Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup

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

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for cleanup

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged {{rfc}}s


Unresolved requests from before June 2013[edit]

June 2013[edit]


Definitions are poorly ordered, selective in coverage, poorly worded. DCDuring TALK 15:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Appendix:Japanese Swadesh list[edit]

Moved to Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Appendix:Japanese_Swadesh_list. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Vietnamese entries with pronunciation and readings conflated[edit]

In the following entries, IPA information is shoehorned into ====Readings==== sections. It should probably be in its own section. Other formatting issues may also exist.

  1. 𠻗
  2. 𥆼
  3. 𣗱
  4. 𥘶
  5. 𥙪
  6. 𥛭
  7. 𨤧
  8. 𠠚
  9. 𢹊
  10. 𠝓
  11. 𨦁
  12. 𩂏
  13. 𡍘
  14. 𥻹
  15. 𦷨
  16. 𢯙

- -sche (discuss) 21:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Appendix:Tuvaluan Swadesh list[edit]

This should use {{Swadesh list 207 pronunciation}} or another one of the templates which apparently does exactly the same thing. Apart from the URLs where there should be internal links, amusing the second column displays Tuvaluan but links to Tahitian. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The contributions of User:2602:306:ce03:2830:304b:80cf:d13c:1838[edit]

Karelian words. Most have no headword, and translations are not wikified, and sometimes do not correspond with the part of speech. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

AKA Porokello (talkcontribs) Chuck Entz (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]


Tagged but not listed. Reason given is "(1) Are the adjective and adverb uses really different, or are they both actually "generic intensifiers"? (2) The noun use: curse or swear word. Is that the same or different as the use as interjection?

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with the entry and the tag should be removed. SpinningSpark 17:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate transliterations of terms[edit]

A lot of PIE entries list descendants with double transliterations. This is because automatic transliteration was recently added to {{l}}. Unfortunately, whoever added the transliterations did not use the template's tr= parameter, but instead wrote the transliteration in plain text after the link. So now, the template thinks there is no transliteration, and generates its own, resulting in a duplicate. —CodeCat 14:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


This index lists words based on transliterations, which are all empty entries that redirect to their Gothic spelling counterparts. That wouldn't be so bad, but the index basically lists every word form in the whole Gothic corpus. Which means that it lists all the case forms of nouns and adjectives that are attested, as well as lots of verb forms including inflected forms of their participles. That makes these pages pretty much unusable, because forms and lemmas are mixed up, and a lot of the lemmas are even missing because they are not attested in the lemma form. I would prefer this to be deleted outright, but maybe someone else can do something more useful with it. —CodeCat 16:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


Illu vertebral column.jpg

rfc-sense: "In a spine, the anticlinal vertebra has a dorsal-pointing neural spine towards which the spines of all the other vertebrae are inclined." While this may be true, it provides no definition of the word 'anticlinal'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I've had a go at this. It now reads "The spinal vertebra which has a neural spine towards which the spines of all the other vertebrae are inclined; the vertebra at which the spine orientation changes." I think that about captures it but feel free to improve. SpinningSpark 11:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I think images would help both a user and a definer. This is not the only sense that needs cleanup. DCDuring TALK 14:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
MW 1913 has as a run-in entry: "Anticlinal vertebra (Anat.), one of the dorsal vertebræ, which in many animals has an upright spine toward which the spines of the neighboring vertebræ are inclined"
MWOnline has a definition for this behind its paywall.
They seem to think that the sense has no use apart from this particular collocation. They don't seem to think it can be readily understood from the other definitions of anticlinal either, a conclusion I don't find hard to accept. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree that we should move the anatomical sense to anticlinal vertebra and change it back to a noun. As for a diagram, it could be marked on this picture. Apparently, the human anticlinal vertebra is usually at T11 (eleventh from the top of the thoracic vertebrae). However, it is not clear from this picture, or any other diagrams or photographs of spines I have looked at, why it is anticlinal. This only really becomes clear when looking at images of individual vertebrae such as [1] (note this is cat, not human). That book also calls the neural spines neural processes which might be a good idea for our definition, avoiding as it does the use of spine in two different senses. In my view, the best way of describing this with an image would be with a stick diagram so all superfluous information could be removed. I can produce one if it is agreed that it is needed. I would propose to draw it flat (ie, with no spinal curve) to avoid the natural tendency of the reader to think that it has something to do with the curve by comparison with the geological meaning. SpinningSpark 10:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Your approach seems right. Keep up the good work. In my short-attention-span way, I added images to two of the linked entries, (chemistry) torsion angle (not too good because concept is 3-D, video would help) and (geology) anticline (perfect for the job) and didn't immediately find what would be needed for anticlinal vertebra.
If you can produce an image by whatever (legal) means and enjoy doing so, there are many opportunities to do so. I hope you upload to wikicommons so that the most advantage can be taken from your efforts.
We have conflated {{rfphoto}} and {{rfdrawing}} into {{rfimage}}. Either we ought to use the Wikicommmons request process more when we can't find what we need or we should have some kind of explicit request template for new images that suit our purposes when nothing seems to be available at Commons. DCDuring TALK 12:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Wait a minute. By my reading of your linked text. One can't have an anticlinal vertebra without curvature, which curvature is most intuitive in a quadruped with a basically horizontal spine. One could presumably have a synclinal vertebra, too. On a sway-backed animal the geological metaphor is obvious. DCDuring TALK 13:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not right. I thought the same thing too when I first saw the term but the anatomy books say different. It has nothing to do with the curve of the spine. It is all about the spines (processes, protusions, or, as I will call them to make it clear, sticky-out-bits) of the vertebra. The upper vertebrae have sticky-out-bits pointing towards the rear of the animal. The lower vertebrae have sticky-out-bits pointing towards the head. The vertebra at the transition between the two, that is, the one with a sticky-out-bit perpendicular to the spine, is the anticlinal vertebra. It is not the curve of the spine which makes the sticky-out-bits point in different directions, each vertebra individually has them set at different angles relative to the body of the vertebra, and hence the local line of the spine. This book [2] (dog) maybe has a better description and this one [3] (horse) has a pretty clear photograph at figure 1.7 of what is going on. SpinningSpark 15:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I take your point. But it is not accidental that the low point in a swaybacked animal (See picture there.) — or a youthful, vigorous animal —is approximately the location of the anticlinal vertabra. From the point of view of sense development, they must originally have focused on the superficial geometry, before focusing on the detailed geometry of the vertabrae, which allows them to define a location even on a young, healthy animal without the sway that makes the location easy to identify in middle-aged and older animals and even on animals whose spine is more or less vertical. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that you can substantiate that assumption with cites. Or can you? The oldest quote that I can find for the term is 1818 where it is still being defined in terms of the slope of the spinous processes. It may coincidentally coincide at the bottom of the curve in horses, but that is certainly not true in human anatomy and probably many other mammmals. This anatomy book [4] (1898) explicitly states that the term is borrowed from geology, but still has a definition in terms of spine slopes:
"This process marks the point where a change in the direction of the spinous processes takes place ; the spinous processes of the remaining thoracic and of all the lumbar vertebrae point toward the head. The eleventh thoracic is therefore known as the anticlinal vertebra, a. term borrowed from geology, in which it is used to denote the line from which strata dip in opposite directions."
I would also point out that even the geological senses of syncline and anticline did not originate from the curve of rockbeds. Rather, they originated from what could be deduced about the (often unobservable) shape of beds from measurements made with a clinometer at discrete sites where the beds happened to outcrop. SpinningSpark 18:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Anticlinal vertebra.png
I don't have access to the OED so I don't know what the sequence of sense development was across disciplines. I am not proposing to define anything in line with my intuitions, just to make sure that the metaphorical imagery is not trashed in the course of our efforts. Please forgive my conjectural folk etymology in pursuit of understanding. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The OED is consistent with my understanding of the geological origin of the term. The etymology is given as,
Greek ἀντί against + κλίν-ειν to lean, slope + -al suffix1. Compare Greek ἀντικλίν-ειν to lean against (each other)
The geological meaning is given as,
Applied to a line or axis from which strata slope down or dip in opposite directions; also said of the fold or bend in such strata, or of a ridge so formed.
And the anatomical meaning as,
(A vertebra) having an upright spine, towards which the spines on both sides incline.
SpinningSpark 09:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, here is the diagram. I am going to create anticlincal vertebra now. SpinningSpark 13:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Diagram looks good. BTW, does a human have an anticlinal vertabra? DCDuring TALK 21:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:anticlinal vertebra. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Antonyms or coordinate terms[edit]

By the way, why do you think that anticline and syncline are not antonyms? SpinningSpark 09:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

re: antonyms: Because they are merely different features of a whole, one not existing without the other, like sinus and lobe on a leaf. It isn't entirely a question of what they "are" as much as how we present them. It is no accident that few dictionaries ever have antonyms, though many have synonyms. If we took the trouble to say "antonym with respect to [attribute 1]" explicitly for our antonyms or limit ourselves to "customary antonyms", we might make antonyms a more useful semantic relation. Synonyms usually do not suffer from the same problem. "Coordinate terms" is a more inclusive class, that, for example, permits terms for intermediate points in a scalar range, without squandering vertical screen space on a semantic relation (antonymy) that typically has but one member. DCDuring TALK 12:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I cannot agree with that reasoning. An antonym can be preceded by a sense, as is done at good. However, in this case the two meanings are "leaning towards" and "leaning away from" which is quite unambiguous. Those are antonyms in just about the same way as convex and concave which we have no problem calling antonyms. Calling them coordinate terms instead completely loses the semantic relationship. The claim that anticlines and synclines must exist together is just plain wrong. The geology of England more or less consists of one giant syncline (with London at the bottom) with no corresponding anticline. It is true that in folded beds they commonly occur together but there is no compulsion that they must. SpinningSpark 13:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I have problems with almost all uses of the term antonym here. I can't speak for others here.
My main problem is that the terms that we slide under the heading do not bear the same relationship to their purported antonyms. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I really feel that this ought to be put to the community before going round arbitrarily removing antonym listings. In any case, changing the heading to coordinate term is rubbish, it completely loses the sense that the terms are in opposition. SpinningSpark 20:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
An alternative heading that we have is "See also", truly a "residual" category if ever there was one. DCDuring TALK 21:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Just because we have an even worse heading available does not justify a bad one. SpinningSpark 11:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

cardinal virtues[edit]

also Cardinal Virtues and Cardinal virtues

I am not sure of various aspects of these entries:

  1. Are they not essentially encyclopedic and thereby beyond our scope, meriting {{only-in}}?
  2. At least Hinduism and Buddhism have lists of cardinal virtues, Hinduism's list consisting of three, four, five or twenty virtues. Shouldn't we have all of the attestable ones? (most of the lists mentioned above seem attestable.)
  3. Are the names for the specific lists proper or common nouns?
  4. Phrases such as the Four Cardinal Virtues in that capitalization seem attestable, with multiple meanings.

Accordingly, I leave these to someone gifted with greater certainty. DCDuring TALK 15:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Theological virtues and heavenly virtues seem to have similar issues. DCDuring TALK 19:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

entries beginning with "wouldn't"[edit]

wouldn't hurt a fly, wouldn't shout if a shark bit him and wouldn't touch with yours are currently classified as verbs. This seems awkward, because "wouldn't" doesn't seem like the lemma form of the phrase, and having it be the lemma makes the definition awkward (not subst-able). wouldn't say boo to a goose, would not throw someone out of bed (which wouldn't throw him out of bed points to) and wouldn't work in an iron lung are currently classified as phrases. That seems a bit better, although the form of their definitions still needs to be standardised. Does anyone have a better idea than reclassifying the three verbs as phrases? Should they all also be moved to "would not" rather than "wouldn't"? - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

There is an additional set starting with "couldn't" and some we lack: We only have couldn't punch one's way out of a paper bag as a redirect to way out of a paper bag. (fight could substitute for punch) The entry fails to make it clear that this only exists with could (BTW, not would).
We have Category:English predicates with nearly five hundred members and probably one or two hundred other entries that could be so classified. These should be so classified.
These do have some verb-like inflection potential, eg, wouldn't have shouted if a shark had bitten him".
These phrases really only exist idiomatically in association with some kind of subjunctive. The forms in which we have them are by far the most common. An entry for shout if a shark bit him would tempt many who just saw the headword to waste time opening the entry preparatory to challenging it with an RfV or RfD. If I were designing the entry for a machine I probably wouldn't do it this way, but our current approach seems OK for humans. DCDuring TALK 04:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW, the could predicates are a about capability, the would predicates are about character. DCDuring TALK 04:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Keep at wouldn't (more common than would not) as class as verbs. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


Needs clarification (or unify various codes in Module:languages to simply Bisaya) DTLHS (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)



The second definition in each of these entries has a confusing context tag. I tried to clean it up, but must have misunderstood what it was saying, because Ivan reverted my edits. Is it saying that the term is used as a masculine substantive? In that case, why is it in an adjective POS? Is it saying that it has the specified meaning only when used with masculine substantives? What? - -sche (discuss) 18:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know but I think most language adjectives in Serbo-Croatian have this definition. I picked one at random, katalonski, and it has it. We should ask Ivan. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
It is indeed an adjective, but specifically it can refer to a language when acting as a part of the prahse ...ski jezik "the X language", with jezik part (meaning "language") usually dropped in speech/writing. Before treating language names that way, we had all of them listed as nouns, which was grammatically and semantically wrong, not to mention that it would require special adjectival inflection templates that would only inflect for masculine gender. Color names will be subject to the same treatment, e.g. cr̀ven, which in feminine gender act as a shorthand for the phrase -a boja "the X color", and which will be lemmatized at the original adjective with the context label in femininee . This I announced on WT:ASH talkpage. So far only one color ("the red") has been processed that way, but the rest will be as well. This is the way it is done in all of the Serbo-Croatian dictionaries I checked.
Now that you mention that it is confusing I was wondering whether context labels can generate links to language-specific appendices where things like this will be explained. It would be much more useful than cluttering the general-purpuse glossary, not to mention that we could have space for language-specific examples. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
In some Slavic languages (including Serbo-Croatian and Russian) adjectives denoting ethnicities may also be nouns/substantives, e.g. англи́йский (anglíjskij), ру́сский (rússkij), which mean the language of that ethnicity (a shortened colloquial form of adjective + "язык" (language). In case of русский, it's also an ethnic Russian (noun). They are declined as adjectives, used as nouns. I will also wait for Ivan for further explanations about the Serbo-Croatian setup of this kind of adjectives. Russian adjectives are set up a bit differently but it doesn't have to be that way in Serbo-Croatian. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 14:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I notice that for Russian you have full entries such as английский язык (anglijskij jazyk), and the standalone adjective treated as a shortened synonym. One can argue that the full phrase is then non-idiomatic sum of parts though. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
One may think so, yes and some do but it's important to know that "английский язык" is not only "the English language" but also "English" (noun, "language"), its usage is much broader and is more common in formal settings. The official, formal and most common translation of "English" (language, noun) into Russian is англи́йский язы́к (anglíjskij jazýk), though. The (university) subject, title of textbooks is never simply "английский" but "английский язык". Anyway, having the template as in Serbo-Croatian nominalised adjectives is not such a bad idea, the Russian equivalents have both noun and adjective sections with only one inflection table (someone may wonder why there is no inflection table for the noun sections). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 14:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


I don't really know what to do with this. The main talking point is the misspelling of Gl, it's apparently a 'prefix' but a prefix would be GI- or Gl-. Is it really a misspelling? Perhaps a misreading because of the similarity between the lowercase l and the uppercase I in some fonts. Erm, help. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's separated from the number by a space, so it's not a prefix in the strictest sense, but it's always immediately in front of the number: "Gl 1234". As for the misspelling part: given that ls and Is are often scannos for each other, and that they tend to look the same in most non-serif fonts, it's pretty hard to tell what the relationship is between Gl and Gi in actual use. It would be more accurate to call it a "common error", but I don't know how we handle such things. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Also G.I.. Do we want to split and initialism like this by etymology? In this case it would seem to be plausible, but in most cases, not. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

lock and load[edit]

This has been trimmed considerably from earlier versions, but it's still encyclopedic. The trimming process also replaced a paragraph with an incorrect rephrasing- the result is (at least superficially) self-contradictory:

  • It is disputed whether the command "lock and load" was ever used by the US military. The term, "lock and load" was used in the US Army as late as 1969 and was also used in Vietnam.

Someone familiar with weapons and US military usage needs to fix this so that people won't feel compelled to constantly add counter-examples to the etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've trimmed it a bit and removed the contradiction, but I really couldn't say how accurate this is. SpinningSpark 22:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Cleaned up, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 16:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]


This entry has both an adverb and a conjunction POS, which seems justifiable. The senses, however, seem to be randomly added to one or the other, and there's overlap between the senses under one POS and those under the other. At the moment, it's really hard to tell what the difference is between the two POS. Can someone take the time to sort this out so the entry as a whole makes sense? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that some of the wording is similar and that one could not readily distinguish based on the wording alone. But don't the usage examples clarify the functional distinctions adequately? A functional non-gloss definition would seem likely to read as duplication of the meaning of the L2 header, but might clarify things further. DCDuring TALK 13:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the usexes agree reasonably well with the defs. The problem is that they're in the wrong POS. Substitute how for however in the sentences, and you'll see the distinction: the adverbial ones sort of work, but the conjunction doesn't. "However far he may get" would work as "How far he gets", for example. It looks to me like a clear-cut modifier of far, thus, an adverb. I'm just not sure what to do with the "conjunctive" adverb sense, which looks exactly like the one clear-cut conjunction sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been working on simple substantives too long: I've lost the ability to make fine distinction on functions words. I'd have to work my way back up to it. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:1000 English basic words[edit]

As far as I know, this category has never had 1000 words in it: in 2009, it had only about 900; in January of 2013, it had 747; now, it has 721. It's been RFDed once (and passed) and RFMed once (and stayed put), so it seems to be here to stay. And we've never agreed on a standard of what makes a word "basic". So... can everyone reading this please add a few words to the category, so we can get it up to 1000? lol. Or make a better suggestion! - -sche (discuss) 05:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that's sad. There's Appendix:1000 basic English words, haven't counted the words or checked if they all belong to the category though. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
@-sche, Atitarev: I have used a bot to add and remove words according to Appendix:1000 basic English words, which (ironically) only has 997 words. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:200 English basic words[edit]

Hilariously, this category has only 85 words in it... less than the "100 basic words" category (which, thanks to me, now has an even hundred)! - -sche (discuss) 05:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

How do these categories get removed? Is it accidental or what? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I did it. I put these words in the category: above, after, behind, bye, cross, during, less, without, ok, later, bad, sleep, eat, car, bus. Now they are 100 in Category:200 English basic words + 100 in Category:100 English basic words = 200. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


We define angle of contingence and line of contingence in the noun section. We shouldn't but what should we do? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


definition: a kind of medicinal herb.

Any kind? If not, what kind? DCDuring TALK 20:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, there are at least hundreds, if not thousands of, similar-quality definitions in many languages, not limited to names of living things, though common among such entries. DCDuring TALK 20:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
In this case, the entry was bot-created from an online database, and the definitions are verbatim from there. My guess is that some of the definitions are deduced from the character's use in compounds, and don't mean anything much until you see the context. Something is better than nothing, but one would have to have access to some pretty comprehensive references to convert such entries into anything self-contained and useful for all senses. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


I dun know if this format is good. Should it be {{contraction of|[[am]] [[not]]}} instead? Or perhaps {{alternative form of|an’t}}? --Æ&Œ (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


definition: Of or relating to the cerambycoid larva.

I doubt that cerambycoid larva is not SoP. We need a definition. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed- I think. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Probably good. Note the -oid (suggesting a resemblance) versus cerambycid (actual membership of family). IANAB. Equinox 18:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


We have four definitions and two translation tables. The two translation tables fail to match any of the four definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


No such language in Module:languages. DTLHS (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a Bantu language, so it's analogous to Swahili/kiSwahili and Zulu/isiZulu: the "Shi-" is a noun prefix, which is analogous to an inflectional ending in most other languages, and which most dictionaries leave off of the lemma form. There are lots of Bantu languages, and I'm sure pretty much all of the ones known by indigenous names have similar pairs of prefixed and non-prefixed forms for the language name. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Oops! I missed the point. Comorian is a complex of dialects that shades into Swahili. I believe we're currently deliberating over whether to treat it as Comorian, with its own language code, or Swahili. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, at the moment {{swb}} resolves as Comorian rather than as "Maore Comorian", but Category:Comorian nouns and Category:Comorian proper nouns, which use {{swb}}, have tags saying they ought to be called "Maore Comorian (proper) nouns". Comorian is usually considered to be a cover term for Maore plus Ngazidja Comorian (zdj), Ndzwani Comorian (wni), and Mwali Comorian (wlc). I don't know how we're supposed to know which dialect the word "Shikomor" is in; maybe more than one or even all of them. I'd say Comorian should be treated as a single language, rather than four, but separate from Swahili, if only because (according to WP) it's more often written in the Arabic script than the Latin script, while with Swahili it's the other way round. There also seem to be lexical differences. —Angr 18:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
See WT:RFM#Template:zdj.2C_Template:wni.2C_Template:swb.2C_Template:wlc. - -sche (discuss) 08:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


No such language in Module:languages. DTLHS (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I changed "Classical Maya" to "Epigraphic Mayan", which is what we call emy, which is the language code used in the {{head}} template of the entry. —Angr 17:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I had changed it from {{mny-noun}} to head, and changed the language code to emy based on the Wikipedia article (mny is a language family, not a language), but forgot about the L2 header. Thanks for catching that, and sorry for not posting about it here. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


Encyclopedic, includes a translation, I think. DCDuring TALK 12:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


We have two identical senses, just one is glosses transitive and the other transitive. The second one " To remove something; especially, to remove an eyeball or tumor." ca't be intransitive can it? Furthermore one translation table says to remove the eye, one says to remove a tumor, but there are no such definitions; both tumor and eye are present in both of the last two definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

learning curve[edit]

Terrible definition by a permablocked Rockpilot (talkcontribs). BrentDT (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  • WF is useless at definitions. Rewritten from scratch. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


definition: "A bump-like imperfection resembling a gall."

This appears in the middle of nine definitions of gall, none of which have a picture or a graphic description. DCDuring TALK 22:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks to belong in Etym 2, as presumably also do the senses about sores and a pit (the context of this last definition is somewhat unclear). — Pingkudimmi 07:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent contributions of User:Flet[edit]

He or she has been cranking out changes to English etymologies claiming actual or possible Occitan etymologies for all kinds of words with Old French in their history. I'm more than a little skeptical, since widespread contact with Old French is well known and well documented, but demonstrable Occitan origin is relatively rare. Someone who knows English and Romance linguistic history needs to check all of these edits. They've done a lot of other types of edits that are no doubt ok, so nuking isn't an option. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Another issue is that Occitan, as far as Wiktionary is concerned, is a modern language. Maybe he means its ancestor, Old Provençal, which demonstrably left loads of loanwords in the languages of Iberia and France. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I picked one at random ramp. Looks pretty bogus. Surely most of the time, the Occitan will be cognate to the French, but almost never the direct etymon of an English word - would have to be via French as in general, English doesn't borrow words from Occitan. I can't name even one. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


These are virtually all uncategorized pages. I can see one improvement from the user, however, starting definitions with # not *. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No one seems to have given the user a welcome template, which explains why they had trouble deciphering all the "you're not doing it right, see how I fixed your entries" messages they were getting. I posted a detailed tutorial on headword-line templates before I noticed that. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]


Sense: (eventual etymological fallacy) A beginning to flower. I don't know what the bit in brackets mean. Especially since the etymology says it comes from the Latin "I begin to flower". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

See w:Etymological fallacy. They were trying to say that the sense is the result of trying to force the meaning of the Latin original onto the English term. The question then becomes whether it's really used that way, or whether it just shows up as mentions in dictionaries and word lists because of a faulty assumption. If it is used that way, then the etymological fallacy part belongs in the etymology (if anywhere), otherwise the sense should be removed. Sounds like a job for rfv. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I shall just remove it and if anyone wants to rfv it that's their right. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


Latin: The definition seems to be based on a misreading of the entry in Lewis and Short. I'd like an experienced Latinist to clean it up or, better, explain the Lewis and Short entry. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


Defined as "Marsilea dentata" or "Marsilia dentata" (original spelling).

species:Marsilea is a real genus, species:Marsilia is not.

Web search shows it to appear almost entirely in South Asian language - English dictionaries. They must have had something in mind. But what? This kind of thing is not uncommon in our Sanskrit entries. DCDuring TALK 01:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Marsilea dentata - marsilea dentata#English - marsilea dentata#Latin - Special:WhatLinksHere/Marsilea dentata - Marsilea dentata@WSp - Marsilea dentata@WP - Google Marsilea dentata (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive).

They seem to all go back to Monier-Williams, who gives the definition as "Marsilia dentata, L.", meaning he's seen it in dictionaries, but not in any text. Marsilia can be seen here and there in the 1800s as an alternate spelling for Marsilea, so Marsilea is likely the correct genus (The spelling "Marsilea dentata" can be found elsewhere in the same dictionary). One or two of the dictionaries equate it with Marsilea quadrifolia, which sounds right, but I've been unable to find "Marsilea dentata" or "Marsilia dentata" in any botanical reference, so far. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: I took a run at this. Please review. DCDuring TALK 19:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Latest entries from User:Shoof[edit]

All these entries lack a proper headword. I can't be bothered. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Apparently they can't be bothered, either. As usual, there's a lot of borderline and outright SOP, too- they seem to be concerned more with sheer volume than with thinking about whether anything is dictionary material or not.Chuck Entz (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


definitions: "a species of plant" and "name of various plants"

These are virtually worthless as definitions, but similar definition are common among Sanskrit entries here. Can this be improved upon at all? Similar situations in Latin and especially Greek usually generate plausible conjectures. Some of the cases where a species name is given are not much better as the species name may be used nowhere but in dictionaries or south Asian languages. DCDuring TALK 00:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There are analogous cases in Old French especially regarding plants where there's no way to be sure all the authors are talking about the same plant. I can see a lot of problems on that page, "a species of plant" seems redundant but "name of various plants" is probably as good as it can get. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
That is a typical Sanskrit page with typical problems, including no differentiation of proper nouns, except for higher prevalence of "name of" as part of the definition. The definitions look like wikiformatted copies of old Sanskrit-English dictionaries, possibly different ones combined, with the old dictionaries not being as well done as LSJ (Ancient Greek)or L&S (Latin). The definiens often use polysemic English words with no gloss to suggest which modern sense. DCDuring TALK 01:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
You haven't begun to guess at the true enormity of the problem: I've copypasted the relevant part of the Monier-Williams entry from a pdf I downloaded (enclosed in collapsible header templates for those who don't care to read through it all), and interleaved it with our definitions. The OCR severely mangled the romanized Sanskrit and it would have taken too long to fix it, so don't try to decipher that part. As you can see, our entry is simply the Monier-Williams translated into our format, stripped of the source abbreviations, and paraphrased a bit.
It seems like a combination of multiple dictionaries because Monier-Williams went through libraries-full of sources and made notes, then compressed those notes into an incredibly dense and cryptic format in order to fit everything (barely) into one very large volume. All the bulleted lines below take up what looks like a single 2 or 3 inch square in a much larger three-column page, with nothing separating them but spaces and semicolons. The amount of detail in that work is astonishing- it would take years to properly unpack all the abbreviations and taxonomic names and convert them to modern equivalents. Just one page would take days! Nobody has all the necessary reference material at hand to do it, anyway, so the best we seem to be able to do is reformat this massive lump of condensed shorthand to make it look like a Wiktionary entry, without properly decoding it.
Chuck Entz (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I had looked at some of the Dictionary pages given as references.
My interests and "expertise" are quite limited. I think I can modernize some of the taxonomic names from the 130-year-old ones that were the best he had to work with, but I have to always look at the dictionary page itself. Some of the species names I cannot find in any authoritative online source.
So our Sanskrit entries are "pretend" entries, even worse than the unchanged Webster 1913 entries (for current words). DCDuring TALK 16:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess what's worst is that many of the pages don't have the reference to the dictionary page. DCDuring TALK 16:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

DCDuring keeps repeating that we're dealing with a "130-year old dictionary" but he fails to mention that the dictionary is a synthetic result of tens of thousands of man-hours, and that it's perfectly valid today due to the simple fact that Sanskrit is an extinct language that doesn't change anymore. If the respected authorities have failed to determine what exact species of plants saha denotes in some works, then probably nobody else will. Comparing it to Webster 1913 and modern English is stupid. Regarding proper nouns - they are not recognized as a separate lexical category by Sanskrit grammarians (there is no uppercase/lowercase distinction, there are tens of thousands of deities in Hinduism representing just about any imaginable concept). I have been separating proper/common nouns in some early entries, but have stopped doing so. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a great dictionary. It's available online for free to scholars, so Wiktionary's having copied pages is simply duplicative. It's copied pages are only a first draft of a Wiktionary entry. DCDuring TALK 16:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Apart from the research done on the new interpretation of meanings of Sanskrit words in the 20th and 21th century, it's a complete entry. Sanskrit entries copied from MW dictionary are far more complete than English entries copied from Webster 1913, because the language is not productive anymore as a literary device. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I have three problems with our English entries based on MW 1913 and two with the Sanskrit entries. To me they have one problem in common.
  1. with English entries from MW 1913:
    1. it has English words whose meaning and usage context have changed in some cases, whereas we have not brought the entry up to date.
    2. it uses a dated English for all of its definitions
    3. it includes lists of synonyms in the definiens (instead of under Synonyms), a defining style we don't use.
  2. with Sanskrit entries:
    1. it does not adhere to Wiktionary format and structure eg, not having distinct L3/4 sections for proper and common nouns and non-definiens material in the definitions.
    2. it uses a dated English for all of its definitions.
Just as with MW 1913 entries: I am glad we have the Sanskrit entries. They are an excellent first draft. They need work to be up to our high standards. DCDuring TALK 01:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. I've told you already: proper nouns are not recognized as a separate lexical category by Sanskrit grammarians. This "e.g." of yours is the only objection you actually have to the structure of Sanskrit entries, and yet you keep parroting it as if it is one of many. Non-definiens material (i.e. the list of works were the set of meanings makes appearance) is essential due to the fact that Sanskrit literature stretches over three millennia, and someone reading Rgveda is not interested in the same meanings as someone reading Gita Govinda. We already include non-definiens material in all of the entries - they are called context labels. I fail to see how "this meaning is only used in UK" is any different than "this meaning is only used in the Vedas".
  2. Most of its English is perfectly fine. You're needlessly exaggerating. If you find "dated English" feel free to update it. Perhaps some terms are a bit dated, but often no clear non-dated synonyms exist, and replacing them could introduce new interpretation of some words. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
All of this makes it seem as if a user of the material would be better off to be using the complete text, not Wiktionary's half-formatted, subject-to-insufficiently-respectful-editing version. For example, see Category:Sanskrit proper nouns. Do we need 97 RfC for them?
What value are we adding if all we do is copy? One value might be that we can link to the Sanskrit from other language entries. But that is not for Sanskrit scholars who know the peculiarities of the original dictionary; it is for ordinary Wiktionarians and folks who are simply curious, even recreational users. As scholars have the free online source and should have page links in the Wiktionary entry to that source from every entry copied from it, our Sanskrit entries ought be rendered consistent with Wiktionary format to facilitate use by those other than scholars. DCDuring TALK 17:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Half-formatted subject-to-insufficiently-respectful-editing version? I'm not annoyed by your half-baked attempts of pretend-trolling. Goodbye. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The really terrible one is the neuter noun = बल (bala), because बल has 28 noun definitions. Which one of the 28, or all 28 of them? Limiting only to neuter nouns transliterated as bala, that's down to 14. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


Defined as "in a superior manner".

I think this is mostly used in anatomy or medicine generally, but with some meaning relating to position. DCDuring TALK 16:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

So, what do you want to be cleaned up? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The entry. It ought conform to usage. DCDuring TALK 21:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
So swap the order of the two definitions and be done with it. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
When DCD posted, there was only one definition; I added the second one prior to your comment. Does it look okay now? Equinox 01:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


The usage notes look suspect to me. Apart from the word which I think is suboptimal, is this true of all English speaking place or just one or two in particular? Added by CORNELIUSSEON (talkcontribs) in 2007 so it's not recent or by a reliable editor. Both of these make me think it's either out-of-date, inaccurate or just plain bogus. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


The Derived terms section makes up for what it lacks in quality by sheer volume- it's truly epic in size- but has escaped notice because it's in a collapsible box. Oddly enough, the entire corpus of hundreds (yes- hundreds) of terms was added by Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talkcontribs) in a single edit: diff, which added 14,885 bytes to a 6914-byte entry. It may take a while, but someone needs to prune it down to a manageable list of CFI-compliant terms actually derived from disease, not just containing the word. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed most of the worst sums-of-parts and proper nouns. [5] Equinox 08:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


The etymology for this entry isn't that great, but the main problem is the quotes: one says it's "from Mr. Deed goes to Town", but it isn't (if it's an actual quote at all), and the other is under the sense: "Drunk", but doesn't refer to actual drunkenness. Mr. Deeds Goes to Town didn't invent the word, but certainly brought it out of obscurity and widely popularized it, so it might be nice to have a real quote from the movie. The other quote is good, but something needs to be changed so it matches its definition- or vice versa. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


Sense defined as a verb. There is something to it, but the definition can't be right. Requires concentration and perhaps review of entire entry, ideally comparing with other dictionaries efforts to span the range of usage. DCDuring TALK 16:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, which language? It's defined as a verb in several languages, but not English. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought we had the sense-linking capability. Preposition sense 7 or 8, defined as "To obtain". DCDuring TALK 17:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
We do have sense-linking capability, just you haven't attempted to do so. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


While I (the creator of the page) did not post the rfc that is currently on the page, I have to agree that the page could do with a bit of touch-up.

I will state this, however: the definition, usage notes and synonyms are 100% correct. Keep that in mind if you change the wording on the page. It is vital to realise that this is NOT a familial term, but neither is it derogatory or rude. It's... sort of in the same category as "stranger" in the sense of "Where go ye, stranger?" Tharthan (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Anyone? Tharthan (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

SemperBlotto really should've listed this after tagging it. We try and avoid things like "used to address" because it doesn't indicate a noun, so defining it as "a man" or "a person" is better. You mean familiar not familial; familial means relating to family where familiar means colloquial (roughly). It's also written from quite a first-person perspective, as if you're saying how you use the term i.e. your opinion rather than a dictionary definition, that has to address how everyone uses the term. I'd contribute more if I could. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I actually meant neither "familiar" nor "familial." I actually meant "cordial." I was tired, my apologies. And it's not as much written from a first-person perspective as it is written from the perspective of someone who wants to make sure the term isn't confused with other similar terms. The whole reason that I have taken this precaution is because of the term's odd usage history. It's all over the place. Tharthan (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The original uasge (going back to 1934 according to the OED) of boss-man was just a synonym of boss (etymology 3), so I think we should have that sense first, with your modern colloquial usage second. Wouldn't "a term of address" be clearer than "vocative"? Dbfirs 07:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that such is just a similar coinage. "Bossman" is not "boss-man." Anybody can coin "[title] + man" as a familial use of said term. Bossman, however, is not synonymous with "boss" nor a term of endearment. This is somewhat consistent with the other use of "boss"; as a sarcastic term use when frustrated. Thus, they are indeed coined by the same two words, but not at the same time nor with the same intent. In addition, I've never seen "bossman" confused with "boss-man" in my entire life; neither in spelling nor in speech. Tharthan (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The OED considers the two to be the same word. Dbfirs 08:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Which edition of Oxford are you referring to? I can find it in neither the twelfth edition nor the eighth edition. Tharthan (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I was looking at the current (on-line with subscription) edition of the OED, not a compact version, but it doesn't have your exact interpretation. Dbfirs 20:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

BUMP Tharthan (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


Does anybody think that these requests (also some almost exotic languages and Roman based) are not necessary for this surname of French origin or is it just me? (Revisiting the overuse of {{trreq}}). We had a discussion but no serious decision. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous. All removed except Mandarin and Japanese, which probably do have transcriptions of this name in use somewhere. I also cleaned up the bad wording in the etymology. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Filled the two requests. In Mandarin used in "贝尚反应" (Bèishàng fǎnyìng) (Béchamp reaction), etc. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Why was this moved to Béchamp? The English isn't written with an acute as standard, as there is no standard acute accent in English. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
What about café and many others? Besides, it's a surname, not even a place name. I'd say Bechamp is an alternative English spelling of the French surname Béchamp, not the other way around, or am I missing something?
Could we please remove the translation requests again? Or may I do it? -- 00:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The person adding these requests doesn't listen to advise. Yes, remove unfilled translations on Béchamp, they won't be filled in the next few years. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. -- 22:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]


Chapters, with the capital letter. Either it means chapters without the capital letter, or else what's Chapters? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It must be book chapters, like pp for pages. At least it's not (now) a red link. Equinox 19:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


Not the Wikisaurus page, but the terms referenced by it.

Most of the entries have one or more spelling variants, what with disagreement on how to spell syllables with schwas and various consonants in these phonetically-spelled informal terms. Only a few, however, acknowledge any of the others. Apparently people have been adding these right and left without checking for existing variants.

For instance: thingamabob has a pretty complete entry, but no alternative forms section, thingmabob lists thingamabob as an alt form, thingumabob is a redirect to thingamabob, thingummabob (just added) also doesn't mention anything else. Only thingamabob mentions the Wikisaurus entry.

Can anyone make some order out of all this? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I could relate to that kind of homeopathic problem (it's quite cheap, though). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary:IPA pronunciation key[edit]

This passed an RFD with no consensus, so it has kind of just been left there. Today, an editor decided to add Catalan, which makes me wonder now, how big should we make the list? It's going to be impossible to include all languages, and people are always going to think "their" language is worth including. So we really need to decide which languages should be there and exclude any others. —CodeCat 14:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I changed the English Pronunciation Keys; therefore, I was also responsible for the changes. (AT LEAST according to "main-stream medicine", THAT'S the legalese kind of matter that we may want to deal with, right?) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Each row should be made a section. This will prevent the content from growing horizontally. — Ungoliant (Falai) 08:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
MY thoughts exactly on that, Lua-Tour-Guide! I got you from this date-of-time onwards. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
If we decide to drop Catalan, why not drop Dutch? It has less than 30 million speakers, and the dialects of most of those claimed speakers have a different pronunciation (and lexicon, and even grammar). -- 01:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Wu and Shanghainese[edit]

Has anyone else noticed the appalling state of our Wu entries?

In response to a complaint on Feedback about a Shanghainese usage note in the Mandarin section of , I tried to add a Wu section to move it to (Shanghainese is an important Wu dialect). When working with a language I don't know, I always look through the other entries to see how others are doing things.

What I found was only 11 entries under all the POS categories combined, with 18 under Wu terms needing attention and 14 under Wu definitions needed. It looks like overlapping of categories reduces the total to 33 or so, but that's still 2/3s of the entries with no POS. What's more, there's also , which has only one category: the non-existent Category:Wu hanzi. I suspect that there are other Wu entries that are uncategorized: there are no Wu templates, and {{head}} requires a language code and POS, so it's likely there are entries with just the headword bolded by single quotes, but no attention or request template.

Is there any way to get a list of all the Wu entries? I'll see if I can find Wu reference material to at least put POS categories on them, if not provide the 14+ missing definitions. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Al Wu entries as of 2 October: 大人 加油 葡萄 黄砂 面丈魚 爱斯导尼亚 阿拉 火葬場 火葬场 DTLHS (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I never would have found ,,,,, and , since they had no Wu-specific categories. Thanks! Now I just have to deal with missing information and mutually-exclusive POS-treament/formatting. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Pretty much all of our CJKV characters are terrible. Most of them don't even have definitions; just transliterations into the Latin alphabet, sometimes not even that, just a language header and nothing else. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Digress: even after creation of Wu Wikipedia, Shanghanese are busier working on Mandarin - the main language of China and Taiwan, which can take you places. Recently I saw a Mandarin - Wu textbook with audio recordings transliterations, good word lists and good example sentences, thought of buying but then changed my mind. Wu writing traditions are so close to Mandarin, so basically to learn Wu, you need to know Mandarin + a few specific characters and Wu pronunciation. The tone sandhi in Wu is quite weird but it's closer to non-tonal languages and failure to pronounce tones correctly causes less problems for learners. Wu in Shanghai is different from Wu in suburbs, so, even if it's officially larger than Cantonese (about 80 mln speakers vs 70 mln Cantonese speakers), it seems less useful than Cantonese, which has much higher status and popularity. (I know a girl who speaks regional Wu and Shanghai Wu.) 80 mln, 70 mln seems a lot but it's a very small percentage of Mandarin speakers in Greater China. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If the policy wants to split Chinese into 15 or so varieties, shouldn't this appalling status be the expected outcome? Wyang (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I knew you would turn up on sensitive issues. (You're not planning to run away again, are you?) :) Well, that's the policy supported by the majority or rather the economic and other needs. For example, film and music industry (including Taiwan) is not producing much in dialects because there is little demand, not because someone makes them so. I communicate with Chinese people from various regions, all or most of them (notable exception is Cantonese) make Mandarin a priority. I know you are of different opinion but what are you going to do? Can you speak your dialect to all your friends, colleagues? Think of other extremes. In India, local languages give way to English because they could never agree on having one national, local language and they don't treat their languages the way Chinese do. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Giving them language statuses in Wiktionary is not going to assist their preservation. The situation that these varieties are losing speakers does not imply Wiktionary should designate them as languages as a consequence. Dialect#Dialect or language:
Language varieties are often called dialects rather than languages: 1) if they have no standard or codified form, 2) if they are rarely or never used in writing (outside reported speech), 3) if the speakers of the given language do not have a state of their own, 4) if they lack prestige with respect to some other, often standardised, variety. Wyang (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
So, your WTF comment on Talk:爱斯导尼亚 means not badly formatted but "why this entry even exists, under this heading (Wu)"? With Chinese topolects, it's just the way Western linguists treat them, nothing personal. There is no current effort to unify them under "Chinese" at Wiktionary, even though, all Chinese Wiki projects use "zh", not "cmn". For foreign linguists, it's important to show the pronunciation, Chinese topolects differ greatly in pronunciation but have a lot in common or are almost identical (formal writing) in Hanzi. Mandarin uses standard pinyin, that's one of the main reason, why it's treated separately from Cantonese, Min Nan, Wu, etc. Changing the status quo would take a lot of energy and you may still lose. IMHO, it's better to concentrate on adding value, rather than making a point. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed: "Excited by desire in the pursuit of any object; ardent to pursue, perform, or obtain; keenly desirous; hotly longing; earnest; zealous; impetuous; vehement." Not quite sure what the problem is. Perhaps it's a bit Websters 1913. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggest moving most of the words to a synonym section. Equinox 12:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
But the definition that would remain is none too good. We really should have the definition for the sense tag that precedes the synonyms list. DCDuring TALK 01:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


See {{term|snig|lang=en||a kind of eel}}.


# To catch an [[eel]] by thrusting a baited hook into its den.
# Alternate spelling and pronunciation of [[snicker]] (corruption with [[giggle]].) To [[chortle]] or [[chuckle]].
# {{context|obsolete|lang=en}} To steal something of little value; diminutive corruption of [[snag]] + ''diminutive suffix.''

I guess these are three separate etymologies. I found this by checking out the blue links at WT:LOP#S. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess you're right, though the first sense could be a backformation from the third sense. -- 01:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


Four-line definition needs shortening. Relationship to Samsung product? DCDuring TALK 01:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A general definition for smart- (a device that shares all your information with anyone who pays, like NSA, FBI, CIA, IBM, MSN, Google, &c.) would help shortening it. -- 01:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Can we keep conspiracy theories out of the main namespace please? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Clearly not a prefix though. Equinox 23:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]


As User:Eirikr commented concerning WT:RFV#Nahuatl (which see), "Randomly checking another of his other edits, I see potential for problems... c.f. arahant, where he misunderstands and mischaracterizes the meaning of bodhisattva (and which he initially also misspells)." I'll try to get around to checking his contribs myself. - -sche (discuss) 08:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


This is probably mostly correct, but the sense at least is confusing (Obsolete elsewhere? Where are we? What?) Haplogy () 16:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It's trying to say "still used in some dialects and obsolete in all other dialects". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
However, on reflection, that makes no sense. This is just an eye dialect spelling of once, not genuine dialect. It was probably used occasionally in the days before English spelling was standardized; if it's ever used nowadays, it's surely intended to suggest an uneducated speaker, much like the spellings sez and wot. Maybe someone with access to the OED can see how long it's been since this was a common spelling (I suspect at least 300 years). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
It makes sense but whether it makes sense and whether it's truthful are two different things. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it makes no sense to say an eye-dialect spelling is "used in some dialects and obsolete everywhere else". The pronunciation of once and "wonce" is AFAIK the same in all dialects. As far as I can tell from b.g.c. it's used (1) to indicate that the speaker has a nonstandard accent, even though the pronunciation of this word is the same as the standard (that's what eye-dialect is), as here or (2) in attempts at a novel phonetically based orthography, as here and here (both by the same author). I'd just call it {{eye dialect of}} unless there's evidence it was formerly in widespread use (by other people than James Elphinston, in which case it's also an {{obsolete spelling of}}. But no matter what, we need to get rid of the comparative "more wonce" and superlative "most wonce". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, in modern usage I agree that it's just eye dialect (in the old, original sense). The OED does record it as a regional spelling with cites from 1599 (in a report to Queen Elizabeth that uses other obsolete spelling) and 1839 (in a publication by A Bywater on Sheffield dialect: "He sed at hah he wer wonce bahn up t'oud Park Wood" where is looks like eye dialect to me). Dbfirs 10:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Can we get a quote of the 1599 use? --WikiTiki89 16:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be from the papers of John Harington (inventor of the flush toilet). The cite seems to be from Nugæ Antiquæ published in 1775 (but the cite is verbatim as far as I know, and from a 1599 paper): "The rebell wonce in Rorie O More shewed himselfe." As you can see, spelling at that time was variable. Dbfirs 22:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Translingual language[edit]

I don't know how to clean this up, though its faults are obvious.

I think it should be softly redirecting to more sensible categories, such as for CJKV characters, taxonomic names, Translingual symbols etc. It should also contain a brief rationale for why we have the page at all: it is a miscellany for items that don't fit elsewhere. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that the faults are obvious. 'A miscellany for items that don't fit elsewhere' is I suppose accurate, but only because some terms have no inherent language, or not only one. It's really no different from saying that English adverbs don't belong in Category:Classical Nahuatl adjectives. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is the text:

"This is the main category of the Translingual language, represented in Wiktionary by the code mul. It is written in unknown script.[edit details]

"All terms in Translingual should be here, divided into subcategories by parts of speech, subjects, etc. A complete list may also be available at Index:Translingual.

"Please see Wiktionary:About Translingual for considerations about Translingual entries.

"Definitions, translations and related terms may be found at the entry Translingual."

Further the box at the right hand site has mostly non-links or dead links.

Each of the underlined items is problematic:

  1. "language" It is not a language
  2. "script" Items in the category could, in principle, be in any script, provided that the word or symbol was shared by two languages.
  3. "[edit details]" takes one to a module editing window with no clues.
  4. "Index:Translingual" is redlinked
  5. "Translingual" is redlinked

Which of these problems are not "obvious"?

Is the remedy to simply delete the template and start over? DCDuring TALK 23:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you're right just I don't really consider this a problem. Or only a small one. The intention of the category is clear even if technically Translingual is not a language. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we should "subst" the current template and start editing it. Or copy/paste it as an actual subst would make a mess. Not surprising that the normal template doesn't fit for translingual, but the current structure is probably a good starting point. e.g. instead of "script unknown", mention some of the more common scripts and types of translingual entries, with links to categories if they exist; Mention briefly that there is no index, etc, etc. Pengo (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Mglovesfun, we could just leave it as is. --WikiTiki89 17:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


I can't tell what is intended, but the structure is wrong. DCDuring TALK 18:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You can or you can't, because I think it is pretty clear what was intended: the two etymologies correspond to the first two etymologies at delta. --WikiTiki89 18:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Go for it. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't really know how it should be formatted. Should we just merge them into one definition? --WikiTiki89 18:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Keep them separate because of the different gender, even if the declension is identical, IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't even notice that. --WikiTiki89 17:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


Same as deltaene. DCDuring TALK 18:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


This noun has a verbal definition and an overly long usage example. --WikiTiki89 17:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


This definition: "The final point of something in space or time."

The use of the word "final" is too temporal and telic. "Point" is too limiting, to an instant or an event. This definition doesn't even fit one of the usexes: "At the end of the story they fall in love".

Spatially, end can be a point, a line, an area, or a volume. As an area it could be as half of a total area ("the West End"). Temporally, it can be an instant or, usually, a period or a sequence of events, processes, or states.

Though I dislike the wording, Webster 1913 took pains with their first sense: "The extreme or last point or part of any material thing considered lengthwise (the extremity of breadth being side); hence, extremity, in general; the concluding part; termination; close; limit; as, the end of a field, line, pole, road; the end of a year, of a discourse; put an end to pain; -- opposed to beginning, when used of anything having a first part."

MWOnline breaks this apart. DCDuring TALK 23:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


Most of the headers are invalid. - -sche (discuss) 07:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


As above. - -sche (discuss) 18:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to either replace the "kanji reading" sections with links like Category:Japanese kanji read as ひょく or just remove them entirely. The page ひょく is unusual in that it has all of the readings. Category:Japanese kanji read as さん has 182 members, and they are already sorted into common/rare sections in the category. さん has about 10% that many. The kanji readings sections have been stuck in this miserable state for years. The kanji readings categories are relatively recent. They're populated by the data on the respective kanji entries using Lua. Haplogy () 08:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Entries in the old "nolanguage" categories[edit]

We no longer have categories such as Category:Requests for language cleanup November, but there are still some entries being added to them. Maybe they should come back. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

All of the entries in the category mentioned are English plurals. The absence of L2 headers may be attributable to the defective operation of the inflected forms JS for users who, like me, have selected autonumbering of headings in Preferences. I have been told that this is what causes a some CSS to show up in the L2 header on the entries created by the JS. It would not be a surprising reaction to just delete the bad line rather than just the intrusive CSS. the inscrutable first line of the entry autocreated by the JS. For some reason, even though the JS is invoked from an entry known to be English the creation of the entry resorts to substing a template that invokes the language module in order to make sure that the L2 is "English". This seems like a rectal tonsilectomy and it creates a line that might look like garbage to someone unfamiliar with the arcana involved. As garbage it might well be deleted. This is an example of poor software architecture and a minor consequence thereof. DCDuring TALK 18:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I think there was a consensus to delete these categories, but no consensus as to what to do instead. Another category with a different name that does the same job maybe? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
There's no reason to have it by month, is there? DCDuring TALK 01:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


The entry contains what looks like custom, hard-coded CSS. This English entry has two comments admonishing editors not to clean it up without making sure that the fonts in the etymology and translation sections display properly. This means that the normal language/font system apparently isn't working for the contributor. I normally only do cleanup in cases where the normal system is adequate. How general is the problem in this entry? DCDuring TALK 14:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about one editor on 28 November 2013. I believe there is some discussion on the Beer Parlour or the Grease Pit about Arabic fonts being a 'disaster'. Still this is a poor solution; the edit needs reverting an Arabic fonts should be modified as a whole, not on an entry by entry basis. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion is at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Fonts for Arabic are disastrous. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem here is not a general problem with Arabic fonts, but specifically with the word ريال (riyāl), which by many Arabic fonts is interpreted as a currency symbol and made into a ligature. I think this is bad design on the part of the fonts (the currency symbol should only be used when inputted directly rather than as four separate letters). But aside from choosing a font that doesn't do that, there is nothing much we can do. --WikiTiki89 16:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I wish someone had told me that. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]


At весь#Russian, the pronoun and adjective senses are mixed together and need to be carefully picked apart. --WikiTiki89 15:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it would need to be changed into a Determiner anyway. "all" is not a property of something, but a reference specifier like other determiners. —CodeCat 00:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, the pronoun and determiner senses need to be picked apart. --WikiTiki89 00:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
You could ask Anatoli... he is the main Russian editor I think. —CodeCat 00:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I could also do it myself. I was just feeling lazy when I requested this. Mostly because the pronoun sense needs to be split across весь, вся, всё, and все. Additionally, I'm not sure what part of speech it is in "оно всё там", which is the exact 100% equivalent of "it's all there". --WikiTiki89 00:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can clean as per the nomination but I'm happy to take suggestions. The choice for SoP itself is not so obvious and the Russian Wiktionary uses "местоиме́нное прилага́тельное" (pronominal adjective). Perhaps providing more usexes would make the senses clearer? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not that they are unclear, just that the determiner is intermixed with the pronoun, when they really need separate headers. --WikiTiki89 01:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
You can try it yourself, if you wish. I'm not 100% sure what PoS your examples belong to. Which ones do you think are pronouns?--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Well if it's used without a noun, it's a usually pronoun. --WikiTiki89 02:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The split is required for derived/related всё and все then, not весь. It'll probably suffice to mention the two types of derivations, even if usexes use всё and все. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
"Бумажник упал в лужу и весь промок." What part of speech is that according to you? I guess you could say that it is an adverb and the second clause has a null subject, but then we'd have to add an adverb sense. Now that I think about it, I think that the adverb interpretation is more accurate because it also accounts for "Он весь промок." --WikiTiki89 04:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It's tricky, indeed. See also какая часть речи слово "всё" --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
That answer seems to agree with me that in "Бумажник упал в лужу и весь промок." and "Он весь промок.", it is an adverb. But this is a strange case of an adverb that agrees with a noun in gender, number, and case: "Я его всего высушил.", "её всю", etc. --WikiTiki89 04:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm lost in PoS here. Not sure. I will leave it as is for now. We can try Vahagn Petrosyan (talkcontribs) and Stephen G. Brown (talkcontribs). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
We can get more people to weigh in than that. As I said above, the exact same dilemma exists in English, only since English does not have gender/number/case agreement, there's less of a problem calling it an adverb: "They all went home." ("Они все пошли домой."), "I ate it all." ("Я его/её всего/всю съел."). --WikiTiki89 13:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Most Russian dictionaries call весь определительное местоимение. I don't have an opinion. --Vahag (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It just making everything horribly complex to satisfy some arcane sense of category. I don’t see anything wrong with it the way it is. This reminds me of a few years ago when Michael decided to rename a bunch of files to separate them into Wiktionary:X and Appendix:X, and then I could never find the pages that I used to use because I don’t share his sense of categories. I never again saw some of those pages. —Stephen (Talk) 20:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting getting rid of anything we have. It's just that certain senses are missing (the adjective/pronoun/whatever-they-are ones), but are present in usage examples. A sense needs to be created for them, and since it is not an adjective/determiner, we have to decide what it is. --WikiTiki89 20:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
That’s what I’m saying. To me, весь is one simple part of speech. We used to call it an adjective, and in my opinion, that is what it is. Or mark them with the Russian terminology, attributive pronoun. All this modernistic stuff about determiners and such is just so much nonsense to me. If you want to divide it up into all sorts of part of speech, you have to do it yourself. I don’t recognize those categories and I don’t see the need for them. —Stephen (Talk) 02:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
That's not my point at all. I also consider the distinction between adjectives and determiners to be quite useless, especially in Russian. What I'm saying here is that in the cases I mentioned, it is not an adjective or determiner. It's either an adverb or a pronoun, depending on how you look at it. It makes more sense as an adverb, except for the fact that it declines for gender, number, and case. --WikiTiki89 02:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Language code is name/ttbc/unrecognised[edit]

This category contains entries that use {{ttbc}} with a language name instead of a code, but the language name isn't recognised by {{langrev}}. Could they be looked at and fixed? —CodeCat 02:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Just in the few I've looked at and fixed so far, I've noticed the following are common (including in entries which haven't been ttbc-ified yet):
  • Taiwanese : a form of 'nan' (Min Nan); perhaps Kephir's xte gadget should accept this as an indented subitem/dialect of Min Nan
  • Tashelhit : 'shi' (currently canonically called "Tachelhit", but see also RFM, where I suggest that "Tashelhit" is actually a better name)
  • Sami : could be any of the Sami languages, but more often than not means 'se', as that's the one with a Wikipedia and that's where whoever added the term found it
  • Frisian : could be any of the Frisian languages, but more often than not means 'fy', for the same reason
- -sche (discuss) 03:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your ongoing efforts to improve our language coverage and accuracy, -sche. It's really appreciated. As for Sami and Frisian, we could add those names as secondary names to the languages they're used for. —CodeCat 04:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been working on these already. Many are from spelling variations and sublects, which can be prevented by adding them to the data modules (see this diff for some examples). Getting changes made to xte may be a problem, though: Kephir (talkcontribs) hasn't edited on Wiktionary since he was blocked three weeks ago. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


This page is focused only on English, and the first sentence is actually kind of misleading. It makes it look like only English sections can have pronunciation. The page should really detail how we handle pronunciations regardless of language (it's the same for all of them anyway). —CodeCat 00:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


While I don't know why the original tagger tagged it, the issue I came here with is that it's a conjugation-table template and not an inflection-line template like {{en-verb}}, {{es-verb}} and so on. So a rename would be good. I just replaced a few instances of {{no-verb}} with {{head|no|verb}} which is unfortunate. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Various surname entries[edit]

The contributions of Princetonbee (talkcontribs). SemperBlotto (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Plurals by language[edit]

There are several problems with the categories listed here. A category named just "plurals" only makes sense if there is only one thing that can be plural in the language. For many of the languages listed, that isn't the case. Some examples:

  • In several languages, such as many of the Indo-European languages, there are both noun and adjective plurals. Grouping these together into one category wouldn't make much sense, but if we distinguish them, then we need the category for noun plurals to be called "noun plural forms".
  • In languages that have cases, there isn't just one kind of plural, but one for each case. Having one category for plurals would mean putting for example "genitive singular" into one category for singular case forms, and "genitive plural" into a category for plural case forms. Again, this doesn't make much sense, these should be put together into a "noun forms" category. Most languages that have cases also have distinct adjective forms/plurals, but not all do (Hungarian for example).
  • Some languages like Bulgarian or the North Germanic languages have definite and indefinite forms, so here too the concept of a "plural" is not well defined, because there are several types of plural noun form.

These should probably be fixed one way or another. —CodeCat 18:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


A lot of this user's early contributions were to add Bible verses to Chinese entries, but they added the citation without, AFAICT, indicating what translation, or even what verse, they were quoting. (Their later edits do include verse information.) Someone should add the verses or remove the usexes (which in general don't illustrate the uses of the words very well). - -sche (discuss) 22:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

trái and quả[edit]

As well as trái cây and quả cây. They're both synonymous qualifiers and their noun equivalents are also synonymous, but I don't know whether to tie them together by designating one as {{alternative form of}} or some other method. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of overlap, but they aren't the same word spelled differently. It's sufficient to list them as synonyms of each other. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Vietnamese entries by User:Cehihin[edit]

Vietnamese entries contributed by Cehihin need review. Cehihin's methodology has yielded wildly incorrect readings and definitions in many cases, and the formatting is poor. Some examples:

  • 𡮈𨳒: They appear to have just searched for Nôm characters for nhỏ and mọn, took two results at random, and combined them for a transliteration of nhỏ mọn.
  • 𨳊: One of the readings, cu, appears to be a translation of the Cantonese sense, and the others appear to be readings of other characters that have cu as a reading.
  • 𨳒: The definitions are just the Cantonese definitions, translated into Vietnamese. The Readings section is just a list of synonyms of the Vietnamese "definitions".

I spent the last few days rewriting some of Cehihin's entries, but there are scores more. Without knowing Vietnamese, here's how to write a basic Vietnamese character entry:

  • If I or another Vietnamese speaker has come along and rewritten the entry, there's probably no need to clean up further.
  • Otherwise, get Hán-Việt and Nôm readings for the character:
    1. Go to vi:Special:WhatLinksHere and enter the character.
    2. Search the list for a Latin-script entry that has a "Sino-Vietnamese transliteration" section. Expand the box under that heading and search for the character; all the words listed on the same line are Hán-Việt readings.
    3. Search the list for a Latin-script entry that has a "Chữ Nôm" section. Expand the box under that heading and search for the character; all the words listed on the same line are Nôm readings.
    4. Back here, delete the old Vietnamese entry and use this format (replace "宀02" with the radical and stroke number):

{{vi-readings|hanviet=comma-separated list from step 2|nom=list from step 3|rs=宀02}}

* {{R:WinVNKey:Lê Sơn Thanh}}

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

give out[edit]

Tagged but not listed. Ƿidsiþ 14:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I've structured the definitions and provided some "context" formatting, but not touched the translations section, which probably needs to be extensively checked. The run-ins under the first definition baffle me. DCDuring TALK 18:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


The "Usage notes" sections looks like it should be under another heading. DCDuring TALK 18:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like its meant to be a usex. --WikiTiki89 18:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It looks to me like it's trying to show the verb that normally goes with the noun: there's no way I would have thought to use the same verb that's used to describe weeping (울다). It just needs some kind of an explanation to that effect (If I've analyzed it correctly, of course). Chuck Entz (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


kinesthesia#Quotations: this doesn't look right to me. Saltmarsh (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Move to citations page because they take up too much space. Looks ok other than that. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

break the ice[edit]

The past participle form has a (appropriately) broken accelerated-creation link, and I'm not sure how to deal with the shatter the ice entries given that it seems to be an {{alternative form of}} break the ice. But I'm afraid that creating the inflected forms for shatter the ice, while useful, will have the reader clicking back once to find the lexeme and then having to click again to find the actual definition at break the ice. So if anyone could advise me on how to proceed, or do it themselves, that'd be great. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not an alternative form. That is not only true, but it also eliminates your stated difficulty for this entry.
It's more nearly a synonym. But it actually differs in meaning because it indicates something much more dramatic than break the ice. I don't think we really want folks to go from the shattering the ice entry to the break the ice entry rather than shatter the ice. BTW, how often does shatter the ice have a figurative meaning? DCDuring TALK 11:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright then, I guess it's more a synonym. I've looked at Wiktionary:Forms and spellings twice and I just don't think I'm getting it today. I agree there's something more dramatic than "break the ice". I've done a cursory search on gbooks and they've also made mention of "break the ice" there, but perhaps I've just not dug hard enough. What do you propose to be the definition for "shatter the ice" then? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure. I'm tempted by a non-gloss definition like "Used to suggest a more dramatic beginning of social interaction", but the coffee hasn't kicked in yet. DCDuring TALK 14:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The main problem I see is that I don't even know what "to introduce conversation" means. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
You know: break the ice. How about "To break the ice in a sudden or dramatic manner." DCDuring TALK 18:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The relationship between shatter the ice and break the ice gets more mention among linguists discussing idiom and metaphor than use in speech. I'm not sure it's actually citable in use at books, based on my review of the first 100 hits, which contain one use and about half a dozen mentions of the figurative use in question, the balance being literal or other metaphorical uses ('shatter the ice in my heart'). DCDuring TALK 14:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Swadesh lists for Afro-Asiatic languages[edit]

This currently doesn't say anything about actual languages. It only lists words represented in various scripts. Presumably, Arabic and Hebrew script stand for Arabic and Hebrew language, but there's nothing that says so. —CodeCat 22:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

They are just languages mislabeled as scripts. --WikiTiki89 01:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


As the correct spelling is with a capital Z (Zeppelin) (check Wikipedia and Oxford), taken from Count Zeppelin, I would like to suggest that the bulk of this entry is transferred to Zeppelin. I would try to do it myself, but I'm usually busy elsewhere and it's a task I haven't attempted before. I fell foul of CodeCat when I put Zeppelin in the Swedish entry for zeppelinare, it was altered to zeppelin despite my protests. Donnanz (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I only changed it because forcing users to go to Zeppelin just so that they can be redirected to zeppelin is frustrating. —CodeCat 00:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Other dictionaries list the common noun in lower-case form. I suggest we try to get a feel for actual usage before making the capitalized spelling the main lemma. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Google Ngram supports the capitalized common noun. --WikiTiki89 08:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the confusion is caused by the line in
English Wikipedia has an article on:

Wikipedia en "After the outstanding success of the Zeppelin design, the term zeppelin in casual use came to refer to all rigid airships." That may have been the case pre-WWII. But calling a Zeppelin made by the Zeppelin factory a zeppelin is like calling a Ford car a ford. Donnanz (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

    • Well, not really, because Ford has (AFAIK) never been used as a genericized trademark, which is essentially what zeppelin has become. Insisting on a capital Z in zeppelin is like insisting on a capital A in aspirin or a capital J in jacuzzi. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Do you mean to say you call airships zeppelins? I don't, and never have, only using Zeppelin when referring to an airship produced by Zeppelin themselves. I would suggest that the use of zeppelin as a generic term for airship has died out; we are now in the 21st century, not in the heyday of airships and Zeppelins in the first half of the 20th century. I for one wasn't born until 1947. Donnanz (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
        • On the contrary, people do talk about zeppelins, and they don't remember anything about it being a brand name. I'm one of many who never knew that zeppelin could be capitalized. You're making the mistake of talking about what's logical when discussing usage, which will often lead you astray. In this case, it looks like the capitalized form is more common in Google Books, at least, even after "Led Zeppelin" is taken out of the picture. I'm not so sure about the ratio in everyday, colloquial usage, but it's hard to get real answers on that. I think the capitalized form should be given priority, but it's not so clear and obvious as you think. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm more than 20 years younger than you, Donnanz, and I think I probably would say, "Look, there's a zeppelin up in the sky" without any regard to the builder, in the extremely unlikely event of my seeing one. Or maybe "blimp". I'm sure I wouldn't say "airship". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
            • Hmm, maybe we don't live in the same part of the world. Donnanz (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Has any decision been reached yet? Donnanz (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

good shit[edit]

Definitely not exclusive to basketball; probably not an interjection; both definitions are too narrow; possibly sum-of-parts. Discussed previously in Tea Room (Wiktionary:Tea_room#good_shit) but no changes made. Pengo (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. --WikiTiki89 05:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


All three definitions seem to mean the same thing. --WikiTiki89 05:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The last seems non-count, both in its definition and in its usex; the others aren't. The others are distinct because the first requires both eating and "much alcohol consumption" whereas the second requires neither. Sounds like a job for RFV.​—msh210 (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking something like "A noisy feast or social gathering, often with much alcohol consumption." I don't think there need to be two separate senses. --WikiTiki89 23:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


Remove the second sense. --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it was added because for most purposes the singular and plural had identical meaning in most descendants. The singular was a collective noun for "people", while the plural meant more or less the same. I don't know what the difference was, if there was one. —CodeCat 18:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Transwiki:Japanese Phrasebook/Greetings and farewell[edit]

Well... --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)




These were tagged {{delete|no usable content}}, but seem like promising entries. We have entries on plenty of obscurely diacriticized Latin letters, for example. These would, however, benefit from definitions explaining what they signify... - -sche (discuss) 07:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Braille script characters[edit]

Please suggest a suitable sorting method. I have four ideas currently:

  1. Put all to * while sorting by their Unicode. This will make all the 6-dots to the front.
    • An example would be [[Category:Braille script characters|*U+283F]] for .
  2. Put them according to the 12345678 order in Appendix:Unicode/Braille Patterns. That will make 1 crowded, though.
    • An example would be [[Category:Braille script characters|123456]] for .
  3. Sort them by the number of dots present, then by their Unicode. I personally prefer this idea.
    • An example would be [[Category:Braille script characters|6-U+283F]] for .
  4. Sort them by the number of dots present, then according to the 12345678 order in Appendix:Unicode/Braille Patterns.
    • An example would be [[Category:Braille script characters|6-123456]] for .
  5. I am open to any other suggestions.

--kc_kennylau (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:2000 German basic words[edit]

Only contains 133 entries ATM and no source at all. The only "source" is listed as an example. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:WC and family[edit]

When I saw that Category:Toiletry was under both Category:Bathing and Category:WC, I thought that was odd enough. Then I looked at Category:WC and saw Category:Rooms. You or I might giggle at this, but the joke is really on people trying to learn English from our dictionary, who were already confused enough by the euphemisms surrounding this subject matter. We need to change the category structure here, and do what we can to fix any miscategorization resulting from this. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


This is the only page I've ever encountered with subdefinitions. While the definitions are alright, they need to be reorganized Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


Has "misconception" as a context. See the talk page. - -sche (discuss) 19:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]


Was tagged but not listed. Needs some serious reorganising... —CodeCat 23:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Polysynthetic languages are complicated enough without including declensions for all the derived terms. It looks like aandegobag,aandegopin,aandegoshkwenh and aandego-giizis should all be separate lemmas. After that, it looks like it would be consistent with the other Ojibwe animate noun entries. The comment on the cleanup tag is another matter: the language would benefit from declension templates, but that's not specific to this entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I created the new entries and trimmed the tagged entry. It turns out that aandegoshkwenh is an Ottawa form, which we treat as a separate language. I suspect there are more such surprises waiting among the Ojibwe entries. Not that I'm complaining- we're lucky to have this information at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I mocked up a crude declension table (my wikitable skills are pretty poor). I don't know the language well enough to do much more (I suspect we should remove aandegoshkwenh from the synonyms, since it's Ottawa, rather than Ojibwe proper, but I don't know for sure). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the "prenoun" forms are really just combining forms, and they might as well go in the table too as they are part of the word's inflection. —CodeCat 02:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps. It would help to know when and why each of them is used. After looking through w:Ojibwe grammar, it would appear that the forms given are just the tip of the iceberg. There are also vocative, contemptive (milder than pejorative), preterit (dead/no longer existing) and preterit-dubitative (dead/no longer existing, and not personally known by the speaker). In addition, there are affixes that indicate if the noun was possessed, and by whom (person & number). With all the possible combinations, I can understand why one might take the shortcut of giving selected forms only. This is the kind of thing you run into quite often among the American Indian languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


The definition we have is a little too encyclopedic. --WikiTiki89 06:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

All the creations of User:Jarste[edit]

No headwords. English translations need wikifying and decapitalization. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I got all the basic stuff, though this time of night I tend to forget things. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Entries by user:Apomorde[edit]

Persian words lacking a proper headword, having misplaced pronunciation (or something) and no wikification of translations. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


Latin, but with an English template. Which way to go? SemperBlotto (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, anno mundi is an English entry. If the same abbreviation is independent of English it might merit changing to Translingual, but it might very well be SOP in Latin. At any rate, the part about the Jewish calendar doesn't belong in an "initialism of" entry, so that should be moved to the lemma or discarded as encyclopedic. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

dot matrix[edit]

Idiomatic? Adjective or attributive use of noun(s?)? — Ungoliant (falai) 00:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

See dot matrix printer. We have so many SOP entries, it's almost refreshing to have a "missing parts" entry for a change. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • We also have dot-matrix as an adjective. No links between the entries either way. Donnanz (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
According to Oxford (hard copy and online) it's a noun that is normally used as a modifier. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dot-matrix?q=dot+matrix Donnanz (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It does have a plural actually; either "dot matrices" or "dot matrixes", so I think this entry should be altered to a noun. I have added a link to the Wikipedia article. Donnanz (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I've added the noun entry. Is adjectival usage merely attributive usage of the noun? Dbfirs 08:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Someone could prove me wrong, but as I see it predicate use is the best chance for showing this to behave as a true adjective:
 *"That is the most dot matrix printer I've ever seen."; *"That printer is more dot matrix than this one."
 *"It is a very dot matrix printer."
 ?"That printer is dot matrix."
I don't think that the modest amount of predicate use we are likely to find warrants an adjective entry, but rules is rules. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The race-related edits of User: and User:Artemesia[edit]

This IP has been running through the POV minefield of racial terminology, leaving oddly-worded definitions along the way. I tried to fix up Americanoid, but I was tired and wasn't too happy with the results. It's since been changed beyond recognition.

Someone familiar with anthropology and current usage needs to go through these 19th-century-style entries and bring them into the 21st century. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

They've now registered as Artemesia (talkcontribs), but they're still creating the same entries based on their same idiosyncratic terminology and definitions. Some of their edits have been dealt with, but someone needs to look at all of them. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


"A person who makes uncool, unfunny, uninteresting, or irrelevant (see lame) attempts to impress others and draw attention to themselves, especially in a flawed attempt to act like someone else." I'm not sure that this is the same as the 'unintelligent' sense but it definitely shouldn't be worded like this. "Especially in a flawed attempt to act like someone else." is especially funny. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Isn’t it just a generic insult? This definition reeks of Urban Dictionary. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'd be inclined to delete sense 3 as just an example of sense 2. Is there any advantage in retaining it? Is it widely used with this exact meaning (other than in sense 2)? Dbfirs 08:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]


Yet another Sanskrit L2 with senses that no one has bothered to completely render into English, relying on transcriptions instead of glosses. I added wikilinks for some of the transcriptions, but that isn't good enough. DCDuring TALK 19:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Crimean Tatar verb inflection-table templates[edit]

The tables are bulky and full of nonstandard spelling/word usage ("second person single") and capitalization. Also, they are sometimes used as headword-line templates (as in sımarlamaq), although they seem to actually be conjugation templates. - -sche (discuss) 03:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

echarse al plato[edit]

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

I've moved this out of Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2009/Unresolved requests in the hope we can resolve it. - -sche (discuss) 03:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The second example isn't reflexive at all. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

West Jerusalem[edit]

"The portion of Jerusalem controlled by Israel after 1967, and considered by some Israelis to be their capital." If I'm not mistaken (and I may well be), the situation is this: The vast majority of Israelis consider West Jerusalem to be the capital, and it's the capital both de jure and de facto. But most other states place their embassies in Tel Aviv and don't recognize an official capital of Israel. The definition we have rather confusingly captures that.​—msh210 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

And ignore the edit summary I used when adding the rfc tag. I typed in haste and misstated the situation.​—msh210 (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, West Jerusalem was in Israeli control since 1948, and was the capital since 1949. --WikiTiki89 15:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I've modified the definition of East Jerusalem, which seemed to have some of the same problems as West Jerusalem (inclusion of not-strictly-necessary and probably needlessly contentious details; not-strictly-accurate statement of who controlled it when). I am hesitant to include a map on either entry, because I imagine any given map may reflect the "wrong" point in time from someone's perspective and thus constitute an unnecessary point of contention, but I note that WP has several (a simple one, one that's IMO too visually messy and indistinct to be very useful, and a remote-sensing one). - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The ideal map in my opinion should be as simple as the first one, but should look a little more professional than something drawn in Microsoft Paint. --WikiTiki89 19:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
@msh210: Sorry, but I think you're mistaken about most of your claims. The de jure capital is Jerusalem, not West Jerusalem, and the vast majority of Israelis consider Jerusalem to be the capital. (I guess the de facto capital could be West Jerusalem, if you like, though I'd still just say that it's Jerusalem.) The "controlled by Israel after 1967" part of the definition was clearly a mistake, but the "considered by some Israelis to be their capital" part may have been trying, unsuccessfully IMHO, to convey the existence of a minority view that does not consider East Jerusalem to be part of the capital. —RuakhTALK 05:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I didn't mean to include the date as part of what I was agreeing with. That's, as you say, clearly an error.​—msh210 (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I've detagged the entry because I think it's clean now; revert if you disagree. - -sche (discuss) 20:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


Aaand lots of other assorted rubbish from our magic- and religion-obsessed IP anon. This person is really getting up my nose. They add content that isn't right, or is almost right, or is exactly wrong. The formatting is out of date and often broken. They routinely add interwiki links to entries on the FR, MG, and ZH WTs, which entries usually don't exist -- so basically they're lying to try to make their contributions look more legitimate. I'm tempted to ask for a block ban, despite the collateral damage, given the sheer volume of shit this user pours into Wiktionary whenever they seem to go on holiday.

Incidentally, does anyone know offhand what school holidays might be going on in the UK, where I think this user is located? We could implement some kind of IP block ban that lasts just until that holiday period is over, and likely limit most of the damage. </rant>

... But I'm actually serious about possibly seeking an IP block ban. This user is persistent, pernicious, and nearly deaf to our entreaties to get decent source material, format properly, stop adding dead links, stop adding nonsense, etc. etc. (I say nearly, because they did make something of an effort to figure out formatting -- albeit a bit half-assedly, and about two years ago, since when they haven't kept up at all ensuing changes.)

If you have any expertise with Japanese or Mandarin, any at all, be on the lookout for anon edits, particularly from the 90-something, 5-something, and 150-something IP ranges.

(Incidentally, I'm mostly off WT for the next few weeks due to work demands, so I can't patrol Japanese entries as closely as needed.)

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. It's a "written fortune". An example I could find for the alternative spelling "御神籤":
御神籤 (おみくじ) ()いたら大吉 (だいきち)/ (きょう) ()た。
Omikuji o hītara daikichi / kyō to deta.
The fortune /sacred lot he drew predicted very good/bad luck.
--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 07:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Please check if you're happy with おみくじ. I've changed the definition at 御御籤. How does it look now? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 08:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
As for the block, the IP user deserves it on the grounds of using multiple accounts alone. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the IP definitely deserves to be blocked, but there's no real pattern to the addresses they use. To block them effectively would require blocking all Sky Broadband users in the UK, and probably Easynet as well. Although they account for the vast majority of edits from those ISPs, that's still a radical and unprecedented step. We've been using shorter-term blocks applied as soon as we spot them in order to limit the damage, but they've adapted by changing their IP frequently. Perhaps we need to automatically revert and/or delete all their edits regardless of quality just to discourage them- but that would be radical and unprecedented in itself. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Bad definitions are bad edits. We have a small number of editors working with Japanese who can babysit the anon user. Yeah, tentatively support’ nuking his/her new edits, no matter what quality.--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 20:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

take aback[edit]

The etymology is almost a definition. --WikiTiki89 16:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Now is it okay? Please check my grammar though. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
As long as what was in the etymology section did not need to be moved to the definition section. --WikiTiki89 16:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I found that taken aback also has a definition as etymology, and I've fixed that. I'm trying to look at the user's other edits. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It turns out that SemperBlotto (talkcontribs) is the one who put the definition-like etymology in the first place in take aback. What a surprise. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Well that was back in 2005 when Wiktionary was a little baby. I'm more surprised that no one had noticed it until now. --WikiTiki89 16:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


After pruning out loads of encyclopedic crap generated by a certain IP (do we really need to know which gods and goddesses were aunts, uncles, brothers and cousins to which?), there's some important stuff missing from this or its alternative form pages, such as Gaia, the earth treated as a being in environmental philosophy. Right now, Gaea is the lemma, but modern usage seems to favor Gaia. At any rate, missing senses need to be added, perhaps things need to be restructured, and I'm getting burned out from trying to make real entries out of this garbage. Any assistance would be appreciated. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. We certainly need Lovelock's sense because it is now more than 40 years old and widely used outside Lovelock's writings, but I'm not sure where to put it either. For now, I've added it to the entry at Gaia since this spelling is the one normally used for the Earth sense, whilst Gaea is the usual spelling for the god. Dbfirs 09:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


  • (resolved) The first definition is “stalker (traditional translation, although not very accurate in meaning and connotations)”. Why would we want to include a definition that is wrong by its own admission?
  • The second definition (“any person, whose occupation or activity is dangerously similar to those of characters from "Roadside Picnic".”) doesn’t explain what it means. You have to be familiar with Roadside Picnic; but even then, Roadside Picnic has multiple types of characters, so you have to know what the term means to know what the term means. Not very useful.
  • (resolved) The content of derived terms is “(Feminine gender) сталкерша”. Shouldn’t this be in the headword line?
  • (resolved) The pronunciation has /n/ instead of /r/. Is that correct?

Ungoliant (falai) 01:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

At the time of creation I didn't know what to do with it. Dictionaries are full of this translation, which is seldom used by native speakers and is only popularised by Andrey Starkovsky's movie, which I haven't seen :( but I think the meaning is not the same as the usual English "stalker". The feminine form is almost made up for completeness. (not all loanwords have feminine forms or they are considered too colloquial or pejorative).
Feminine from: That's now fixed by CodeCat. I've added a stress mark.
Pronunciation: fixed, it was Wanjuscha's typo.
The non-phonetic transliteration was more common in the USSR (knowledge of English was lower too). The more modern transliteration is сто́кер (stóker), this too is not very common. In fact, there is no direct equivalent of "stalker" in Russian. The term is usually described as упо́рный пресле́дователь (upórnyj preslédovatelʹ, persistent follower) or челове́к, кото́рый идёт по пята́м (čelovék, kotóryj idjót po pjatám, person who comes on the heels)
I will check the usage more thoroughly but is it better now? @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The explanation of how this term is translated was moved to a usage notes heading, where it belongs, but the problem remains: why keep a definition based on inaccurate translation? — Ungoliant (falai) 03:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a rfv-sense business then, not rfc. I'm not quite keen to verify it but me or someone else will have to. It's a bit difficult because there are too many uses of irrelevant senses. I personally don't use this word but someone may and it's also included in dictionaries, actually more as a "game stalker", not "a person who secretly follows someone, sometimes with unlawful intentions" - fixing now. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Nah, the gloss clarifies it well enough. I’ll mark that one as resolved. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It remains to be checked if the term is ever used in the sense "a person who secretly follows someone, sometimes with unlawful intentions", though, which I added a while ago to stalker#Translations. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]


There are many entries for short function words that have similar problems, but we've started an off-topic discussion of this one at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#in cash, so we might as well begin with this one.

Copied from that topic:

[] The payment is done inside some sort of cash? --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I've added a sense to in (though it, and many of the other senses, could use some tweaking) that covers this usage. When you're speaking of money, you can say "in" almost anything- cash, securities, tens and twenties, even Monopoly money. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I have taken a run at a subsense structure for the definitions. I feel we are still missing some senses and have unnecessary specificity in some definitions (See the sub-subsenses.), though the usexes could stay. I find prepositions among the hardest PoS sections I have tackled, requiring a great deal of abstraction to deal with the senses that are not spatial or temporal. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Much better, though getting it perfect might be a lifetime job. Sense 3-2 seems particularly off the mark: "he met his match in her" is just another way of saying "he met his match, and she was that match". All that stuff about "a place-like form of someone's (or something's) personality, as his, her or its psychic and physical characteristics" is just unnecessary verbiage. Consider, for instance: "In boxing, he found the perfect outlet for his anger and frustration". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. I just didn't have the courage to hack away at every piece. We are certainly missing subsenses and also some senses that are hard to fit under the senses now in the entry. Having access to the OED would help make sense of the groupings, though there might be too much information not strictly relevant to current senses. I should probably put some musings on Talk:in. DCDuring TALK 21:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's also the "dressed in, wearing" sense, as in the famous quote from w:Animal Crackers: "I once shot an elephant in my pajamas- how the elephant got in my pajamas, I'll never know", not to mention the "target of an action, within a greater whole", as in "shot in the heart", or as in "they attacked the fortification in its most vulnerable section", or as in "he was shot in the fracas, which, as we all know, can be quite painful". Chuck Entz (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I had forgotten that five years ago I had created a page [[Appendix:Collocations of in]], intended to provide a factual basis for improving the entry. In principle, using that data, we could develop an approach that would apply to other prepositions, for the data is easily obtained. We need to look at other lexicographers' efforts, of course, because they will have captured some less common uses. We should make sure that any sense from a Wiktionary contributor is fully captured as our contributors may have noted a change of meaning that has eluded others. Talk:in has some useful material. DCDuring TALK 21:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)



"Indeclinable" is not a part of speech that I know of. It's also missing a headword template. —CodeCat 15:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I took a first pass at it (my Sanskrit is extremely rusty, so it probably needs more work). Although it can be used adjectivally, it seems to be first and foremost an adverb. The उच्चैः "combining form" is anything but- it's merely a sandhi variant that occurs when there's no vowel following to block the change from s to h. I have no idea what-if anything- we do with sandhi variants in Sanskrit. From what little I remember about external sandhi, it could get very complicated if we had entries for all of them. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
But there's no reason not to include them. We can call them {{alternative form of}}'s, or someone could create {{sandhi variant of}} or {{sa-sandhi variant of}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


As far as I know this form only existed in Vulgar Latin, which leads to some issues with this entry:

  • the definition, as well as the alternative forms section of oculus, do not mention that it is a VL form. The easy solution is to add {{label|la|Vulgar Latin}}, but “(Vulgar Latin) Alternative form of X” just reads wrong to me. Maybe we need a {{Vulgar Latin form of}} template, or start considering VL a different language.
  • an automatic classical pronunciation is given. It could be removed but what will stop the bot from readding it?
  • a classical inflection is given, and the inflected forms have been created, even though many of these inflections no longer existed in the VL period. We have {{VL-decl}}, but I don’t know the forms.

All of this is moot if this was used in Classical Latin. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

“(Vulgar Latin) Alternative form of oculus” seems fine to me, as does “(Vulgar Latin) eye”. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

German edits by, etc.[edit]

Although it's a different IP every day (yesterday, the day before, the day before, etc.), they all seem to be the same person- for one thing, they all geolocate to the same place in Germany, and the editing style matches. Many of their edits seem to be good, but they have a tendency to carry things to extremes.

In the entry for a given morpheme, they list every term they can think of that contains it under "Derived terms", or in entries for terms containing the morpheme they include a similar list under "Related terms" (though sometimes they get the headers mixed up, as in this edit: diff). For example, they added the following to Wasserfarbe:

The problem is is that I don't know the language well enough to judge what to keep and what to remove- so I would appreciate it if a fluent speaker would go through their edits with the above in mind and also give this prolific, good-faith editor some advice on how to not waste their time on list-bloat. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

This is really a problem with how we consider related terms. We consider them only on morphological grounds, so there's nothing to suggest such lists of words are bad in any way. —CodeCat 01:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was etymology, rather than morphology. Also, most of these are SOP compounds of independent words, so they really shouldn't be considered "related" because they happen to include the same word. For instance, is Teppichfarbe really related to Hautfarbe or Türfarbe? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I may not be able to define inappropriate "Related terms" entries, but I know them when I see them, and adding all other compounds of both Wasser and Farbe to the "Related terms" section of Wasserfarbe is not what that section is for. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The obvious examples of related terms that are relevant are Ölfarbe (oil paint) and Acrylfarbe (acrylic paint). I've added these, and deleted all the others. I'll take a look at some of their other contributions. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]


Check out the horror show in მეგალითური (megalit’uri). A right floating drop-down box to the right of the inflection and not under a header. Yuck. Should be two templates? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it should. Will start splitting it off soon. Keφr 04:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
There are quite a lot of entries which have a declension section along with this template. Will post a list soon. I am not sure what to do with these. Does the existing declension section take precedence or what? Pinging User:Dixtosa and User:Vahagn Petrosyan. (Pinging still works?) Keφr 05:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know anything about Georgian declension. --Vahag (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I saw you in the contributions list for the template, so I assumed you know something. Oh well. Keφr 12:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It looks like the headword-line table is only a subset of the forms in the main inflection tables- the principal parts, no doubt. Georgian is an agglutinative language, so inflection is bound to be very complicated and impossible to fit neatly into formats designed for European languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, pinging still works XD
Reply from User:Dixtosa: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=54
Back to the point now XD.
@Keφr, why do you hurry? Can we have a little bit of talk before you mess things up? This template has had that shape for years, so there is no point in hurrying to change it.
First off, it does not look like a horror show to me.
I've included {{ka-adj/auto-decl}} in {{ka-adj}} for tho reasons:
  1. info provided as parameters of {{ka-adj}} was enough to fill the table. Also, the adjectival declension is so primitive (only two rules and no exceptions) I thought it was not worth giving a space in any of the headers. It is much like having the conjugation table for English verbs.
  2. Adjectives can have two declensions actually: adjectival and nominal (when an adjective is implicitly converted to a noun). And these two, combined under one header, where one template is a particle compared to the other is more horror show than what it is now.
Lastly, as you can see I tried my best to ease the removal of that subtemplate (you just need to comment out one line in {{ka-adj}}).
So, in my not humble opinion, either {{ka-adj/auto-decl}} disappears or it stays where it is now.--user:Dixtosa 17:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I was somewhat hasty. Apologies. But to the point: if this information is so compact, why not make it part of the headword line? No other language has floating tables listing inflections. Also, I think I have seen some cases where inflections generated by {{ka-adj/auto-decl}} contradicted those manually input into the entry in a declension template ({{ka-adj-decl}}, by the way — placed in its own subsection, like mommy told us to). I cannot find them now. So of those two options you gave, I think I would choose "disappear". Keφr 20:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Dixtosa again: so what am I supposed to do now? Becuase the status quo is certainly unacceptable. Keφr 19:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Why is it? As I said, I like the way it looks :D
As for compactness, if I squeezed those three declensional forms into headword line then, theoretically, 2+1+3 forms and for sure their description (assuming, say, one-word) would be present and thats Hitchcock in action.
The untouchable things is that those declensional forms should be somewhere there (= no more disappearings).
btw, I approve your changes on {{ka-decl-adj-auto}} about making it a standalone template.
Again, I don't find it so ugly and who not let others say their piece. --Dixtosa (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

knock me over with a feather[edit]

Recently added. Cursory GBooks search seems to indicate this is in use. May need a better lemma, definitely needs a better definition. Keφr 20:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are the 12 instances found on COCA with a search of "* * [knock] * over with a feather"
I conclude that whatever the lemma, if it is kept, you could have knocked me over with a feather should redirect to it. DCDuring TALK 23:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Also used are "could have knocked/could knock me down with a feather," "could have been knocked down/over by a feather," and the imperative "knock me down/over with a feather." Also "might" can sometimes replace "could." — Pingkudimmi 13:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I think this should be moved to "knock over with a feather" or "knock someone over down with a feather" (depending on how we deal with phrases like this which have to be used with an internal object). It's also used in the third person ("you could have knocked her down with a feather") and the first-person plural ("you could have knocked us over with a feather"). No evidence of any real use in conjugation ("knocking...", "knocks...") on Google Books, which makes me think it only goes with modal verbs like "could", "could've", "might've" etc. I guess this is one of those phrases that falls into the construction grammar black hole, which we don't really know what to do with. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Pingku: The search for the active form with down only found one instance at COCA. I expect it would be thrice attestable on larger corpora and should therefore be an alternative form. The passive (with either down or over) only appeared once, but it too is almost certainly tri-attestable.
@Smurrayinchester: Three of the thirteen total instances of the expression involve non-animate things being knocked down. I conclude that knock something down with a feather should be the lemma, something presumably including someone, and that knock someone down with a feather should redirect to it. That is, unless we believe that the inanimate object uses, but not the animate ones, are SoP. DCDuring TALK 15:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The inanimate uses (what are some examples?) must have a different meaning, because "You could have knocked me over with a feather" (crucially over and not down) means "I was thoroughly astonished", which is not something that usually happens to inanimate objects. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Angr: There are truncated examples from COCA above. It is a hyperbole for the situation that something physical, including a person, could easily fall apart or fail. I suppose we could have two lemmas, bidirectionally linked under See also and unidirectionally under Etymology from the "something" entry to the "someone" entry and in the opposite direction under Derived terms, but the "someone" sense is not really radically different, just something figurative. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
We don't necessarily need two lemmas, just two senses: "(of a person) to be thoroughly astonished" and "(of an object) to be flimsily built" or the like. Or I guess we do need a separate lemma using down rather than over, which is usually used of an object rather than a person, but maybe there are some attestations of its being used of a person too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@DCDuring: I don't think the inanimate use of the phrase needs much explaining, really. "You could have knocked the house down with a feather" means (very transparently, if rather hyperbolically) that the house was weak, and I think that any non-native speaker with average reading comprehension could work that out from "knock down" and "feather". "You could have knocked my dad down with a feather" doesn't mean that my dad is weak, though, it means that he is surprised, and that information is not contained in the sum of parts. (There may be some occasional use of the phrase to mean "weak" when referring to people as well, but that can be covered by {{&lit}}.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Smurrayinchester: I think I've gone non-native: I've gone soft on the include-every-collocation approach to inclusion and have even internalized it. DCDuring TALK 16:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Basic Frisian Phrasebook[edit]

This page uses {{IPAchar}}, but the transcriptions use a bunch of non-IPA symbols, including colons (which are obviously supposed to be vowel length marks), ampersands (not sure what those are supposed to be), @s, capital As, ... - -sche (discuss) 00:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It also has a column 'Pronunciation' after the 'IPA' column. That should be deleted ASAP. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
We have nobody except User:Vedac13 who has any knowledge at all in North Frisian, unfortunately. Should we ask on Wikipedia? Or maybe try on the West Frisian Wiktionary just in case there is anyone there who happens to have studied North Frisian too? —CodeCat 13:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


The 3rd sense (saucy) needs clarification: which sense of "saucy" is valid, or perhaps all of them? --Hekaheka (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not sense 1 of saucy. Sense 2 and 3 for sure, and maybe sense 4, though I'm not sure. However, I don't see the difference between those and sense 1 of sassy. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't see the reason for dividing the entry into five distinct senses. Doesn't "sassy" mean all of these at the same time (with varying emphasis, of course)? Dbfirs 07:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I would say no. #1 and #2 could be merged perhaps. The only definition I know isn't there, the idea of being sexy, confident perhaps cheeky too. So perhaps all of that is a single sense and could be merged into one. As for vigorous and lively, never come across these! Are they dated or archaic, should we rfv them? How is the vigorous sense used, like a sassy workout (a vigorous workout)? Renard Migrant (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
New Oxford Dictionary of English (2001) gives one sense, the same as our sense 2, but doesn't mention sexiness. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh and it says from saucy as opposed to from sass + -y. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, sass comes from "sauce", of course. The sexual connotation is just an extension of "cheeky and provocative": I don't think it's a primary sense. Dbfirs 07:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


466 hyponyms, by my best count (in a collapsible box, true, but that's still a lot). Wouldn't this be better as a category? Chuck Entz (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, but the terms in the list have encyclopedic information such as lists of ingredients with quantities in grams. No evidence that this has ever been looked at by anyone but the creator and some bots. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Obama phone[edit]

Worded with a decidedly conservative slant, and the Wikipedia link bears no resemblance to the definition: where does it say anything about "minutes", let alone "unlimited minutes" (the Wikipedia article makes it look like it only applies to landlines), and where does it say anything about "minorities", aside from a reference to people living on tribal lands? This may be in use, but it should at least have a context label, and I suspect it's factually incorrect, as well. Could someone check on this?Chuck Entz (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reworded the definition based on my research. Improvements welcome. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
As it stands now, this goes a bit too far in the other direction. There seems to be a real public policy that the urban legend caricatures, and that some may be referring to rather than the urban-legend version. I think we would be better off referring to the actual policy, followed by something like "which a conservative urban legend has portrayed as...". DCDuring explains the basic idea more fully in his response at rfv. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. — Ungoliant (falai) 05:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I took a shot at it. The urban legend part struck me as a little bit on the POV side- I think referring to it as a belief is enough to avoid the trap of treating it as fact, but without implying as much of a judgment on those who believe it. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

oh, brother[edit]

Spare me please. Let's please not make this a redirect. Redirect for this phrase is horrible. Let's make an entry out of oh brother. Most redirects on this site are kind of bad actually. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? You can say "oh shit", "oh fuck", "oh hell", "oh damn", etc. The "oh" is a separate addition. Equinox 13:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I say either delete it altogether or make it an entry. oh, brother should have a definition like "Expression of displeasure." or something like that. Can we do this? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Is brother used on its own as an interjection? How often? I would make oh, brother an entry unless brother on its own is more common than very rare. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It can be, though I suppose it might be an elision of the first part. It's less common, at any rate. Then again, there are all kinds of expressions that are often preceded by oh- just about the whole gamut of spontaneous expressions of emotion. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I asked what was wrong with it, not what you want to do with it. Equinox 20:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


Please clean this up, per reason on the template I gave. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 06:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. — Ungoliant (falai) 08:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Many of the recent creations of User:Angelucci[edit]

Since SemperBlotto isn't with us at the moment, a lot of Angelucci'srecent creations are going unscrutinized. Angelucci seems incapable of learning but also doesn't seem to mind his/her entries being deleted so we've been dealing with these with speedy deletions. But we no longer have an Italian speaking active admin. parlare con tono di condiscendenza, trattare con arroganza and con tono di condiscendenza look bogus to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


The defns are lifted straight out of Oxford Dictionaries. Also, I'm too lazy ATM to add a third definition. --Type56op9 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]


This has no part of speech header, just "Definitions" which doesn't meet WT:ELE. —CodeCat 20:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that single character terms are all derived from Old and Middle Chinese, which lacked parts of speech or cause significant problems defining in modern linguistics. Just one link for now Parts of Speech: Empirical and Theoretical Advances --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Rather, parts of speech definitely exist in Chinese but they are determined by individual usage in sentences or word components, only in combinations. Even then, various sources define the same terms in the same combinations as different PoS. The important thing is, which part of speech a Chinese character is has no impact, as there is no inflection. Rather than listing assumed PoS (many dictionaries don't define parts of speeches, so a Wiktionary editor has to make them up), it's easier to provide generic senses and examples of usage. See as an example. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Language code is name/ttbc/unrecognised[edit]

This category contains translations that use names that {{ttbc}} does not recognise. They need to be fixed before this template can be orphaned, per prior BP discussions. The names should be converted into the appropriate language code. As this requires a lot of specific knowledge, I hope we can get several knowledgeable editors to help? —CodeCat 20:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we treat Ripuarian as Kölsch (ksh) don't we? That's the one in winter. The one in peace, I can't spot which it is, and in I love you, there are loads! Renard Migrant (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


I noticed this entry, and , , , , , and , in Category:English lemmas. It turns out that although the L2 says ==Translingual==, at least one of the L3 POS headers was using an English headword-line template, resulting in incorrect categorisation (not just into the new lemma categories, but into Category:English abbreviations). I've fixed these entries to use Translingual headword line templates, but we should be on the lookout for more entries like this. (I think there is a WT:TODO list that catches some or all of these, but can't find it at the moment.) - -sche (discuss) 04:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Everything below the template please, including improper template usage. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 13:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitely a poster child for the confusion about the correct POS for participles: The Swedish section probably needs to have everything except perhaps the "pedestrian" sense merged into the participle, but that's a judgement for someone who actually speaks Swedish. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

folk house[edit]

I can't make heads or tails of the current definition. After it's cleaned up, I think the entry would benefit from a picture. - -sche (discuss) 17:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but after reading some passages at b.g.c that use the term, I think it just means "the predominant form of house among the ordinary people in any given location". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The definition needs to describe the house, rather than what kind of people live in it. Unless the term is independent of style and only refers to whatever happens to be the predominant style among ordinary people at a given place and time, which I doubt. --WikiTiki89 17:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, to judge from what I saw at Boogle Gooks, that is what it means. One book talked about folk houses in India, another about folk houses in Kentucky, another about folk houses in the Mid-Atlantic states. These books had terms like folk culture and folk architecture in their titles, making me wonder if sense 2 of the adjective [[folk]] is sufficient and this term can be deleted as SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we need an extra definition at folk, the same as we currently have at vernacular (which is more-or-less a synonym here): "(architecture) of or related to local building materials and styles; not imported". Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
(By the way, if you want to see some folk houses, Wikipedia has tons of great pictures.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


Contains a long discussion of the historical usage and significance of the terms inalienable and unalienable, to the point that the entry looks more like an essay (complete with footnotes) than a dictionary entry. Yes, it's discussing matters under a dictionary's purview- but not in the manner of a dictionary.

Can someone do some pruning and reformatting so that people don't keep adding to and footnoting it even more? Chuck Entz (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that we delete everything after the first sentence in the usage note. The essay could be moved to Wikipedia if anyone thinks it is sufficiently notable. Does anyone object? If so, perhaps some of the examples of historical usage could be moved to the citations page. Dbfirs 21:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
No argument from me, assuming you're just talking about the usage notes, and not the translations, etc. The person who added the essay certainly knows whereof he speaks, but this is a dictionary, not a collection of scholarly essays. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I've never heard of unalienable, is it just a rarer form? Does usage really suggest a difference between the two? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Done what Dbfirs suggested and left in the in-line citation so readers can click to read more if they so desire. The overspill from the usage notes is at Talk:inalienable#Usage notes and could be moved in part to the citations page if someone desires. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

pickup and pick up#Noun[edit]

pickup and pick up#Noun need a bit of work. Something smells fishy with the duplication of senses.

Pretty sure the noun is only spelled pickup or pick-up. Written as two words, it's only the verb. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
In theory at least, but you know native speakers don't always follow the rules found in grammar textbooks. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Not in casual writing, no, but we rely on attestations in durably archived sources, most of which (with the exception of Usenet discussions) have been copyedited and proofread. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
To me, the sense "(tennis) a half-volley" is wrong. 'Good pickup' or 'difficult pickup' refer to the difficulty of getting the ball back into play, whereas half-volley is the shot itself. It's a very slight difference and I'm not sure any citations would lead to a distinction between the two. Perhaps a cleanup of all the sense would make it easier to fix this one. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, now I think about it, it good be a good pickup to get the ball into play, but a bad half-volley. That's what I mean. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Angr. For most if not all noun senses of pick up is an alternative form of either the hyphenated form or the solid form. This would be typical, at least for compound nouns of this kind, ie, those with an phrasal verb homonym. Some empirical work or at least consultation with authorities (lemmings) is required to confirm this. DCDuring TALK 11:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
AFAICT no dictionary puts noun definitions at pick up rather than pickup or pick-up. Searching for plurals and article/determiner combinations at COCA shows that pickup is much more common than pick-up, which is significantly more common than pick up. If noun definitions belong at pick-up they will probably be those that are closely associated or recently derived from the verb pick up.
Accordingly, I have gutted the noun section at pick up, moving the definitions to pickup or pick-up by my lights. I left the tennis sense at pick up because it has a citation, but if the preponderance of citations of that sense are of another form, its definition should also be moved. Patient work to refine this further would yield better entries. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
BNC shows the same ordering of forms, though not with as great a magnitude of difference as COCA. DCDuring TALK 12:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


I created the entry, yet could someone please help me clean it up? Thanks. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 07:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I did my best, take a look. Template goofs aside, expressions like "a term for X" should be avoided in definitions, unless the defined term actually refers to a term (think synonym: would you have it read "a term for a term which has the same meaning as another term"?). Other issues: are those two noun definitions really distinct? Also, I think "Central West Germany" should not have "West" or "Central" capitalised, unless this is a specific geographical term. Likewise for "Middle and Lower Rhine river". But I am not sure if it is, so I left that intact. Keφr 08:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
According to WP they are distinct senses: one refers to distinct languages spoken in the region (Luxembourgish, Franconian, etc.) and the other to the dialect of Standard German spoken in the Rhineland. I tweaked the definition to make that clearer, but WP isn’t exactly a paragon of trustworthiness so if anyone knows more on the subject please comment/edit. I also changed the POS to proper noun. Even though it refers to a group of languages and not to a single language, it still denotes an individual entity (the group). Compare Germanic (def. 2). — Ungoliant (falai) 16:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

the word 'jones' referring to an intense craving or addiction[edit]

I looked with interest at the definition of 'jones' and the derived word 'jonesing'. I was under the impression that the terms were slang that came into use in referring to characteristics derived from the singer Tom Jones, his singing style, and the lyrics of his songs. Is there any evidence of this being the case?

BeaJay <email redacted>

The timing is plausible, since apparently it arose in the '60s, and Tom Jones' first solo release was in 1964. I don't know what you mean about his style, though...? The heroin addict etymology sounds a lot more likely. Equinox 21:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Category:English countable proper nouns[edit]

Previous discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/July#Proper nouns

{{en-proper noun}} now puts entries here whenever they have a plural. Per the discussion, many of these are probably actually common nouns that have been miscategorised. —CodeCat 13:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I am going through them in AWB. About 50 were acronyms with {{en-proper noun|undefined}} as their headword line — strange. Others are common nouns. Others are personal names which are OK as-is. - -sche (discuss) 19:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd forgotten that we have lots of abbreviations of individual entities and that we had decided to show them with parts of speech. The plurals really seem unnatural, but not necessarily, eg, "Today I looked at the websites for the YMCAs in my county.". So maybe we do need to control the display of proper noun at the level of individual entries. Sigh. DCDuring TALK 19:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Are we the only dictionary that bothers including regular plurals? Most of them only list a plural if it's something unpredictable like "mice" or "stadia" or "appendices". As usual, everyone is wasting time on rubbish when they could be adding actual words we are missing. Equinox 09:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It's one of the advantages to not being paper. We also list the inflected forms of words in inflecting languages like Latin, which most if not all other dictionaries don't. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't find an on-line dictionary that uses computer power to show plurals either, including those that have no print counterpart. Perhaps the OED or beginning language learner dictionaries? Does anyone know of one? DCDuring TALK 13:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It is curious (and unhelpful) that the common online dictionaries don't list plurals. When I look at Merriam-Webster Online and Dictionary.com, the lack of plurals makes it impossible to tell there's a difference in terms of countability / pluralization between cat (countable) and anger (usually uncountable). - -sche (discuss) 15:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Cambridge Advanced Learners' Dictionary (online) says "A good learner’s dictionary will tell you how to make the plural of any noun." on a special page, which can be accessed from the entry for plural, but it does not actually show the plural for -s plurals in entries. So either there is dissension in the ranks or they believe that the special page suffices. Most good dictionaries cover uncountability by marking the word and/or its senses, as we do. I suppose they are trying to reduce screen clutter a bit by excluding plurals, probably believing that regular plural formation is one of the very first things that language learners pick up.
Learners dictionaries also don't confuse learners by including all the special cases that we include, eg, rare uncountability, rare and obsolete spelling, including digraphs. Even having multiple languages seems to confuse some potential users. Simple is an effort to address the needs of learners who are put off by such complications. I firmly believe that one of the things that we cannot be is an introductory English learners dictionary. DCDuring TALK 16:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It's a fallacy to think that people would be adding words if they weren't adding plurals, or indeed to think that they should be adding words rather than plurals. Language learners are one of Wiktionary's audiences, and knowing how cat and Cat pluralize is helpful to them.
- -sche (discuss) 15:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Are there any facts that say who make up our usership, especially repeat passive users?
Has our slogan been further extended further into the absurdly impractical: "All senses of all collocations in all spellings in all languages for all users (except don't bother inserting translation tables for most entries)"? DCDuring TALK 17:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

accents which are not accents[edit]

Everything in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:Others should be changed to specify which "other" accents, I think. And Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:not according to standard pronunciation should be shortened to "nonstandard", at least. And how do we feel about using {{a}} to specify part of speech? See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:adjective, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:adverb, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:singular, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:plural, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:noun, etc. Should these entries be switched to {{qualifier}}? - -sche (discuss) 08:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


About 62 main-namespace pages uses this nonexistent template. I suppose the solution is to have a bot incorporate the information that the term is plural into the preceding headword-line templates somehow. - -sche (discuss) 08:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There are no longer any main namespace pages which use this template. I don't know who cleaned them up or how, but this is resolved. - -sche (discuss) 04:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Probably MewBot when it added {{context|}} in front of all the context labels. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


Do we really need this video showing ejaculation here? I don’t think it serves a useful purpose. Video has also been added to éjaculation and magömlés. —Stephen (Talk) 11:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

No we don't. I've removed them. --WikiTiki89 11:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


The English headword line is a real mess, I can't figure out what it's meaning to say because of all the qualifiers. Furthermore, it looks like not all senses are covered. —CodeCat 16:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


Turkish verb. Needs the proper inflections or whatever we do for Turkish. Equinox 07:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


There's a template I've never seen before. It's strange that this template doesn't categorise in any way, so it's been there for a while. —CodeCat 21:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, {{rndc}} ({{copyvio}} is a redirect) categorizes into Category:Definitionless terms. It looks like it's supposed to be added after copyvio definitions have been removed, but in this case the defintions are still there. Apparently EncycloPetey didn't realize this when he added the template in 2011. My guess is that everyone who followed the link from the cat saw that it wasn't definitionless and left it for someone else to sort out. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow, that's a mess. I'd RFD both templates since they clearly haven't been used in years, and we haven't handled copyright violations or definition requests that way in years (copyvios are deleted or maybe RFCed, definition requests are made with {{rfdef}} or sometimes {{defn}}). - -sche (discuss) 06:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I nominated rndc for deletion, Only one other person commented so I closed it as passed for no consensus. My argument then and now would be we don't keep copyright violations, we delete them or if other valid content is on the page, we hide the revisions then add back the definition in our own words. I also think that no entry at all is better than a blank entry, blanked because all of the information has had to be removed. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


Forgive my naivety, but why is this entry under a "Swedish" header? Presumably all Latin-alphabet languages call this commune "Apples". This, that and the other (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like Connel MacKenzie was thinking about something else at the time and got Switzerland and Sweden transposed in his mind just long enough to choose the wrong language header. After that, it was just bots and narrowly-focused humans editing the entry, so no one noticed. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Do we really want this entry at all? I'm all in favor of including place names of largish places, especially when they have different names in different languages, but this village of 1200 people doesn't even have different names in other Swiss languages, let alone any other language. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The odd coincidence that it's spelled the same as a common English word (not counting capiitalization) should count for something. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm already over that coincidence. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


In the entry "endowment" the translations are not matching anymore the definitions--Diuturno (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I've matched the translation header to the definition, but I'm not sure that the words are correct translations. The Finnish word translates back as just "donation" (but it might also mean endowment). Dbfirs 09:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

corporeal, corporal[edit]

The problem is with senses #2 and #3

2. Of or pertaining to the body; bodily.
3. (archaic) Corporal.

So we go to corporal:

1. (archaic) Having a physical, tangible body; corporeal.
2. Of or pertaining to the body, especially the human body.

So the questions are how do senses #2 and #3 differ, apart from one is archaic and one isn't? How are senses #1 and #2 of corporal different? If they are different, which sense is corporeal #3 referring to? Renard Migrant (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised no-one has cleaned up the entry yet. Perhaps, like me, they are slightly confused by the varying senses. I'll have a go when my brain is working better, though I hope someone who thinks clearly beats me to it. Dbfirs 10:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

lore abuse[edit]

A user account (Smettems) and an IP ( are both following a common agenda: come up with etymologically-English alternatives to names of sciences that use the -ology suffix by using lore- which they're treating as a suffix- as proposed in this 1910 article. They're also adding translations to these new terms. The big problem with this agenda is that -ology isn't synonymous with lore as used in compounds: the lore compounds refer to the body of stories, beliefs and customs connected to the subjects studied by the -ologies, not the studies. Although some of these compounds are unattested except for mentions in the article I mentioned, most of them have usage that doesn't match the new definitions.

We need to go through the edits of both of these contributors (if they're not the same person), and get rid of the linguistic-engineering POV stuff. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh god. I've had a look at lakelore, and the term exists, but is not synonymous with limnology. And it's not just fixing those two lemmas (which included moving the translations for "limnology" back from "lakelore"), it's every other translation (for limnology) which has been touched. (linneolaíocht, to pick but one example, is limnology, not lakelore.)
And so on for each of these. I have no doubt that many, maybe even most of them can be attested, and I also have no doubt that they don't have the meanings given them by Smettems. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 10:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
He's also been merrily adding these terms to Wikipedia as redirects to the sciences, so he could add a link to w:lakelore or w:bonelore, and you can easily follow it to the wrong answer. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 10:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What is particularly annoying about their edits has been the removal of content from existing terms. So for instance the entire translation table was removed from trichology and replaced with {{trans-see|hairlore}}. Ƿidsiþ 11:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Lets see if we can get a list of the terms needing attention

He's also had a go at inventing deerslaughter for cervicide and catslaughter for felicide (and doesn't seem to mind that the analogous pair manslaughter and homicide are not, in fact, exact synonyms).

--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 11:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • The removal of the translation tables would make this user a candidate for blocking. The entries or the bad definitions thereon could just be RfVed, to save editing effort. I added the tags but lost internet service before I could add them to the RfV page. If no one cites them, they could be deleted to be re-added when as and if there are cites. DCDuring TALK 13:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to say, sometimes I’m sympathetic to linguistic purism, but I wouldn’t force my preferences on the project like this. (Do I get a cookie?) --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course you do. Hit F12 in your browser and type:
document.cookie = 'SETH_IS_A_GOOD_BOY=1';
Keφr 06:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Catslaughter sounds like the laughter of a cat to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


diff, is it acceptable to move the translations from coccyx to tailbone in this way? Tailbone isn't a rare English word so, I'm reluctant to revert. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh never mind, per Google Books Ngram, coccyx is way more common. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The diff you want is this one. Interestingly, although "coccyx" is more common at bgc ngrams than "tailbone", "my/your/his/her tailbone" have been more common than "my/your/his/her coccyx" since about 1980. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Isn't it a context/register issue? Coccyx is mostly medical, possibly formal. Tailbone is the lay and colloquial term, the usage of which is reinforced by widespread uncertainty as to the pronunciation of coccyx. We do try to respect register differences in translation tables, don't we? DCDuring TALK 21:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
You're right of course. If you fancy the task, go for it. Don't expect people adding future translations to respect the difference though. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I've put in {{ttbc}}s at [[coccyx]] for terms in Roman script that seemed to be calques of tailbone and at [[tailbone]] for terms that seem derived from Latin coccyx. Others would need to complete the job. DCDuring TALK 15:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


What is this an alternative form of? DTLHS (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I have my doubts that this is an alternative form of anything. Here is the context of the edit that created it. The sequence went: praeclarissime,praedaturus, praedandus, praedaturum, praedatura. The previous creation, praedaturus, also has a questionable alternative form section, and there were other errors nearby such as this: diff. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not an alt form so much as an inflected form of an alt form, which tripped up the bot. See also User_talk:SemperBlottoBot#abominandus. - -sche (discuss) 04:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

bé bằng củ khoai, cứ vai mà gọi[edit]

An anon brought this up in feedback: it's mostly a lengthy discussion of a part of traditional Vietnamese culture, with the actual definition given a very cursory treatment. It also shows poor command of English, and, being the amateur ethnobotanist that I am, I should add that it seems to mistranslate khoai (without a modifier, it should be the true yam, Dioscorea, not sweet potato, Ipomoea batatas, or something generic like potato). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

sic semper tyrannis[edit]

The language heading is Latin but the templates are for English. I’m not sure which language this should be listed as. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say English; in Latin it would be SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd say it's Latin and sum of parts; "motto of the State of Virginia" isn't a definition, it's a way of using the phrase. Mottos are in the domain of an encyclopedia not a dictionary. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
When this book says, "It was also a not too subtle warning to the British government that 'Sic semper tyrannis'", it seems to be using the phrase in English. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. I think it is still Latin, just Latin which everyone reading is expected to understand. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Let's see if this was ever used attestably in Latin before 1776, especially in a proverbial way, when it was recommended for use in the seal of the State of Virginia. It has been RfVed as a Latin term. DCDuring TALK 15:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


If anyone fancies a big job of bringing an entry into the 21st century, have a look at settle. I did my best to modernise some of the definitions and reformat things, but there's still a decent amount of work to be done to make it looks reasonable. --Type56op9 (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


An adjective meaning "mystery (of story, novel, movie etc), detective (of story, novel, movie etc), crime (of story, novel, etc.)". Really an adjective, and really meaning all of these are a single sense? Renard Migrant (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it OK now? — Ungoliant (falai) 04:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)



  1. the structure of attitudes, practices, and institutions by which humans dominate, exploit, and abuse members of other species.

If you wade through the verbiage, you'll find a rather negative POV. Can someone make (a) clear and concise NPOV definition(s) that fit(s) the usage? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


Someone with knowledge of Hindi needed to move the information in the definition line to the etymology. --Type56op9 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Now is this term used to refer to translators working in India by non-Indians, or is it Indian English for any translator? DTLHS (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


Another archaic entry. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Character needing Unicode name[edit]

This category now contains entries where some form of {{character info}} template is used without specifying the Unicode name of the character with the name= parameter. Can someone who has time and knowledge go over these and add the parameter? —CodeCat 23:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't the template just get this from Module:Unicode data? DTLHS (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Eventually we would probably rewrite it that way. But that's a long-term thing, this is more short-term. —CodeCat 00:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I've done the entries in the (g) section (23/395). It doesn't require any knowledge, really; just clicking on the codepoint link and then adding the character name from the relevant "Unicode Utilities: Character Properties" page to the character info box. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits of IP user[edit]

This person has been adding pronunciations with ju for the letter u/sound u to entries. Nothing wrong with that, even if it does give their idiolect undue weight in entries that had no IPA at all. It got so I was skipping their edits in my patrolling to concentrate on the sort more likely to be vandalism (my IPA is a bit rusty), but just now I found an entry where they replaced an existing pronunciation with one of theirs. I suspect that they've done this more than once, but I don't know whether it's a serious problem or just one or two occasions. They also seemed to have done a few changes here and there to convert to UK as opposed to US spellings. Could someone who's more comfortable with IPA look through their edits to check for problems? There are a few dozen edits, most of which have already been patrolled, but perhaps not with such issues in mind. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've cleaned up his edits from the 17th. Nothing wrong with them really except failing to distinguish RP pronuns from GenAm pronuns. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

by your leave[edit]

Needs to be fixed up to meet ELE. I would do it if I had time! This, that and the other (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by DCDuring, it seems. Equinox 13:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I included senseid links from the headword to [[by]] and [[leave]] in lieu of an etymology section. Annoyingly, the use of {{senseid}} places the entry in Category:Link with section. DCDuring TALK 13:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Muslim, Musliming, Muslimed[edit]

Musliming and Muslimed are defined as inflected forms of a verb, but Muslim lists no verbal sense. - -sche (discuss) 16:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I added a verb section with an {{rfdef}}. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Some of the citations given for those inflected forms are for the verb "out-Muslim", which is something distinct. I cannot extract any consistent meaning from the rest. The 2011 Usenet citation for "Muslimed" is especially telling: 'Everything, France has been Jewed." What does that mean? If his wife were muslim would france be muslimed?' — which suggests that this supposed verb has no coherent meaning at all. And I believe we usually place citations with the lemma form, do we not?
This is not the first time PaM basically makes shit up. Can anyone tell me why do we still let him loose here? Keφr 17:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually that conversation was about the secular nature of France, so it was certainly not meaningless. The reason I used this form rather than the lemma is because it would take very long to find citations in the lemma form. Pass a Method (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
You missed the point: they were treating "muslimed" as a hypothetical word that would be formed from muslim in the same way as "Jewed" was formed from Jew, with the implication that the word so formed would be nonsense. You aren't very good at reading contexts, which is a large part of why there are so many problems with your edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


What is the right context tag for this? I see several modern books that use it, but many of them use it in lower case (hanif) or it italics (suggesting it's not an English word). - -sche (discuss) 16:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

They are basically pre-Muhammadan Muslims. People who lived in the 6th century and earlier but maintained the original message of Abraham from the Muslim perspective. I have corrected the definition. Pass a Method (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thai entries with translations[edit]

Found them by accident, while compiling a list of pages to process with xte. I guess the translation lists need to be moved somewhere.

Keφr 05:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the first two should be split into เอามะพร้าวห้าวไปขายสวน and เอาแป้งนวลไปขายชาววัง (two sayings, same meaning), and เสร็จนาฆ่าโคถึก and เสร็จศึกฆ่าขุนพล (two sayings, same meaning). Not sure whether they should be called sayings, phrases, or proverbs. —Stephen (Talk) 08:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I just deleted the translations. If anyone wants to fish them out of the history and put them in an English entry, then do so. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Cleaned up. —Stephen (Talk) 14:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


This transwiki attempts to categorize into the nonexistent Category:English Hindu given names‏‎. I'm not really sure whether this is English or transliterated Hindi. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


Translations need a lot of work / verification- some languages we don't recognize. DTLHS (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requested entries (Japanese)[edit]

The page is full of rōmaji, which is a romanisation for Japanese, not the native Japanese script, which can be kanji, hiragana and katakana only. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So create the kanji/kana entries referred to by the romaji. Most people who use request pages don't speak the languages they're adding requests for, so it's unrealistic to expect them to only use scripts they don't know in order to make a request. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. It still needs cleaning up. Lots of names of parks or mountains, mixed with kanji/kana as original requests and there is a similar page Wiktionary:Requested entries:Japanese/Non-romaji for kanji/kana terms. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]


I think the "Derived terms" and "Related terms" need some attention. In my opinion, most if not all entries under "Related terms" are actually "Derived terms". Donnanz (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I have tackled this myself, putting everything under one heading (derived terms), and have removed the rfc. If anyone disagrees, they are welcome to change it. Donnanz (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Is spatial derived from space or from Latin spatium? It's not exactly a massive issue. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
DCDuring has just done some work on this, but both space and spatial are derived from spatium apparently. Donnanz (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Spatial was apparently coined in English as space + al, but modified to look like it could be from the imaginary Latin spatialis. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


There are 8 uncategorized which are protected. I don't suppose an admin could add Category:Wiktionary:Files? It's very very minor. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneAɴɢʀ (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits to single-kanji entries by (talk)[edit] (talk) has been adding def lines to the ===Kanji=== sections of single-kanji entries. In and of itself, this is generally a good thing. However, 1) they're going for comprehensive instead of summary listings, and 2) they're causing copyright violations, since (so far as I've seen) they're directly copying and pasting in content from WWWJDIC.

I'm still far too busy at work to make any concerted effort at cleaning up this mess. I would greatly appreciate any help in vetting this user's edits, especially to single-kanji entries. In particular, compare what they've added to the definitions listed at http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1B and make sure they aren't just copied straight over. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


Derived terms: This very large section includes many vernacular names of pigeon species and subspecies and many pigeon breeds (shown as Columba livia domestica, which is not a universally accepted species AFAICT), such as the 700 or so listed at w:List of pigeon breeds. These are probably legitimate. Some of the items in the DT section seem on their face to be SoP, but may be on the list or be short names for breeds on the list. It would help if someone knowledgeable about pigeon breeding could sort through this list. I will work on the vernacular names of species in the meanwhile. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


There's a formatting problem with a quote at Ebola. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I felt like this was gonna be a joke (requests for cleanup, Ebola) but no. They've just not used the right parameters they've formatted it as if this were Wikipedia, which pretty much never works, ever! Renard Migrant (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


Six-winged what? — Ungoliant (falai) 20:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Anything that has six wings. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The current definition is ungrammatical. How about "a six-winged creature"? But are we sure this is a noun? Is this word used in the OCS corpus in any way other than to describe seraphim? Couldn't it be an adjective? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
While it’s not OCS but OES, in the Lay of Igor’s Campaign we find
»Инъгварь и Всеволодъ
и вси три Мстиславичи,
не худа гнѣзда шестокрилци
which neither refers to seraphim nor can be interpreted as an adjective. That the word in OCS is similarly a noun is supported morphologically (it’s formed from an adjective plus the nominalizing suffix -ĭcĭ) and etymologically (its descendants and cognates are nouns). Vorziblix (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
In OES it is a noun. The modern Russian translation uses "six-winged eagles":
И́нгвар и Все́волод,
и все тро́е Мстисла́вичи,
не худо́го гнезда́ орлы́ шестикры́лые!
Ingvar and Vsevolod
And all three Mstislavich(es),
The six-winged (eagles) not from a poor nest!
--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, that’s what I meant (note the “neither... nor” above). Sorry I wasn’t clear. Vorziblix (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
By its ending CU "шєстокрилатьць" can't be an adjective, it's a pure noun, not a nominalised adjective. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
A nominalized adjective is a pure noun, if it’s formed with derivational affixes (as is the case here). Of course you are right that “шєстокрилатьць” can’t be an adjective, but it is nonetheless derived from “шєстокрилатъ” (an adjective) + “ьць” (a nominalizing derivational suffix). Vorziblix (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

developmental social anxiety and chronic social anxiety[edit]

I'm trying to make these entries according to Wikipedia's only sentence about them (which sucks). "Developmental social anxiety occurs early in childhood as a normal part of the development of social functioning and is a stage that most children grow out of, but it may persist or resurface and grow into chronic social anxiety." How can we clean this entry up and make the new chronic social anxiety? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 03:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely both are SOP? developmental/chronic social anxiety --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 03:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd imagine chronic social anxiety is social anxiety of a chronic nature. Developmental social anxiety seems a lot less clear cut; Wikipedia says "[d]evelopmental social anxiety occurs early in childhood as a normal part of the development of social functioning and is a stage that most children grow out of". Is this really social anxiety that's related to development? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


A few problems, only one of them major, which is tope#Etymology 4 which is definitionless but has "common usage: isotope i.e. "same place" (e.g. in the periodic table of the elements)." Not sure this is real or the definition that comes from that etymology. Etymology 1 I assume should be split, unless the "shark" and the "To drink excessively" senses are from the same etymology. Finally the Tamil and the Sanskrit would be nice, in etymologies 2 and 3. Thanks, Renard Migrant (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I split the first etymology and deleted the fourth. I have a hunch the shark name is related to taupe because of the gray color, but I have absolutely no sources to back me up. The Buddhist structure sense looks like it might be a doublet of its synonym, stupa, but, there again, that's a guess. The deleted sense seems to be based on the assumption that isotope must be made up of two English morphemes- even though chemistry is full of terms coined from Greek parts that have no individual meaning in English. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the Buddhist sense is probably a doublet of stupa, especially considering the Pali form of the latter is thūpa. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks basically done. Of course original script is always better than no original script, but I don't consider it a 'cleanup' issue. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


Just… everything (including edits from Pass a Method's previous account). I lost my patience when he created genital- and Category:English words prefixed with genital-. This user ought to be blocked indefinitely. The definitions are poor and some terms seem plain made-up. The citations that are there are not in chronological order, and their quality is also questionable: do we really need to accept citations of usage by someone who cannot even be bothered to spell "Obama" with a capital letter (2009 citation here)? Keφr 06:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've tidied a few, patrol-marked the good ones, and deleted some clear junk. Much more to do. Be especially suspicious regarding hyphens, since he never checked sources to see whether there was a hyphen in the word. (Google's snippets remove them at line endings.) Equinox 13:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Usenet citations, no matter the ambient orthography, are fine as citations of words, at least words with acceptable spellings themselves. Fast typing without capitalization could be considered evidence of the near-colloquial nature the speech recorded in Usenet. DCDuring TALK 13:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Not terribly relevant, but I can't think of any single-word compounds with 'genital' as the first word. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Add User:Zigguzoo to the list... Equinox 21:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Does this count as sockpuppetry now? Technically he switched accounts after his block expired. Keφr 14:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I want to stress the large number of bad sloppy entries and the high rate of ongoing creation. Equinox 22:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

recessive (Italian)[edit]

Could someone format the templates, please? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There are thousands like this. The template is {{feminine plural of|example word|lang=it}} and I see someone's already done it. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Isn't this what automation or semi-automation is for? Why not recruit some help at WT:GP? DCDuring TALK 19:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. The tricky bit is getting the bot to recognize all the different nonstandard formats. Specifically with Italian, the number of entries involved is so great that AutoWikiBrowser breaks down. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


Mostly the etymology. Keφr 07:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it’s osphresis + -o- + -lagnia. — Ungoliant (falai) 07:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The Greek in the etymology wasn't plausible morphologically, so I replaced it with Greek that is- I didn't really analyze it further. With any Greek-based scientific term, you're always faced with the question of whether the parts are Greek or modern-language morphemes derived from Greek. The -o- looks like it's from modern conventions for building scientific terms, but osphresis is pretty rare, so I'm not so sure someone would use it rather than just pulling the original from Ancient Greek. We also don't know the history of the term- for all we know, it could be borrowed from French like several other terms in psychology. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


Italian: feminine plural of muro. Makes no sense, muro is listed as a masculine noun with the plural muri, it says see also mura. If muro did have a feminine form, mura would be the singular and mure the plural (using the usual rules anyway). If there is such a meaning, what it is? Because we don't have it. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It really is the feminine plural of muro. Mura is used to give the idea of “togetherness”, in the same way that collective nouns are used. But the presentation can certainly be improved. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like it could have been a direct descendant of the Latin neuter plural, except that mūrus is masculine. Does it really take feminine plural concord, e.g. Le mura sono alte? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
It does. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a job for a usage note and example sentences. No one is going to expect a masculine noun to have, in addition to its regular masculine plural, a feminine plural form that looks like a feminine singular. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Preferably a templatised usage note (or a definition-line template?) since there are many words like this. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Muro doesn't mention it (at least not its meaning) and mura really doesn't mention its meaning either, so of one these entries has to mention what it means. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Bump. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Hepburn Chart[edit]

An IP complained about the font size on this page, which is understandable, but that's just part of what's wrong with it. The table is hard-coded html, there's no wikilinking or font support, and it's just plain ugly. Can someone de-uglify this thing? Chuck Entz (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Wow, I never even knew that page existed. It's only got three incoming links: this RFC, the index to appendices, and the English term entry Romanization.
@Atitarev, Haplology, TAKASUGI Shinji, Wyang: is there any value in having this table? It isn't referenced, it's poorly laid out and hard to read, and it doesn't cover all of the modified-Hepburn romanization conventions we use here. Nominate for deletion? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 09:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind if it goes, not a great table but we should probably have a better appendix for kana, if there isn't one already. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
If we need an appendix for kana, we should rather rewrite the existing appendix than delete it. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree but I won't be able to do it well. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • We already have Wiktionary:About_Japanese/Transliteration as a text-based (as opposed to tabular) explanation of how we romanize Japanese terms here on the EN WT. That page has better potential visibility (with a link to it right on the WT:AJA page) and is more comprehensive in its treatment of modified Hepburn. It could probably use updating, granted, but it's a much better resource and better location than the nearly-orphaned Appendix:Hepburn Chart page.
If there's anything worthy of salvaging from the Appendix:Hepburn Chart page, I propose that we move that salvageable content over to Wiktionary:About_Japanese/Transliteration and then delete Appendix:Hepburn Chart. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Eirikr: It's not just about salvaging what's missing. Tables are easier to view and use, provided it's done well. Wiktionary:About Japanese/Transliteration doesn't seem complete and easy to read. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, apparently I wasn't clear -- To restate, I think the Appendix:Hepburn Chart page is a horrible location for any of this information. It's not linked from anywhere, it's not highly visible, and I doubt many people even knew it existed before it showed up on this page. (I certainly didn't.) The content could be absolutely golden, and a perfect explanation of the wonders of the universe -- but if it's hidden away in a page location that is obscure and unfindable, there's no value.
If you like the table format, great -- let's move that content to Wiktionary:About_Japanese/Transliteration. I happen to agree that the table layout is more easily digestible. However, the Appendix:Hepburn Chart page is not the best place for this. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@Eirikr, Haplology, TAKASUGI Shinji, Wyang:. Yes, sure. The first step is to move the table, then reformat. I had no objections about the location. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


I tried to make a Sercquiais entry, but it did not work. Apparently Wiktionary does not have anymore of a database of Sercquiais than it does in its English entry. Could someone please help me bring about Sercquiais entries on Wiktionary? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 22:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You should have first found out whether Wiktionary considers Sercquiais a language. Currently, we don't (or at least it's not included in our data modules as a language). From what w:Sercquiais language says, it could be possibly be considered a form of Jèrriais, but I don't know if the issue has been considered here at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Why not delete the entry for now then and talk about this in the grease pit? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 23:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not really a Grease Pit issue, but a question of whether we should even have Sercquiais as a separate language. I started a discussion of it at the Beer Parlour. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Is this definitely citable? If it is, don't delete, we can change the language any time we like. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits by IP socks of Fête/Phung Wilson[edit]

Both of these globally-blocked accounts belonged to the same person, who lives in Quebec and has a pattern of bad edits and incessant asking of questions regarding pronunciation. Since then, he's popped up as one IP or another to ask pronunciation questions. I haven't blocked him so far, because he seemed to be just asking questions. I finally blocked his latest IP after he edited a pronunciation module, and checking contributions has turned up a number of pronunciation edits. Here's a list of the IP's I've been able to find using wildcarding from edits I knew about (there are probably more that I've missed):

There are also lots of edits by the original Fête and Phung Wilson accounts that don't seem to have been thoroughly vetted- it's hard to find Quebecois French pronunciation sections that haven't been at least tinkered with. I noticed an odd, rambling pronunciation note at mayonnaise, and, sure enough, it was added by Fête. If it weren't for the IP's request for audio bringing it to Mr. Granger's attention, it would still be there in its original form.

I would appreciate someone who knows pronunciation going through the mainspace contributions of the above and checking for bad edits. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


I haven't tagged this, it's just a question of what order Old English goes in. Should it be at the top like contemporary English, or be moved further south, under O, like Old Norse etc.? I have never dealt with Old English before. Donnanz (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I moved it to the correct position: it goes in with all the other non-English laguages. For future reference, you can look at other entries via Category:Old English lemmas and see what the common practice is for the language. Also, check WT:AANG. That way, if you're wrong, you're at least in good company... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Cheers. I will remember that, if I come across a similar situation. Donnanz (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


"Process of hearing something that is contrary to what the receiver thought that they heard." Renard Migrant (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a terrible definition. I've added an etymology, though I have to say that I've never encountered this word myself. Equinox 23:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, wait, I see what you mean: it's actually contrary to what the speaker said. Will try to fix. Equinox 23:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Any difference between this and mishearing? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Good spot, let's just put "A mishearing". Renard Migrant (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


Adjective meaning "(grammar) Qualified". I can't see which sense of qualified or qualify applies, certainly none of them are marked (grammar). Could we just use a definition consisting of more than one word, perhaps? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Old Red Sandstone[edit]

Odd capitalisation, possibly vague definition. Potentially a proper noun. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Geological formations have "official" proper nouns (eg, Oxfordian, Hettangian, Stage 10 of the Cambrian), that fit into a hierarchical scheme, and recognized synonyms of similar morphology. But there are also numerous older and 'local' names of different morphology, of which this is apparently one. There seems to be a process by which such formations are rendered into synonyms of the official names that is similar to that for species and genera in the taxonomy of life.
Thus it seems to be just as much a proper noun as typical taxa and toponyms are. I have formatted, wikilinked, and illustrated it. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
See stratigraphy.org to find the International Chronostratigrahic Chart (official names), the GeoWhen Database (official names and others), and the Stratigraphic Guide which defines terms. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

people-first language[edit]

Lots of formating problems. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


Various formatting problems. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

deviere, a Romanian entry[edit]

I made this entry but was confused when making the declension table. I tried using Template:ro-noun-f, but it just didn't seem right. Compare my entry to the actual entry's declension template on the Romanian Wiktionary, and you'll see what I mean. Where are the dative cases, genitive, vocative, where is all that on this table? I don't understand. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 21:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That's an awfully good question. An even better one in my opinion, what the Hell is {{ro-noun-f}} for if it's not suitable for Romanian feminine nouns? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If you look to the left-hand side of the table, you should see nominative/accusative and genitive/dative. The way the articulation forms are laid out is much clearer to a nonnative speaker. —Stephen (Talk) 10:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


  1. Is there any reason why this should have the plural as lemma? The singular is attested;
  2. the second definition needs rewording. It’s not “the relationship [] ” but “people having the relationship [] ” (I can’t think of a way of doing it elegantly);
  3. looking at google books:"co-parent-in-law"|"co-parents-in-law", it seems the most common use is in translating languages that have a single word for this. Is this worth mentioning in the usage notes? Or maybe a context label like chiefly anthropology and linguistics.

Ungoliant (falai) 22:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]


At present showing as both American and British English forms, which is ridiculous. Br. Eng. forms should be removed at least. Donnanz (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The Oxford spelling uses -ize. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm only too aware of that, can the entry be neutralised then, as neither one nor the other? Donnanz (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
It says American and Oxford, which is accurate. If we neutralized it, it would just say "alternative form of anonymise", which is less informative. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't explain myself very well. I would like to get rid of the links to American English forms and British English forms as they are superfluous; it would need to be rewritten to accomplish that. Donnanz (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think they are superfluous, as they indicate two varieties of English in which the -ize spelling is standard: (1) American English, (2) Oxford spelling of British English. To this could be added Canadian English. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
In that case, a good percentage of the dictionary should be treated the same way; I think that idea is rather daft though, and a non-starter. Donnanz (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I've always wanted to 'lemmatize' -ize spellings as it's just simpler and pretty accurate too. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I regard the categorisation of -ise spellings as British English forms as much more important, and that task is nowhere near finished. Donnanz (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Amusingly, although the OED have the "z" spelling in their heading, all seven of their cites use the "s" spelling that is now standard in British English. It's time that we found a way to have one set of definitions shown in both entries, but the only suggestion has been to have the set of definitions in template space. Dbfirs 10:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
It's always been standard, Oxford just prefers -z- spellings. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Much to my disgust, but Oxford seem to be unshakeable. -ise spellings are standard in NZ too. Donnanz (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Dbfirs: I could be wrong, but I think transclusion is the only halfway-graceful way of resolving many of the UK/US entry-synchroni[s|z]ation issues: put the entry content in one place, and use {{PAGENAME}} to grab the headword from the transcluding page to make sure the correct spelling shows up for the viewer.
I dimly remember discussing a similar idea years ago, but that was before Lua was rolled out, and the general consensus was that the technical difficulties made this approach infeasible. Now that we have Lua and proper string processing, I think we should probably revisit this issue and evaluate our options.
I'll start a thread (if there isn't one already) over at WT:GP. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Arrowred.png Thread created here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


Per Romanophile. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I inserted the correct conjugation. This should be O.K. now. --Romanophile (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


Self explanatory. Doesn't make sense because of grammatical errors. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 04:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I just deleted the second line. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


The second and third definitions look like they should be moved to a (proper?) noun section. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I've seen {{context|substantive}} in Serbo-Croatian adjectives before. I have no expertise to say why. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I would absolutely not change it without good knowledge of the language. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Contributions of User:Amateur55[edit]

This person seems to be fairly knowledgeable about several Cyrillic-based languages, but they've been changing transliteration modules and transliteration pages right and left. I would appreciate it if someone who knows something about said languages (@Atitarev:? @Stephen G. Brown:? @Borovi4ok:?) checked to see if I was correct in reverting some of their edits and checked to see if I missed any that should have been reverted. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you were right in reverting the changes. Any changes can be discussed here. They are numerous and affect various languages. With some languages it's a matter of choice and convention, like e.g. Bashkir. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me explain the changes I made before your rollbacks:
  • The Kazakh transliteration module is horribly wrongly implemented. Among other things, it romanizes both "Ы" and "І" as "I" while the latter should have been "İ" as can be seen in the Wikipedia article about the Kazakh alphabets and the Latin version of the Kazakh news agency website itself. That module also lacks a transliteration of the Kazakh letter Һ. Similarly, all the other changes I made on that module follow the national KazInform system, and thus I'm restoring my changes concerning Kazakh.
  • The Kyrgyz transliteration module itself is fine, but in this case, it's the page WT:KY TR that lacks critical information, namely the fact that the Cyrillic letter И should be romanized İ and not I. I don't see anything wrong with restoring this simple change either.
  • My other changes can be subject of some discussion so I'm not restoring them until there's a consensus, but here's my reasoning for them:
    • The Tuvan alphabet is identical to the one of Kyrgyz, and the only difference in the sound values of the letters is the fact that Ж represents a fricative rather than an affricate, hence the use of J instead of C. Being related languages, it only makes sense that they are romanized using similar systems.
    • The Bashkir language is closely related to the Tatar language to the point they are considered dialects of one language by some linguists. Again, it would make more sense to romanize these two languages using similar systems rather than one following a Turkic and the other following a Slavic convention. – Amateur55 (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Such big changes, even if 'correct' (transliteration is an art not a science after all) must be discussed on WT:BP before implementing. These are straightforward rollbacks as there is no other option. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
@Amateur55: The changes to Kazakh and Kyrgyz transliterations are OK, still you're doing it unilaterally. Bashkir and Tatar transliterations need to be discussed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Atitarev: It would be nice if you (or someone else familiar with the procedure) start a discussion at the appropriate place since I'm not sure where/how to do it. – Amateur55 (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Amateur55: Your Kazakh and Kyrgyz changes seem like minor fixes, which make sense to me (not sure about others). Yes, Bashkir is close to Tatar and they are mutually comprehensible but Bashkir has specific letters and sounds, such as ҙ /ð/ and ҫ /θ/. It doesn't make sense to use ź and ś to transliterate them. Also, Tatar only has /к/ (k or q) but Bashkir has two letters к (k) and ҡ (q) and cognates don't match in spellings. Transliterations of these languages have been around for many years, so please respect the editors involved. You can suggest changes in Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/December (or a page with a corresponding month). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Most Bashkir words with /ð/ and /θ/ are cognates with words having /s/ and /z/ in the same position in Tatar and other Turkic languages. Transliterating these phonemes as ś and ź is a common convention among Turkologists.
I don't see how the spelling of cognates regarding ⟨q⟩ and ⟨k⟩ don't match. They definitely do. – Amateur55 (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I see some problem with viewing all Turkic languages from the Turkish perspective. E.g. Tatar verb lemmas are represented differently from Russian Tatar linguists, Tatar (also Kazakh and Kyrgyz) appear in Roman letters in Turkish dictionaries, when speakers of these languages officially and mainly use Cyrillic. ś and ź represent /ɕ/ and /ʑ/ in Polish and may represent /sʲ/ and /zʲ/ in some romanised Belarusian (łacinka). Bashkir usually use ҡ when Tatar uses к, that's where a mismatch is. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Amateur55:, are your transliteration schemes documented somewhere? In my opinion, we should use the Turkological convention, if it is documented in some serious published source. --Vahag (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Vahagn Petrosyan: I don't know whether these count as serious published sources but, though both differ slightly in some other letters from the version I posted, both of the sources below use Ś and Ź for transliterating Ҫ and Ҙ.
The second table references the BGN/PCGN 2007 Agreement. It is a serious source. And it uses scientific transliteration, unusual for BGN/PCGN. I think we should switch to it. --Vahag (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
That system is generally fine but it has some of its own peculiarities, like the transliteration of ы as i (I think this might be an error, actually) and ә as ә. – Amateur55 (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
So you want a Wiktionary-specific mixture of established systems? I don't like that, but we have precedents: WT:RU TR. --Vahag (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


The POS is adjective but it’s defined as an adverb. Which is it? — Ungoliant (falai) 15:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be an adjective, since it always modifies nouns (or pronouns). See a- Etymology 2, though: it's basically a form of the verb. "The horns are ablare" is equivalent to "the horns are blaring", which is mostly equivalent to "the horns blare". I suppose you could say an a- word is describing the noun modified as being in the state of doing (or being, in the case of stative verbs) what the prefixed verb indicates. The confusion between adverb and adjective isn't limited to this word: ablaze has both an adjective and an adverb section, which doesn't seem to me to be correct. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer adverb as I feel like adverbs can occasionally qualify the verb 'to be'. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


An IP just removed some of the more bizarre wording in this entry, but it still uses an obsolete English word in the definition, and could use some attention from a fluent speaker in general, given the emotionally-charged subject matter.

As "schänden" and "(to) shend" are related and as "schänden" literally means "(to) shend", I guess "shend" resp. "(literally) a person who [...] shends children" should be mentioned. As the word is also explained as "a child abuser", I can't see any problem. -IP, 19:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Shend has three meanings and I don't know which the entry Kinderschänder is referring to. Replace with a common English word; is this a 'child blamer' (sense #2 of shend)? Renard Migrant (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
A Kinderschänder is simply a child molester. There is no reason whatsoever to use an obsolete English word just because it's cognate with the German word. That's silly. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I've cleaned it up now, but it's raised some questions I'm going to bring up at RFV and the Tea room. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! You've addressed my concerns, and the remaining issue will be dealt with at rfv independently, so I'm going to close out this request. As far as I'm concerned, this is Done. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

As there are "Grabschänder" (grave desecrator) and "Leichenschänder" (necrophiliac, desecrator of a corpse or of corpses) and as "schän­den" can at least mean "1. to put shame on someone; 2. to desecrate, profane; 3. to sexually abuse someone" the etymology part with "Schänder (“molester”)" it doesn't seem to be better now. Even if it's nowadays simply "Kinderschänder = someone who sexually abuses children = child abuser, child moster, child rapist", historically it could have (also) meant "Kinderschänder = someone who puts shame on children (by sexually abusing them) = child shender" or "Kinderschänder = someone who profanes children, someone who soils the the purity of children, someone who takes the innocence (which can also mean: virginity) of children". For today's meaning it's irrelevant, but for etymology it isn't. Therefore the "molester" part in the etymology should be accompanied by some other nouns or shouldn't be "translated" at all (as all those information should be in the entries Schänder or schänden). - 23:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't have an entry at Schänden, but when we do, the word shend should only be mentioned in the etymology as a cognate- not used in the definition. It doesn't matter how close it is in range of meaning to schänden, it's not part of English as it's spoken today- you might as well use Latin or Chinese. As far as the choice of molester to gloss Schänder, that's a bit more iffy. In modern English, the more innocuous meanings of molest have fallen out of use because of their association with child molester, so that one could argue that "molest" is a term for "sexual abuse" in current-day English, but that's not an open-and-shut case. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
In the context of the word Kinderschänder, Schänder means "molester". In other contexts, it has other meanings, but this entry isn't about other contexts. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


There is too little information about ve- in the article. There are two ve- prefixes. One is a negative prefix as in vecors and vesanus, the other is an intensifier as in vescor (don't confuse) and vescus. Maybe contracted from valde... All this from here. May have more insight in the many words starting with ve too. Or find another source of explanation. Doesn't seem too overly hard to convert the bit of information to Wiktionary format if you are used... :) Thank you. —This unsigned comment was added by 2001:8A0:431D:6501:54FC:304E:90FD:9823 (talk) at 22:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC).


The definition:

  1. A group of suctorial infusoria, which in the adult stage are stationary.

This apparently meant something a century ago, but I don't know enough to recognize anything modern among the few Google Books hits.

As far as I can tell, "suctorial infusoria" was once one of the principal divisions of microorganism taxonomy, but the way we classify things has changed so much that it might as well be "frammistatic thingamajeebers".

Can someone with more knowledge of biology make some sense out of this cryptic relic of Webster 1913? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(I've moved it to the capitalised form per Google Books search, and changed from noun to proper noun. Perhaps it should be Translingual rather than English.) Equinox 10:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
It does seem to be Translingual. It seems to have been used by Haeckel. It is probably obsolete. I will attempt some further research on it. DCDuring TALK 16:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Acinetae in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 and Infusoria in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 indicate that these are from an area that was "unsettled" at that time. It would be interesting to try to link it to modern classifications, but they are also unsettled. In any event, above my paygrade. DCDuring TALK 16:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure this is just what it looks like — an obsolete term for the Suctoria, which were once classed as infusoria. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Yep, that looks like it. I figured it might be pretty simple for someone who knew the right way to look at it. I suppose I would have eventually figured it out, but only after wasting a lot of time getting up to speed. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Century 1911 is a pretty good source for 19th century taxonomic names, sometimes giving multiple definitions, if there was disagreement. Merriam-Webster's 2nd International (c. 1935) can help too. MW 1913 is not as good as either of the preceding, AFAICT. I suppose we do more service by defining, even crudely, the older supergeneric names than trying to track the latest accepted names, which others do better than we can. What are other good sources for older supergeneric names? DCDuring TALK 04:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:English proper adjectives[edit]

Since there was no consensus to delete this category, would anyone like to help fill it up? "Proper adjective" is not a formally-defined part of speech, so you can potentially add any adjective you like; the category currently contains a small handful of the many adjectives derived from personal or place-names that we have entries for, so you could start by adding more of those. - -sche (discuss) 04:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

We have a pretty unambiguous definition of proper adjective. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Request to transfer a page from Wikipedia[edit]

Since I am not qualified to do so, could someone please transfer this page/word to the wiktionary? Ineuw (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done We already had an entry. I've added the sole reference from your article. Equinox 22:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


These pretty much all need checking. Poor quality English and inaccuracies. Some relatively minor, using ===Idiom=== header where ===Verb=== and {{context|idiomatic|lang=en}} would be standard practice. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I've tried to fix some of his/her previous creations. In particular (aside from some silly SoPs) I'm concerned that he/she is creating everyday phrases with the wrong definition. Equinox 00:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
keep your head above water, doesn't mean that, does it? I thought it meant to survive (because if you don't keep your head above water, you drown). Current definition says 'be vigilant'. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
slow your roll. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be redundant to keep one's head above water. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


(Turkish) Etymology 1 and etymology 2 are exactly the same. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Or at least the spellings are identical. Perhaps there are two different Old Turkic nouns 'bod' and two different Proto-Turkic nouns 'bod' too. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I suspect they copied the text from the first etymology and forgot to change it. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You're right that's more likely. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


Apparently a good entry (Gaffiot, Latin-French dictionary) but the formatting is terrible. Also 'evil-smelling', do we need to rfv that? Or just alter the definition, not delete it? Gaffiot says 'that smells bad' and 'which has an odor'. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

L&S agrees with Gaffiot. Does that look better? --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
It's the declension table I didn't know how to do, so yes. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)