User talk:Chuck Entz

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

Archives:

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Note
Please add new messages at the bottom.

Welcome[edit]

Welcome! Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  • How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Weird new page[edit]

Hi. I just saw ̤ https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%CC%A4&redirect=no be created, and it looked odd to me (given that it took me a few minutes just to isolate and copy the character from the page title) - does this meet the criteria for inclusion as a redirect? I'd rather not try and go through the normal deletion process myself, since I can't really figure out how to copy the title easily. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

On the one hand, it would be real hard to search for this, so the damage would be minimal if it's wrong. On the other, I'm not sure that it has anything to do with the character it redirects to. I'll see if I can bring it up at the grease pit. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
It looked like tosh, so I deleted it. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Restored. Maybe learn the IPA before you decide what's tosh... you can start with Murmured consonant. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
The main question is what we do with combining diacritics- do we really want to have this hard-redirecting to a completely different character with a similar meaning, or do we want to do something along the lines of an unsupported titles entry with a soft redirect to the other character. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Happy New Year, Mr. Entz!

I hope that you have a great 2021. Tharthan (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

And thanks for all that New Year's Eve work you were doing. DCDuring (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome, and I hope you have a great year! Chuck Entz (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Likewise! I feel a little guilty sometimes, because things have actually been better for me: my 3-hour-round-trip commute on public transportation has been replaced with instantaneous telecommuting, and years of not going out enough to do things and meet people has made the transition to the post-COVID lifestyle a non-event for me. Not that I've been enjoying all the suffering, death and catastrophe others have been going through- I really, really hope things start to return to normal this year! Chuck Entz (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

"baraxa" in Galician[edit]

"baraxa" doesn't even exist in Galician. It's a "castelanismo", a word taken directly, adapting it to Galician phonology or not, from Spanish while NOT being a borrowing. Seriously, it's doesn't appear in the OFFICIAL Galician dictionary (https://academia.gal/dicionario/-/termo/baraxa) and in the Reintegracionist dictionary it has NOT the meaning of "deck (of cards)" (https://estraviz.org/baraja). Please, you have to CONFIRM with sources... —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Afonso705 (talkcontribs) at 03:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC).

@Afonso705 We're a descriptive dictionary based on usage. The fact that something doesn't appear in a dictionary is NOT a valid reason for removing anything. I sympathize with your desire to protect your language, but that doesn't mean we're going to cover things up for you. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz Tell me why what you're doing is correct? Tell a single reason why that's correct. Provide documentation, sources... Just prove your statement withouth falling in some "you're protecting your language, but..." bullcrap... --Afonso705 (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
What I've done so far is correct, since it's in line with our rules- which you know nothing about. Since I'm not about to claim that I know anything about whether the note is correct, it's obviously not the final word. Feel free to discuss this at the Tea Room topic that I've started.
I will say that you aren't the only Galician who's edited that page. The person who added the note is a native speaker, and I don't want to second-guess their judgment based solely on the opinion of someone who doesn't understand the principles on which our dictionary is based. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

I have changed the German conjugation tables to be stricter about the auxiliary code they accept; this may flush out some errors. The auxiliary should be one of h = haben, s = sein, hs or sh = either haben or sein. The implementation used to require the same values but didn't throw an error on bad values, which it does now. The most common errors are either spelling out the auxiliary or leaving it out. If left out the correct value can usually be found in the headword. I am going to sleep now but will fix any remaining errors when I wake up. Benwing2 (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

𫤏 (U+2B90F)[edit]

Hey Chuck Entz,

Regarding the chu nom for "nghiêng", which is usually "迎" [meaning "welcome" instead], I discovered "𫤏" after searching up "nghiêng" on the Nom lookup tool. The link is here, and after typing "nghiêng" with the circumflex it returns "迎" and "𫤏".

Also, "𫤏" consists of "傾" and "迎"; it means "incline, topple" but is pronounced much like the Han pronunciation of "welcome".

I appreciate you decision to consider in my edits. Best,

--MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

My revert had nothing to do with the content. Unless the template has been specifically designed to interpret lists separated by commas, the system assumes you're linking to an entry that has a comma in it when you do that. "" is a word, and perhaps "𫤏" is a word- but if anyone were to click on that red link that you left, they would be given the option to create an entry for "迎,𫤏", which is nothing but two characters with a comma randomly stuck between them. What's the definition for "迎,𫤏"? How do you pronounce it? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, it is just that I wrongly formatted the link. I have fixed the link. 𫤏 is exclusive to chu nom.

Template:nb...[edit]

Perhaps YOU can come up with a stable fix for this? Because the obvious one of escaping or nowiki around the bracket charcters DOES NOT appear to be th answer.

Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The relevant page being forespeak ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00 I 'm not exactly sure what you were trying to accomplish on the technical side, but I notice that you replaced "]&#93;", which was a double square bracket (one literal + one encoded as an html entity), with "<nowiki>]</nowiki>", which was a single square bracket. The result displayed with one bracket missing because you left it out, not because of any strange technical problem. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I reverted those changes. Now can you come up with a stable fix, rather than helpfully pointing out the typos? ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
The problem is that I don't know what you mean by "stable" and "fix". To have it come out looking the same as the original, you would just use "<nowiki>]]</nowiki>" instead of "<nowiki>]</nowiki>". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
What I mean, is coming up with a long term reworking of {{nb...}}, so that it can be used within {{quote}} related templates, without it generating lint errors, which as I've explained elsewhere might be down to either:
  1. The parser (or potentially the Lua code in the quote module) becoming confused by the use of [] for something other than an embbeded link. This is I think why the version I reverted to "escaped" certain usages of these.
  2. Nested use of {{...}} or {{nb...}} within a parameter that is not expecting there to be embedded spans, and where due to the nested use, a construction like <span title="Some text <span>[</span>This parser will not like this<span>]"</span>...</span> which the linter tool will correctly identify as misnested.

Alternatively a template to escape square-braced/bracketed items that aren't links would be strongly suggested. 09:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC) —⁠This unsigned comment was added by ShakespeareFan00 (talkcontribs).

Revert rfv and rfd[edit]

Hi,

You reverted a few of my attempts to resolve verification and deletion. That's OK, because despite having edited some wikis for many years, I haven't edited Wiktionary much until recently. But I tried to read the policies at the rfv and rfd templates, and there are a few things I couldn't understand, so I hope you can explain it.

On the two cases of rfd, on וידע and ויגד, there were no corresponding sections on Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English. Was I supposed to add these sections and say "Keep" there?

About rfv:

Also, at חלק and קודח, I made some edits, and you reverted them, too. Can I restore them, and leave the rfv templates in? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Amire80: Chuck seems to have missed this comment, so I'll give a shot at the response.
Re וידע and ויגד: Sije should have added the sections, and failed to do so. However, I agree with you that they are valid forms, and we consider vav-consecutives as worthy of Wiktionary entries. Any change to that would have to meet with consensus among Hebrew editors, not by RFDing a couple entries. I have therefore upheld your removal of the RFD tags, and pinged Sije to make sure they know what to do.
Re חלק: The RFV tag was added by an anon in 2018; I have now added a section at RFV. In order to keep it, we need more than the word of a native speaker or a dictionary; we need three quotations from books (e.g. at Google Books) or similarly durably archived media, as described at WT:ATTEST. I have pinged you there.
Re רוח: The RFV tag was added by Ruakh himself; I have now added a section at RFV and pinged him. It will receive due process and wait at least a month before being removed if no quotations can be found.
Re קודח: As you changed the sense, the RFV could technically be closed, but it would be best if you could add quotations, so there is never any doubt about this sense and what it means in the future.
I have also restored the edits you made that were not removing the tags. Please let me know if you need any help with the RFV process or anything else. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Μετάknowledge! I took care of them all, but you're welcome to double-check. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@Amire80: The quotations need to be attributed with the year, author, title, etc. See WT:" for more on quotations, or just copy the format from an existing entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Done, thank you. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of bruaria[edit]

Hi there, a couple of hours after I started this page (and ran into some problems, and had other things to do), this page was deleted by yourself. Is there any way you can retrieve the content to save me the time of recreation from scratch? JimKillock (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@JimKillock: I have cleaned up the page. However, the error you made in the declension suggests to me that you do not understand Latin paradigms well enough to use the DLMBS to make entries. It's not too hard to learn how to format correctly if you already know Latin, but if you do not, I ask that you stop trying to add Latin entries. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's absolutely no usable information in that version that isn't already in the current entry. The places where you tried to be more specific, you had it wrong. Now @Metaknowledge has fixed the rest of it for you, so incorporating anything from the old version would be a step backward. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Tiraflechas[edit]

You reverted my edit with no explanation or justification. Yes, in fact, "tiraflechas" is the widespread derogatory term in Cuban Spanish for Hispanic people with significant indigenous ancestry. "Indio" is the standard term, which, like "Jew", can be neutral or derogatory depending on the context. A simple search for "¿Que es un tiraflechas?" will show you I'm not making it up. In case your reversion was about the use of "tiraflechas" as "slingshot" in Cuban - a usage which I, a Cuban, have never heard - I added that part back in. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Succubus MacAstaroth Thank you. It's never a good idea to assume you know everything about any language- even your own. I have no clue about Cuban usage, so I looked it up. Regarding your comment "No idea where they got that from": it's entirely possible that they got it from the RAE dictionary. Granted that the DRAE isn't that strong on usage outside of Spain, but that usually manifests as leaving stuff out, not in making up stuff. Besides, the correct procedure for something you don't think exists is to tag it with {{rfv|es}} or {{rfv-sense|es}} ("es" is the language code for Spanish) and use the link it creates to post it at Requests for verification/Non-English. If no one can find usage that meets our Criteria for inclusion, it will be deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Cool. In any case, Wikipedia and Wiktionary are a collaborative and consensus-oriented effort, and I see that I'm not the only one who's complained about you reverting our good-faith edits with no explanation, which is rude and authoritarian. It wouldn't kill you to include a quick explanation when you revert something that seems like a good-faith edit. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

dubious reversion of 'chicken'[edit]

"Cowardly" shows "chicken" as a synonym, so the reverse should be true.

"Chicken" is usually an adjective when used in the sense of being afraid or being a coward, but "coward" is a noun, so arguably it should _not_ be shown as a synonym. ("She is a coward" does _not_ mean the same as "She is a chicken". I would probably move most of the synonyms from "Coward" to "Cowardly", for the same reason.)

Please undo your reversion of my edit. Martin Kealey (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

We also have an adjective section on the same page. If you want to add a synonym section there, that would be fine. Don't stick adjective synonyms in the noun section. Also, the noun sense does exist, even if you aren't familiar with it. I would recommend leaving it alone. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"I see, said the blind man" - unexplained revert[edit]

Hello! I made an edit on "I see, said the blind man", which was reverted with no explanation of why. The previous sentence of "This form of word play is known as a Wellerism." seemed to be lacking. A Wellerism is just the attribution of a quote to a hypothetical figure. I understand the argument that "I see, said the blind man" isn't a Tom Swifty, but my issue was with the description of a Wellerism being a "form of word play". Paintspot (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?". Why would you "fix" a dubious statement by introducing another that's flat-out wrong?. I don't know much about Wellerisms, but a quote using "said" and nothing adverbial isn't a Tom Swifty- the pun has to be in the manner in which quote is said. Something like "I see, said the blind man, with feeling".Chuck Entz (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Protection of climograph[edit]

Only administrators can edit. J3133 (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. I think I meant to make the editing protection short term and the move protection indefinite, but somehow both got set indefinite.
I do a lot of protections, but I only do indefinite when something is so inherently obvious that it's unlikely to ever change, like creation protection on the full name of some private individual, or move protection on a common English word. I don't think I've ever intentionally placed infinite edit protection on a mainspace page- if you see another one, let me know. As far as I'm concerned, infinite admin-only edit-protection is like a permanent block on an IP address- as a rule it shouldn't be done (things can change), and any exceptions would require an absolutely iron-clad reason with no other choice. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

order Scorpaeniformes vs. suborder Scorpaenoidei[edit]

It is just a consequence of following Ruggiero et al. The have made Perciformes into a huge order, containing, I think, nine suborder for which we have entries. (See this search.) I believe these have been often treated as orders. I am loath to depart from their scheme — though I wish they had stuck to their stated intent of updating their scheme every five years. We could use WoRMS instead of Ruggiero for the many marine taxa they cover or Deepfin (https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-017-0958-3) for bony fishes. I already use APG instead of Ruggiero for angiosperms, because Wikispecies uses it, which facilitates the creation of Hyponyms sections for the taxa involved. DCDuring (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with your following their scheme, but that doesn't mean that the categories have to follow it too. In the case of Scorpaeniformes, both English Wikipedia and Wikispecies use it, based no doubt on WoRMS and FishBase.
More to the point, the entire category is based on Scorpaeniformes, not on Scorpaenoidei. I'm not sure that Ruggiero's concept of Scorpaenoidei is the same as that of Scorpaeniformes, so changing it might require a major reworking of the categories. If necessary, I can do that- but not if nobody tells me they're doing it. Not that I "own" the category system, but a change that might have a substantial effect on a category with hundreds of members should be discussed somewhere so that it can be reworked. There are a few categories where the taxonomy has shifted but I haven't reworked them yet because the taxonomy is still in flux or I simply don't know what to replace them with. In this case, the parent category is overloaded (in English, anyway), so I would rather that we didn't do anything that might reduce the scope of the category. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Ruggiero is limited to order and above. If you would like to reform our treatment of fish taxa, please let me know which source you think would be best. If you would like to maintain consistency with Ruggiero, then lots of fishes will be in Perciformes and most of the finer categorization you have added will be lost. Wikispecies follows Betancur et al. (I'm not sure which version. Latest is version 4 (2017), but I can't read the most detailed graphic Fig. 2). Version 4 has suborder Scorpaenoidei, but I can't read the placement. Fishbase doesn't go above order and doesn't have suborders. WoRMS has always made me nervous because they have a superclass called Pisces, part of superclass Gnathostomata. Pisces is a name I haven't found in other databases. Otherwise they seem reliable.
I find it hard to connect our category structure with taxonomy because the circumscription of the categories requires that I map from vernacular names to the taxonomic family names, which I cannot do without a lot of look-up. DCDuring (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my ids[edit]

My ego is flattered too. Equinox 00:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Reoccurring issue[edit]

Please don't make me be the one to do it. As if that wasn't enough, it's just going to get worse. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Deliberate destruction of the meanings of Persian words[edit]

A user named user:Fay Freak who has no knowledge of Persian constantly makes malicious edits on Persian words, why do you rollback my correct editing instead of stopping him?--Anti-Sillyism (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I check the meanings I give; you fancy yours, just as you phantasize malicious intent. No, your edits are not correct, in etymologies as well as in meanings to fit fancied etymologies, to such an extent that one regularly discovers you without knowing Persian. You should stop, Irman. Fay Freak (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

revertion of my edit kreupaną[edit]

Hello. Why did you revert my edit to *kreupaną, wherein I changed the Old Norse descendants from a manual list to one using the desctree template? Mårtensås (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Because there was no descendants section in the Old Norse entry at the time, so you were replacing content with a link to nothing. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Pizza0614[edit]

Look familiar? (I think there was some user that was obsessed with nationality prefixes like this) — surjection??⟩ 11:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. It seems sort of like the kind of thing BrunoMed might have done, but this isn't BrunoMed. Also, I don't think they're particularly obsessed with nationality prefixes- it's just the latest thing they're running into the ground. I think they're more obsessed with maintaining a high volume than with any one subject. They remind me more of the Montreal IP or Joey Chen. The main problem is when they get into an area where they don't have a reliable source, like this or the rhymes. If they have to rely on their own judgment, they tend to go off into the weeds. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Jewish Palestinian Aramaic[edit]

Why did you delete this? Was there a discussion I missed? We have Category:Palestinian Aramaic, but scholars separate the Jewish corpus (in Hebrew script) from the Christian corpus (in Syriac script). (There's also a corpus in Samaritan script, which we have given a separate language code.) It seems clear to me that these should all get their own categories and etymology-only language codes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: It says “empty category”. And I don’t see any edits in his contributions, to Aramaic pages, making the category empty. So there is probably nothing behind it on his side. The strange thing is of course that entries are labelled “Jewish Palestinian Aramaic” but not categorized. But I think it was never in Module:labels/data/subvarieties in the first place. Fay Freak (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@Fay Freak: I'll add it in, then, and hopefully the category will populate. We seem to be missing categories for a lot of extinct Aramaic varieties, including well-defined ones like Hatran Aramaic, as well as more nebulous ones like "Jewish Literary Aramaic" (the likes of Targum Onqelos, written in a Hebraising JPA dialect but vocalised according to JBA). I think our coverage would benefit from being generous with categories and etymology-only codes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
And when did we create the code sem-jar for "Jewish Aramaic" (a category that Chuck created)? What is that even supposed to mean? @Fay Freak, it would be good to get rid of that so we can use specific terms instead of pretending that all Jewish Aramaic dialects can be treated as a single language... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: This is probably, it has appeared handy to me in practice, a summary term for a presence in multiple of the varieties as well as a fall-back for the nebulous ones like “Jewish Literary Aramaic”, where we are not sure what it is or it is a crossover or the other names are even more ridiculous, like “Babylonian Magic Bowl Koine Aramaic”, so used for the same reason one sometimes refrains from dialect labels being any more specific than “regional” – because it wouldn’t be that correct either and rather misleading if one tried to specify; better than just to label “Aramaic”, which would have happened more without this label. Now you created a number of module errors by removing arc-jar but I see I can replace some of them with arc-jla, but only because the CAL is specific enough. Fay Freak (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Normal people count the magic bowls as JBA, I believe — Sokoloff does so, at least. A bare "Aramaic" in etymologies is fine for words common to all coeval dialects, and if we can use linguistic, attestational, or historical clues to do better, we should — but if we have those clues, then we have no need to fall back on "Jewish Aramaic", which is just as bad. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge we're up to 17 entries in CAT:E. Basically everything there with more than 2 characters except for bewilder, which is an Interlingua translation, and يوشع, which is a bad drive-by entry creation. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad to see that the changes are finally propagating. I'll clean those up soon. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I would guess around 2012, from the date the first "Jewish Aramaic" category was created (not by me). Back before category bots and auto cat, I specialized in patrolling Special:WantedCategories so others wouldn't have to waste their time trying to figure out which category boiler to use. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Chuck Entz I see that you have invited me to your usertalkpage in case I objected to your reversion of my edit, so I came here to learn. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

白菜[edit]

I see you reverted my edit at Bok Choy and added/restored a photo.

Chinese usage itself is confusing, but including two different vegetables under the same name is going to confuse users. Check out the Chinese Wiktionary / Wikipedia pages on 白菜, 小白菜, and 大白菜. Also check out the names in different dialects. Note particularly the article at [1]. You will find that 白菜 means different things in Cantonese and Mandarin; using 白菜 for all is incorrect.

I suggest that English Wiktionary should at least have separate articles for Napa cabbage and Bok choy (or Baby bok choy - there seems to be some confusion in naming). Without this, there will be confusion in the translations given for different languages, not to mention usage in different dialects of Chinese.

The Mandarin for the large variety is 大白菜. For the small variety it is 小白菜. A subvariety of 小白菜 is known as 油菜, and that's what it's usually called in Beijing. (I never heard anything else there.)

Alternatively, have two separate entries under Bok Choy: Napa Cabbage and (Baby) Bok Choy.

Bathrobe (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit for the Mandarin translation of "Chinese cabbage, Brassica rapa chinensis" since 小白菜 is the name for this vegetable in Mandarin (please see Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bok_choy, which links to 小白菜 in Chinese Wikipedia. It also links to 青梗菜 in Japanese Wikipedia -- which is the name by which it is known in Japan -- so I've altered that too.
There is no list of translations for "Chinese cabbage, Brassica rapa pekinensis", which is where 白菜 would be appropriate as a Mandarin translation. Perhaps it would be a good idea to create such a list, as I suggested earlier in this thread.

139.5.219.76 00:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, but I'm not going to revert based on my own limited knowledge. I've been meaning to bring this up at the Tea room, where the Chinese and Japanese editors can weigh in. I'll do that now. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Good idea.
139.5.219.76 01:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Commenting out line break in template innovations[edit]

You've just hidden the line breaks within a module invocation in {{RQ:sa:K1237 quote}}. What is that supposed to achieve? As far as I am aware, line breaks before the separators within an invocation just disappear, and adding the HTML comments out makes the invocation harder to read. There are, unfortunately, templates where ends of lines are a problem, and they do need to be commented out.

If there is a benefit from your edit, I need to learn it, because I do create templates that invoke modules and templates. RichardW57 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out a rather puzzling hidden module error that was popping up in certain entries using that template, and I was just seeing if the line breaks were involved (they weren't). It turned out to be someone else's template which had a too-obvious-to-spot mistake involving copying too much of a piece of code from one part of the template to another. The error was somewhere in the fallback code that only executes if the script recognition fails. I fixed the script recognition, so the module error stopped, but I never did figure out the error itself.
Cases where a module invocation is fed into a parser function can be extremely hard to debug because the error message is treated by the parser function as just text and not displayed. That means that the module-error category is the only sign that something is wrong, and you can't even tell directly which template has the error. You start looking for anything out of the ordinary, and using comments instead of line breaks is very much the norm in Wiktionary templates.
I finally narrowed it down to which template was at fault by commenting out parts of the entry in preview to see if the error went away, which is what I should have done in the first place.
Executive summary: don't read anything into my edit to your template- it wasn't about your template at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

de references edit[edit]

Hey, I can't figure out this edit: Special:diff/62303094 - the result seems to be the exact same, only achieved manually. Brutal Russian (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but when you're over the memory limit for modules on the page, having a module looking things up in ginormous data modules to get the same result is a very bad idea. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh! I'll try to keep that in mind. Could you clarify what a data module is? Brutal Russian (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
It's a module used to hold data that's used by other modules, which in turn are used by templates. In this case, {{R:L&S}} calls Module:R:Perseus, which looks up the pagename ("de") in Module:R:Perseus/collision-data/LS- most likely to verify that Perseus has an L&S entry for it. This uses 2,875,046 bytes of Lua memory out of the 52,428,800-byte limit (about 5.5%) to get the exact same result as my method. Normally that's not a problem, but de has 76 language sections, all of which use templates backed up be Lua modules to format the headword and add the right categories, among other things. If it weren't for the fact that the memory for certain modules can be used more than once on a page, we would have a lot more in CAT:E the the current 12 Latin-script entries that are there currently. I'm not going to swap out the templates unless I have to, so I've only done this a dozen or so times. In many cases that was enough to bring the entry below the limit and clear the module error, but this one is beyond help. Even so, it can mean that there's more content visible before the error messages start to obliterate the content.
Really, though, no one needs to know about whether a template uses a data module except in those rare cases where it actually makes a difference- at most a few hundred out of millions of entries. Even then, there usually not much you could do about it that isn't already being done. I've taken it upon myself to patrol CAT:E so those who know more than I do can spend time on things I don't have the background for. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Publicist v Journalist[edit]

Thanks for reverting the link, which was in error. I meant to just cut journalist from the definition of publicist. The two jobs are distinct. PR agents are not reporters, right? -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello? -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chumchum7 Sorry. I forgot to come back to this when I had the time. No, it's not okay to simply remove a sense that's been there awhile (in this case since the entry was created 14 years ago) just because you're not familiar with it. The removal was the main reason for my revert.
Don't forget that we cover the entire history of modern English, from 1500 on, and that language is always changing. As I understand it, the modern occupation referred to by "publicist" is only a century or two old. Try a search in Google Books with everything after 1900 filtered out and you'll see what I mean. With the growth of the publicity-related sense, it's possible the public-affairs-related sense needs to be tagged as obsolete, though it might have hung on in specialized fields. You could discuss it at the Tea room.
For future reference, if you believe a word doesn't exist, add {{rfv}} with the language code (for English that would be {{rfv|en}} and (preferably) post it at Requests for verification/English or Requests for verification/Non-English. People will look for usage to verify that it exists, and delete it if it doesn't. In this case you'd be only challenging the sense, so you would use {{rfv-sense|en}}, but everything else applies. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Speaking of what is not okay: easy with the tone and with the prejudice. For what it's worth, I was indeed referring to the archaic usage of the word and I am familiar with that usage. I happen to write professionally, and have earned my living this way for over 20 years. I've also been working for free on Wikipedia for around 12 years, where we adhere to WP:BITE and WP:BOLD. If you consider yourself an exemplar at Wiktionary - and if you believe this is a collegial environment - I invite you in future to welcome newcomers and thank them for taking an interest in this project before they leave. Which is what I am doing now. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Chumchum7 Sorry again. I didn't mean to lecture you, and I got the senses mixed up, too. That's what I get for dealing with this on 4 hours' sleep 15 minutes before work. I realized at the last minute that if I didn't say something it would look like I was deliberately ignoring you, but the adage about not opening one's mouth and removing all doubt seems to apply somehow. At any rate, the part about using {{rfv-sense}} on a definition that's been there for 14 years still applies. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Small Shiny Object school of historical linguistics[edit]

Did you coin this de novo or is there a prehistory to it that you want to elaborate?

I find myself wanting to use it sometimes because it sounds cute, but I am afraid my interpretation has evolved. I call it the school of shiny objects for short.

You have explained its meaning more than once, but the details differ from time to time and in the end it simply denigrates the language aficionado who ignores the comparative method, but without suggesting a solution.

> He belongs to what I call the Small Shiny Object school of historical linguistics- no amount of study can overcome the basic, fatal methodological flaws in his approach.
> Any language has tens of thousands of words, so any pair of languages has hundreds of millions of potential comparisons. The law of averages dictates that there will be plenty of coincidences- hundreds of one-in-a-million occurrences are to be expected. You have to be able to show systematic correspondences, preferably in core vocabulary that people learn in childhood from their family rather than from outsiders who may be bringing words from elsewhere. (Talk:coral Jan 2018)
> This is what I call the Small Shiny Object method: wander aimlessly all over the place, then make a collection of whatever catches your eye. Any language has thousands of words, so any pair of languages has millions of word combinations- that means you can expect a few one-in-a-million coincidences just by rolling the dice that many times. (WT:ES Jan 2018)
> Someone from the "small, shiny object" school of historical linguistics: you leaf through a dictionary in Language A until you find something that coincidentally resembles something in Language B, then congratulate yourself on finding a Deep, Hidden Truth that all those academics, blinded by common sense and knowledge of how language change actually works, were unable to see Right In Front Of Their Noses!!!!! (WT:ES Jul 2019)

There are many aspects to this very common problem. A consisderable amount of writing exists on-line and in the literature. The warning has it that rigorous methodology is needed because, if you throw methodological rigor over board, anything can be derived from everything. The problem is that this rigor cannot be satisfied in many cases.

Albeit tongue-in-cheek, even you yourself commit and admit to it:

> At risk of joining the Bright Shiny Object school of historical linguistics, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to mention Biblical Hebrew פִּשְׁתָּה‎ (pishtá, “flax”) in connection with "*piš" (WT:ES Jul 2017)

I can also find DCDuring saying something similar in different context:

> ... , but most of us are in pursuit of bright shiny objects. (WT:BP Sept 2017)
> This has the aroma of a bright shiny object. (WT:BP 2013)

Said idiom is also linked to from all that glitters is not gold, by the way.

This forum archaeology leaves me confused. I remember the cannabis discussion from 2017 (your contribution has unfortunately not made it into κάνναβις), but the verbose explanations do not appear until half a year later. I do remember the BSO entry page, but trying to place it I draw a blank. I think that one was the first time that I had read the phrase.

My understanding of comparative historical linguistics was only beginning to form then, so I drew a random associations with the phrase, some relevant then others. I fail to reconstruct the develeopment, and I cannot succinctly summarize it either, for it is still an ongoing process, but here are a few idioms that strike in the same direction for comparison.

  • Small, bright, shiny object and not letting go sound like it describes Gollum, "my precious"
  • Shiny, to shine, bright, are frequent, underspecified glosses for proto-language reconstructions. Similar topics are to cut, to grow, to bend, to burn, etc. This recalls two problems. First, synonyms are expected. The "hundred words for snow" idiom is as relevant for the Saami as is "if all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail" for the iron age, I imagine. Second, too much imagination is equivalent with too little language understanding.

I am afraid that does not capture the extent of the problem. An appeal to the compararive method does not offer a solution, nor is it evident from the phrase itself. What the phrase does offer is comic relief, though it is dangerously close to ridicule.

I commend your good humor and wanted to expand a little on that. Howbeit, the problem is much grander than that. It should be worth discussing. ApisAzuli (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The expression bright shiny object ("BSO") is an example of what it refers to (autonym). I associate it with the behavior of some birds who seem especially attracted to them. But the attraction is in service of attracting mates, I believe, so the element of distraction is not there in nature. The earliest reference to BSO that I found in a cursory search is:
  • 1871, Mrs. Sarah Stuart Robbins, Busy Bees: Or, Winter Evenings in Margaret Russel's School, page 200:
    The bird is called the bower-bird, and is found in Australia. The first thing it does, when it begins to build its nest, is to make a platform of small twigs, looking like a doormat. It then finds some long, slender twigs, and pushes one end of these into the platform, fixing them so that the upper ends cross each other, and form a sort of arch. These twigs are put on both sides, and make an alley. The entrances to this alley are decorated with bright and shiny objects, no matter what, only so they shine.
    DCDuring (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I thought up the application of small shiny objects to historical linguistics myself. That's not to say someone else might not have come up with it independently before I did. I started out calling it the "magpie school of historical linguistics", but most people don't know about magpies and small shiny objects, so I decided to make the explanation into the term. The idea occurred to me from seeing the almost compulsive way that some people were drawn to coincidental word similarities. I was familiar with the attraction to small shiny objects among magpies and pack rats, though it seems to be fairly common throughout the Corvidae. Bowerbirds aren't that far from corvids on the passerine family tree, so it doesn't surprise me that they do it too.
By the way: I believe the "100 words for snow" concept was originally applied to the Eskimos, not the Saami. The Inuit and Yupik languages are polysynthetic, so they make use of affixes instead of separate words to convey most of the meaning in sentences. It's very easy for someone who doesn't know the language to mistake various combinations of prefixes, suffixes infixes and circumfixes on the same root for separate words. Of course, the Uralic languages are similar in their use of affixation, so Saami languages might be similarly misunderstood.
At any rate, I've studied so many different things that I'll probably never be a real expert in anything. It does make it much easier for me to pick up a useful level of understanding with various subjects, and I've found that I'm fairly good at and enjoy explaining them. This is what I do for fun. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Rollback Error[edit]

I think your rollback at Special:Diff/61618311 was in error. 131.255.4.196 22:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You may prefer random chunks of word salad to definitions and examples of usage, but this is a dictionary, so I'm afraid you're out of luck. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

re. booking[edit]

I think your rollback is in error, so I've left you a message on your talk page. --Kent Dominic (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

denotes[edit]

What did I do wrong here that necessitated a revert? If there are issues with the templates I used, I'm not aware of them. Could you enlighten me? embryomystic (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

There was a module error due to misuse of an IPA template. Look at the diff in the edit history. The fact that you had to ask me what was wrong speaks volumes. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I see it now, but there's really no need to be insulting. embryomystic (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Simple drugs[edit]

@Chuck Entz I see that you have reverted my edit on the Wiktionary page for "drugs," in which there was a new entry for the term "simple drugs." The phrase is used extensively in medieval literature to describe natural herbs that are used medicinally, and whose efficacy is proven without the need of combining them with other herbal medicines (compound medicines), although they still can be used with compound medicines. Just to see a few of the examples of where and how the term is used, please read the first paragraph here, and read the first paragraph here, this last one being about a well-known composition written by Ibn-Baytar (whose name you can check on Wikipedia), as well as this here, which shows the name of a book written by another medieval scholar, Al-Idrisi (whose name you can Google), who made a pharmacological list of medicinal herbs, which in their jargon was also called "drugs" because of their curative effects. It should be pointed out here that the term "Simple drugs" is also used synonymously with the term "Simple medicines," or at other times simply "Simples". And what will we say about Galen, a well-known Greek physician of the 2nd-century who wrote a book on Simple drugs?! If you wish, you can access a scholarly review of its content here. See also “Arabic Pharmacognostic Literature and Its Jewish Antecedents: Marwān ibn Ǧanāḥ (Rabbi Jonah), Kitāb al-Talḫīṣ”, in Aleph, volume 16, issue 1, Indiana University Press, 2016, JSTOR 10.2979/aleph.16.1.145, page 183. You see, this is a term used, principally, in Medieval usage, and which scholars of Medieval literature encounter all the time. Wherefore, and in consideration of all the above, the word entry on Wiktionary is valid and helpful.Davidbena (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I say, you are confused. This usage is already covered by the page simple: “(chemistry, pharmacology) Consisting of one single substance; uncompounded.” … ”A herbal preparation made from one plant, as opposed to something made from more than one plant.” And it does not belong to drugs. Nor did the authorities you adduce use the English language. In Ibn al-Bayṭar’s “jargon” it is مُفْرَد(mufrad, simple) and مُرَكَّب(murakkab, compound). Fay Freak (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
If I'm confused, it was only in the sense that I did not know that an entry already existed in the word "simple". As for Arabic, I am familiar with the language, and when "Simple drugs" are used in their translated texts, it is only in the sense that they are not compounded, which is precisely what we wrote in the edit before it was reverted. The entry "Simple drugs" was actually an adjective describing medicinal herbs/plants that are not compounded. While the Medieval authorities cited by us did not use the English language, their language has been translated and much of their terminology is now used commonly in English translations, such as "Simple drugs."Davidbena (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Adjective
  1. (chiefly pharmacology) Simple drugs (used in Medieval texts to designate drugs and medicinal herbs that can be singularly used, without being compounded with other medications).
(edit conflict) @Davidbena I'm quite familiar with simples. I've been an herb hobbyist for almost half a century. When I was 15 or 16 I joined 2 different herb societies, and the local one put me in charge of their public herb garden after less than a year. I taught myself Old English so I could read Bald's Leechbook. This isn't about ignorance of the topic. On the contrary: I deleted your contribution because it made very little sense in general- and absolutely no sense at all as a dictionary entry.
First of all, your entry was for an English adjective, like hot, cold, simple, complex. Adjectives modify nouns: big rabbit, simple drug, bad idea. What does "drugs" modify? "That's a real drugs X". It doesn't work. Second, Wiktionary doesn't include Middle English (before 1500) or Old English (already starting to disappear at the time of the Norman conquest in 1066) as English. They're treated as separate languages. That means "Medieval literature" simply can not include English. Dioscorides didn't write in English- he wrote in Greek. I know, because I've seen images of early manuscripts and read the text. The Arabic writers didn't write in English, they wrote in medieval Arabic. I can guarantee you that the phrase "simple drugs" will never be found in any medieval manuscript anywhere. Ever.
This is a dictionary. It's about words and phrases, etc. What do they mean, how do you pronounce them, how do you use them in a sentence. Instead of writing about the word "drugs", you were trying to write about the subject of drugs. That's what encyclopedias like Wikipedia do. You could try adding something there, but they've already got extensive coverage of all kinds of drugs- herbal and non-herbal. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Chuck, for this explanation. Actually, the Arab writers' use of the phrase الأدوية المفردة (= Simple drugs) is a take away from Galen's Latin phrase "De simplicium medicamentorum" [see Arabic Pharmacognostic Literature (2016), p. 183, above] - and which Arabic phrase entered into the Arabic language and is now understood as such. Those who encounter the English phrase, "Simple drugs" (and which as you correctly pointed out is not a true adjective) may still want to know its meaning, under the entry of "drugs." Currently there is an entry for the pharmacological use of "simple" in the Wiktionary page of simple. Can we agree, with your assistance, to add an explanation note/filler on the Wiktionary "drugs" page? It sure will help alleviate confusion about the phrase. As it is now, I have resorted to two links on Wikipedia, when writing there "Simple drugs." The word "Simple" links to the Wiktionary simple, but the word "drugs" links to the Wikipedia article Medicinal plants.Davidbena (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, with your permission, I would like to say one more thing related to the above.

  1. We find in English words gerund, which simply means "a word derived from a verb and functioning as a noun," as, for example, words in English with the -ing form of a verb when functioning as a noun, as writing in "Writing is easy."
  2. We also find the opposite, where nouns function as a verb, and which figure of speech is technically called a denominitive, as in the English expression "to man a spacecraft," from the noun man.
  3. So, too, some adjectives have evolved into nouns. For instance, the word "simple / simples (pl.)" (in the pharmacological sense) is a stellar example of a construct-state where a noun (= drugs) and an adjective (= simple) have combined to form a noun. Although here the word is shortened, let us not forget that the noun is sometimes used in its original context, "simple drugs."

All that I'm asking is that we show an example (e.g.) of its usage. This venue, at least to me (in my humble opinion), seems to be the logical and natural place for the definition of this word, rather than starting a new article on Wikipedia, just to define for our readers the meaning of this phrase. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Noun
  1. (chiefly pharmacology) Simple drugs (noun used in Medieval texts to designate drugs and medicinal herbs that can be singularly used, without being compounded with other medications).

Your Rollback on[edit]

Your Rollback on Tamilism is error. Please Change it back! Sources for my definition: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=JFRRl1vv0kwC&pg=PA393&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false and https://tamilreligion.org/home/ Thank you! VelKadamban (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You don't understand what a definition is, and your formatting was all wrong. A definition for "Tamilism" should answer the question "what does 'Tamilism' mean?". "Tamilism" doesn't mean "Tamilism Refers to Tamil Religion". That's just talking about the word. It also doesn't mean "Tamil People native to Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka , and Tamil Diaspora People who live In many Countries Refer their Religion as Tamil". That's just talking about Tamil people and what they call their religion.
Also, each line that starts with "#" is supposed to be a different definition. Your definition is formatted as three separate definitions, two of which make no sense as definitions.
You also don't write English very well: you capitalized a number of words that should be lowercase and you left out several words like "the" and "to". Chuck Entz (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent bot blockings[edit]

I'm just curious, how the heck do you know these are bots when they haven't even made any contributions? User: The Ice Mage talk to meh 14:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Abuse filters. I don't know that it makes any difference, but it's so easy to spot these once you look at the text. There's this one Indonesian bot program that tries to simulate a personal user page, but they've been going through a continuous cycle of paraphrasing to avoid detection by filters that keep being updated to spot them for so many years that the text is really bizarre and ungrammatical. I just do it for a change of pace between other tasks. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/65.28.70.107[edit]

Bringing to your attention this editor who has an anti-Sylheti agenda. Thank you. -- dictātor·mundī 12:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Some sysop please block this vandal! (@Metaknowledge, Kutchkutch) -- dictātor·mundī 08:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

French IPA question[edit]

I know you might not be able to help since you list your French level as fr-1 but perhaps you can ping someone else in that case. I recently added French to damnable after referring to fr.wikt and when I did I noticed the IPA that is generated by {{fr-IPA}} is not the same as what is shown on fr:damnable. According to fr.wikt it's pronounced /dɑ.nabl/ but {{fr-IPA}} here generates /dam.nabl/. The fr.wikt pronunciation seems weird to me, but I'm not super confident with pronunciations either really. User: The Ice Mage talk to meh 14:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably better to bring it up at the Information desk, though @Mahagaja is usually a good person to ask. If I had to guess, I'd say that frwikt was trying to show that the "-am" is really a nasalized vowel, with the nasalization being due to the following consonant and not, therefore, a phoneme that would be shown in a phonemic IPA rendering. That wouldn't explain why words like French dance have nasal vowels, too. Either that or they forgot to add the nasalization diacritic (I notice that their IPA appendix has nasal vowels). As for our version: one could argue that the nasal vowel is just the surface rendering of an underlying a+[nasal consonant]. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
French damner and its derivatives aren't pronounced the way they're spelled. You have to use a respelling as |1= of {{fr-IPA}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Your rollback[edit]

The clarifying hint is immediately visible at this place for everyone without interrupting or disturbing the structure of the page in any way. I have quite the impression that this vandalistic rollback is a racist action. It is probably intended to prevent readers of the colonialist-influenced name "Swaziland" from learning the truth that this name has been obsolete for 3 years now and is nothing more than an anachronism.--Bestoernesto (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Read WT:EL. We have a a very specific page structure that your edit trashed. Also, we don't shout at our readers or rap them on the knuckles with a ruler- we explain the facts from a neutral point of view, and leave it at that. Don't get me wrong: it's certainly relevant that Swaziland is no longer the official name for the country, and I have no problem with including a link to Eswatini in the appropriate place, with a gloss saying that it's the official name.
That said, we're a descriptive dictionary. As long as most English speakers refer to the country as Swaziland, we're going to document that fact. Very few English speakers know or care about the official names for most countries (even ones populated by white people), and pretty much no one is going to be offended by or think less of anyone who uses the officially proscribed name. To pretend otherwise would be to mislead our readers. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Usage notes: When to use[edit]

Thanks for your guidance at here. I'd like to ask when is usage notes necessary in entries? It seems that WT:STYLE didn't mentioned much on usage notes.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Usage notes are generally for explaining aspects of how a term is used that go beyond what you can say in a definition, or giving more context to better understand the meaning. It's all about the terms as part of the language, not about the concepts they refer to. You were comparing the Singapore legal system with those that use the term "habeas corpus". That would be like adding a usage note at apple saying "apples don't grow in Singapore. Here's what you can use instead." Your usage note might work as a section in Wikipedia's article on Habeas corpus, but it has nothing to do with the phrase "habeas corpus" as a phrase. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I think the argument is that 'habeas corpus' is an obsolete term (but TBC) in the English of Singapore - a different term is used for the same concept. It's a bit awkward when externals render words obsolete - how well understood is tupenny ha'penny in England nowadays, where we no longer use halfpennies. I've noticed the changes by being met with incomprehension when asking for a bag of florins (a florin is or was a coin with the value of a tenth of a pound) or a twelvepenny (/-fp-/) stamp. RichardW57 (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Locked page[edit]

I am unable to edit User talk:Chuck Entz/2014 as the page is locked. It needs an etyl cleanup, so can you do it yourself? Thanks in advance. DonnanZ (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)