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 April 2013[edit]

April 2013[edit]


Both etymologies are at the top, and no attempt is made to split by etymology. I'm somewhat surprised there is an etymology for this which isn't jump + -er, but oh well. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Pretty straightforward, so I just did it (I may have overlooked a detail or two). I'm not positive about the etymology of the electric/electronic senses, or of the rompers one, but both are plausible where they are. The 4th sense under Etymology 1 looks like it might be SOP, but there's nothing at jump that matches. The senses at jump would probably benefit from a little scrutiny, anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there's broad consensus here that single words are never SOP (at least in the CFI-violating sense) due to their morphology, otherwise we couldn't have terms like possessing or shoes. —Angr 09:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


rfc-sense: To make a fool of. The citation suggests this is valid, so I'm not sure what exactly needs cleaning up. Maybe it needs {{obsolete}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The citation is quoted in this dictionary, which has several related entries (different pos). It seems to mean to make look ridiculous, as performing antics might do to one. Obsolete seems right. — Pingkudimmi 13:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


Impaired condition. What does this even mean, speedy delete? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


Etymological material confounded with definitions. DCDuring TALK 11:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


Marked, not listed. Quotations need sorting out. H. (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


The declension table for the comparative forms of the word "viel" should only contain the word "mehr" with no typical adjective endings added. Rkaup (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

See my response at WT:RFV#mehrem. It's better not to open multiple discussions of the same issue. —Angr 22:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


The current etymology:

Most likely influenced by the Danish word tak, the Norwegian word "takk", the Swedish word tack, and the Icelandic word takk, meaning thanks, via a process of final consonant deletion see Wikipedia.

It doesn't say what was influenced, or where it came from. It's unlikely that all four languages did the influencing- some seem to have been added by "my-language-too" partisans. And, to top it off, the Wikipedia section linked to is a discussion of a phenomenon in AAVE that has nothing to do with with this term. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I've heard this word used in contexts that aren't quite "thanks", and I could swear I'd run across an explanation that this came from Irish (it is). Dunno if that's a potentially useful avenue of investigation, but there you go. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I decided there wasn't enough reliable content in among all the flimsy guesswork, and no help forthcoming- so I just deleted the whole etymology section. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


Merge noun sections or split by etymology. Is the suffix really derived from the plural? — Pingkudimmi 06:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

gay pride[edit]

The second definition relies on a previous mention of parades which (mention) doesn't exist; the first definition is more of a non-gloss definition of the slogan "gay pride!" than of the noun "gay pride". The whole thing might be SOP. - -sche (discuss) 08:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's SoP if that helps. Just poorly defined. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, gay pride is not just "solidarity" among gay people, as in wretchedness or oppression; it is a positive thing (pride, being pleased with what they are). Equinox 15:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Using an -ing-form ("expressing") to define a term headed by a noun describing a state or condition seems amateurish.
Here's the 21st Century Lexicon's def (Dictionary.com): "a sense of dignity and satisfaction involved in the public admission of one's homosexuality"
Here's Cambridge: "the idea that gay people should not keep the fact of their sexuality secret and that they should be proud of it instead, or the social and political movement that is based on this idea"
The underlining of head of definiens is mine.
Those are the only dictionary definitions that I could find at OneLook apart from Urban dictionary and ours. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
By total coincidence, a few minutes after reading this I read an article online via facebook: Lesbian asylum seekers asked: Have you read Oscar Wilde? Do you use sex toys? Where do you go clubbing?. It contains citations for pride or in this case Pride as a public event celebrating LGBT. I live in a big city in the UK and we have an annual Leeds Pride in the summer. Yes it is a separate issue because I'm talking about pride not gay pride. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots[edit]

This page and its subpages don't contain just roots, but a rather unorganised mix of roots, stems and even full words. It also seems rather redundant to Category:Proto-Indo-European roots. And the idea of listing all descendants on those pages seems doomed from the start, because there will be far more descendants than we could comfortably list in a table in many circumstances. I would prefer deleting this page outright but maybe someone else knows what to do with it. —CodeCat 18:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


I'm not quite sure what the definition is trying to get across. Is it any more than calculate?--Hyarmendacil (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Dunno, but this is what our Lojban entries look like. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes. I see. Forget that then. Hyarmendacil (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Lojban has very different rules when it comes to transitivity. Each "argument" is given a number and each number is given a specific meaning. So it's a bit like meaning that depends on word order, but the meaning of each "position" is different for every word, rather than, say, always the direct object after the indirect object (Lojban has no direct/indirect objects). —CodeCat 19:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
This thread makes my point again -- our Lojban entries are not useful for anyone not already familiar with Lojban. This effectively makes our Lojban entries the province of Lojban specialists, and excludes the casual learner. This might be "what our Lojban entries look like", but frankly, I don't think this is acceptable. (More at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2013/March#POS_labels_and_different_languages.) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


"Difficult to describe", usage example A precise definition of diarrhea is elusive (Robbin's pathology, 8th ed). Not sure that it means 'difficult to describe' in this example, but rather 'tending to elude'. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


Two etymologies listed. Each sense should be assigned to one or another if possible; if that's impossible (etymology is uncertain), then the etymology section should clarify which (if any) are known to be of each etymology and which are unknown.​—msh210 (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

itinerant worker[edit]

"In context, either a politically correct term for unemployed, or a racial slur for the homeless". This seems like it should be in with the definitions, but of course there's no such thing as a racial slur for the homeless, the homeless aren't a race no more than cat owners are a race. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I changed "racial slur" to "derogatory term", but I can't say I've ever heard it used this way. I only know the definition currently labeled "colloquial, Southern California" (and I strongly doubt it's restricted in either of those ways) and would consider it a near-perfect synonym of migrant worker. —Angr 09:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


Some serious cleanup is needed here. All the etymologies are mangled together, and header levels are all wrong. Equinox 23:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed most of it. Whether all the senses are under the right etymology, I don't know. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I've fixed a little bit now too. —Angr 10:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]


A deed. deed#Noun has four senses, which is it? Is it distinct from the other four senses of charter, or should be just list 'deed' as a synonym for one or more of the senses? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's the legal meaning, "a legal contract showing bond". —Angr 22:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Contributions of User:Hesternopothia[edit]

They've been adding words starting with z, with definitions that seem to be copied verbatim from some list that's been going around the web. Not sure whether we should delete them, or come up with our own definitions. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with Special:Nuke if there's sufficient evidence that these definitions aren't original. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
3 of the definitions:
  • zenocentric Measured with reference to the planet Jupiter
  • zendalet Large black woollen shawl worn over the head or shoulders
  • zemni blind mole-rat
Google search on every word of the above: [1]
This diff shows the lack of original thought in their edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why these haven't been nuked yet. Seems clear cut. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I was going to give him a warning, but forgot about it over breakfast. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


I can't vouch for it myself, but someone on OTRS said the future should be Я приеду, Ты приедешь, Он/она/оно приедет, Мы приедем, Вы приедете, Они приедут rather than what we have. Anyone know?​—msh210 (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What's OTRS? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
w:OTRS. —Angr 21:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Terribly sorry and thank you, Msh210. I reverted the entry to use the old template. The new template is not done yet. It's an irregular verb. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Converted to a new template. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 13:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


Pron.#1, noun#2. cutting a channel in a material such as wood using a router. This should be pronunciation#2 surely, and cutting is a verb, not a noun, which makes it the same as the pron.#2, verb#1 entry. SpinningSpark 18:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Forms of the verb and noun route may have either pronunciation (ie, rhyming with root or with out).
If a plural of an -ing-form is attestable, then we often have a noun PoS section for the singular, in addition to the verb PoS section. It would be a somewhat tedious exercise of modest benefit to most users to determine which senses of routing have the plural attestable, but I wonder whether routings in the sense from rout#Verb is attestable. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but the root word for this meaning is rout, not route, which always has the "rowt" pronunciation as far as I am aware. The plural noun probably does exist (cf. turnings, castings etc) and shouldn't be too difficult to find. But the current definition is not worded as a noun. SpinningSpark 23:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I've split routing up by etymology rather than pronunciation to make things a bit clearer. —Angr 00:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I moved the woodworking noun sense into the second (rout) etymology.
The entry for route says that route has two pronunciations for all senses in the US and one pronunciation for all senses in the UK. I think that is right for the US. Is it true that there is only one UK pronunciation? DCDuring TALK 01:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. I'd removed the tag. Done? DCDuring TALK 08:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
There is still the matter of a noun with a verb definition. I have edited it to A channel cut in a material such as wood with a router or gouge. SpinningSpark 09:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it just a gerund with a gerund definition? "Routing" and "cutting" are the same part of speech. —Angr 19:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
We treat it as a noun if it attestably forms a plural. The definition might not be right for said plural. It might be limited to the results of the gerund. DCDuring TALK 20:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


Shouldn't this have a literal as well as a figurative definition? The formatting isn't standard either. DCDuring TALK 20:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


The noun portion of the entry has seven senses, which do not seem very distinct. I cannot find more than two senses in other dictionaries (Century). The entry does, however, reference the OED. Can someone verify that the OED has all the senses. Even if the OED has all seven senses, I wonder if three cites can be found to clearly support each distinct sense. DCDuring TALK 23:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"A species of landscape that is flat and open." seems too poor to be included. Some of these seem very much distinct, for example someone who farms open land is clearly distinct from the land itself. A field of study seems to be like field (expert in one's field, for example). Mglovesfun (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Appendix:Middle French Swadesh list[edit]

A lot of words are outside of the template. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There was a mistaken bracket, [ where { was needed. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Was simpler than I expected. Closing! --Æ&Œ (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I should probably add more words to it, though! Mglovesfun (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's really not that bad. I suppose it needs to be countable and uncountable, and 'esteem and emulation' is a weird way of phrasing it, everything else I'd happily leave alone. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Striking: I see no real need of cleanup. A minor refinement can be done by anyone interested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


The title and headword are different. And shouldn’t it be Cyprius? — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It's an adjective, so it shouldn't be capitalised. —CodeCat 02:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The technical problem was due to extra parameters- probably added by someone who got the headword and declension templates mixed up. As for capitalization: why wouldn't an adjective derived from a proper noun share the proper noun's capitalization? It's capitalized in Lewis and Short, and there are capitalized terms in Category: Latin nouns. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The Oxford Latin Dictionary capitalizes proper adjectives too, as does every other print Latin dictionary I've checked, including a Latin–German dictionary, so it's not an idiosyncrasy of English-speaking lexicographers. —Angr 20:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Does it depend on whether it's English Latin or french Latin? No, I'm wrong. Even Wiktionnaire has it capitalised. Dbfirs 17:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and moved the entry to Cyprius. Could someone please check that I've followed the correct procedure? I've left the request for cleanup because we still need to decide on the usage on "ȳ". Our Latin entry at Cyprus doesn't use it, so it would seem consistent to remove it from this entry. I await the opinion of Latin experts before doing so. Dbfirs 12:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The vowel is short in this word, so ȳ should not be used. —Angr 20:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting that out. My Latin is very rusty. We can now close this request. Dbfirs 20:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I've also moved all the inflected forms to capitalized versions. —Angr 20:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


rfc-sense: "The art of using similar techniques in politics or business." Similar to which sense, sense #1 or sense #2? Or neither, perhaps it means the art of using techniques which are similar in politics or business (I don't think it means this, but it's the most literal interpretation from where I stand). I think maybe it's trying to suggest that strategy can be a mass noun, which I think it can, in which case it's not limited to business and politics, in sports you can use strategy (mass noun) and not only a strategy or strategies (count nouns). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

MWOnline has six senses, none of which fit the uncountable sense, which I agree exists and is not uncommon:
  • 2001, Ronald S. Swift, Accelerating Customer Relationships: Using CRM and Relationship ..., page 319:
    Much strategy prevails over little strategy, so those with no strategy can only be defeated.
I think there are two kinds of meanings: more or less neutral: "strategizing, the activity of developing an implementable strategy"; more or less favorable: "good, clever planning". I generally don't think we should have definitions like the second if they are arguably included in a neutral sense.
The MWOnline senses are for: 1.a.1 - national grand strategy, 1.a.2 - military strategy, 1.b - a type or instance of the above, 2.a - a careful plan, 2.b - the art of devising such plans, 3 - something to capture what is imputed to a species for its successful evolution.
Obviously, our definitions combine some of these, but they also seem to omit some components completely. DCDuring TALK 22:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)



These are supposedly adjectives meaning "citizen of". I'm not sure how that works. Adjectives modify nouns, but "citizen of" would seem to require that the noun following it not be the one modified (e.g. in "citizen of Germany", "citizen of" is describing Angela Merkel, not "Germany"). - -sche (discuss) 20:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Language treatment[edit]

This is causing some script errors because some of the codes have since been deleted. I'm not sure what to do about that. —CodeCat 13:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be redesigned so that the table can contain/mention codes that have been deleted, for the reason you mention and several other reasons. - -sche (discuss) 19:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I've started redoing the table. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

look and feel[edit]

"Having the combination of visual design and behaviour of a user interface." The usex makes it even less clear what that means... - -sche (discuss) 17:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


Material in etymology needs to be redistributed. DCDuring TALK 14:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. Couldn't hurt to have someone who knows Rohingya (or had even heard of it before this thread, unlike me) to look it over, though. —Angr 14:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


Split by etymology and otherwise fill in the gaps. DCDuring TALK 17:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Turkish word lists[edit]

These pages are far too long and they are triggering script errors halfway through because of that. They should be split up further if possible. But I wonder why we need such lists at all..? —CodeCat 21:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Would the script errors stop if they used {{l/tr}} instead of {{l|tr}}? —Angr 22:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
It's worth trying... —CodeCat 22:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
As for why we need such lists at all, a lot of people find frequency lists helpful for a wide variety of applications. I certainly wouldn't want us to get rid of them. —Angr 09:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't get in to edit them; I just get the Wikimedia Error green screen of death. —Angr 20:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I can edit them, but when I save them it times out, even if I use {{l/tr}}. —CodeCat 11:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

cous (English entry)[edit]

Two heteronyms in one entry; unattested material; informal pronunciation; plural(s) not indicated. — 14:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. I think many of the reasons for the original tag have been addressed, but not all. Mainly the 'See alsos'. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 20 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)


This may have been the state of the art in 1880, but in 2013 it's completely meaningless to most people: what is "organic impurity existing in the atmosphere", and why would anyone want to determine its amount? It's easy enough to guess what "permanganate of soda" is, but no one uses the term anymore. The whole entry needs to be explained from a 21st-century point of view and put into historical perspective, without becoming an encyclopedia article. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Have done some work. Have a check. Hyarmendacil (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll treat that as Yes check.svg Done, then. Hyarmendacil (talk) 19:02, 25 July 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)


Supposedly a noun meaning “in vain, without success.” Either the POS is wrong and this is an adverb, or the definition is wrong (I guess it could be “something done in vain”) — Ungoliant (Falai) 23:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Slovenian entry was added by Bogorm (talkcontribs), and worked on later by CodeCat (talkcontribs), who both seem to be knowledgable about the language. Given that the Serbo-Croatian entries (Roman and Cyrillic scripts) both have it as an adverb, I suspect it was an absent-minded error that got overlooked by CodeCat because she was concentrating on other things. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Even the inflection line template had it as an adverb. L3 header changed. DCDuring TALK 03:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
It's an adverb. I can confirm that "zaman" means "in vain", "to no avail", e.g. "vse je zaman" - "it's all in vain". --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. RFC closed. — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:13, 10 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 [2] (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 [3] (dog) maybe has a better description and this one [4] (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 [5] (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)

drunk as a cunt[edit]

This entry should be deleted, as it is not a phrase that is used often enough for it to deserve its own entry. -- 12:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

WT:RFV is where we deal with such things, but I'll save you the trouble: there's more than enough evidence of usage for it to pass. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
WT:RFD because the IP is not denying this exists. 'Not used enough' not really a valid deletion reason; feel free to list it but don't expect it to actually be deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this is a valid entry because it is a typical stylized comparison with many nouns replacing cunt, such as lord, skunk, fish, and sailor. COCA has about 20 others with single occurrences, with the top four being just more than half of all occurrences. A usage note at drunk as a skunk or drunk as a lord should cover the situation until we have some good information of regional distribution or something. DCDuring TALK 20:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Is this a common UK expression. I don't think it has been common in the US in my lifetime. DCDuring TALK 20:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's very common. There's an argument that it's just a transparent simile and therefore not idiomatic. If anyone wants to RFD it go head, just I can't be bothered nominating marginal cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
On mature reflection, it does seem valid both because it is not transparent and because it seems to be regional in its usage. DCDuring TALK 11:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
This culminated in an RFD, which the entry passed. Equinox 17:05, 24 November 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)


I've cleaned up some of the wild formatting, but it needs some attention from someone knowledgeable. Not sure if it warrants an etymology so I've just left it. Hyarmendacil (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The first thing to do in such a case is to add {{attention|el}} to let Greek editors know about it- I don't recall seeing them posting here much. That adds it to Category:Greek terms needing attention. I'm not much help with modern Greek, myself. The Ancient Greek term λούω (louō) means to bathe, wash, or purify, so that part seems correct. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:08, 20 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)

Eoferwic and Eoforwic[edit]

moved from RFV: I've realised that I've come into a slight problem with these two: which one's correct? Tony6ty4ur (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe both are? —CodeCat 00:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, those, among others. I would favor Eoforwic as the lemma, since it incorporates the prevailing spelling of the word for wild boar, so would be the best fit with the folk etymology- though there might be some regional differences to skew things. At any rate, Bosworth & Toller has several variations here, here, here and here. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't really seem to be an RFV issue, so I'm moving this to our other large, ignored requests page: WT:RFC. - -sche (discuss) 00:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

First question: is Eoferwic really masculine plural while Eoforwic is feminine? Second question: does anyone object to Chuck's suggestion that Eoforwic should be the lemma? - -sche (discuss) 00:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

First answer: no, they're both feminine singular (I've already fixed that). Second answer: no, I don't object; I agree. —Angr 18:35, 23 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)

August 2013[edit]

them [edit]

Since this 2004 edit, the translation section for this inflected form has contained two brief essays on French and Italian grammar that might belong in the entries for those terms or perhaps in Wikigrammar. It just might be getting near time to clean this up. DCDuring TALK 13:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Just kill 'em with extreme prejudice. Large translation tables are hard enough to read without this sort of information. It's relevant but should be in the French and Italian entries, not here. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Three more can be found at Category:Translations to be checked (Note). DCDuring TALK 13:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done DCDuring TALK 13:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


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)


Alternative spelling of sonning. Which is...? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

All I can think of is that it might refer to the town of Sonning on Thames (formerly Sunning?). Equinox 21:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Sunning [6] until late 18th century. SpinningSpark 01:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
So we should remove it as bad caps then, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I would say so, unless the creator has a better explanation. SpinningSpark 23:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Made it so. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:27, 8 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)


No such language in Module:languages. DTLHS (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. See WT:LANGTREAT, under en. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


Latin: -by- e.g. little by little, step by step. At the very least needs examples to show how this works. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It's admittedly not an easy concept to explain, but I added two examples to each definition line, so I think it should be reasonably comprehensible now. I'm striking above, but comment if you think it still needs more explanation and I'll see what I can do. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


The definitions are nouns, but the header on the entry is "Adjective". One or the other should be changed. —CodeCat 13:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed by Z. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:59, 20 August 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)


This is creating masses of red linked categories where I don't understand what the categories even mean, for example Category:Entries missing taxonomic name Cornus sericea. Two things, why would we want divide these up by specific taxonomic names (in this example Cornus sericea) instead of putting everything in Category:Entries missing taxonomic name. Secondly, the categorization shouldn't work in all namespaces. Definitely not the user namespace. Appendix probably. But not all namespaces. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This approach finds the missing taxonomic names that commonly used based on occurences of {{taxlink}} to focus new-entry creation on those. Usually, in addition to those so categorized, there are also some number of other entries that use the missing taxonomic name unlinked. One good way to clean up the missing (red) categories is to add the taxonomic names that are missing and then add the missing ordinary links to those taxonomic name entries, also cleaning up the superfluous occurrences of {{taxlink}}. I'd be glad to provide the entry starter that I use for species names to anyone interested. If you take a look at Special:WantedCategories you will see that a large portion of the missing categories at the bottom of the first page and thereafter are for missing taxonomic names. I have started at the top and have added entries for all of those with five or more items in the category.
It works in User namespace because I have some lists of species in my user space that are not worth making an appendix for. I suppose I could just work from those lists as they include the species of most interest to me for one reason or another.
You may also note that there are several thousands of entries with red categories that have nothing to do with taxonomic names. DCDuring TALK 00:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Now that I have finally had adequate success with bot runs that cover this, I have eliminated this categorization from {{taxlink}}. This should be shown in the next run of Special:WantedCategories, c. 12/16-17. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


Definition: "buard". What's a buard? DCDuring TALK 20:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

A piece of wood. It's like a board, but with one letter two keys to the left on the keyboard. For future reference: clicking on the Unihan data link in a Han character entry will lead you to a definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, I wonder if someone was trying to be clever -- another gloss I've seen for this character is guard, making buard a potential blend.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:12, 27 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. [7] 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)


noun sense: "A plan to commit a crime".

This seems too specific: "commit a crime" is too narrow, I think.

Also the definition misses the element of secrecy, which I think is essential. DCDuring TALK 01:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Meh, that's what holographic time-line drafts are for, anyway. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
If I'd felt sharp, I'd have just changed it. But I didn't and don't. DCDuring TALK 01:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Speedy as obviously wrong? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It needs cleanup. The definition is off, but not dead wrong. I put it here so someone might attend to it. That someone may be me. DCDuring TALK 12:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, but with a few of the translations to be checked. DCDuring TALK 13:29, 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)


Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It was listed but apparently delisted and not untagged. — Ungoliant (Falai) 12:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Well you're definitely right. The current format looks like a format once used on the French Wiktionary, but no longer used (since about 2008!). Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I moved them to related terms; anything else? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Closed. Thanks. — Ungoliant (Falai) 10:53, 21 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)


Tagged but not listed. Interestingly enough, this entry was created already with this tag. --WikiTiki89 14:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The basic entry is correct - pronunciation, vocalisation, translation and format. The creator perhaps wanted some improvement to the entry - etymology, user examples, etc. Removed the rfc tag. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


Currently said to mean: "Having developed pigment in the dark or in the light. Runyon Group II nontuberculous mycobacteria are examples but the term could apply to many other organisms."
As Connel remarked when he tagged the entry in 2008, that definition needs work.
WP's article on the term is the same curt mess as ours... - -sche (discuss) 05:58, 24 October 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)


Only one word long. Made by a random anon. Since kara exists in Turkish, I’m guessing that this reconstruction is legitimate. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks much better now thanks to Chuck. Closin’. --Æ&Œ (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


Currently adding lots of deities categories, most of them wrong (missing out the en: for English, not using topic cat therefore bypassing the automatic formatting that makes these categories findable) or of questionable relevance; Category:en:Fire deities, Category:en:Death deities, Category:en:Temporal deities. Do these belong in a dictionary? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  • You can probably guess what Mr Bad Guy would have done with them. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It probably is known to everyone but to give some background, this is my long-time nemesis who started out by adding really, really bad Japanese entries. He/she, let's use the personal pronoun "they," branched out into awful Mandarin entries and now seems to be focusing on English. Their English is not perfect either. Dealing with this user has brought me past my wits' end and I'm too fed up to deal with this person anymore, and I don't ordinarily edit English entries either so I'm not completely confident about the editing conventions. (I did roll back one of their edits here, which they promptly pasted back.) Blocking this person does not work because they reemerge with a new IP in seconds. Communicating does not work 95% of the time. If you want any pages to be cleaned up, you must do it yourself. If you want to block, you must protect pages. Haplogy () 18:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah I listed it here because I don't have the energy to do it myself. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Today, this user is Special:Contributions/ Haplogy () 18:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

thereagain [edit]

Something is wrong. Possibilities include:

  1. This is a Middle English, not English word.
  2. There is a missing English word again (against), from which this word derives.
  3. The word is borrowed into English from Scottish or Middle English.

I don't have the resources to resolve this. DCDuring TALK 22:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I read in a search result (but not on the page linked to - damn those snippet views) that "Thereagain and thereagainst are given as two different entries in the OED but their meanings are exactly parallel. The first OED entry for thereagain comes from 1023, the first occurrence in the Helsinki Corpus is nearly 150 years earlier (878)." — Pingkudimmi 12:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The synonymous thereagainst seems plausible in contemporary usage, though it would probably be called archaic. I guess one question is when thereagain went out of usage in English, ie, became obsolete. That would address the first possibility.
I think I'll go with the third possibility. DCDuring TALK 15:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thereagain, we (and the OED) seem to be missing current (dialectal?, rare?) usage (as I've just used it), meaning something similar to "however" but slightly stronger. Is this the last remaining vestige of the word labelled as obsolete? Dbfirs 18:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I always thought that that was due to confusion with then again. --WikiTiki89 18:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
You might be right, or it could be the other way round. I can't find enough evidence for which is the older usage, so I can't prove my claim. Dbfirs 20:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The meaning "however" can be logically derived from "then + again", but not quite from "there + again". Therefore I can't see it being the other way around. --WikiTiki89 21:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Thereagain, that might be just a false etymology coined by those who don't understand the word thereagain which has meant contrariwise; on the other side for the last thousand years according to the OED. I've added a cite to again to illustrate that it still means against in northern England (and not just Scottish or Middle English). Dbfirs 21:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The entry seems "clean" enough now, but it could use some polishing: the "obsolete" tag might not be correct. I suppose that we need some evidence or authority or, at least, prevailing opinion that it is in more-or-less current use somewhere. DCDuring TALK 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Isn't that spelt as "there again"? Of the 633 pages with "there again" (searching on google in discussions), 330 have but there again, as far as I can tell often meaning on the other hand. -- 11:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it does seem like a reanalysis of thereagain resulting from the loss of familiarity with the use of again ("against") as a preposition and the fossilization of all the words constructed as there + a preposition. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it has to have but. There again I might be wrong. DCDuring TALK 13:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know whether it has to have "but there again" in 2013. If this sense is mostly used as but there again (and unrelated senses of there again keep being used like before), this sense will require but in the future, because that will be the predominent way people will have heard it. You're a native speaker, how does "however there again" compare to "but there again"? -- 23:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the(re|n) again is a survival/remnant of the old meaning on the other hand of "again". -- 23:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
A link to daarentegen (on the other hand) might help. I first wrote "the(re|n) again", then remembered daarentegen, but not everyone might link gain#Etymology 1, tegen#Dutch and gegen#German. -- 00:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to add what you think is right to thereagain, there again, then again, or any other entry. I'll take a look at the three and alter them to fit our formatting if necessary. DCDuring TALK 01:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Citations:again. Thanks in advance. -- 22:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
No need anymore, Ivan Štambuk deleted it. -- 23:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Had you tried clicking of the supposed links that you provided? They were unusable. DCDuring TALK 01:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
As far as I remember, I did. -- 18:10, 20 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)


For one thing, the entry doesn't mention a specific Turkic language. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 10:07, 20 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)

Category:Uncategorized templates[edit]

Our current practice is to put categories for templates and modules on the documentation page. For that reason {{documentation}} adds templates to this category if the documentation page doesn't exist. Many of the templates in this category are in fact categorised, but the category is on the main template page itself, inside <noinclude>. This should be fixed by creating the documentation page and moving the category over to that. —CodeCat 20:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why not. --WikiTiki89 20:44, 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)


The translation table is in a form that is a substantial departure from our format, using many multi-part language names, unlinked translations, with non-conforming glosses and at least one out-of place comment. It has the look of a data deposit from someone's academic research project.

Someone who had good knowledge of the range of native American languages, tribes, and geography is needed to render this into our format. Alternatively, the data could be copied to the Talk page and the entry perhaps reverted to a state when it was more conformant. DCDuring TALK 15:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

What’s more, there is a hidden translation table with the gloss “Similar mixed-gender identities outside of North America”. — Ungoliant (Falai) 15:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I think DCDuring's suggestion of moving the content to the talk page until it can be checked and formatted is best. I have moved it and will begin checking what I can. - -sche (discuss) 20:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


The "Việt tự" section needs to be formatted and given a standard header (or perhaps deleted). - -sche (discuss) 18:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

{{han tu form of|tuần}}? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

ב־ו־ש, כ־ס־ה[edit]

If someone familiar with the format of Hebrew entries could take a look at these two, it'd be appreciated. They were tagged by AutoFormat as having nonstandard headers ... all the way back in 2007 and 2010! I removed the rfc-header tag from "ב־ו־ש" because "Root" seems to be a standard header nowadays; "Stems", on the other hand, does not seem to be used outside of "כ־ס־ה". - -sche (discuss) 19:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I changed the "Stems" and similar headings to "Derived terms". All of our Hebrew root entries are a mess though and need to be mass reorganized. --WikiTiki89 19:16, 25 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)


Anyone know how this entry's Sino-Korean readings are supposed to be formatted? (The header is considered nonstandard by AF). - -sche (discuss) 07:43, 28 November 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)

berquqa, apricot[edit]

How do we code "Late Greek" in etymologies? As grc, gkm, or something else? These two entries currently code it as rge, but that is in fact the code of Helleno-Romani, a mixture of Romani and Greek. - -sche (discuss) 16:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"Late Greek" is a terribly silly way of denoting a chronolect belonging to a language continuum that has endured unbroken for thousands of years. In this case, the author meant Ancient Greek, but wanted to make it clear that it is Post-Classical (i.e. from the age of the Roman Empire). I don't really think gkm should be an L2, and in any case this isn't it, because gkm only begins once Latin is dead. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I now notice that this edit back in 2010 had actually fixed this problem, only to be undone in 2011. Curious. - -sche (discuss) 04:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Not so curious when you look at the contributors who made the edits. The IP who added the term "Late Greek" looks like they may be the same IP who keeps adding unattested Gothic terms. Vahag knows how we do things and has no ideological ax to grind, while Torvalu4 is notorious for having a very strong agenda and getting rid of all traces of any version that doesn't exactly match his own. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:14, 8 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)

picture framing[edit]

This cleanup request was filed all the way back in April 2009:

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

  • This is one of many articles by the same user. They all need looking at - but I haven't got any enthusiasm for the job. SemperBlotto 16:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Of the ones I know something about, the content isn't bad, though a little wordy. I'll put his new pages on my tasks. DCDuring TALK 18:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Passing the buck somewhat, but I've moved that sense to RFV, and meanwhile added two others from the OED, plus cleaned the page up a little. Ƿidsiþ 15:16, 30 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)

air mass classification[edit]

Tagged (by me, apparently) but not listed. Current definition is "A system used to identify and to characterize the different air masses according to a basic scheme." Looks SoP. Why do we have this? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO, this needs deleting and air mass needs to be cleaned up ie, de-encyclopediated. DCDuring TALK 22:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

galacto- and papillo-[edit]

Non-standard header instead of a ==language== section. Format is all wrong - probably need rewriting from scratch. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

  • p.s. galacto- can also be astronomical (about galaxies)
This raises questions I've been trying to ignore about what Merriam Webster has been calling International Scientific Vocabulary since the 1960s. In taxonomy it is easy to find support for Translingual as an appropriate home for words and morphemes. MW includes much more. papillo- would probably be part of both biology and medicine, adding meaning in the same way in multiple languages. I'm not sure how much support there is for a major expansion of the items we include in Translingual. We certainly try to treat Translingual entries as second class, not allowing translation tables or pronunciation. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
We treat the chemopharmaceutical morphemes as English. Are they not used and understood in other languages? DCDuring TALK 22:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I would support allowing more types of international terminology in Translingual sections. --WikiTiki89 22:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The question is whether all languages would use the exact same spelling. In Catalan, you'd find papil·lo- for example, and most Slavic languages would write galakto- because "c" has an entirely different pronunciation in those languages. —CodeCat 23:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Definitely delete and start again. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
It would be easy enough to change the L2 from International Scientific Vocabulary to Translingual and add an inflection line, which would clean these two entries up. There is even support in taxonomic names for these as prefixes, such as Papillogobius (possibly a syn of Favonigobius) = papillo- + Gobius (" a goby") and Galactomyces.
The issue is more the scope of such terms outside of taxonomy. I'm not sure that affixes is where I would most want to start, but the issue presents itself here. I think we are not in a position to resolve the larger issue, so kicking the can down the road is probably the best we can do. At least we here know there might be a can waiting for us down the road. DCDuring TALK 23:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done Cleaned up as if only used for taxonomic names. DCDuring TALK 00:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Appendix:Kah Swadesh list[edit]

We don't have any language called Kah. Does anyone know what this is supposed to be? —CodeCat 22:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a conlang (unless there's some more obscure language named Kah). DTLHS (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it's a hoax, cannot find anything for this on Google Books or groups. Speedy? RfD? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Not a hoax, but not widely used at all. It's mentioned at w:International auxiliary language, and it shows up in a few instances in Groups. The website for the language is http://www.kwesho.com. It's certainly not mainspace material, but I'm not sure about the Swadesh lists: if anyone took Swadesh lists seriously as a historical-linguistic tool, the very idea of a Swadesh list for a constructed language would be laughable, but we don't. I guess it boils down to how rigorous we are in our inclusion criteria for conlangs in the Appendix namespace. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I won't object if anyone restores it, just I couldn't find anything for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:14, 15 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)


This appears on the ‘oldest tagged’ list, even though I can't find it listed on any of the archives and the page itself is not actually tagged. So this simply to record that it's now been comprehensively cleaned. Ƿidsiþ 11:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

pass by[edit]

Tagged (yonks ago) but not listed. (I'll get to this myself eventually.) Ƿidsiþ 12:32, 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)

Transwiki:Japanese Phrasebook/Greetings and farewell[edit]

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


I was about to swear. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a certain user who has added a lot of SOP (and not always relevant) "related terms" to a lot of entries... - -sche (discuss) 07:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The character count says it all: before- 453 bytes ... after- 1798 bytes. I once suggested he could save time by just putting See also: Special:AllPages on every page. I got rid of all the obvious filler, though there may still be a couple unnecessary ones left.Chuck Entz (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Contents of Category:en:Etymology[edit]

It contains Category:en:Biblical derivations and Category:en:Fictional derivations. These should be in Category:English etymology as en:Etymology follows the naming pattern of topical categories. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

These were left over from when all other "derivations" categories were moved. —CodeCat 14:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
This should be moved to rfm, since it's about moving categories to new names. It's a lot more involved than it looks, because you would have to move Category:Biblical derivations and Category:Fictional derivations- along with all their subcategories- to new names and change their templates from {{topic cat}} to {{etymcatboiler}}, not to mention switching categories in all the entries. That definitely looks to be quite a project. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


Discussion moved to rfv.

nihil obstat[edit]

We have the ==Interjection== sense "Declaration used by the Catholic Church to indicate a book was been found not to have breached religious or moral norms". Should it be the ==Noun== sense "Declaration…", the ==Interjection== sense "{{n-g|Declaration…}}", or both? And if it is the ==Interjection== sense "{{n-g|Declaration…}}", then is it redundant to the other ==Interjection== sense, "No objections"?​—msh210 (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

When the RCC uses it (e.g. here), they're using it in Latin (where's it's a phrase, not a noun or an interjection), not in English. When it is used in English, it seems to be a noun, as in "at CUA the bishops on the board of trustees grant the nihil obstat in the name of the Holy See" and "The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are then printed on an early page of the book, giving the reader assurance that the book..." and "Once having obtained their nihil obstat, Noël and Ladeuze were then able to submit a properly sanctioned application to the Belgian scientific research foundation." I don't think anyone goes around exclaiming "Nihil obstat!" as they would if it were an interjection. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
So in English it's a noun only: our "Declaration" sense should be as is but sub ==Noun== and our "No objections" sense should be RFVed. Is it SOP in Latin?​—msh210 (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't say so, because it the two words put together mean "nothing hinders", but the phrase as a whole means "nothing in canon law hinders the publication of this work". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I strongly object to labeling as interjections standalone expressions that are not expressions of emotion and could be called phrases. Phrase may not always be accurate but it the inappropriateness of the definition is less. Hard categorization of the particular type of standalone expression is possible and vastly more linguistically useful than either of the misnomers. DCDuring TALK 22:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree completely, and my carryover (from the entry) use of "Interjection" without objection above should not be construed otherwise (viz as endorsement).​—msh210 (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I've edited per the above discussion. I think it's good and am striking. Please unstrike and continue the discussion if needed, and of course edit further.​—msh210 (talk) 05:23, 18 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)


Translations are under the verb section, but many of the translations are nouns. DTLHS (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd even go as far as to say that all the translations are nouns. It seems that the verb section itself was missplaced, which I have now fixed. --WikiTiki89 02:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't want to assume that nobody had put in a verb in a language I didn't recognize, but if you're sure I'll close this. DTLHS (talk) 02:39, 28 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)

Indus Valley Civilization[edit]

Get the lemma if it exists or move to rfv. Not sure if this is a dictionary material but I haven't explored it. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Why isn’t this the lemma? — Ungoliant (falai) 00:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it is. It just didn't look right to me. Not sure about the capitalisation either--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The capitalisation is correct, because it’s the name of a specific civilisation, not just any civilisation of the Indus Valley (compare Ancient Rome). Some people spell it with civilization in lower case though, I don’t know why. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. It seems it also recorded in dictionaries in this form. Detagged. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:39, 14 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)



There is a problem with the templates in these entries; the parameters are out of order or something; they currently display "[...] taking first-person plural as an object of 1 (“pl”)". Perhaps User:Dixtosa knows how to fix them. - -sche (discuss) 06:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not a problem with the parameters supplied, but with the edit User:CodeCat made to the template so it would use a module. I think the output is supposed to be:
  1. Second-person plural present indicative, taking first-person plural as an object of ფრცქვნის (p’rc’k’vnis)
It looks like the module is taking parameter 5 as the display form and 6 as the gloss, but the template is written to take 5 as the person of the object and 6 as the number of the object. The template shows the "-person" and " as an object" parts because there's something in parameter 5, but the module has replaced 5 and 6 with values the template isn't written to recognize. Also, all the parameter 5 and 6 stuff is supposed to go before the "of ფრცქვნის (p’rc’k’vnis)" part. CodeCat didn't realize that there was anything wrong with her changes because most of the entries using the template don't have object affixes, and therefore have no parameters 5 or 6. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I've restored the older version of it for now. I'm still thinking about ways templates like this could be incorporated into the module... —CodeCat 00:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


Latin section. What's with {{la-conj-form-gloss/edo}} and {{la-conj-form-gloss/edo(2)}}? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

{{la-conj-form-gloss}} was deprecated and deleted a while ago after regular uses were fixed by bot/script... evidently no-one (including me) expected its subpages to be used in places this far outside of their normal range, so it speak. I've replaced the instances in edito and will now check the latest database dump for any other leftover uses of the string "la-conj-form-gloss". - -sche (discuss) 01:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I've fixed them all. - -sche (discuss) 05:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
That's great. Thank you very much, -sche. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:24, 30 March 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)


This entry seems to be missing its first half (based on the fact that it begins with "Etymology 2" rather than, say, an L2)... - -sche (discuss) 20:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

There's probably no "missing first half". I think the creator of the page copied the second half of zwartkijker (a synonym), then pasted it and made some adjustments, but forgot to remove the "2" in "Etymology 2". -- Curious (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I've cleaned it up. —CodeCat 17:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


This was tagged for cleanup back in 2007. —This unsigned comment was added by -sche (talkcontribs) at 21:18, 29 March 2014.

Even the cleanup tag had to be cleaned up. @-sche, By the way, did you get pinged when I tagged the comment above as unsigned by you? --WikiTiki89 21:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I did not, which is interesting, since {{unsigned}} seems to generate a link of the kind {{vandal}} used to, as opposed to the kind {{vandal}} generates now, and {{vandal}} used to ping. Perhaps the fact that {{unsigned}} calls on {{user}} (whereas {{vandal}} used to create its link directly) means the actual [[User:foo]] link is too far removed to cause a ping?
Is there more cleanup to be done or can the tag be removed?
- -sche (discuss) 00:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that's about it. --WikiTiki89 00:36, 30 March 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)

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)

predictive coding[edit]

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

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)


This is a Translingual term with a usex in English, but the {{usex}} template requires a language code- resulting in the template adding the entry to the non-existent Category:Translation requests (Translingual). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

So just don't use {{usex}}, or use {{usex|lang=en}} since the usex is English even though the term is translingual? - -sche (discuss) 01:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I endorse both of -sche's solutions, but also suggest a third: remove the usex and possibly make it part of the definition. --WikiTiki89 07:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I prefer {{usex|lang=en}} because translingual is defined to be "many languages". --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:37, 6 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)


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)