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


Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Connel MacKenzie 21:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


1) please read "entry layout explained" above.

2) access time is a noun, not a verb.

3) please add a language line and remove the empty etymology

4) the categories that you have used do not exist (try adding {{computing}} at the start of a definition line.) Cheers SemperBlotto 12:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


  1. I sure will.
  2. access time - in the context given - is a VERB since the phrase describes an action, not a Person, Place or Thing.
  3. Done.
  4. I added them becausde they are some of the proper categories for this phrase.

CORNELIUSSEON 12:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. "an action" is a noun; "to action something" is a verb. Do you say "We access time every day" (verb), or "The access time is now subsecond" (noun)? SemperBlotto 13:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

That might be true if an action were to be declared a Person, Place, or Thing, which are the generally accepted definitions for a NOUN.

The last time I checked, time is NOT a Person, Place, or Thing, and we are talking about the time it takes for a specific action to be accomplished. Actuall, in this case, a set of actions. CORNELIUSSEON 13:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I set my preferences for a date/time group format of Time: Month Date, Year, and yet the default setting is still being displayed. How can this be fixed???

CORNELIUSSEON 13:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the part of speech of "time", might I respectfully ask that you check again. You'll find that "time" is a noun. Your entry will be cleaned up accordingly. — Paul G 13:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I did check, and according to the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Online Dictionary, time can be a Noun, and Adjective, AND a Verb. It all depends on context. In this case, time is used to describe the duration it takes to begin and end an action. Change what you will, and I will blame you when people show up on my doorstep to correct me about the erroneous use of a noun. Be assured I have absolutely no problem dropping appropriate names. CORNELIUSSEON 17:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You are quite correct - it is indeed a noun and a verb. In the phrase "access time", it is a noun. — Paul G 11:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyright Violation[edit]

Do you have permission to copy from the US Army Dictionary, or is it not covered by copyright? SemperBlotto 19:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The US Army Dictionary is located at the following link: [1], which - if you look at it closely, you will see that it is a property of the US Government, specifically the US Army. As such, it is specifically in the PUBLIC DOMAIN, since it is the property of employees of the US Army as part of their express duties. Their disclaimer is as follows:

  • DISCLAIMER: The terms and definitions at this site have been compiled from AR 310-25, Dictionary of the United States Army Terms, from inputs to a 1998 Army-wide solicitation for additions, changes, and deletions to AR 310-25, and from other sources (ARs, DA Pams, the U.S. Army War College reference text entitled How the Army Runs, etc). Terms and definitions found in Joint Publication 1-02, DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, and Field Manual 101-5-1, Operational Terms and Graphics, are not included on this site. While every effort has been made to include terms only from official sources, this site should not be cited as an authoritative source in official publications, briefings, or other written or oral presentations.

As a retired Army Staff Sergeant who worked with AR 310-25 on a daily basis, I can certainly tell you that everything I've posted from this list is in the Public Domain, and would NOT have been posted by the Army on their public website if the reverse were true.

CORNELIUSSEON 19:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

For the record, [2] includes the following text, which suggests that the content of the website is in the public domain: "2 Information presented on AFMS Homepage is considered public information and may be distributed or copied for non-commercial purposes. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." — Paul G 11:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, but what is your point? the site is a Second Party - the USACMH, the USAIMH, USAIOH, and the USGPO are the relevant First Parties when it comes to Federal Govermment Copyrights.

CORNELIUSSEON 11:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


Only proper nouns start with a capital leter. SemperBlotto 07:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, so make the appropriate corrections and lets get on with the project.

CORNELIUSSEON 03:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, in the Field Manual that the definitions are coming from, the words ARE capitalized. Maybe you should go complain to the US Department Of The Army about their capitalization.

CORNELIUSSEON 03:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

geostropic or geostrophic?[edit]

It looks to me like geostrophic. You can use the "Move" button to change name, but make sure you keep the headword in line with the article name. SemperBlotto 14:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

dry bulb humidity[edit]

Cornelius, As one who has taken more thermodynamics than I care to recall, I believe "dry bulb humidity" is a misnomer, if it is used at all. As your definition explains, a psychrometer measures the humidity not at the wet bulb or dry bulb, but measures the humidity overall by a comparison of the wet bulb and dry bulb temperatures. Wet-bulb temperature or dry-bulb temperature might merit an entry, but I think you will encounter resistance against those from the "sum-of-parts" camp.

Can you provide evidence, or a better description of dry bulb humidity? Otherwise, it might be best simply to define dry bulb and wet bulb, with references to a Wikipedia article on psychrometers or humidity. --Dvortygirl 16:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That definition came from the Glossary of FM 3-6: Field Behavior of NBC Agents (Including Smoke and Incendiaries), which was last updated on November 3, 1986. I was a qualified Chemical Operations Specialist for all but 10 years of my 25+ year career in the Army, which means that I handled Nuke, Bio and Chemica Operations for my unit. I will admit that I really did not understand the difference since the definition for the psycrometer seemed similar to this one. On the other hand, I am sure that it also is to be found in some of the other NBC manuals. I did a little searching, and I find a similar definition for the hygrometer and the psychrometer, with only the sling for the Psychrometer being the major difference between them. My experience with Dry Bulb Humidity, now that I think about it, involved the use of an electronic unit that had a single themomiter and a single source of humidity, which is what we used on the combat field where the use of the other devices were a little impractical. If the Army made a mistake with that definition, I am willing to stand corrected - after all these years. CORNELIUSSEON

Union jack[edit]

I don't understand your heading "American" before the def. I'm also surprised we don't have a def for the British national flag, being the saltaires of Saints Pat and Andy, plus the cross of St. George, each on their own field, into that incredibly gaudy thing that's even gaudier than the Stars and Stripes. --Allamakee Democrat 04:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I used that sub heading to let the reader know that there are other national Union jacks besides ours. Our Union Jack is ONLY the Stars on the Blue Field, without the Stripes.

CORNELIUSSEON 04:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Is this really supposed to be capitalized? --Connel MacKenzie 15:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, could you please provide an URL for the FM references, and put them under the ===References=== heading? --Connel MacKenzie 15:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The word is capitalized in the book. I just kept the form.



Hello! When you edited the entry for becket, you added the notation FM 55-501 as part of the definition. One of the general principles of writing a dictionary is that the definition should not be more complicated than the original word, and I expect that most people (like myself) will not know what this notation indicates. --EncycloPetey 02:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That notation is the source, which is Department of the Army Field Manual, 55-501, Marine Crewman's Handbook. If the sole definition were from that publication, it would get its own section, but since only thatspecific definition came from that document, it gets a parenthetical source entry.

CORNELIUSSEON 02:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

But the note is cryptic. It does no good to identify the source by a code no one will recognize. At the very least, each time you use this code, it should be linked to the relevant entry on Wikipedia as [[w:FM 55-501|FM 55-501. There is no such entry yet, but if the publication is as important as it sounds, then there should be such an entry. An alternative is to see whether the publication may legally be added to wikisource, and request its importation there. --EncycloPetey 02:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, since it IS a US Army publication, it is - by law - in the public domain, chapter and verse. Additionally, it - like its siblings - is certainly available on-line in PDF format. But, since it runs to 729 Pages, I doubt that it will ever appear in its entirety herein, However, if you really want to download your own copy, you can do so at: Doctrine and Training Publications

CORNELIUSSEON 04:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Also called[edit]

We don't use this as a section header on Wiktionary. We use ====Synonyms==== as a 4th level header. --EncycloPetey 03:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What if the words are NOT synomyms????? - CORNELIUSSEON 03:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you have an example in mind? --EncycloPetey 03:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Greenwich Mean Time is not an exact synonym, in that it can also mean the time zone that is based on the Zero Meridian. This is also the same source for Zulu Time. - CORNELIUSSEON 04:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

They don't have to be exact synonyms, just nearly the same thing. If the meanings are too different for you to consider them synonyms, you can always list the term in a 3rd level section ===See also===. --EncycloPetey 04:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, we need another noun template that takes into account nouns that use the singular as their plural. - CORNELIUSSEON 04:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
No, the current template can handle that. If it's an uncountable noun, for which there isn't really a plural (like awe), then you would use {{en-noun|-}}. The "pipe" and dash indicates no plural exists. I'd need an example of what you mean by "uses the singular as the plural" if you mean something other than what I've described. --EncycloPetey 04:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean like fish? In that case, just use {{en-noun|pl=fish}}. You can always specify the plural form when it's weird. --EncycloPetey 04:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Go look at unit aircraft It is incorrect as shown. - CORNELIUSSEON 04:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to improve this use of the template - but it still isn't perfect. It might be easier to type what you want manually. By the way - level 2 is for language headings only. SemperBlotto 08:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that each since each word page can only have one Reference section when you use the Reference Templates, and since using the reference templates standardizes the references throughout the project, it should be at the highest level so that it remains available to all levels during editing, and it should be at the bottom so that the reference numbers reflect the placement of the entry tags on the page. If you subordinate the reference section to any lower level, what you end up with when you finish editing may not be what you intended. - CORNELIUSSEON 10:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I took another look at the help section, and it does show References as a level subordinate to the top, but that was based on when references were entered by hand. The trend now is to use the templates, and this mean only ONE reference section per page that is universal to the entire page. This means that it should be at the highest level possible so that it remains available for proper editing no matter which section is worked on. - CORNELIUSSEON

But that's a trend on Wikipedia only. This is not Wikipedia. We have no such trend. --EncycloPetey 00:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this template is showing up elsewhere on Wikimedia as well - such as Wikisource. However, the bigger and more important point is the fact that this template for References is better because it is easier to use and more informative than the manual method. - CORNELIUSSEON 00:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
But not for the majority of uses we have for references on Wiktionary. Here, the most common use of citing a refence it to attribute a quote, and for that you want the date and source to display right next to the attributed citation. We're also different from other Wikimedia projects in that our pages often contain information from several languages intermixerd, which is a rarity in other projects. Yuo could make a case for it in the Beer Parlour and put it to a vote, but I'm not sold on the idea. --EncycloPetey 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that pages here are in several languages is not material when it comes to references, since the text of the references can be in any language. Likewise, since the tag number is placed right next to the item being cited, you get the effect you want. Finally, this system makes use of the standard foot/end note system used worldwide, and thus is more familiar to users than any other system, and thus more easy for them to use. Making use of a unique system when a more commonly recognized system with a very long track record that is more efficient is not a good idea. - CORNELIUSSEON 00:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

We make use of a system with a very long track record: the use of citations with inline references standardly used by dictionaries. Such as the w:OED. This is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia, and not wikipedia. The WP reference method is not appropriate here. (Also: in unit aircraft you fail to provide the quotation showing the use of the term, which is the important part!) Robert Ullmann 01:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds to me like you are starting to use the Not Invented Here argument, which does you no justice. Just because the template is used over on Wikipedia, and wasn't invented here, doesn't - by definition - mean that it has no place over here. Indeed, the fact that the template works over here shows that it was designed with universal use across the Wikimedia universe firmly in mind. - CORNELIUSSEON 01:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Bull crap. The ref tags are a general feature of the WikiMedia s/w to be used where appropriate. They are not appropriate here. There are other things suited for the 'pedia, and for other specific projects. (Note that what you are referring to is not a "template", and you don't know how it works.) WikiMedia is in the process of adding features just for the wiktionaries; they will work the same on the 'pedia, but are not useful there. Shall I barge in there and demand their use, and scream "NIH" at you when you quite reasonably point out they are simply inappropriate? Robert Ullmann 01:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you know of some tool over here that you feel would make your work over on Wikipedia easier, and more orderly, then please feel free to use it. We are much more accepting of such efforts over there, either as an exception or as a standard tool, bcause we realize that we don't know everything about how an Encyclopedia should be edited, or how it should look. Indeed, we have it in the Help Files that formatting on Wikipedia is NOT set in stone, and reasonable exceptions are perfectly acceptible. However, if the day ever comes that the scenario you describe transpires, please remind me of this conversation, and I will appologise immediately. Thank you and have a great day. - CORNELIUSSEON 02:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Top, mid, bottom[edit]

Sorry to bug you (I see you've been pestered quite a bit already), but I just thought I'd let you know that {{top}}, {{mid}}, {{bottom}} template is reserved for translations. For other bulleted lists we have the {{top2}}, {{mid2}}, {{bottom2}}, which is blue (and thus a little easier on the eyes to boot). Also, there's no need to put either of these around pronunciations and etymologies, as they only help with bulleted lists. Finally, I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but there is a new format for translation tables which is {{trans-top}}, etc. It's up to you which one you prefer, the old or the new, they're both ok. That's all the nagging I have for you. Thanks. Atelaes 03:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. What may help here would be to unify the various templates as much as possible so that those set aside for specific purposes get placed in a standard position on the page, and don't get used for other purposes. I used the template I used specifically because I found it on another page, liked it, and saved it to my personal space to use elsewhere where I felt it fitted. I will look at the other templates you mention to see how they work. Thanks again.

CORNELIUSSEON 23:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

References again[edit]

I'm going to say this again, as politely as possible. First, this is not Wikipedia. The References header is a level 4 header, e.g. ====References==== under a part-of-speech. It is never a level 2 header, which is always a language name. It contains a bulleted list of reference(s). The ref/footnote tags are not used. This is strict policy according to our primary policy document, WT:ELE. Following the Wiktionary, not Wikipedia, format is required. Please follow the format here. Robert Ullmann 11:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Instead of nagging me, may I suggest that you do what I do when I find what I would consider to be such an obvious mistake: I CORRECT IT MYSELF. That way, I fix the problem, and my current level of frustration is not escalated. Fixing problems is always more satisfying than assigning blame. BTW, the reference section I leave is NOT directed to any specific part of speech, but can be used as the central repository of references for the entire word entry page. This does two things: It makes it much more likely that references will be inserted, given the amount of labor involved is minimized, and it links specific references to specific definitions - again with a minimum of labor. Oh, and BTW again, I checked, and this is the only member of the Wikimedia family that has any problem with central reference repositories, so I would NOT tag it as a Wikipedia-specific issue. Thanks for being polite, and I hope that I was as well - CORNELIUSSEON 12:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW again, it occurred to me that there may be a better solution. When we have policies we want to regularize over on other locations, we assemble them into a template, and make the template easy to use and easy to find. You would be amazed at how quickly the priority policy gets to become the norm, with an absolute minimum of frustration. instead of becoming an issue, the use of the template makes the policy become second nature, and leaves the mechanics to the computer. - CORNELIUSSEON 12:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The mechanics are not the problem. We have perfectly adequate policy, that fits the requirements of a dictionary. The only issue here is your refusal to follow our established community policy. I've asked others to look at your contributions. If it is left to me to correct them (as you suggest above), I will do it very simply, with a few dozen clicks on rollback and delete.
If what you want to do is propose a major structural change to the wikt, your starting place is a discussion on WT:BP, not going around adding your out-of-policy format to articles. Robert Ullmann 13:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

One thing 58 years of life and 39 years in the working world has taught me, a designer is NEVER finished refining his design. Any designer who is firmly satisfied with his design, resting on his laurels, is a designer with a design that will slowly grow obsolete - or at best troublesome. Any design is only good enough for current use when it does what it has been advertised to do, but often that status opens up other problems that need to be addressed as time goes on. Even if the design does not open up new problems, it still can be perfected, with automation, consolidation, simplification, and user ease-of-use being the big-four priorities. if you continually address those four priorities proactively, rather than reactively, the design remains on the cutting edge, and the user remains relatively happy to use the design, and has a lesser need to Improvise things he feels the need to use. This allows User Desires to fall to lower priority, obtainable on an as-time-allows priority.

It has been my experience at work that any time the User of whatever the designer has created displays the need to Improvise in order to maintain his productivity, that is a sure sign that the design needs to be modified or changed - not necessarily by Major Upgrade - but just enough to meet the perceived need to maintain productivity.

Two final points: First, put together the dictionary tools into a Formatting Toolkit that is available on the Toolbox. Second, don't just assume that the tools are all easy to use and useful just because experienced users say so. Find out if users with little or no experience find their design useful and easy to use. if they cam use them with an easy learning curve, then the experts will find their productivity soaring. Thank you for your time - CORNELIUSSEON 13:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree. And if you want to improve the design, the first, required step is to proposed the change on WT:BP. Going around making your "improvements" to entries when you know it is out-of-policy is nothing but vandalism. If you would begin to try to learn why we do things the way we do, you might be surprised to find that what we are doing is far superior for a dictionary, and very well considered. Or you may have some improvement to suggest.
Let me point out a couple of things you are not considering, that are critical to the wikt:
  • All information such as references, must be inside a language section. They belong to that language. There are many, many tools that take apart the language sections.
  • The level 2 headers must be ISO-639 language names. Again, there are many tools that use this structure.
  • In most cases, references must be within part-of-speech as well, and certainly within etymologies, that is why it is a level 4 header.
All of this is careful design, that (just as you say!) has been evolved.
As to the need to "improvise", you have no such need at all. You understand fully that you are supposed to put the references under L4 header "References" instead of using the ref tags. I cannot possibly see how that could be too difficult for someone of your intellectual ability. If you think other users need such help, take it to the Beer Parlour. But we've yet to see that: listing references under the header is far easier for users than the ref tags. Robert Ullmann 14:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with your reasoning, but the reason why the ref tags work out better is that you end up with only ONE instance for each reference, with reference superscripts that tie the reference to the entries it supports. This slims down the reference list to a bare minimum, and leaves the only use of multiple references to separate pages within the same publication if that kind of references are necessary. In this case, the same reference can be used to support entries in multiple languages since all like tags tie to the same reference down in the reference section. Actually, for that reason, it really won't matter which level I place the reference tags on since they will still gravitate to whichever level has the Reference Results tag, and I tried multiple Reference Results tags, and they just repeated the same references over and over.

As to the Beer parlor idea, I've never been there, and - from the experiences I've had with Chat Rooms - which is what I assume the Beer parlor is - I really don't have time for that. The vast majority of time I spend in this project is spend in writing and formatting. I work an eight Hour and 15 Minute Day, five days a week over in Manhattan, spend six hours each day in roundtrip commutation, and so I do most of my work here on the Weekends when I am not busy engaged elsewhere. I expect to retire - for the final time - late in 2008, whereapon I will most likely expand my time on these projects, and then I MAY have time to visit the Beer parlor, but not until then, and I won't spend a whole lot of time there as I've never liked to chat very much. Actually, it was my understanding that this set of pages were designed to do the same sort of work as the Beer parlor since you get to write out what you want to say, and others can comment on it. - CORNELIUSSEON 20:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have time for the beer parlour, that's certainly ok. Those discussions can indeed be time-consuming, and we don't expect everyone to participate in them. However, by abstaining from the beer parlour, you're abstaining from the Wiktionary decision making process. Then the issue of which type of referencing system is better becomes a moot point. The only question then becomes, "Which type of referencing system is the standard?" If you'd like to change the standard, please visit the beer parlour. But until you do, it would be best to stick to the policies which have been decided by a great deal of discussion. Let me also assure you that work is most definitely underway towards the goal of making Wiktionary formatting easier for newcomers. However, in the meantime, those who are capable and experienced enough to follow the (perhaps somewhat complicated) standards should do so. Atelaes 20:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Just so you know, we're still, to this day, cleaning up after your fucked up bullshit. --Connel MacKenzie 08:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually even in 2010. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Aaron, Abel, Abraham[edit]

Most of the names you added are not English. Some, like Fopap, are no language at all. Google Books suggests Superb Book of Boys' names as a possible source. Baby name books aimed at parents are notoriously inaccurate. Please find a dictionary written by linguists. We don't list transliterations of foreign names as English names. If you want to change that practice, you should add a qualifier, like (Transliterations of Russian pet forms) to show that you know what you are adding.--Makaokalani 14:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)