/Dutch translation. "slordig in appearance"but do not know how to addit, in particularly, the wiki code"t +/-" I do not get figured out and do not know whether it's indispensable -- I actually wonder about the word's etymology, becoming more aware about my own native language. It sounds funny/interesting somehow like in having aGermany root or so

On another note, does the symbol "|" have a name?; knowing this would enable me to dictate it potentially -- thank you in advance!--史凡 08:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I had a go at my first Dutch entry, the word above -- would you mind having a look, I would surely learn from anything you notice, layout and otherwise! Smiley史凡 08:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Since EP seems to have left for the day, I'll attempt to answer. "|" is generally called a pipe (see w:Vertical bar). slordig was missing the inflection line, which I've added. I don't know Dutch, so I can't really check anything else. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I've done a little cleanup of the entry for you. Notice especially (1) the {{context}} tags, (2) the linking of key words in the definition, and (3) the use of {{infl}} for the adverb's inflection line (since Dutch does not have an adverb inflection template). If you need some explanation about using the {{t+}} and {{t-}} to add translations, you might read Wiktionary:About Latin#Latin translations for English words or Wiktionary:About Hungarian#Latin translations for English words. I wrote these more detailed explanations for those pages because WT:ELE and Wiktionary:Translations didn't seem to have quite enough explanation. There will be differences for other languages, but the basic idea will be the same. --EncycloPetey 02:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC) new paragraph new paragraph.

Thank you -- if there is no templates for Dutch Edvarbs, I'm willing to help making one asit is/should be basically a simplification of the one for the adjective, with superlative and comparative4the adverb Never takingon a ' --e" ending. Encase you think such is a good idea, if you could perhaps send me or show me the link to the respective adjective template, I can then have a lookand it I understand its wiki code enough, try to adapt it for atverbs; from Tuesday on I 'l be two weeks in Macau, and in no circumstances to contributefrom thair. So if I am tobe involved we should try to do it whether before or afterwards. Thanks again!--史凡 08:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I understoodthe t -- thing; funny how I never seem to find those wictionary documentation pages by myself confused smiley--史凡 09:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


Hey botany guy, I don't suppose you could double-check and/or expand this, could you? Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would, but I've never seen the word before. I've only ever seen umbellate (and generally, it's not comparable). --EncycloPetey 13:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


So, I've been looking into this word from abacinate and Wiktionary:project-wanted entries. I'm assuming that you weren't able to find it (since you haven't created it), and I wasn't able to find it in LS, OLD, or a couple of Medieval Latin dictionaries I looked at. Visviva clued me in to look at Google Book Cites, and I noticed something odd about them. They all seem to prefix the word with "A Graeci..". Now, I can't find any Ancient Greek αβακινατος (abakinatos), but I was wondering if you would have time to look at the cites, and perhaps even figure out an entry based on them (in the English style, i.e. looking at cites, and figuring out stuff from them). Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

They all seem to be citing a single source. The cited passage is about the apocryphal blinding of Enrico Dandolo, Doge of Venice (1193-1205), by the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos. Modern historians discount the story, but the "a Graeci" is a reference to the purported blinding "by the Greeks". It does not imply an etymology from the Greek language. The difficulty is that I'm not sure whether to call the original source "Vulgar Latin", "Late Latin", "Old Venetian", or what. It looks like Latin, but it's a very late date which muddles things. --EncycloPetey 01:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I also see we have an entry for a modern Italian word abbacinare (to dazzle). I'd have an easier time believing that Enrico was dazzled by the Byzantine emperor, rather then blinded by him. Particularly so since, if Manuel had blinded an envoy from Venice, such as a member of the powerful Dandolo family, there would certainly have been a strong public outcry. However, there is no record of an angry response from Venice, and Venice has an extensive written chronicle of its history, from many sources. Enrico was seventy or eighty when he became Doge, after all, so he was likely blind from old age. There may have been a misunderstanding about the meaning of abacinatus, particularly as it does not seem to be a common word in Latin. --EncycloPetey 01:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm....based on the Wikipedia entry, it looks like the division between Vulgar Latin and Italian is pretty fuzzy between 950-1350. Add to that the fact that this seems to be a fairly rare word, I think I'll leave this well alone (although I think I'll remove these two from "Wanted entries"). Thanks for looking into that. In the meantime, you may want to consider how to distinguish between Vulgar Latin and early Romance languages. I know, I know, you're primarily into Classical Latin, but you're our Latin guy, so you should at least have it on your mind. I'm thinking about a simple temporal division (1453) for Ancient Greek/Greek. Certainly it'll be imperfect and contentious, but it'll be something. Then again, it may well be awhile before anyone cares to work on the language of those transition eras. Thanks again. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Appendix:Ancient Greek third declension

I've been bugging you a lot lately, haven't I? Sorry about that. Would you take a look at this and offer suggestions, critiques, rewrite the page as you see fit, as Ancient Greek and Latin probably have very similar issues in these pages. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that I could rewrite any of that, since my knowledge of "Ancient" Greek is largely restricted to Koine Greek, and what little knowledge I have hasn't gotten much use over the years since I learned it. I would have to rely on the few works I have on Koine Greek, and piece together the rest from the scattered bits I have on earlier forms of the language as discussed in Horrocks, Browning, and Sturtevant. I don't think that would be very productive for anyone.
I do notice one point right away, and that is the lack of discussion of gender. As I recall, Greek uses the endings given in your Appendix for masculine and feminine nouns of the third declension, but has a modified set of endings for neuter nouns (as does Latin) and possible a second set of endings for neuter 3rd-decl. nouns like baptisma (which I am too lazy to type in Greek right now) that end in -ma (again lazy).
I would also recommend including a specific example of the basic noun declension, rather than just the inflectional endings. That is, I recommend adding a table for a specific "regular" masculine 3rd-declension noun, following and in addition to the table you already have for the inflectional endings.
Latin actually has additional headaches in the 3rd-declension, such as historically contracted nouns ending in a double consonant as well as "i"-stems, both of which produce an additional inflectional pattern that has to be learned in which the stem does not lengthen so the genitive plural and ablative singular differ form the norm...unless it's one of the exceptions to the exception rule. :P --EncycloPetey 03:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, neuter forms are something I intend to add, as well as some of the messier inflections, such as those in πόλις (pólis) and τέλος (télos) (rest assured that Ancient Greek has its fair share of headaches). The first word (πτέρυξ (ptéruks)) was my "basic declension" example. That's about as simple as third declension gets, honestly. If I get really ambitious, I may add some PIE stuff to Appendix:Latin third declension. I'll of course let you know if that happens. Thanks for looking it over. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
So, there aren't any examples where the stem and inflectional ending do not interact to produce a new ending? (e.g. κ + ς -> ξ) What about ὄνομα or μύκης? I'm suggesting that you include an exmple that doesn't have a stop-interaction before going into the altered endings. Yes, I know that ὄνομα has a stem change in the lemma, so I'm using it as a example of what I mean in terms of demonstrating the endings, and not advocating it as the best example. However, if chem changes are as common in Greek as in Latin (as I beleieve they are), then text describing that situation would also be useful. --EncycloPetey 17:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm.....some of the u-stems are pretty simple. I'll see if I can find one that doesn't have any drops or anything (no promises). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


I certainly find the current appearance of what seems to be the same link in different sections of the entry problematic. I proposed in my reply to your note on my talk page a solution that would satisfy my aesthetic concerns while hopefully satisfy yours as well. Carolina wren 22:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Latin macrons and breves

If only Wiktionary:About Latin were correct. It may be true that modern English sources favor the macron, but the Catalan dictionaries I've been using favor the breve. ARRRGH! (Needless to say there are quite a few breves in Catalan etymology sections that will need revising as I get to them.) Carolina wren 01:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There are many systems out there, and some are truly odd. For example, the Facciolati Lexicon marks the length of the penultimate vowel only. However, the leading English-Latin dictionaries and textbooks, as well as one of the leading German-Latin dictionaries, use the system we've adopted. There were many additional reasons for adopting that convention, including the fact that many screen resolutions do not clearly distinguish between breves and macrons. It is therefore better to make the distinction between presence and absence of the diacritical, rather than using two visually similar diacriticals. --EncycloPetey 06:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The Facciolati Lexicon’s convention is probably because the penult’s vowel length is the only one one that matters when divining proper stress. As for the lack of breves, this means that all vowels are assumed to be short if they don’t have macra, which, I suppose, could be problematic if a word’s vowel quantities are unknown or ambiguous. (You’d probably be better placed to tell me whether that’s a big problem.) But yeah, macron-only marking seems like a good convention.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi there. Would it be alright if I posted a request on WT:BP asking if anyone would like to join the Simple English Wiktionary? Please let me know on my talk page. Thanks, Razorflame 19:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting assistance and volunteers to help a related MW project would certainly be an appropriate posting to make. --EncycloPetey 19:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
On a side note, I noticed that you recently moved Old maid (card game) to Old maid and then to Old Maid. Did you know that administrators have the ability to supress redirects? Just uncheck the box that says Leave a redirect behind, and it will supress the creation of a redirect. Cheers, Razorflame 19:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I discovered that when I made the move. It's new to me, but thanks for pointing it out explicitly. --EncycloPetey 20:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, no problems :P. Cheers, Razorflame 01:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


Why did you delete this? The conjugation is regular, is it not? Nadando 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn'r reading carefully enough. As a form of adujar, it's regular. --EncycloPetey 21:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, sir

I have the Japanese kanjis for the word grand, but I don't know what kind of word it is can you help me? Thank you.

This is a list of kanji for the word GRAND: 壮麗な, 尊大な, 壮大-grand yuuen, doudou, gurando, gurande, soudai=grand

Can you decipher them accurately for me? Thanks. Steel Blade 03:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but East Asian languages are a bit beyond my ability. I can handle some simple things, and given enough information, I can sometimes do more, but I don't think I would be able to help you with this particular question. --EncycloPetey 03:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm? These are literally in Japanese sir. If you believe thesy are beyond your ability, then who can I rely on such an ability to translate accurately into the actual translated Japanese words for grand. Steel Blade 03:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the editors whom I know are skilled at Japanese have not been around lately. If they had been, I would have recommended them to you. However, they have been absent more often then here. You might ask your question in the Beer Parlour or in the Tea Room. --EncycloPetey 03:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:es-conj-cer (o-ue)

Could you help me with this? I tried to add a reflexive conjugation but some of the imperative forms aren't working. Thanks. Nadando 00:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time today (and may not have time tomorrow either!) But will take a look as soon as I can. Please reminder me if the problem isn't solved by 00:01 UTC Thursday. --EncycloPetey 04:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, fixed it myself. Nadando 04:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


Knew that WT:ALA says no ligatures, but didn't know whether to turn this into a redirect to quae or mark with {{delete}}. Carolina wren 06:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


With all due respect, that definition is wrong. In order to be a b-girl you have to be a breaker hence the name (break-girl). You can't just be a rapper, a hip hop DJ, or someone who's into to hip hop culture. You have to be able to dance (breakdance that is). References: [10], [11] (6th paragraph about DJ Kool Herc), [12] 2nd question OK...then what exactly is "hip hop dance"? Gbern3 21:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source, and neither can the other sources be used to support / reject definitions on their own as they do meet meet our policy requirements for "durably archived". The fact that you have found references supporting other definitions does not negate the validity of the existing definition. If you wish to question the validity of a definition, use {{rfv-sense}} and others will look for supportive quotations in accordance with WT:CFI.


Hi. Why "the earth" is inconsistent with "the Sun" and "the Moon"? The first letter of "the Sun" and "the Moon" are capital but "the earth" is not.


Hi. Is chover's Galician conjugation correct? It is an impersonal verb, isn't it? I think Galician has impersonal verbs, like by other Romance languages. --Volants 10:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

While your point makes sense, the Galician Wiktionary has no conjugation for this verb, and I can find nothing about it or other possible impersonal verbs in the Academia Galega's Normas Ortográficas e Morfolóxicas do Idioma Galego. On the one hand, I have found a few typos in that book, and I could imagine they omitted some material, but I also know there are some points on which Galician differs radically from other Iberian languages. I just don't have any information that would address that specific question. There could be idiomatic senses of the verb for which the first- and second-person would make sense. --EncycloPetey 02:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


Shown as Translingual noun. Shouldn't we treat it as a Latin adjective? Would it be a form of the New Latin coinage aconitus (adjective), derived from classical Latin aconitum (monk's hood)? DCDuring TALK 19:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the way I normally treat these. They're not Translingual unless they're used as words in multiple languages. This is only used as part of a word internationally, and so I would treat it as strictly Latin. See more of my thoughts at WT:BP#Species names. --EncycloPetey 02:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

ducenti, doents, and Obsolete Catalan

Turns out there is an obsolete form for two hundred (doents) in Catalan derived from ducenti. (Actually from the accusative case, ducentos, as is the case for other Catalan numbers where the Latin has different case forms.) Wasn't certain how to mark it in the Descendants section of ducenti, so I listed it as Old Catalan, but you may wish to label it differently. (The modern form of two hundred (dos-cents) is a reformation from Catalan dos and cents, so it doesn't descend from ducentos and thus I didn't add it.) Carolina wren 17:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If the word is of the language "Old Catalan", then that is what the language header should say on the doentsentry. If instead it is an obsolete word of (modern) Catalan, then the Descendants listing for ducenti should just say "Catalan". The language header and the listing used for Translations or Descendants should always match. --EncycloPetey 20:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Latin quote

Hi. I need this quote from Horace's Odes for the entry Armenia, but I don't know where to cut the Latin text. Can you put a period in the second stanza of the below passage, so that it would correspond to the English one?

Non semper imbres nubibus hispidos
manant in agros aut mare Caspium
vexant inaequales procellae
usque nec Armeniis in oris,

amice Valgi, stat glacies iners
mensis per omnis || aut Aquilonibus
querceta Gargani laborant
et foliis viduantur orni:

The rain, it rains not every day
On the soak'd meads; the Caspian main
Not always feels the unequal sway
Of storms, nor on Armenia's plain,

Dear Valgius, lies the cold dull snow
Through all the year;
--Vahagn Petrosyan 08:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've placed a double pipe (||) at the appropriate break. --EncycloPetey 20:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Very good, thanks. --Vahagn Petrosyan 20:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


I think it only polite to inform an established user when I've rf(anything)'d one of their creations. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --EncycloPetey 06:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi there. How would you define pigmentosum? It is part of xeroderma pigmentosum - a hereditary defect, not a species name. SemperBlotto 11:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've created the entry and its lemma pigmentōsus. --EncycloPetey 14:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Latin months

Could you give the entries in Category:la:Months a good look? They have inconsistent capitalization for one thing. With so many non-Romance languages that derive their names for months from the Roman calendar, they really should be dealt with soon, and you're the only active Latin guru I know of here. Carolina wren 17:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That's one of many issues I've hesitated about over the years because there were inconsistencies in the information I was finding in my sources. I finally concluded that Classical and even medieval Latin seldom (if ever) capitalized the names of months when capitalization was used. The entries for september, october, november, december, ianuarius, februarius, and aprilis were cleaned up last December.
Thanks for reminding me that I hadn't completed this. --EncycloPetey 21:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There's some comments from other users

There's one saying that it should be all reverted since 2008. Steel Blade 23:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments about what? Where? --EncycloPetey 23:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Steel Blade 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

So, why are you telling me this? I saw the anonymous comment, but I don't know enough to make an evaluation. I know nothing about the Arora community or its naming practices. --EncycloPetey 23:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It was unneeded, huh? Steel Blade 23:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Words in the News

According to Wiktionary:Administrators/Dishwashing you have an interest in this. Is that still true? (I'm giving up editing it) SemperBlotto 13:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really, and I probabaly should have removed my name some time ago since I've not been active in that. I've found that regularly maintaining WOTD is a large enough task in itself. You might ask DAVilla. --EncycloPetey 13:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to propose that it be terminated. SemperBlotto 13:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It's really more of an internal thing people have been doing for their own amusement. Maybe we could use news report at large to get ideas and move the feature to the front page? Actually I'm thinking a revamping of the front page might be a good idea. IMHO it does not do a very good job of "drawing in" people. The only obvious link to an element of content is the word of the day! I think I'll kick start a discussion of the topic on the Beer Parlour later today. Circeus 16:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Excuse me, I was thinking about "child" words, I mean, opposite to "etymologies", had I write "descendant words"?, or how? Renebeto.


You should really be careful with insinuating which languages people should stick to and not. If you disagree on edits, discuss the edits not the person. I'm thinking about your comment at Bogorm's talk page. Thanks! --Eivind (t) 14:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Long standing Wiktionary "policy" is that Wiktionarians should add entries only in languages with which they are truly familiar. When evidence from a user's edits demonstrates insufficient familiarity with a language they are editing, it is appropriate to ask them to stop, as it has been since I first started editing here. --EncycloPetey 03:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
That is a very vague policy. Where is it written down? Anyway, if it is so that it is appropriate to ask them to stop, then please, make sure you ask them to stop in an appropriate way. If I were to stop everytime someone finds an error in my edits and claims that I'm unqualified to edit since I'm less familiar with the language than the person addressing me, I couldn't even edit Norwegian language entries. This is a wiki – each one improves and together we make perfect (: --Eivind (t) 06:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This situation is not about being more qualified or less qualified. There are several people here who successfully edit in Latin entries, but who are less qualified than I am. It is about ignoring stated procedure (e.g. "Don’t simply replace words with what you believe is the correct form.") and then refusing to abide by that procedure when it is pointed out. It is about telling others they are wrong to not use the first-principal part, but then not using it hemself. It is about having a history of choosing to ignore community norms. It is about editing a string of entries in a language where more problems for cleanup are introduced than are corrected. --EncycloPetey 13:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologised to Carolina for altering her requæst, since she quoted one source supporting etymology from commodum (but additionally she quoted a second one supporting etymology from commodus, which corroborates mine assumption). Furthermore, on my talk page I pledged not to alter the requæsts, but comment beneath them. (I hope you do not consider striking of non-existent words such as vadeo alteration, since the words remain as they were and legible, otherwise it would be good to reach a decision about this) Thus, your claim refusing to abide by that procedure when it is pointed out is no longer valid.
then not using it hemself I did not reprehend anyone for placing the definition at vadere, because it was added there by User:Drago who appears to be retired and harassing retired editors is proscriped by wikipedia policy. I was simply lazy to move it myself and (fitful) laziness is not punishable, as far as I know. I simply wanted point out Drago's error with a dissuasive intention.
It is about having a history of choosing to ignore community norms. - this is a severe accusation and I would like this to be clarified/explicated. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Glosses

Ok Pete, thanks for the heads up Missionary 12:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:PalkiaX50#plural of

Might you have something to input here? 50 Xylophone Players talk 16:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


Hello EP. Can you check the etymology of manustupration please? Different sources have given different meaning to the Latin term stupare - with suggestions ranging from rape, rub, defile, agitate, pollute. I didn't find the Latin term stupare online, so thought it best to ask you about it. Any help would be appreciated. --Jackofclubs 11:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


I wanted to give a quick etymology for a Latin name over at wp:, but this word turned out to be harder to figure out than I thought. It appears to be a spelling variant of a holeraceus, although only the h-less form is used in taxonomy AFAIK. According to a latin dictionary, it eans something like "herd-, vegetable-like" (and would be an adjectival form of olus, of which I see we have the h variant). In botany, though, it's used primarily for edible or cultivated plants (i.e. Brassica oleracea, the cabbages, cauliflower, broccoli etc.). Would "vegetable-like" be an accurate definition? And what's up with that h thing? Circeus 16:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The two forms with and without "h-" appear to both exist in Classical Latin for all derivatives of holus and for holus itself. Some dictionaries use the spelling with h as the headword (as Lewis and Short) while others use the form without it as the headword (as Oxford). In any event, the adjective does mean "vegetable-like", especially referring to edible plants. --EncycloPetey 03:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

media scholar

de:Medienwissenschaftler links to you. You deleted the original article with the argument "mere sum of media + scholar", so what should happen to media player, medical informatics etc. and the interwikilinks? --Avoidopen 00:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The entry for medical informatics should be deleted (and I have done so), but media player is a valid term for inclusion according to our inclusion policy (WT:CFI). The interwikis should be removed whenever there is no entry on the linked project. --EncycloPetey 03:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The policy says: "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means." I run across media scholar and I want to know if it is the right translation for "Medienwissenschaftler". If media scholar, as you wrote, is the "mere sum of media + scholar" it would mean, a media scholar "is a student or a specialist in presenting information", what I think is wrong. As far as I know, a media scholar is a specialist in the history and effects of mass media. Interwikilinks for translations can only be removed, if the translation is false. --Avoidopen 04:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's not a term; it is a mere sum of parts. We don't include "yellow bus" because it not a term; it is merely the words yellow + bus. Likewise media scholar is media + scholar, and not a term in it's own right. There is no additional meaning in the combination media scholar that is not present in the individual words. Consider that Samstagabend would translate into English as "Saturday evening", but we wouldn't have an entry for Saturday evening, because that's not a single term in English; it is two terms.
As for the interwiki links, I misunderstaood your original question. I assumed you meant standard interwiki links, such as [[en:media scholar]]. I now see that you meant the interwiki links generated by a template in the translations section. --EncycloPetey 04:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't you see the difference between a drunk scholar and a media scholar? It's not a yellow bus, it's yellow pages. If I'm wrong, please correct the translation for de:Medienwissenschaftler. --Avoidopen 04:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't see the difference you describe, at least not in English. The German term may be more specific and restricted in its meaning, but the English is not. There is nothing wrong with the English translation. The only problem is that the translation template requires the English translation to be a linked word, and that is wrong. It is the link that should be corrected to media scholar, but the translation itself is fine. --EncycloPetey 04:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


I have no way if knowing if this edit by an anon IP was in good faith or not, but the Latin entry could use attention. — Carolina wren discussió 01:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a defective Latin verb without the form normally used for the lemma. I've cleaned up the entry and moved it to decet. --EncycloPetey 03:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


Please may you check this to see if the macrons are correct here. If you compare how the separate entry praerogativa is displayed on both the praerogativa entry and the praerogativus entry on the Archimedes search website, on the former it displays it as praerŏgativa where as in the latter as praerŏgātīva, [14] [15], therefore I don't truly know whether praerŏgativatius is correct or not so I chose praerogātīvātius. Caladon 10:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The macrons looks correct to me. Neither Lewis and Short (nor Perseus apparently) lists macrons for the endings of words. USers are expected to know where the ending macrons are placed. You have placed them correctly. However, are you sure you didn't mean praerogativarius instead of praerogativatius? --EncycloPetey 21:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it may be in the wrong entry, since the google results are higher for praerogativarius. The website I used must have had a typing error. Although the results for praerogativarius appear to say it's an adjective, where as praerogativatius was a noun, [16], [17], unless there is a substantive form. Caladon 06:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
We may need a citation for verification, then. Lewis & Short only list it as a noun, while Facciolati (whom your sources are following) lists it as an adjective. What's funny is that both Facciolati and Lewis & Short use the same supporting citation. --EncycloPetey 16:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this the text in question - [18]? As included in the sentence, "Hunc igitur praerogativarium sententia nostra confirmat, ut gradu potitus emeriti devotioribus animis publicae pareat iussioni." Caladon 08:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. --EncycloPetey 03:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you possibly take a look at praerogātīva: the first sense isn't very clear, 'the tribe or century to which it fell by lot.' I don't understand what is meant by "fell by lot". Caladon 11:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks like you left off the qualifying phrase at the end of the definition in Lewis & Short. It's the "group" (tribus or centuria) who was selected at random to vote first in the Comitia. --EncycloPetey 18:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I'm not certain about the definition of today's WOTD. From this explanation it seems to me that the term doesn't have anything to do with the players knowing each other's style of play - they just have to have some knowledge of the theory of chess opening. From some point they make a few moves according to the knowledge, but regardless of whether they had even known about each other's existence before the match. (The quote seems to me to support this explanation, rather than our definition, as well). Do you think that our definition should be changed, that it is the explanation that's mistaken, or that the word can have both these senses (so that one should be added)? I admit I've never encountered the word before, so for all I know it can be any of these cases. --Duncan 18:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You'd need to talk to Circeus, who modified my original definition, which explained further. I don't think there are two definition senses, but I think the definition is a bit broader than it currently states. --EncycloPetey 21:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


It was not originally my request, I only provided a note since I had worked on subicio when I was adding compounds of iacio. I thought, at least at the time, there may be an alternative spelling for subicio. Caladon 20:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The alternative spelling is subjicio and has been used since the introduction of j (Late Latin, not Classical). Usually the correspondece is i -> j, but in this case i->ji , which is soothly unwonted. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: trapper

I don't know why you reverted my edit. Sorry I wasn't logged in but that isn't a reason to revert. The word is used in this sense in contemporary texts describing mounted warfare or jousting, etc, the like, in mediaeval times. Donama 02:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That isn't the reason I reverted. I reverted because all sources I can find say the entry is wrong. --EncycloPetey 18:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


Sorry, it was me, I just forgot to log in, so I undo your contribution on my user page (here: [19]) but I'm really thankful for your attention. :) Ferike333 10:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Romanian and breve/macrons

The note is still thoroughly inaccurate: it's not "some languages descended from Latin" that use breves. To the best of my knowledge, there was only exactly one Romance language who ever used the breve as a diacritic on Latin letters, and that's Romanian (the only other languages currently using the mark in the Latin alphabet are Turkish and relative, and Vietnamese). The Lacynka latin alphabet of Belarusian also used the breve on u, but was never widespread IIRC. Circeus 16:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

True. That change should be made. My point is that the text was written for the section about breves, and was meant to be about breves rather than macrons (despite what I had actually written). I'm glad you caught the error. --EncycloPetey 17:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I should probably have noticed that aspect earlier -_-;;;, but glad to have been helpful.


Does "The only passive forms for this verb are third-person singular and plural," apply for all of struō's compounds? Caladon 11:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, yes. My sources indicate that construo, at least, has the same conjugation pattern. --EncycloPetey 14:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Is there an example or model article for these inchoate verbs (longiscō appears under my list to add)? On another note, in terms of verbs, is there an example entry for verbs that do not have the third principal part? And finally, what is the system for verbs with alternative spellings; should these entries be added in full or is there a model entry for this as well? Caladon 22:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

For inchoate verbs, there is no model entry yet. I've put off working on these myself, partly because I'm not fully comfortable with them and haven't yet found good reference material to help me decide what I'd want to do differently with them (if anything).
For verbs missing the third principal part, it depends on the conjugation pattern. The verb fidō lacks the third principal part because it is semi-deponent. However, the verb plicō lacks the third principal part because it is defective. So, there isn't a single model page for that situation.
For alternative spellings, I usually put the full entry on at the "standard" spelling, and create an "alternative form of" entry for the other spelling. I've created obfirmō as an example since I couldn't quickly find one already done. --EncycloPetey 04:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the responses. With obfirmō, should the second part be added with the normal "present active infinitive of obfirmō" or left out? Caladon 08:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
It's using the {{la-verb}} template. Any change to that wording would be a change to all Latin verb entries, not just to that one entry. I prefer to leave that out because the "active" nature of the infinitive isn't accurate for some defective or passive verbs. At some point (prehaps this summer), I may update the template and make it a bit more sophisticated. However, I don't have the time in my current schedule to do that properly. I'd like to have more information about inchoate verbs when I do that, so if you know or find a good source discussing those and their conjugation, please do let me know. --EncycloPetey 16:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I shall post a lost comment of mine (on a different matter) here from one of the old discussions on your talk page; the discussion was:
"No, there should be no macron over the "u" in cōnstruxī. --EncycloPetey 06:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)"
"There doesn't appear to be any consensus over this; having this same problem again with īnstruō; īnstrūmentum, instrūctiō; and the source [20]; also compare [21] with [22]. There will be numerous changes needed either way in corresponding entries. Caladon 14:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)"
If you could provide some idea of the solution to this since there are a number of contradictory entries. Caladon 20:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be a macron over the "u" in īnstrūmentum, but not in īnstruō or in īnstructiō. Do note that all three have a macron over the first "i". Lewis & Short is a bit dated when it comes to information about macrons, and I find I can't rely on them most of the time. I have several other more reliable sources I compare most of the time. Among these, the Desk edition of Oxford does macrons in īnstrūxī and īnstrūctum, so there seems to be quite a bit of disagreement concering macrons over the "u" in those verb forms. I would say: include them, but also have a note under the Inflection or Usage notes header that there is disagreement. --EncycloPetey 20:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems a little confusing which of the derived terms have this macron and which don't; as in īnstructē, īnstructiō, īnstructor and īnstructūra (and then all the derived terms of the other compounds of struo); is a note required on these as well? I realised the error with the macron on the "i" afterwards, and it will have to be fixed. Caladon 20:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this case is confusing. A note about macrons might be warranted on īnstructiō, but the others do not seem to have a macron over the "u" in any of my sources. Of course, most of them do not appear in some of my works, and I have more information and sources on verbs at this point than for other parts of speech. --EncycloPetey 20:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Latin declension template

you protected 1st one's talk page, I am not good with Latin but this doesn't look right:
| [[{{{1}}}ate|{{{1}}}āto]] this will render "-ato" despite linking to "-ate", is this intended? -- 02:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The -ate/-ato is not a 1st declension ending, and does not show up anywhere in {{la-decl-1st}}. --EncycloPetey 04:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

my bad, verb conjugation; Template:la-conj-1st. Sorry (plural imperative row) -- 04:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That is an error, and I have made the correction. Thanks for spotting that. --EncycloPetey 04:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Your actions earlier today


Hello... with regards to your actions earlier today, I would appreciate a response to my email. To restate, I certainly do understand the differences between Wikipedia and Wiktionary, and do not expect the two to march in lock-step. However, I must fundamentally disagree with your actions, and will again point out that a block in this situation was both unwarranted and inappropriate. I was not "deleting content" or "pushing one view", as you have claimed. To begin with, I made three changes to three articles. None were what could be described as "contentious", and all three included explanations in the edit summaries, as follows:

  • at "sun": "tweak - per the IAU, "solar system" refers exclusively to the Sun and associated objects"
  • at "Sun": "tweak; per definition and the IAU, there is only one "solar system" - the systen we are in"
  • at "solar system": "rework based on the IAU's definition; citations and details available from en:Solar System. (There is only one "solar system", that being the system we are in." (this even included a link to the Wikipedia article, which is fully cited; I had every intention of adding those citations to verify the facts.)

I fail to see how you can claim this is not reasoned or explained, or how it is referring to "non-existent information". Furthermore, when you reverted me, you did not even provide an edit summary, whereas I had provided civil and detailed edit summaries explaining what I was doing, and why I was doing it. I had already made (or was in the process of making) my first three edits when you left a message on my talk page; I restored my edit to "Sun" with the note "if we're defining the proper noun, this is the definition of it". Given what you had said on my talk page, the edit - which consisted solely of changing "our solar system" to read "the Solar System" - is entirely in line with that entry.

In short, there is no way this can be construed as "POV-pushing", and certainly no "disruption" in any of this. (I fail to see how you can call adding accurate information to reflect the scientific and formal definition of a term, as presented by the governing body of that field, "POV pushing". If anything, it is the opposite of that.) A block was completely uncalled for, compounded by the fact that you had provided no warning whatsoever that such an action was possible. I am deeply disturbed that this has occurred, especially in light of several incidents I have observed on Wikitionary (abusive behaviour directed against myself and a Wiktionary admin by a user banned on Wikipedia, along with sockpuppeteering by that same individual) that did not receive such heavy-handed treatment.

Again, I would greatly appreciate an explanation as to why such action was taken; an administrator who made such a block on EnWiki would almost certainly have seen it reversed. It would also be of assistance if you could provide a link to the policy or guideline that authorizes such draconian measures. Thank you in advance. --Ckatz 00:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I had already responded to your e-mail. I remind you again this is not Wikipedia. You cannot apply standards here from a separate project. Part of your frustration stems from your incorrect assumption that rules and norms on the English Wikipedia apply to other projects. They do not.
Your justification was not "well-reasoned". Your reasoning was that IAU uses one particular definition, so all other definitions are wrong. That is fallacious reasoning. IAU does not have a monopoly on the English language. They do not and cannot dictate definitions as being "wrong" outside their own publications, and even their own publications do not adhere to the standards you have referred to.
You did not provide clear or detailed edit summaries. You used abbreviations that you assumed people would understand; you linked to "evidence" which was not there when I followed the link; you provided no justification for removal of valid definitions that can be suppported by even a cursory inspection of published works in circulation.
It is not my protecting of valid content that requires explanation, but your wholeslae removal of it and forcing an organization-specific set of definitions on a dictionary that covers "all words in all languages". --EncycloPetey 02:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to my second email, which I used as the basis of my last post here. I've already made it abundantly clear that I do not expect the different projects to apply identical standards - but I do expect that actions are reasonable and reflect the events that inspire them. Your block was not fair or appropriate under any reasonable standard, and it was completely out of proportion to my edits here today. You have not addressed these concerns at all.
I would further ask you to explain what you feel is unclear in my edit summaries, as listed above. I would also again challenge your rejection of the IAU; as the governing body for astronomy, they are certainly in a position to define a scientific term for a global audience. Does this mean other definitions cannot exist? Certainly not - but there is no justification for your wholesale rejection of an official definition. (I apologize for one item; the link to ":en:Solar System" did not link to Wikipedia's article on the Solar System, as I had anticipated; it instead went to the local article. I should have used ":w:Solar System" instead.) Unfortunately, you chose to block without discussion; I was in the middle of adding a line about the formal definition that would complement the existing text.
Frustrated? Yes, and far more than that. I can understand a caution, or perhaps even a warning if I had been edit warring or had used aggressive language. Simply put, though, I did nothing of the sort, and there was no cause whatsoever for a block. --Ckatz 03:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
If you can indicate an understanding of the factual points I have made, then a dialogue can begin. Instead, you have said the same things again, acknowledging that there is a difference in standards between projects but without appreciating that difference. If Wikiepdia wished to adopt a vocabulary in line with IAU as the standard for their astronomy article, that's fine. However, it cannot be adopted as a standard here because we present all senses of terms. A dictionary is entirely different in its focus, presentation, standards, etc. from an encyclopedia. You may understand that at a surface level, but you do not seem to appreciate that it means we cannot write our definitions to match the preferred senses of just one organization, even if it is the international governing organization for astronomy. We include obsolete definitions for historical reasons, obscure definitions, and all other definitions that can be attested in publications.
I did try to discuss with you the issue before blocking, but you merely proceeded to undo the reversion without additional justification or opening a discussion of the issue. You are entitled to feel any way you choose about the block, but your behavior was atrocious and not unlike that of some vandals we've had here, who insist on a particular point of view in articles.
At this point, you seem more concerned with Wiktionary policies than with content. If you wish to discuss policy, you may do so in the Beer Parlour. --EncycloPetey 03:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
"Atrocious"?!? I would really appreciate it if you could justify such an extreme statement. (With regards to your note above, I'm not interested in a policy discussion. I am specifically concerned with what appears under any reasonable standard to be a complete over-reaction.) --Ckatz 03:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
A discussion about reasons for blocking is a policy discussion. What is a "reasonable" standard to you is not necessarily "reasonable" to Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey 03:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I am asking you to please point me to any aspect of Wiktionary policy or guidelines that sanctions such a heavy-handed response in this specific case. As for your claim that I "merely reverted", that is simply not true. I added a note in my edit summary, and again the change itself - that you felt was block-worthy - was to change "our" to "the" and to capitalize "Solar System". --Ckatz 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
You mean: "I expect Wiktionary policy to work the same as Wikipedia policy". Wiktionary does not have the same legalistic approach to most policy that Wikipedia has. We have style policy primarily. I will say only once more: if you wish to discuss policy, do so in a discussion forum, not on my talk page. --EncycloPetey 03:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not expecting anything, other than for you to please explain to me what part of Wiktionary's blocking policy sanctions the block you applied to my account. I have reviewed WP:BLOCK, and I'd agree that it is not "legalistic". In fact, it is quite specific:

"Do block blatant vandalism, pure stupidity, random spam, vandalism only accounts, impersonators, invalid account names, e-mail address names, bad sockpuppets"

(none of these apply)

"Don't block reverters"

The note about short blocks to established users is quite specific as well:

"These blocks should rarely be given out, but if attempts to communicate with another community member fail, a very short term block can be issued. This block should NOT be issued by the admin who wishes to get the user's attention, a third party will add some perspective."

One talk page edit, and one (explained) revert, does not a failed attempt make. --Ckatz 03:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
You are reading Wiktionary policy documents as if they were Wikipedia policy documents. Wiktionary policy is neither written nor applied in the same legalistic way as on Wikipedia, as I said. You also have continued to hound me on my talk page instead of going to the appropriate forum as you were repeatedly asked to do. You are now blocked. As an administrator, I have better things to do with my time than listen to you argue about a block that has ended. --EncycloPetey 03:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I've talked to Ckatz privately. He's a reasonable guy. I'm willing to take him under my wing and show him around. I have unblocked him for the time being. I think this can be sorted out. Dominic·t 09:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

radix angelicae sinensis

Hi EncycloPetey, you've deleted "radix angelicae sinensis" and similar entries, but these terms are used extensively in current scientific and peer-reviewed journal articles and books. In essence, they are similar to entries like white adipose tissue, breast cancer, prostate gland, liver function test etc. Can you please revert the deletes? Psoup 02:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not. No such citations have ever been provided, and they would not be informative either. They are Latin descriptions and are sum of parts in Latin. They are not like breast cancer, etc. They are like radish root, asparagus leaves, and elderberry fruit. None of these combinations would meet CFI, and they are all merely sum of the parts. --EncycloPetey 02:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
i've given a number of citations in various places, including those at Requests for cleanup, such as the following.. Kindly refer to the following for corroboration of current usage in peer-reviewed articles.
  • "The analysis of Radix Angelicae Sinensis (Danggui)", Journal of Chromatography A, Volume 1216, Issue 11, 13 March 2009, Pages 1991-2001. Lunzhao Yi, Yizeng Liang, Hai Wu, Dalin Yuan.
  • "An herbal decoction of Radix astragali and Radix angelicae sinensis promotes hematopoiesis and thrombopoiesis", Journal of Ethnopharmacology, Mo Yang, Godfrey C.F. Chan, Ruixiang Deng, Margaret H. Ng, Sau Wan Cheng, Ching Po Lau, Jie Yu Ye, Liangjie Wang, Chang Liu.
  • "Microwave-assisted extraction of flavonoids from Radix Astragali", Separation and Purification Technology, Volume 62, Issue 3, 22 September 2008, Pages 614-618. Weihua Xiao, Lujia Han, Bo Shi.
  • "Analytical comparison of different parts of Radix Angelicae Sinensis by gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry", Journal of Chromatography A, Volume 1187, Issues 1-2, 11 April 2008, Pages 232-238. Shui-Yin Wei, Cheng-Jian Xu, Daniel Kam-Wah Mok, Hui Cao, Tsui-Yan Lau, Foo-Tim Chau.
  • "Characterization of chemical components in extracts from Si-wu decoction with proliferation-promoting effects on rat mesenchymal stem cells", Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry, Volume 16, Issue 9, 1 May 2008, Pages 5109-5114. He-Ping Zeng, Ting-Ting Wang, Wei Chen, Chun-Yan Wang, Dong-Feng Chen, Jian-Gang Shen. (This article used the names: Rhizoma chuanxiong, Radix angelicae sinensis, Radix paeoniae alba, and Radix rehmanniae praeparata.) Psoup 05:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
You have failed to read the rest of my response. Please read my complete response. --EncycloPetey 13:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The CFI ( states: "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and idiomatic." For someone who knows English, breast cancer is a sum of parts, exactly like radix astragali for someone who knows Latin. (In other words, i can deduce the meaning of breast cancer by simply finding the meanings of the two words, and joining them together. i guess that is what you mean by sum-of-parts.) However, for someone who does not know Latin, runs across the term radix astragali, and wants to know what it means, then an entry in Wiktionary would be useful. This is the reason why i think commonly used terms in scientific literature should be included, whether they are English or Latin. In other words, for one who speaks English but not Latin, the term radix astragali isn't a sum of parts, and does not resemble root of astragalus. Hopefully, the use of Wiktionary can address this. A reader who reads English but not Latin would be able to tell immediately the meaning of breast cancer, radish root, asparagus leaves, and elderberry fruit, etc, but not the meaning of folium asparagi or radix angelicae sinensis. That is why the sum-of-parts comment may apply to asparagus leaves but not to folium asparagi. Psoup 15:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Wiktionary applies sum-of-parts according to the language in which the term is written, not according to the general knowledge of an English speaker. This principle has been upheld over and over again in many Deletion discussions. If you wish the community to change that principle, you would have to present a suitable reason. But, keep in mind that (as I said) the principle has been repeatedly upheld. And breast cancer is a slightly different case. It isn't quite sum-of-parts because breast can mean "chest" in English and is often used that way. The current definition is perhaps inadequate in conveying this point. --EncycloPetey 02:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. In this case, i suppose i will have to break them up into their atomic forms, such as astragali, cortex, fructus, flos and angelicae sinensis, etc, and then the reader will have to look up the meanings separately. Finally, the reader will have to combine them into some useful form mentally. This isn't the case in English dictionaries on traditional medicine, since eliminating the last step leads to standardisation of usage. Psoup 07:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep the colors

Next time I want to be helpful, I'll try to just let it go :p — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

We've cross-posted. I was composing a message (on your talk page) at the same time you put the above message here. --EncycloPetey 19:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


This one made me laugh: "The editorial portion was wholly his, and was one interminable poean [paeon] of his own praises" — from Edgar Allan Poe: his life, letters, and opinions. Nobody can get anything right! Equinox 23:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Related terms (in wordy)

Thanks for the advice, I've left you a message at my userpage. I should have a unified login but something somewhere has not gone quite right. 08:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC) User:SimonTrew i was trying to ask her to marry me and she is always on wikipedia. i thought this would be a good way.

WT:BP#xx-inflection of

I posted another question here for you. 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


Haha. Oh, right, that makes a bit more sense to me now. Equinox 00:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

interwiki links

Well obviously it's doing it here too, but I was complaining about what Interwicket was doing at the Irish Wiktionary. In any case, I suspect it would be easier to bring the usage of all wiktionaries in the known universe into line rather than try to change en:wikt policy via the Beer Parlour :) ☸ Moilleadóir 03:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


  • That is the usual word. But I think we have different ideas about how context labels should work. Ƿidsiþ 15:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
    Perhaps. My view has been held correct in both past and recent RFDO discussions. --EncycloPetey 20:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's a matter of correctness, rather convention. A lot of dictionaries do use context labels in this way -- including us, eg elbow. So it's a bit difficult to work out what the idea is. I am actually completely ambivalent in the case of orteil, but where I think they are useful is with words that have a lot of meanings, where context labels are a clearer and in my opinion better way of separating senses than other kinds of bracketed explanatory comments. For instance....I don't know, bouton say. None of the senses are really jargon, but this is surely the most useful way to distinguish between realms of useage. Ƿidsiþ 07:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
    We then end up with (animal) placed in front of every animal sense definition, even though the definition says it's an "animal". While I understand your position (and once held it), I think the potential aesthetic benefits are outweighed by the absurdities that have resulted in such use. --EncycloPetey 13:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Icelandic form ofs

Hi, I modified {{conjugation of}} to be more accommodating could you tell me what you think? Also check athugar and tell me what you think. 50 Xylophone Players talk 17:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


Was this word borrowed into Galician, Old French, etc., as the entires currently state? Or, was the word inherited from the Latin parent language? --EncycloPetey 14:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Yeah, absolutely, they're borrowings (though pretty early ones in many cases). The natural descendants are French dieu, Occitan diéu etc. Ƿidsiþ 14:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

correct information

do you need a citation? --VKokielov 02:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If you believe the word did not originate in Latin, as the Sicilian section states. --EncycloPetey 02:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Thank you. I'll keep it in mind. No, I didn't understand that I had to trace the word to the end, but of course you're right. --VKokielov 02:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The depth to which we trace words varies with langugae. With English, we try to take the etymology back as far as possible, even to PIE roots. For Romance languages, we usually trace them only to Latin, then include earlier etymological information in the Latin entry. We do more for English because this is the English Wiktionary. However, this generalization I've made is more a common practice then official policy. Wiktionary has more "general practices" than written policies, and it can be difficult to learn them as a result. --EncycloPetey 02:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Context labels in ELE

Hi. I've made an abbreviated version of this proposal at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE v2. Please have a look. Michael Z. 2009-05-17 18:05 z

Your edit looks pretty good. No time right now, but I'd like to incorporate it. I'd rather de-emphasize grammatical labels, however, because they don't usually seem to be grouped with (restricted) usage labels. The categories of labels can be described comprehensively in WT:Context labels (and I plan to make a proposal to subdivide the categories along formal lines). I'll work on an update within a day or so. Michael Z. 2009-05-17 19:50 z

Updated it after your suggestion, but omitting mention of grammar labels. There are at least a couple of different taxonomies of usage labels which have nine categories (not including grammatical function labels), so I don't think the policy should try to list them comprehensively anyway, because we could still debate which ones we will recognize. Also added “for example,” to indicate that the list is not comprehensive. Michael Z. 2009-05-18 05:41 z

Editing user pages

Very well. What we really need is a special insert my personal importance according to the bot that can never be wrong. Equinox 00:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do genuinely apologise if it really offended you! It was just a light-hearted, trivial and easily reverted change because I happened to have stumbled upon that statistics page. (Hint: I wouldn't have changed it if your rank had gone up.) I will endeavour to leave them alone in future. As for the blocking threat, you could, but it seems like an absurd overreaction (and would probably hurt Wikt more than me, since I can go out for pizza instead of editing, but Wikt can't automatically add dozens of words in my absence). I am sorry for overstepping my bounds in trying to be funny. Equinox 00:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

More Icelandic

Hi again, please check athugaði and athugandi and tell me what you think of them. 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected a coding error in {{is-inflection of}}. For {{is-conjugation of}} it would be better to use {{hu-conjugation of}} as a model. The coding you've used allows for a variable language, which shouldn't ever happen if the template is only used for Icelandic entries. --EncycloPetey 01:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at those templates and entries again. 50 Xylophone Players talk 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks good, although I haven't looked thoroughly at everything. I did find a glitch-causing issue that I corrected. You had a line return as the first character after the </noinclude>, which was causing a formatting problem on the entries. I've fixed that. --EncycloPetey 02:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I was just fixing to ask you why the hell the hashes were no longer generating numbers. 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


You're at the top of the short list. I doubt it's necessary yet (and correct me if I'm wrong) but regardless I'd like to know if you'd be receptive. Apparently there's some fine print. DAVilla 05:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reservations based on my current (incomplete) understanding of what is involved, but I'll look into it more. I'm against taking on responsibilities when I don't understand the expectations of the "job" reasonably well. --EncycloPetey 06:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Can't fill you in on the responsibilities any more than just a title. Please do look into it. You could ask SB. But whatever the role, you are a senior and consistent editor. Excuse the understatement. DAVilla 05:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've looked into it since May, and the job isn't as scary with responsibility as I thought. I think I had mixed up in my mind some of the duties of 'crat and steward. I think I'd be OK with 'crat. --EncycloPetey 05:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2009-06/User:EncycloPetey for bureaucrat. DAVilla 17:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


I understand the problem. I'm sorry for it. It would be good if this kind of misfortunes could be prevented in future. Is there a template that reads something like: this is a widely used template, it influences many entries, and changing it should be done with extreme care. It could be used to tag articles/templates like this. I think there is something similar on wikipedia. All the best. --Biblbroks 19:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't have such a template. Unlike Wikipedia, nearly all templates here are widely-used. We use templates for formatting more than for navigation or ornament. Tagging every single template on Wiktionary would not be productive, since the problem lies in the assumption that Wikipedia nd Wiktionary work in the same way. --EncycloPetey 19:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


Yes, should have been an adverb. I didn't know "stinky" could mean "bad, undesirable" (like "stinking" does), but our entry says it can, so I've added the synonym as well. Equinox 01:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: cartophilia

Shouldn't take long to decide this one though. I've put in a request for help at w:wp:Reference desk/Science#Cartophilia. Ottre 03:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly not. Some entries are deleted (or verified) very quickly. --EncycloPetey 03:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

{{Icelandic conjugation 01 vb -aði}}

I like a little help with this please. As you can see the weak plural of past participles of verbs in this conjugation is the same throughout all cases and genders so I'd like to have an overlap of areas in the table like those in the table at god#Swedish. 50 Xylophone Players talk 17:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It also looks as though the gen/acc/dat forms in the singular are uniform for each gender. Are these identities always the case? If so, they could be combined as "oblique" (with a note) into a single row. Do Icelandic grammars ever use that term? I'm going offline right now (bad timing), but should be back in an hour or two. --EncycloPetey 17:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Also note: the usual prefix for templates like this is is-conj-, which uses the ISO code for the language and an abbreviation of a word non-English-speakers may have trouble spelling and native speakers don't want to type in full. --EncycloPetey 17:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... two things:
  1. I didn't create the template so someone else is to blame for the naming. Ithink this might be a similar problem to some of the Finnish templates (they were [possibly still are for some] using crazy code numbers assigned by some authority).
  2. There does seem to be aukafall but I'm a bit doubtful of its appropriateness. 50 Xylophone Players talk 17:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone! No Palkia, I'm sorry, I'm not able to say if aukafall is appropriate, but reading Icelandic Online and Wikti/Wiki pages, that seems okay. Anyway, for having a native speaker opinion, I asked here on is:Wikti. =) Pharamp 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, coming here because I got a message on is.wikt, of course there is oblique case in Icelandic, which is everything else than nefnifall, that is þolfall (acc), þágufall (dat) and eignarfall (gen). I am not sure what the question to me is here. Also I am not a native speaker btw. The Icelandic templates in en.wikt were created after the templates in is.wikt, which is why the naming I guess, see is:Hjálp:Sagnbeygingar (verbs), is:Hjálp:Fallbeygingar (nouns), is:Hjálp:Lýsingarorðsbeygingar (adjectives) if You need further templates for forms (not yet complete of course).
Best regards, --birdy (:> )=| 18:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, not much that can be done yet so I left another comment for Spacebirdy here. 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
In response to [23], I don't mind what is done here with the templates, I would not do that on is.wikt, because it is inconsistent and in my personal opinion looks ugly, but I would also not make red inflection forms, as IMHO it hardens reading for the reader/language learner, so this is up to en.wikt if they want to unify some forms to oblique case where they are the same... best regards, --birdy (:> )=| 20:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, then I say we plough ahead and alter the templates (It's too late to start kill form ofs now anyway). So EP, would you mind making those alterations to the template for me? I think we should alter this first, then orphan it from its 16 transclusions, then move it to a more appropriate name and finally make other Icelandic verb templates conform with it. 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. The inflection of banna is wrong (banna#Inflection), it is not "bannum" but "bönnum" etc. last a shifts because of u, best regards, --birdy (:> )=| 20:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Is this only for verbs ending in -anna or what? 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it is for all regular a-(or aði)-verbs that have an a as last vowel before the ending. Scheme is like xxxaxxxa. Example, baka, harpa, svara, etc. Note, not all have always all forms because sometimes it makes no sense. Br. --birdy (:> )=| 21:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


oh, ok, i didn't know.. sorry --NunoAgostinho 21:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

'Related terms'

This header indicates etymological relationships, not semantic ones. Am I not understanding something in regard to zwitterión? Nadando 22:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, I can see the connection, but that seems pretty distant. Nadando 22:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Particle in Wikisaurus

I am struggling with how to structure particles in Wikisaurus; can you help?

At first, I thought it could go like this with respect to hyponymy:

  • particle
    • elementary particle
    • composite particle
      • ...
      • atom
      • molecule

But when I look at particle and its physics definition, I get particle =def= "An elementary particle or subatomic particle". As "composite particle" includes atoms and molecules, "composite article" is neither a hyponym of "subatomic particle" nor of "elementary particle", so per the definition of "particle" given, "composite particle" is not a hyponym of "particle".

To add to the confusion, W:Particle says that "particle" refers to "subatomic particle" which is split into "elementary particle" and "composite particle". But then, if molecule is a composite particle, "composite particle" is not a hyponym of "subatomic particle".

Any idea how to solve this, that is, under which common hypernym to place "elementary particle" and "composite particle"? Is it correct that "composite particle" includes "molecule", as composite particle and W:Composite particle suggest? --Dan Polansky 18:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I may be able to offer some sugestions, but the terms are a bit "fuzzy" in their application. There are strict prescibed and proscibed senses, but these are not universally followed. An "elementary particle" can mean an atom or not, depending on the context. An atom is the elementary particle of matter in chemistry, but not in physics. Protons can be considered elementary particles of matter, or they can be considered composite particles of quarks. It's all in the point of view. An elementary particle is one that cannot (in context) be reduced further, while a composite particle is one that (in context) is assembled from more elemental parts. --EncycloPetey 18:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


I added a note on periens, which puzzled me on encountering pereunte.

I wonder if any other pres. ppls. inflect like this?

JohnWheater 09:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


Should this edit, [24] be reverted? Plus, have you had any luck with the Old French doleros and doloros issue? Caladon 15:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: reversion: Yes, and I have done so. Re: doleros/doloros: No, my book on Old French does have a couple of related participles but nothing useful. --EncycloPetey 15:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for having a look anyway. Caladon 07:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

Do you think the text [25] should be in English? (I've already started translating it in an edit box so please tell whether it should stay as is or not.) 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a good idea to me as long as there is a clearly marked place for a user to click to see the same instructions in English (perhaps with the usual UK/US flag icons). I'd say raise the issue in the Beer Parlour, and perhaps we can get Spanish, German, Arabic, Russian, and Chinese instructions as well. --EncycloPetey 23:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


(About paranomasia.) Thanks! I'm new to Wiktionary and wasn't sure what to do... I looked around a bit and couldn't figure it out, so I decided to be bold and trust someone would notice. :) Thanks for pointing it out; I'll keep it in mind in future. Regards, Shreevatsa 05:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


1. Please check again that you meant to revert all my edits to flag. If you disagree with my addition then please explain why. Note that the existing related meaning specifically says "mark with a flag", while "to flag" can be used without the sense of using a physical marker of any sort. That is why I added it. If you feel it would be better to combine the two definitions then please do so.

2. Regarding the rfv, it seems reasonable to me that two "delete" opinions and no other interest for over a month constitutes a decision, but I'm not familiar with procedures here so I take your word for it that something else is needed. I'm not sure what though. There seems to be no formal notice on any of the other entries to indicate that any decision has or has not been reached.

A further comment on #1. Please bear in mind that nothing is more offputting and annoying to occasional casual contributors such as myself than to see their edits reverted without any explanation. (I'm referring to the other edits, not the one related to the rfv, which you did explain.)

Re: #1; I didn't see the additions, but saw a huge chunk of text deleted.
Re: #3; That is normal procedure. The edit summary is the place to describe the change, not to justify it. We typically do not explain to every editor why reversions were made because the structure here is quite different from Wikipedia. On WP, there are a whole class of admins and vandal patrollers who specialize in doing only that. On WT, admins are hard-core entry writers who also take time away from their entry writing to patrol. 95% or more of anon editors make one edit or two and never return. It isn't worth anyone's time to explain to all those people why reversions were made. Doing so wastes time and effort. And please note that in this case, I did leave you a note about the reversion. The note didn't cover the additional bit of reversion because I missed seeing it in the large-scale deletion of material. --EncycloPetey 03:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I've done some looking, and I can't see how your added sense is different from sense #1. Your only difference seems to be use of the adverb/preposition up, which may be a regionalism, as I've never heard that construction used in the parts of the US where I've lived. --EncycloPetey 04:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

over the top

I checked at BNC (and COCA) and all the verbs that accompany that sense of OTT seem to be arguably copulative. See my page for a bit more. DCDuring TALK 04:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As to 'brave', I think that is a former, transitional meaning. I'll be happy to cite it after "over the top"'s WOTD day. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


Could you double check this entry? When you templatized it, you changed the lemma to diffacilis. I'd just replace the a's with i's, but I didn't know if the a form was an alternative form or the like. — Carolina wren discussió 21:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank was an error. Thank you for spotting it. --EncycloPetey 22:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Odd etymology style

Can you look into the best way to reconcile the two ways the etymology at ablation was structured? One goes from ablation to auferre, the other starts from ab+latus and I'm not sure how best to deal with it. Circeus 03:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've taken out the "ab + latus" bit. Since aufero is ab + fero, it's trivial that ALL its forms with be ab + a form of fero. I've also converted everything to lemmata and rephrased the bit about "past" participle for precision (because, of course, Latin has two past tenses). Look better? --EncycloPetey 13:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, much better. Circeus 19:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


just wondering, do I have to be an autoconfirmed user to be free from captchas? thanks Pzrmd 06:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't have to worry about those if you have an account. You simply log in when you want to edit. --EncycloPetey 00:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

re oy gewalt

Dear me. I just wandered over here from WP and it didn't occur to me that things might be different. Would something like this be appropriate, then, with "alternate spelling of oy gevalt"? Thanks, Jake Wartenberg 01:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


Are you sure that it is prōlīxus and not prōlixus? The only result on google for prōlīxus I can find is the Wiktionary article [26], when compared to [27] which has 153. Caladon 11:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure. Feyerabend doesn't give the second macron; neither does L&S. I wonder where I got the idea there was a macron? I'd say remove it. --EncycloPetey 14:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of this word, our entry for PRŌLIXVS translates it as the English terms “courteous” and “favorable”; however, our entry for its English descendant, prolix, defines that etymon in its etymology section as “long”, “extended” — are these senses (which are far more in keeping with the English meaning of the word) also conveyed by the Latin term? If not, how did the seemingly completely different English meaning come about?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Etymonline, En. prolix ultimately derives from a homograph related to liquo via Template:frm. Circeus 05:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

re: "bizarre colon"

Regarding this, care to explain what I misunderstood in the March 2009 entry at WT:NFE? I see that you prefer no punctuation, but SOMEONE needs to edit WT:QUOTE to account for what is the ideal and whatis an acceptable alternative... Circeus 16:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The ending-colon was never a favored choice of mine, and I've noticed widespread problems since it was instituted, especially after standard format scriptural citations and scientific journal citations. The discussion is on-going, as you'll see at WT:QUOTE, which is where I noted in the edit comment that the discussion is located. The posting to NFE was premature. --EncycloPetey 16:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


I was actually pointing to the fact that fail is also an interjection and that both it and epic fail should be recognised as such. Top Cat 14 17:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki links

Ok, thanks. I didn't know. --Aushulz 00:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Canis pugnax

Hello EncycloPetey, with respect, I was disappointed that you deleted my word and definition without first having a discussion to build a consensus. In fact, you did not even give me the courtesy of notifying me on my talk page that you deleted my definition. It is not uncommon that terms, words or idioms have more than one word in them Category:Idioms. I have placed Canis pugnax back in Wiktionary. If you would still like to have the word removed from Wiktionary, please feel free to post an AFD +tag and attempt to build a consensus. I will be stating the definition should be kept. Thank you. WritersCramp 21:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia. The procedures here are different, as are requirements for inclusion. If you feel this term deserves an entry, please cite it from a Latin text, so that we may judge its merits. As it stands, the term is mere sum of parts and warrants deletion. --EncycloPetey 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, as you clearly want the term deleted and I clearly want the definition kept, I think it would be best if a third-party makes the decision on whether the citations and definition are sound enough to stay in Wiktionary. In addition, you might want to reconcile both of our earliest posts, to determine who has been editing at Wiktionary the longest. Thanks WritersCramp 11:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not a contest. Yes, the date of your first edit is slightly earlier than mine, but you've not been very busy here since that time. An alarming percentage of your edits seem to consist of edit wars over pages, and of posts on WT:RFD. You clearly want the term kept, but do not seem to know the basic requirements for keeping a term on Wiktionary, as evidenced by the fact that you have yet to post a single citation. Third (and fourth) parties have noted this already. Learning about the way Wiktionary works could smooth over future additions, and save you lots of arguing time. --EncycloPetey 15:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Umm, weren't you the one the delete the word without first attempting to build a consensus? WritersCramp 18:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Obvious deletions don't require consensus on Wiktionary. You are again confusing Wiktionary procedure with Wikipedia procedure. I pointed this out to you already, so expected you to understand that. --EncycloPetey 19:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dutch prepositional phrases

I understand that the rapid edits I made to the entries of Dutch prepositional phrases may have seemed like vandalism, but I can assure you that they were anything but. On the talk page it was mentioned that the entries listed in the Prep. Phr. category were not correctly labled, and I agreed, so I went about fixing this problem, as well as finding the actual prep. phr. that were categorized elsewhere. Could you please undo these reverts? Also, I'd like to add more of these phrases. Could I have premission to do this?

No. Did you bother to read the message I left you? Judging by your request, you did not, since you did not address the problem with your changes that I pointed out. --EncycloPetey 04:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, I didn't notice the edit comment. I would have bothered to read it had I noticed it was there. Great, then why don't we get rid of the "Prepositional phrases" category? It's obviously misleading if they're not allowed here, and the four entries listed there are definitely not prepositional phrases but words in the genitive case. Thanks.
The comment I posted to your talk page (on the IP you were using) should have brought up a big yellow box when I posted it, to alert you to its presence. I'm sorry you did not spot the big yellow notice box. We might get rid of that category, but I suggest discussing it with User:AugPi, who has been around longer than you have and who knows more Dutch than I do. It may be a legitimate additional category for those entries, even if it is not legitimate as a POS category. All entries must be categorized into a part of speech, but that does not preclude additional categorization when such is useful. --EncycloPetey 04:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Well just after I'd done the editing I noticed I wasn't signed in and went ahead and did that, so I never had a chance to spot the yellow box since I was signed in already when you came around. I'm sorry for the mess I created, and I'll definitely talk to User:AugPi (who I noticed fixed the genitive adverbs problem). Thanks for the chat.Saxmachine1411 04:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted that category, it's obsolete. —AugPi 04:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FitBot in Portuguese

Hi, I'm interested to run a bot, who generates Portuguese verb forms, similar to your User:FitBot. I already downloaded this Python stuff and the codes from yours and SemperBlotto's bots, which I will change in order to suit Portuguese. What will be the next step, in the process of running my bot? --Volants 08:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Aurigae &c.

You make a good point and I'll desist until resolved. Personally I think the constellation names should also be translingual and not English; they are in fact Latin. Anyway, a translingual is likely to be derived from some language or other, so why not English? Jonathan Webley 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

They aren't translingual. Most (many) languages have other names they use for them. Even in Latin, some of the names are quite different than the English names. --EncycloPetey 20:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


I didn't list the adverb capitalized. Most of the info there is on the word as a name however, as it's use as an adverb is rather ancient. What is the best way to mark the adverbs' use as uncommon?


Is the substantive form caelitēs, from caeles, found in the singular at all, and if so, should the article be made there as a context tag instead of at the plural form? It is from the requested entries. Caladon 15:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

When I looked, I couldn't find a singular form. I'd put the article at the plural form. --EncycloPetey 15:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


So sorry! I haven't been here in a while, my mind totally slipped. I think I've sorted it now. Jakeybean 19:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the tip. :) Jakeybean 19:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Greenlandic proper nouns

Thanks for creating it; I've moved all the qualifying entries to the new category. Mike Halterman 20:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

on agathokakologicality

Dear EncycloPetey, I Nschoem encountered "agathokakologicality" "online", along with some other words based on "agathokakological." I did not make up "agathokakologicality."

If Wiktionary prefers to stay away from recently coined words, then I would like to know. I am a rather new user. Nschoem 21:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Words in Wiktionary must meet our attestation criteria, explained at WT:CFI. A citation from a blog does not count as one of the three attestations necessary to support a "new" word, since blogs are not durably archived sources. --EncycloPetey 21:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi. You added the pronunciations to this entry but you've put primary stress signs before both syllables in both pronunciation. Please correct it, I cannot as I'm not English. Thanks in advance, Ferike333 17:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks for catching that. --EncycloPetey 17:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. That was a fast response from you. Ferike333 18:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your are right.

-ar#Latin &c.

Perhaps Suffix is inappropriate, but that notwithstanding, these are surely useful to have; any suggestions for a POS header &c.?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No suggestions, no. Unlike every other kind of entry we include, these are variations of endings in a single word. I also don't believe that a person coming across one or these will have the slightest clue how to parse it from the complete word (Is the ending on amāverat -at, -erat, -verat, or -āverat?), unless they already know enough about the language to be able to look it up another way.
As an alternative to entries, I am working on an Appendix format idea that I think will be even more useful. I'm hoping to have the idea worked out sufficiently for Latin and/or Spanish by this weekend to present it properly. In short, I am envisioning a single page listing all the endings used in a particular language, where each ending is identified and the reader is directed to the appropriate declension/conjugation discussion for each one. --EncycloPetey 13:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


Should the third and fourth principal parts be sūbiēcī and sūbiectum or subiēcī and subiectum? There aren't many sources that show subiectus as the perfect passive participle to have a macron on the "u" if any at all (?). The derived terms all come from subiect- so that would make sense why they have no macron either, but there should be a macron for the first and second parts. (Also take into account what is mentioned under the usage notes that I had put on the entry) Caladon 13:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Feyerabend suggests that the macron in the first syllable is optional for all principal parts. Some of my sources chose to include it, and others chose to omit it. I favor omitting it in the major entry locations, but noting in the Inflection that such a macron is included in the first syllable by some authors. --EncycloPetey 13:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


User:Verbo insists (by his or her edits) on the etymology showing the Latin infinitive instead of the first person singular present active indicative, and for the section header for the verb form to be 'verb form' over 'verb', which is used more commonly. What should one do in this matter? Caladon 14:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a comment to his talk page with a rationale. That's always a good first step in these situations. --EncycloPetey 15:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi. You should not block bot's IP when you block bot, because bot owner often uses the same IP as bot.--Ahonc 22:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I use the default block settings, and most of the time I'm dealing with anon IPs, for which it makes no difference. --EncycloPetey 22:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Latin American Spanish

The RAE's official dictionary does not necessarily reflect current usage in Latin America. The RAE's mission to regulate the Spanish language emphasizes "proper" use in Spain. The RAE appears to have a pro-Spain bias. See RAE history and RAE criticism. Most Spanish speaking people live outside Spain. How much should Wiktionary rely on the RAE? How should Wiktionary treat Latin American variations? TravelAuthor 22:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We rely on it only as a starting point. Wiktionary includes words if they can be sufficiently attested in durably archived materials. You can examine WT:CFI for the details of our inclusion criteria, but the short of it is that a word has three durably archived citations spanning three years, then we include it. So, if you can cite termale from enough Spanish-language publications, just add that into the section for that entry. You could look at examples on the page for duteous. For more fully documented words, we put the citations in the "Citations:" namespace. You can see an example of this at Citations:parrot. --EncycloPetey 23:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Out of curiosity, how come your edit Galician here? --Jackofclubs 01:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone ought to. I've studied it enough that I can (mostly) read it. I've studied Spanish and Latin formally, which made it easier to start learning Galician. --EncycloPetey 01:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Occitan 10,000 + > thanks

Just wanted to thank you, have a nice weekend, see you/a lèu, amistats Capsot 18:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

congrats :)

It would seem that frecha which you created is the 1,300,000th entry. 50 Xylophone Players talk 00:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, though if I'd realized that edit was going to be special, I'd have done a Latin word instead. --EncycloPetey 00:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
No matter :-), besides, Galician is lesser known than Latin (despite having a lot better coverage here than other (semi-) obscure languages, e.g. Greenlandic); I didn't even know there was a language called Galician before I came here whereas I had of course heard of Latin. 50 Xylophone Players talk 16:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

mandarin fish

I don't understand why you reverted at all. What was the perceived problem? --EncycloPetey 02:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Image was of the wrong fish for the original definition. Added def, restored image. - Amgine/talk 02:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Latin agnomina

Shouldn't the Category:Latin agnomina be called Category:la:Agnomina? --Daniel. 12:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No, for three reasons. (1) We have Category:Latin proper nouns, and this is a special category of proper noun within the language. It's not topical, but rather a POS subcategory. (2) This is a personal name category, and should follow the pattern of categories like Category:Hungarian given names or Category:Portuguese surnames. (3) There are no Agnomina in any other language. --EncycloPetey 13:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Your third reason would probably discredit Category:Leet, Category:Polari and some other slang categories as well. Per your other reasons and examples, the Latin agnomina is correctly named but should be at Latin language (or at Latin proper nouns, which I disagree because the distinction between "parts of speech" and "personal names" looks good and makes the personal names easier to find) instead of la:Names and Latin adjectives. --Daniel. 13:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Except that the Agnomen is not actually a part of speech, and it's not grammatically a proper noun. In Latin, the Agnomen is an adjective used as a name element. This is one of those weird exceptional cases that doesn't fit the norm, which is why I spent several months thinking over possible solutions before settling on this one. --EncycloPetey 14:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Then, I have another idea. Your opinion on this would be appreciated.
I'll create a new catboiler (like {{poscatboiler}}, with automatic links to appendices and so on) for personal names. And these would be some of its descriptions.
  • Category:Latin male given names: Latin proper nouns that indicate names given to male individuals.
  • Category:Latin praenomina: Latin proper nouns that indicate names given to individuals in Roman naming convention.
  • Category:Latin nomina: Latin proper nouns that indicate family names in Roman naming convention.
  • Category:Latin cognomina: Latin proper nouns that indicate nicknames used to distinguish individuals with the same names in Roman naming convention.
  • Category:Latin agnomina: Latin adjectives that indicate nicknames occasionally used to distinguish individuals with the same names and hereditary nicknames in Roman naming convention. --Daniel. 08:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

language header?

Thank you for reminding me ... it had crossed my brain once, I know. How do I put in a language header?? :) Logomaniac 15:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, will do so.  :) Logomaniac 16:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

) ... *two thumbs up and sheepish grin* OK, I think I'm getting this ... Logomaniac 16:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Latin inchoative verbs

Could you please check longīscō and celebrēscō, which I have just added, to see if they are done correctly. Should the verb senēscō be created like quiēscō? Thank you for your work on these verbs. Caladon 08:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The entries you created look fine. The only comments I would make are (1) we usually end the Etymology line with a period (which is easily overlooked, and I forget it sometimes as well), (2) You omitted the macrons over the suffix in the etymology of celebrēscō, although you did include them in longīscō. So, you knew what to do but overlooked it. I do that ooften myself.
The verb senēscō does appear does appear to have addiitonal parts, but not a participle/supine form, so it's not quite the same as quiēscō since that verb has all four parts. Like quiēscō, it does appear to have a "no passive" connjugation, but lacks the fourth principal part. --EncycloPetey 13:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Latin past participles

Is there a quick fix to empty Category:Latin past participles? Maybe change something at {{past participle of}} --Jackofclubs 15:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Latin entries shouldn't use that template. These aren't "form of" entries in LAtin but should have full-fledged entries with inflection tables, because they themselves have forms. --EncycloPetey 15:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Take a look, for example, at the changes that had to be made to cognātus, which isn't actually a participle and was listed as coming from a verb that never existed. --EncycloPetey 16:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


  • distālis (~distant?)
    It would help if you could say where you came across this term. English distal (which, I've heard an erudite anatomy professor argue, is properly an adverb) did not come from Latin, and there does not seem to be an equivalent in Classical or Late Latin. Given its use primarily in anatomy, I'd not be surprised if it didn't show up before the Late Renaissance. Of course, I haven't yet seen it in Latin at all, so any direction you can provide would help. --EncycloPetey 01:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    It is one half of pars distalis which is, as you said it probably would be, a term in anatomists’ jargon.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    The question, then, is whether the term ever appears outside of English medical terminology. It may be a case of English jargon pseudo-Latin, like the legal phrases we have. I wouldn't declare it to be Latin unless I saw it in a properly Latin context. I can poke around, but my access to the really good resources is a bit limited right now. It may take a while. --EncycloPetey 01:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    Not a problem. Take your time. It’s not a priority. Thanks.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: inaequihymeniiferous

Hi EncycloPetey, the entry for the word "inaequihymeniiferous" was my first contribution here, and I tried to read as much as I could before editing the page because of the history of its repeated deletion, and I didn't want to seem like i was trying to sneak one by you guys, but I wasn't sure where else to start, and I figured someone would review this soon enough, and then we could discuss its validity.

So then, to begin, I signed up precisely because my friend who had entered the previous definitions for this entry did so anonymously and thus non of the admin were able to sort these issues out with him. I found this page:

The definition doesn't match the stated part of speech. (I'm guessing the latter is correct.) —RuakhTALK 04:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this anon has been adding numerous mycology words. The ones I've looked at have all checked out, although entries have not always had an inflection line. I just wish that he/she/they was/were not anon(s). I hope that they will look at the entry, click through to here, and decide to register and sign in. DCDuring TALK 20:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed for lack of citations. Deleted. Goldenrowley 06:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


This word seems to fit the Criteria for Inclusion, seeing as it is a real word that is used in Mycology text, AND I found myself here in the first place because i was reading a mycology journal article and the word was used and I tried to figure out what the word meant. I found a post my friend wrote on a mycology forum discussing how he made the entry for the word here and it kept getting deleted, he also referred to the book that he originally found the definition in, and it just so happened that I own a copy, so I looked it up and felt obliged to recreate the entry here, since this is the first place I would have otherwise looked.

Apparently I don't quite understand the format that citations should be in, as you said that they were references rather than citations. Could you please clarify the difference, and/or how to add "three durably archived citations"??

I like this word and want the definition to be available online, since it is used in context of certain mycology articles.

Thank you, I hope I can work this out.


citations: inaequihymeniiferous

Thank you for the guidance. I think that everything should be set now. I do not anticipate any problems with my citations or formatting, but if anything arises, please let me know and I will see how I can fix it.

I've done some additoinal formatting, but the content looks excellent. --EncycloPetey 03:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


You posted on my talk page:

"== selfref ==

Please do not post this template in the main namespace. That's not where (or how) it is supposed to be used. --EncycloPetey 05:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)"

I was going by what I thought must be the standard, at etymology. If it's wrong there, you or another admin should probably fix it there. Also, some kind of indication of where and how it should be used would be helpful.--Tyranny Sue 05:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
That's one of the few places in the main namesapce where it is correctly used (although controversially). "Etymology" is the exact name of one of our leading section headers. The pages you added the template to (quote, reference, etc.) are never used as section headers, and so will not be looked up in that form for assistance. In any case, the relevant style page is usually just "Wiktionary:section header, such as Wiktionary:Etymology or Wiktionary:Pronunciation. That is, the style information is detailed in the Wiktionary: namespace under the same name as the relevant section header. --EncycloPetey 05:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, whether or not Wiktionary uses an exact word in its formatting guidlelines has no effect on what word real users might look up trying to find Wiktionary-formatting assistance. Users might look up whatever word they think relevant, be it "quote", "format", whatever. It's about making Wiktionary formatting information much easier to find for people who haven't memorized Wiktionary section headers and don't have time to. Such ease of access would hopefully reduce the amount of policing work that admins currently need to do.--Tyranny Sue 02:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You have moved this discussion to the Information Desk. It is impolite to conduct the same conversation in both a public forum and on a user talk page. That leaves some people out of the loop. --EncycloPetey 04:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)



could you tell me what Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine; et lux perpetua luceat eis means? Thank you User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 16:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It means: "Give them eternal rest, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine on them." --EncycloPetey 20:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you, Petey. Does eis means them? User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 23:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but only in the dative and ablative. --EncycloPetey 04:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, talk about coincidence. I was reading these very lines in a comic two hours ago. Circeus 05:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Another question :) what would R.I.P. be in Latin? Is pax in the ablative case? User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 00:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. "R.I.P". is originally Latin requiēscat in pāce, from requiēscō (may he/she rest) (3rd sg pres act subjunctive) + in + pāce (peace) (ablative singular).

Etymology of seesaw

Thanks for your slimming effort, getting rid of overgrown fat, or 군살 빼기 in Korean. --nemo 08:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


It has citations now. Should it be resolved? Steel Blade 18:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No, because the citations are woefully incomplete. There was more than one Scientific American published in 1932. We need to know which issue, what article, and what page. We also need chapter numbers and/or pages for the other citations. Without a full citation, it is very difficult for someone to verify the information. --EncycloPetey 18:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not inform the other administrators about this then? Steel Blade 18:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The entry is already listed with a request for verification. They have thus been informed. What more notification do you think is needed? --EncycloPetey 18:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. Steel Blade 18:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Help with templates again

Hi again, could you please show me, giving an appropriate template as an example how redlinks in templates are made black, e.g. as they are in the Latin templates? 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

With which template do you need assistance? --EncycloPetey 21:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to do Czech ones starting with adjectives and starting those with {{cs-decl-adj-hard}} as an editor recently reverted my wikilinking of it but on the grounds that it was making it different to the other templates. Unfortunately, I don't know whether i will get a reply or not... 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That template should be done now. I've set the "class" for the display section to "prettytable inflection-table", which sets the links as black. I've also set the links to be specific to the Czech language section, since Slovak and Polish sometimes have similar spellings. --EncycloPetey 13:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :D 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


Why is that protologism template called asdfg? Equinox 19:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Because "asdf" used to be a common protologism on Wiktionary. It's also easy to remember, provided you have a qwerty keyboard. --EncycloPetey 19:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd say "easy to type" rather than "easy to remember"! Thanks for the explanation. Equinox 19:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Delčevo etc.

Please see Talk:Delčevo. Thanks --B. Jankuloski 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The discssion is already located in the Requests for verification. --EncycloPetey 02:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Aahh, true. I totally forgot about the pronunciations. I will delete them. Thanks for the reminder. --B. Jankuloski 02:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • All Macedonian pronunciations are removed. --B. Jankuloski 02:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)