Since the word vandal is derived from the name of the tribe and not the other way, shouldn't the first definition be that of a member of the tribe and only the second one that of a destroyer? Even Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary lists them in the order I believe in. --Red Prince 04:19, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. Older usages should come before newer usages. Ideally, it would be nice to switch between ordering by age of usage and by frequency of usage but that's not possible at the moment so I think age of usage is the more important. — Hippietrail 04:55, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Very well, then. I have just switched it to that order (I also reshufled the translations accordinagly). --Red Prince 05:22, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
The adjective, although the verb entry is not very clever either. Isn't a member of the tribe usually spelt Vandal, or can it be both? Anyway the whole adjective entry needs looking at, I suspect it's attributive. DonnanZ (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, when referring to the Vandal people it's always capitalized. For this reason, Lombardic exists, but lombardic does not, and thus too Alemannic and not alemannic. And the adjectival sense does seem like attributive use of the noun to me, also the one at Vandal. The usual adjective is Vandalic. — Kleio (t · c) 18:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)