User talk:Chuck Entz

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search


2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Please add new messages at the bottom.


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)[reply]

Hey! Can some admin check the requests page???? It has been multiple days.[edit]

????? TheguyinterestedinstuffIG (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheguyinterestedinstuffIG: ????? indeed! Is something bad happening? All I see looks normal for this time of the year. If you look at the revision histories, some time during January in the past 3 years someone has moved everything from the main page to the pages for previous years. The system won't allow more than 2 megabytes on one page, and bad things start to happen long before that- it's best to split off the old requests so the page remains manageable. People still work on the requests from previous years, so nothing is lost.
As for the state of the main requests page since then: you might have noticed that there are already admins checking the page, since two of them undid your edits. Equinox, for one, knows far more about creating entries than I do, having created hundreds of thousands of them to my 30 thousand or so (which includes lots of pages that aren't entries).
Don't forget that we're all volunteers, so people will work on whatever they decide to work on, not what you or I might like them to. I've been doing this for 12 years, and a few others for 20 years. After a while, you learn not to take everything so seriously. Things will get done eventually. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. TheguyinterestedinstuffIG (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you like ants, do you?[edit]

Perhaps you will have better luck with these words than I have so far: mermithized, mermithization, nanitic. (The latter is not anything about the sci-fi nanite robot.) Equinox 06:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox: see Mermithidae for the mermith- words. Such parasites tend to alter the physiology and behavior of their hosts. As for nanitic ants, see here for a definition. It looks like they're just a smaller type of worker ants that are produced earlier in the life of a colony. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to make me do the work? I think you are confused about the roles in this colony. P.S. Can you fix the ant-related issues around "Gamergate" on Wikipedia? Equinox 06:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember a certain, slightly younger Chuck Entz who cautioned me against assumed that any -id noun meant "a member of the -idae". I was suitably cautioned. I get DCDuring to do it now. Equinox 06:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't start at the Wikipedia article, I started here, which is a discussion of the effects of these nematodes on their hosts. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Damn GBooks won't show anything any more. I just get a blank page and a warning that I WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR. Pretty much. Okay I'll leave these ant words in my list for a future time. (The anti- words were easier.) Equinox 06:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: you've been complaining about Google not showing as much in previews. I've noticed that if I use a toplevel domain in a link that doesn't match what Google knows as my locality, Google hides more. For me, that's anything that doesn't end in ".com". For you, I would assume that would be "". If I remember correctly, it has something to do with international vs. local rules on sharing content. If you're using proxies, that might make Google assume you're from somewhere else. At any rate, I manually edit the url whenever it looks like this is happening. I'm sure there's some way to do it automatically with js or css. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered that if I find a desired text in a book, through Google Books, and then search for the exact sentence in Google (general search), it will find the book and show me the page, whereas GBooks won't show me it. That made me laugh. We must have at least one nerd here who works or simps for Google, so that's gonna die soon now that I've mentioned it. Also it isn't convenient. But: yes, you can hack, but how much time do you want to spend on it? If it becomes impossible to use a search engine, I will just go and write 8-bit games or something. Equinox 07:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that's not all. Sometimes when you get the "limited view" version where you can only see part of a page, you can see or you will be given OCR text that is on the adjacent "limited view" panel above or below, and then if you search for that text, you can get that panel and thereby circumvent the "limited view". --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, can't take time to look up how to ping people right now. Special:diff/77620039 is because i wanted to discuss more than just your revert on gotcha. Felt rude not to address you directly though. Didn't mean to offend. -- 13:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A question[edit]

how do you add the transliteration for the "transliteration needed"? Basedborneoan (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Basedborneoan: See the documentation for {{head}}. In this case, you would simply use the |tr= parameter. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for telling. ill add it Basedborneoan (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An another question[edit]

how do you delete your wiktionary page? Basedborneoan (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Basedborneoan If you want a page you created in error deleted, simple tag with {{speedy}}, if it is an existing page by some other editor that is not clear cut vandalism/rubbish, sent it to WT:RFV or WT:RFD. Svartava (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for answering. Basedborneoan (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why this edit was rollbacked? A Westman talk stalk 18:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I have a question.[edit]

@Chuck Entz I've been indefinitely been banned on Wikipedia. I am currently stressed right now and don't know what to do. I only made some small edits and been mistakenly been banned for my entire lifetime. Please I'm telling you please tell someone to unban me before that person bans me here or something. So, here's the confession you want. So back then back in late December 2023, I created my first ever account, User:TheguyinterestedinstuffIG, I didn't really know how'd I name myself only on this dictionary, but, then I made some "disruptive" edits, got banned 2 times temporarily, then you know what happens, when User:Equinox commented on my talk page, I felt, emotional, I felt like I had made a complete mistake. Then, I thought I'd just abandon the account forever, it felt good to let my past disappear. On this account, I made kind of good edits, but not to the standards sometimes, I was just like "oh well, just improve next time...", then fast forward to early Jan 2024, the new year, had good times, then I decided to go on Wikipedia, see what's on there, and make like 10 edits, but some minor edits later, on this day, I went on Wikipedia, to my absolute shock, I realized, I was permanently banned, no reason, banned my IP like I'm a crazy drunk driver for 30 years, I said, this is over, I'm done, so later I cleaned my user page, and saw your comment on my citations page that I agreed that would be deleted anyways, so now, I'd really appreciate talking to the person who banned me, and all of this, just, thank you. ~ Kindly signed by User:Heyandwhoa. :) Heyandwhoa (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz Oh wait, I just realized the ban reason was wrong. I'm seriously not associated with User:Kindshowman, what do I do if I get a false ban??? (BTW read my message for context above.) Heyandwhoa (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to do a mass revert?[edit]

Could you explain to me how to do a mass revert? User:Cpeng2 (and User:Your future self who, it seems, is Cpeng2's student) have been editing multiple entries to change /ə(ɹ)/ or /əɹ/ in the pronunciation section to /ɚ/ even though there appears to be consensus that /ə(ɹ)/ or /əɹ/ should be used instead. I asked Cpeng2 to stop making such edits and to discuss the matter at "Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2024/February#Changes from /ə(ɹ)/ or /əɹ/ to /ɚ/" but they have continued to do so, so I have given Cpeng2 a three-day block. However, I can't figure out how to do a mass revert of their edits. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, any advice? — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and did it myself. For future reference: AFAIK there's nothing in the admin toolkit that can do this. I just go down the contribution list and right-click to open the rollback links in separate tabs, then close the tabs. That way I can keep from going to the linked pages and having to navigate back to the contribution list to do the next one. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... I see. Thanks. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Why did you revert this edit? This citations page is not useful because it's not describing a word. It clearly says "It's kinda AC or DC" becasue of the slash, and the -ish means kinda. Can you give me a reason, please? Heyandwhoa (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heyandwhoa: RFV is for the main entry page. We don't have a process for deleting Citations pages, and we rarely do. Sometimes an admin will notice that a page is inherently complete nonsense, or that the content has nothing to do with citing the entry or is vandalism. In such cases, we will delete the page. If an entry is created and ends up in RFV or RFD or if someone is asking in RFV or RFD for an entry that was deleted to be undeleted, that's when the validity of the cites will be discussed. Until such a time, it's best to leave the cites alone except for perhaps a little tidying or correction. By the way: you should learn to use the {{diff}} template, or remove the "m." from the link. I'm not on a cellphone or a tablet, so I don't want to see things in mobile view. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Heyandwhoa (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About transliterations - κινούβοιλα[edit]

[from User:Sarri.greek] About κινούβοιλα transliteration, discussed at Beer2023 or any kind of similar situation. I am not experienced, and what I write here, may be naïf or totally inappropriate for en.wikt.
I propose a treatment of 'transliterations'.

  • For some languages, translits appear in the Cat.lemmas and have pages like romaji (ja), pinyin (zh), or serbian (in Latn).
  • For other languages such transliterations could have pages, but they are placed outside the Cat.lemmas (as here, for Ancient Greek, especially Koine, words which are not included in any Anc.Gr. dictionary (e.g. foreign -like hundreds of Egyptian- given names, place names and other terms).
  • For weird scripts like Hit. Mycenaean (gmy) a parallel index of redirects may appear in Cat.X lemmas, because noone can read the actual lemmas.

Here, Dacian has no script, and is written in Latn or Grek. Greek should also appear as unified Latin transliteration-redirects.

1. The Ancient Greek page. (Cat:Ancient Greek transliterations is not to be included in Cat:Ancient Greek lemmas)
The links-in-quotation indicate that the words exist in dictionaries (transliterations do not).
At their lemma-pages, a quotation marking may direct here: see quotation at...

==Ancient Greek==

{{translit|grc-koi|xmd|<tr:*''[[cinouboila]]''>=tr (unattested term)}} Cat:Koine Greek transliterations from Dacian

{{head|grc|noun|g=-|cat=transliterations of nouns}} {{tlb|grc|Koine|type=translit}} = Cat:Koine Greek transliterations

# {{lb|grc|herb|type=translit}} {{translit of|grc|-}} a Dacian word: a kind of [[bryony]]
#: ''In Ancient Greek:'' {{l|grc|ἄμπελος λευκή|t=''Bryonia cretica''}}, {{l|grc|βρυωνία λευκή}}
#: <!-- do not hide --> {{quote-book|grc|author={{w|Pedanius Dioscorides|Diosco(u)rides (Διοσκουρίδης)}}|year=50–70 {{CE}}|original=Περὶ ὕλης ἰατρικῆς|title=w:De Materia Medica|section=book 4, 182 [ RV<sup>codd.</sup>] <small>[ @gallica] at Bibliothèque nationale de France (National Library of France) vol.2 (1906), p.329 in ''Pedanii Dioscuridis Anazarbei de Materia medica libri quinque.'' Ed. Max Wellmann. Berlin:Weidmannos, 1906-1914 vols.1-3</small>
|text={{m|grc|tr=-|βρυωνία}} λευκή· οἱ δὲ {{m|grc|tr=-|μάδον}}, οἱ δὲ {{m|grc|tr=-|ἄμπελος}} λευκή, οἱ δὲ {{m|grc|tr=-|ψίλωθρον}}, οἱ δὲ {{m|grc|tr=-|μήλωθρον}}, οἱ δὲ {{m|grc|tr=-|ὄφις|ὄφιος}}  {{m|grc|tr=-|σταφυλή}}, οἱ δὲ  {{m|grc|tr=-|ἀρχέζωστις|ἀρχέζωστιν}}, οἱ δὲ {{m|grc|tr=-|κέδρωστις|κέδρωστιν}}, Αἰγύπτιοι χαλαλαμόν, Ῥωμαῖοι νότιαμ, οἱ δὲ ἕρβα κοριάρια, οἱ δὲ κουκούρβιτα ἠρράτικα, Δάκοι '''κινούβοιλα''', Σύροι λαλλαβιάρια.
|t=white bryony; some [call it] madon, others, white grape-vine, others 'depilatory', others 'melothron', others ophiostaphyle (sneak grape), others 'archezostis', others 'cedrostis', the Egyptians 'chalalamo?', the Romans {{m|la|notia}}, others {{m|la|herba}} {{m|la|coriaria}}, others {{m|la|cucurbita}} h?{{m|la|erraticus|erratica}}, the Dacians '''{{m|xdc|cinouboila}}''', the Syrians 'lallabiaria'<br><small>The text is different in other codices (foreign words do not appear at all). Compare to [ ed.Kühn, 1829] (editio princeps: Aldus Manutius, 1499).</small>

2. The Dacian department of the page in its Greek script.


... as is


# {{lb|xdc|herb}} a kind of [[bryony]]
#: ''quotation'' {{see|grc|κινόβοιλα}} or copy the last part.

<references group=n/>


===Further Reading===

3. The Dacian page in Latn cinoboila (unified transliterations for all) redirects to the Greek script. It will appear (in itallics) at Dacian lemmas. Because not all people can read Greek characters.
(can it direct to xdc instead of grc-koi?)

#REDIRECT [[κινούβοιλα]]

[[Category:Dacian lemmas]]

I cannot find a way to write the data with quote-book, and sorry for disturbing your Talk page with this long and probably useless note. ‑‑Sarri.greek  I 16:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with a certain user[edit]

Hi! There is a certain user who has recently been adding unattested Urdu transliterations of Hindi/Sanskrit learned borrowings. They're on their 3rd (or possibly 4th) account now (that I know off), as for some reason they like creating different accounts every so often, I believe. Normally, I have no issues with any user regardless if they're on an alt account or not, since I don't like to discourage people, but they're becoming more of nuisance than a contributor. I've purposefully not included their user accounts, but I'm wondering if something can be done against them, or if you've noticed them by any chance? نعم البدل (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@نعم البدل I vaguely recall seeing such an edit recently, but I don't generally revert content in languages or scripts I don't know- I did take a year of Sanskrit at UCLA 47 years ago, but it was all in Devanagari. Although I thought it was odd to see Sanskrit in Urdu script, I had no way to be sure that there wasn't a manuscript or printed edition somewhere with Sanskrit in that script that might have the term in question. As you know, Sanskrit is somewhat of a chameleon when it comes to scripts because its literature was transmitted orally among speakers of a wide variety of South Asian languages for centuries before being written down. We try to have the main entry for all of our Sanskrit terms in Devanagari, but I believe we do allow alternative-form-type entries in other scripts, as long as the terms are attested in that script.
I also have seen someone trying to remove any mention in Punjabi etymologies of direct learned borrowings from Sanskrit because they claimed that they could only have entered the language through some intermediary. I suppose they might have started adding Urdu transliterations to make a case for Urdu being such an intermediary- or they might be completely unrelated.
As for what can be done: I don't feel comfortable intervening, for the reasons I gave above. You should ask an admin who knows more about the languages in question. If you're asking me about using my checkuser tools, I can only do that if someone is trying to hide behind an account in order to get away with some violation of the rules, including to evade a block. If they're not trying to get away with something by using a different account, I can't do anything. If you don't think they should be adding Urdu-script transliterations at all, you should bring that up at the Beer Parlour, or RFV any entries that have been created. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck Entz: I don't think it's related to the Punjabi/Sanskrit discussion, unless the same user was involved that discussion too. Obviously, I have no issue with Sanskrit borrowings that are genuinely attested in Urdu, but it's these learned borrowings (which I doubt are even used in Hindi commonly) that are being transliterated into Urdu, that irk me. Nevertheless, thanks for the reply – I'll take your advice! Also, just to clarify, no I wasn't asking for a usercheck or something, I mean it's pretty obvious which accounts they're using. I was just hoping for an intervention to the user's edits – lol! نعم البدل (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


And you wonder why people find Wiki editors to be militant? You block every reasonable suggestion and make everyone not in your echo chambers life miserable. You know what... stuff your wiki and stuff yourself — This unsigned comment was added by 2607:FEA8:3C81:3AD0:6958:FBA:FA3F:78A6 (talk) at 02:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

You editted "Sapristi" and rolled back some good content. I was trying to talk to you like a normal human being on your talk page, per wiki instructions and another editor came along and deleted my message to you on your behalf. This is rampant censorship on wiki and it needs to stop. You editors need to listen to people that don't agree with you.

Please take a look at the revision histories. Your only edit on this talk page is still here. I made a header for it, and added a template to show who posted it, and when. No one else has edited the page, though I moved all the stuff from last year to an archive page in the meanwhile. I see no missing edits on Surjection's page, either.
The only thing that might have happened is an edit conflict: if someone else edits a page while you're working on your edit and before you publish it, then the version of the page that you were editing gets replaced by the version that results from their edit. If your edit was published, that would wipe out their edit, so the system stops you to make sure you really want to replace their edit. I suppose that that Theknightwho's post might have prevented you from publishing whatever you were going to post. I'm guessing, because it wouldn't show up in the revision history or any of the page logs. It's not something that someone can do on purpose, either, because there's no way to know that someone else is composing an edit- it's only when you click "publish" that it shows up in any logs or has any interaction with anyone else's edit.
As for censorship: I can't speak for anyone else, but I only censor vandalism or illegal conduct on talk pages, and you may be angry and rude, but you're not a vandal. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't support censorship at all says a man who at the first signs of any conflict at all locked down a page such that no one could edit it. No, you don't support censorship. I got it wrong. You wikipedia editors are the good people of the earth. Sorry for the confusion.

"You Wikipedia editors"? You're as much of a Wikipedia editor as I am. This is Wiktionary. I've been racking my brains trying to figure out how any of the talk-page stuff you've been complaining about has any connection whatsoever to reality- but from your discussions with Theknightwho, I gather you're talking about Wikipedia. I have no clue about any of that. I'm an admin and a bureaucrat on Wiktionary, but I'm nobody on Wikipedia. I'm sure you love hearing from people who think Canada is the 51st state in the US about as much as I love hearing about how everything at Wikipedia is my fault. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You feign ignorance yet you were the one who locked "sapristi" such that no one else can edit it. Then you're baffled as to why people get angry with wiki editors. Everything wrong with wiki IS YOUR FAULT. You ARE the problem.

Here, I found it in the log: Chuck Entz talk contribs‎ m 451 bytes 0‎ Protected "sapristi": Repeated recreation of non-usable content (... That's you, not other editors at wiki. That's you, Chuck Entz locking a file and then saying: "everyone is free to edit it, there is no bias at wiki" YOU are the problem... not other people.

You said: "I was trying to talk to you like a normal human being on your talk page, per wiki instructions and another editor came along and deleted my message to you on your behalf."
My comments were addressing that statement, and thus were only in reference to my talk page. I never said I hadn't protected sapristi. Please show where I said "everyone is free to edit it, there is no bias at wiki".
While you're at it, please explain what you were referring to when you said: "I was trying to talk to you like a normal human being on your talk page, per wiki instructions and another editor came along and deleted my message to you on your behalf." Nothing like that happened on my (1st person singular) talk page. The only way I can make your (2nd person singular possessive) statement come out as anything but a fantasy or outright lie is to assume that you (2nd person singular) were referring to some amorphous group that includes me and people elsewhere on Wiktionary and at Wikipedia when you said "you" and "your" in that sentence, which would make those 2nd person plural. Except you said "talk page" (singular), instead of "talk pages" (plural). Nothing you added to my Wiktionary talk page here has been removed. I do have a Wikipedia talk page, but there have been no edits to it since February 1, and none by you at all. What were you referring to?
You see, I may not be as open and permissive as you like- however you want to characterize that- but I make a point of not lying to anyone here at Wiktionary. If anything I have said to you wasn't the truth as I understand it, I can assure you that it was unintentional and would like the opportunity to clear it up. Mind you, my long weekend is coming to an end and I have a long day with a long commute, so I may not respond promptly, nor have as much time to compose a reply, but I'm not hiding from you. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are very clearly sapristi. Since you blocked me from editing the file... now you'll never know what sapristi means.
You can't see how people find Wikipedia editors argumentative and combative? I pointed out very clearly that you, personally, locked the sapristi page. It's in the log for the sapristi page:
I think I've had about enough talking with you. I've made my point that wikipedia and wiki in general is not an open platform. Your modified (correct) motto should be: "the online encyclopedia editable by leftists only" Thanks for the convo... sapristi... what does it mean? You'll never know. 2607:FEA8:3C81:3AD0:4105:C4F7:90F0:238F 11:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anon, I'll stress it again, Wiktionary is NOT Wikipedia. Also, Wiktionary is a dictionary, NOT an encyclopedia.
You seem confused on those points.
The content you were trying to add to the entry at sapristi is not content that is appropriate for a dictionary entry. This is why other editors removed that content. That removal has nothing whatsoever to do with any left-right politics.
If you are honestly interested in contributing to Wiktionary, the open dictionary, then you might benefit from reading the Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not page. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Can you explain your reversions please? My edits today were very reasonable. 08:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For set, you're removing grammatical information that's part of the definition. It didn't help that you called it a "typo fix" when it obviously wasn't. It certainly could be formatted better, but removing information isn't the way to fix it. You may be right about the fr-IPA, though. It's getting late here, so I'm a bit tired and may have overreacted. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In "set", I removed an indication that the definition is only a past… but it isn't only a past. It's used in present also. 08:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. It turns out that was added by an Indonesian IP who didn't understand what they were doing. The ones they added it to were no different from all the other ones where they didn't. I've reverted myself. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User A Westman[edit]

I notice that the contributions of @A westman seem to contain a lot of unexplained removals of text, where it would have been reasonable to expect a reference to some policy; other edits they reverted themself shortly after making them. I see you have already reverted edits of theirs to orange and equinox, and have the impression that similar criticisms could apply to many other edits of theirs. Should something be done about this? I do not feel confident that I can reliably distinguish which of their contributions are reasonable, but I have an odd feeling about their work. PJTraill (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My removal of the adjective section at orange was an honest mistake cause by me being idiotic and thinking it was a copy of the noun section and I do regret it. If I do remove content, it is either because it is flat out wrong (e.g. bases tasting bitter, astronomy being equivalent to stargazing) or to avoid clutter (e.g. at great, free, honey) or to remove redundancy (e.g. at spring). I do make mistakes which I do revert upon realization. A Westman talk stalk 18:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz I think that your reversions are wrong. If you read the references in Liddell & Scott and Beekes you will understand that you made mistake. The following links would also be useful.,,, @scaife.perseus, @logeion.uchicago.eduNikos1nikos1 (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikos1nikos1: I have no opinion on most of your content, but Latin fucus is a borrowing, not a cognate, and {{also}} is for only certain types of near-homographs- so φύκος (fýkos) would be okay, but not the other two. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck Entz φύκι is φῦκος in modern greek. I am native Greek speaker and I know ancient Greek very well. If you have any doubt you can ask for help from another user who is spesialized in ancient Greek.Nikos1nikos1 (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I am allowed... Kyrie @Nikos1nikos1. "Chuck Entz is never wrong!" The template {{also}} on top of page, as its documentation explains, is meant for homographs strictly. It is not like the wikt:el:Template:also, where we allow 'similar', 'relevant' etc. Also, cognate+examples is very different from loanword. The relationship of cognates is parallel, while of loadwords is vertical. enWP.cognate. Excuse my butting in. Mr Nikos has been doing a fantastic job at el.wikt, especially with quotations. ‑‑Sarri.greek  I 15:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikos1nikos1: I'm not saying anything about the correctness of the words (I don't speak Greek, but I know enough Ancient Greek to create a very basic entry). This is all about the correct use of {{also}} at the top of an entry. It's supposed to link to look-alikes for people who get to the wrong page by accident, like English tap at Ancient Greek τάρ (tár). It's more obvious in other scripts, where you can have hundreds of different languages on a single page (see A, for instance). The top of the page isn't part of any language section, so {{also}} is about the letters, not the word. If you want to link to the Greek term, the best way to do that is with a "Descendants" section using {{desc}} (or {{desctree}} for descendants that have their own descendants section, such as Latin fucus, which is "descended" through borrowing). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"guarani" spelling[edit]

hii! so, i think the word "guarani" should not be written with diacritics when in english texts. the accute mark on "i" is provenient from spanish spelling and it only works in spanish spelling. can i take the "í" out and replace it with "i"? Junior Santos (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ovey 56: All of our entries and categories have to use the same spelling, and you can't just change it on your own. For one thing, it will show up in Category:Guaraní entries with incorrect language header and Wiktionary:Todo/Lists/Derivation category does not match entry language, among others. There's also a bot that checks the headers against the spellings in our modules (see our List of languages) and corrects the headers, so you're just wasting your time. You would have to ask at Requests for moves, mergers and splits to have the name changed. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

եռիլիոն and քառիլիոն[edit]

the number data seem to be messed up somehow; i'm thinking it's an update error? i did add those numbers to the thingy (you can see them there) so i was planning on waiting like a day RagingPichu (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RagingPichu there are still 3 entries in CAT:E, and it's going on 5 days: either fix the data module, or remove the number box templates from the entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian stuff[edit]

Hi! Thanks for helping with the Norwegian errors, but take also a look at the Norwegian IPA category and you see some bigger issue. There are more than 1000 entries with incorrect IPA language code ("no" instead of "nn"). It is creating some issues in the categories, but otherwise is not so dangerous. I go sometimes through the list, but it's gonna take loooong time before i'm done. Do you know any shorter way of doing it or there is only manual solution? Tollef Salemann (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollef Salemann: if it is so regular you can write rules for it that a machine can follow, the best thing to do is find someone with a bot and ask them to do it. Or you can figure out a subset that's bot-able and have the bot do that and you can finish the rest. @JeffDoozan seems to currently have the best ratio of available time and generosity with it of the people I can think of off the top of my head, or you can ask for bot help at the Grease Pit.
There's also the assembly-line method of right-clicking/command-clicking on the entries in the category to open them in tabs, then clicking on Edit for all of them, then using your browser's find-and-replace keyboard shortcuts to replace "ipa|no" with "ipa|nn", and finally using a keyboard shortcut to save each one. That lets you do maybe a dozen pages at a time so you can go on to the next tab while the system is still responding on the previous one. It's very efficient, but it's still time-consuming- a few hours at minimum for 1000 entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! The second solution might be better, because there are both Bokmål and Nynorsk unsorted. Maybe it can also work with a bot if it does IPA code after the name of the language in the header. Thanks for advices! Tollef Salemann (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tollef Salemann. If it's just a matter of mindlessly replacing {{IPA|no| and {{IPA|nb| with {{IPA|nn| in the ===Pronunciation=== section inside ==Norwegian Nynorsk==, the bot can do that easily. If it needs to make decisions based on conditions it gets more complicated, but if the rules and conditions are clear it should still be possible. JeffDoozan (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on the pms-verb-conj template?[edit]

Hi, I was just wondering if you could have a look at a template I created, "pms-verb-conj". Here is what it looks like with the verb finì:

(I haven't done the subjunctive for any verbs. This is partially because it wasn't in the reference for conjugations that I was using, but also because from what I can tell, Piedmontese doesn't really use the subjunctive [or at least much less than Italian], however if a native speaker wanted to add it I think I've made it in a way that it shouldn't be too difficult to add)

I was just wondering if you could check if I've done everything correctly (I mean from a Wiktionary standpoint, not necessarily from a linguistic one!). Here's the template with all of the TemplateData too: Template:pms-verb-conj. Thanks!

In case you're wondering why, I thought I'd quickly make it because there was only a template for -é verbs, and this one allows for any verb ending using #switch statements -- it just means a new conj table doesn't have to be created for every word, and I thought it might be useful for someone creating an entry to not have to think about conjugation at all!

Iambored12348 (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wissenschaft in English Wiktionary[edit]

Comparing the entries in the German and English Wiktionary I found the German etymology section in better accordance with the meaning of the word. I am a native German speaker who is familiar with the common misinterpretation of Wissen-schaft as a practice “die Wissen schafft” (that creates knowledge). A surface analysis justifies this interpretation, but -schaft has a more common meaning which is “a collection of similar things”. We see this in Gesellschaft, Verwandschaft, Burschenschaft, Bauernschaft, Gesandschaft, Gemeinschaft. The old verb scaffan has a destructive meaning (to separate, to split) and a constructive meaning (to create, to sort, to order). Accordingly we find -schaft words inclined to the first or the second meaning of scaffan. Sometimes both meanings are active at the same time: Jungfernschaft e.g. means both “virginity” and “all virgins”. I understand that every act of creation includes separating the elements to use from those to be left aside. Coming back to Wissenschaft: The genuine meaning was: “something of interest, news, good-to-know”. I do not see the aspect of assembling in that meaning, rather the separation of these good-to-knows from uninteresting things. If you agree please revert the reversion. --Joachim Schnitter (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joachim Schnitter: I didn't revert because of the etymology, but because you removed the alternative form as "invalid". We're a descriptive dictionary based on usage: if a form is or has been in use, we have an entry for it- even if it's wrong. Also, we cover the entire attested history of every language, so we have spellings that have been eliminated by spelling reforms, too. A simple search for "Wißenschaft" in Google Books turns up usage going back hundreds of years- more than enough to justify having it mentioned as an alternative form. It's clearly labeled as "nonstandard", so we're not endorsing it. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there exists at least one book that uses the alternative spelling. I regard this as an error because wissen (to know) stems from the older wizzan, and the rules for the sharp-s ligature forbid its use in words where the first s terminates a syllable (in Fraktur use round s here) and the second one begins another one (use long-s here). This is not a real double s but a coincidence of two s' belonging to different syllables. Typesetters often had a hard time getting German ligatures correct because the rules are/were really complicated. Please bear in mind that sharp-s has been raised to a true character just a few years ago. Before it was only regarded as a combination of two s characters. So by keeping Wißenschaft you combine an ancient typo with modern interpretation of the character forming the ancient error. It is the modern interpretation of sharp-s which gives rise to the misinterpretation of sharp-s as a single character in former times. --Joachim Schnitter (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make a long story short: Traditional German printing involved quite a number of ligatures, i.e. types with more than a single letter, combinations of e.g. fi, fl, ft, ch, ck, ſs. Some of these ligatures did only exist in certain typefaces, with Fraktur and other “broken” fonts including the most. If the same text were to be printed in Roman type many of these ligatures were to be resolved into their components. Of those ligatures only the sharp-s ligature eventually (recently) was regarded as a full character, while ſ (long-s) was replaced with s both in typefaces and handwriting. So the combination of long-s and short-s (or end-s) as a ligature has to be resolved nowadays into ss when alphabetizing words from old German books (or into ſs should this have happened a century ago). By disassembling Wißenschaft, thus one gets Wissenschaft. There is no rule that prohibits this decomposition, as there is no rule against ck → c k. Today ß is regarded as a single character. This was honoured recently by introducing an uppercase letter: ẞ. None of the books with Wißenschaft are modern enough to allow the one-character interpretation of ß. Anyway, the erroneous spelling Wißenschaft only appeared with broken, not Roman, fonts and only centuries ago. I cannot see why this should be honoured in Wiktionary. I am open for discussion in case Wiktionary changes to Fraktur fonts. --Joachim Schnitter (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joachim Schnitter It's not clear what you mean by "broken" fonts, and being in use centuries ago is not an argument against inclusion. You are being prescriptivist. Theknightwho (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joachim Schnitter: It's not that hard to find "Wißenschaft" in very modern-looking typefaces from more than a century ago: 1871, 1874, 1888 and 1904, so it's not simply an artefact of Fraktur. These are advanced academic works written by scholars, so I don't think this was some kind of random screw-up that slipped by because no one noticed. Besides, we're not "honouring" anything: this is an alternative form that's clearly labeled as "nonstandard". When people see this in books, they're going to look it up. When they see that it's nonstandard, they'll know not to use it. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your food for thought. Broken is the meaning of the word Fraktur, from Latin frangere, to break. Schwabacher is another broken font but does not count as Fraktur. Broken fonts are those with rounded strokes replaced by straight ones. Thank you for putting me in line with Sokrates, Aristoteles, and Kant.
I had two arguments: Wißenschaft is a typo, and Wißenschaft has not been parsed according to the practice in place at that time. The evolution of the German language was influenced by a long lasting process of nation building that happened simultaneously. Before this process came to an end in 1871 there was no homogeneous, unified German language. Luther's translation of the bible had formed a synthetic basis for further unification, but it took until the first orthographic conference in 1876 that a common orthography was launched. Before Luther we cannot speak of the German language, and even today there exists a significant number of regional dialects and languages.
I understand and respect Chuck's arguments, and I realize how misleading a helpful tool like Google Books can be when being confronted with books from epochs where orthography was often superseded by aesthetics which was superseded by economic aspects. Scientific literature was and is extremely costly to produce and often should have been proofread by a scholar of the same discipline. For scientific journals peer reviews work almost perfectly, but for monographs (text books etc.) editors with limited knowledge have and had to perform this job alone. In centuries when orthography was not well defined and typesetters’ education did certainly not match modern standards, typos could hardly be avoided. How could a young man with black fingers and face get into a debate with a scholar about correct writing? The books with Wißenschaft in Roman type are almost exclusively from the middle of the 19th century when Roman type slowly came into use for German books. The orthographic conference in 1901 addressed the use of sharp-s by retaining Adelung's ruleset which was common practice in many territories in what is today Germany, Austria and Switzerland. According to Adelung Wißenschaft was an error. My Duden from 1915 (following the 1901 rules) does not have Wißenschaft. Adelung's rules were officially abandoned in 1996. Before, Adelung's orthography was a nice-to-have but not really required. See e.g. notes taken during Kant's lectures on Vernunft.
Now to my second argument about how to parse words in older texts. The lecture notes mentioned above show how people wrote at that time: Profeßor, Kenntniß, Erckentniß, Uebung, Grammatic, analisiren, obiect. All these words were excluded from the Wiktionary. BTW, Google does not list these lecture notes at all when searching for Erckentniß. I do not suggest adding these words, but I wonder what special criteria applied to Wißenschaft, and why e.g. Uebung and analisiren (both formerly very common and compliant with the then-valid rules) did not make it. So how are words being selected from the continuum of correct and incorrect, popular and limited, common and regional language practices? Which of the shapes in these written words count as characters, which are replaced, and why? I could find many books with Waßer in them. I wholeheartedly support its exclusion from the Wiktionary, but why did Wißenschaft make it?
The Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache lists all words since 1600 but has no Wißenschaft: [1] although it lists lots of historical evidence. And the Grimms’ Deutsches Wörterbuch does not even discuss it. Joachim Schnitter (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if the terms you mention are "excluded" as much as us not having the forms yet. Wiktionary does not have every term, much less every form of every term, in most languages (the only exceptions being extinct languages with dedicated people). Saying that a form of a term should not be included because later standards seen it as incorrect is something that I am opposed to. This is because we should reflect how a wide variety of people from all different cultures and time periods spelt words. (In addition, I am highly skeptical that the Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache lists all words since 1600. There must be some words that are not in there, whether it be the hottest teen slang or terms only an expert chemist in the 1850s used.) CitationsFreak (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetic approximation and transliteration[edit]

NickySuper9 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC) Hello. I hope this message finds you well. My name is Nicholas Armstrong, and I've noticed some inconsistencies in your recent edits. I believe there might be some misunderstanding, and I'd like to offer some clarification to help ensure accuracy in our contributions.[reply]

Phonetic approximation and transliteration are distinct concepts that are often confused. Allow me to explain the difference between them:

Phonetic Approximation: Phonetic approximation involves adapting the pronunciation of words to fit a new script or writing system. This often entails altering the pronunciation slightly or significantly to match the sounds of the original word. In essence, phonetic approximation modifies the spoken form of words to suit a different script.

Transliteration: Transliteration, on the other hand, is the process of representing a word, phrase, or text in a different script or writing system without altering its pronunciation. Unlike phonetic approximation, transliteration focuses solely on adapting the written form of words while preserving their original pronunciation. It allows readers or speakers of the new script to approximate the sounds and pronunciation of the original word accurately.

For example, consider the words "עיםדא" and "ةخيثقى سفشىيشقي شقشلاهؤ." While pronounced as "Ghost" and "Modern Standard Arabic," respectively, when read aloud, they are transliterations of the original words, faithfully representing their pronunciation in a different script.

The key aspect of transliteration is its intention to convey the original word or phrase in a different script, facilitating the transfer of meaning and pronunciation across languages or scripts.

Furthermore, transliteration maintains consistency in mapping even when the letters and characters are not directly equivalent. This allows for the creation of new transliteration systems and constructed languages (conlangs) by employing consistent mapping rules, enabling the development of unique linguistic representations.

In summary, while phonetic approximation adjusts the pronunciation of words to fit a new script, transliteration focuses solely on representing the written form without altering pronunciation. Understanding this distinction is essential for maintaining accuracy in linguistic representations across different scripts and languages.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and welcome any further discussion or questions you may have. Let's work together to ensure the accuracy and integrity of our contributions to Wiktionary.

Best regards, Nicholas Armstrong

@NickySuper9: I'm quite familiar with the difference between phonetic approximation and transliteration, but you obviously aren't. Transliteration is the letter-by-letter substitution of characters in one script with representations of those characters in another script. Although usage of the {{name translit}} template for most Chinese character entries is questionable, your edit just made a mess of a single entry out of a much larger body of such entries with the same problem. Your usage note was rather confusing since most readers don't know Cyrillic or Arabic scripts off the top of their heads. As for the second paragraph, it was simply wrong: "Прщые" would be transliterated "Prshche" or "Pršče", and "Фдшут" as "fdsht" or "fdšt". Google's algorithms seem to be messed up right now, so I can't search for those strings- I suspect a hoax. On top of that, the examples you gave above are completely wrong: "עיםדא" is spelled with the letters ayin yodh mem dalet aleph, which don't yield any of the letters in "ghost", and "ةخيثقى سفشىيشقي شقشلاهؤ" is far worse as a transliteration for "Modern Standard Arabic".
In short, most of your edit was wrong, and the issue about transliteration vs. phonetic approximation would be better addressed at the Tea room, the Beer parlour or About Chinese than in a usage note that says nothing about the usage of the term- but first get your facts straight. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split of Appendix: English prefixes into multiple pages[edit]

Hi! I noticed you split Appendix:English prefixes into two pages: A-L and M-Z. I know the page was quite long. But this has thrown a wrench in my workflow - I have a script I use to alphabetize everything (the rows, also the alternate forms), and it is also how I synchronize the three versions - Appendix:English prefixes by semantic category and my personal User:Intersets/Categories where I fuss with subcategories.

While I could change my script to take in multiple files of input, and output multiple files, I'd really prefer not to. The potential for (my human) error seems much larger, and it adds a lot more cognitive load for me. I'm daunted by the prospect of maintaining that. Would reverting to it being one giant page be acceptable? Thanks. Intersets (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Intersets: I would rather not. It was in CAT:E due to module timeouts, meaning that the total amount of module-execution time used by all of the templates on the page was more than 10 seconds. I just checked, and the original page is using 8 seconds, while the new page is using 4 seconds. Of course, there's overlap between templates, so it wouldn't use a full 12 seconds if they were, but it's too close. I found out about the page because it was in CAT:E, and there's nothing to keep it from ending up there in the future. This isn't just a technicality, either. When the 10-second limit is reached, all of the templates that haven't already done their thing will display an error instead of content. Go to the the revision before I split the page and scroll down. You'll see that it only gets a couple dozen lines into the M's before there's nothing but "The time allocated for running scripts has expired." interspersed with items that don't use modules, like ref tags. Now that I think about it, I probably should have split it into more pages, because 8 seconds is calling it a bit close. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - fair reason. Mind holding off on splitting it further until I finish the semantic categorization? I hope to be done this weekend. My issue with the splitting is for synchronizing multiple versions of the appendix (between the alphabetical version and the categorized version). To me the categorized version is the version I'm more interested in - when I'm looking up lists of prefixes I'm seldom looking for an alphabetical list. Right now I'm leaning towards just shifting everything over to the categorized version so there's only one version that needs to be maintained (this version will also need to get split out). But I don't want to make that leap immediately: first I want to finish the categorization, and then I was thinking I'd bring it up on the Appendix's talk page should there be greater demand for the alphabetical version. Intersets (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback in Wiktionary page about diarrhoea[edit]

I've recently saw you've made some changes in the Wiktionary page about diarrhoea, where it is shown its etymology in Ancient Greek.

I've made some changes, by adding in the two rho of the word diarrhoea in Greek (διάῤῥοια) the norm that states that in Polytonic Greek, when there's a geminated Rho, it must be the first with spiritus lenis and the second with spiritus asper, just like I modified the page.

Please reset the changes I've made, because is a norm of the orthography of Ancient Greek. LAtinistFato (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LAtinistFato: The norm? Who says? I've never seen that. Ever. And I've been teaching myself Ancient Greek for half a century. Someone may follow that, but it's not in any of the standard reference works, grammars, etc. More to the point, that's not the way that Wiktionary does it, and the modules don't know what to do with it. You would have to persuade the others who work with Ancient Greek and Katharevousa modern Greek to change to that standard, and someone would have to document it, change all the relevant entries, rewrite modules, etc. Also, changing things on the page isn't enough: the page itself is at a spelling with no breathings, so it would have to be moved. likewise, any link with the breathings to a page that's not at the spelling with the breathings wouldn't work. What you're trying to do is like trying to change which side of the road people drive on by spray painting on a few traffic signs and driving on the opposite side of the road from everyone else. Even if you didn't cause an accident, you would be stopped by the first police officer you encountered.
You would have to make your case at the talk page for Wiktionary:About Ancient Greek or at the Beer parlour. Don't be surprised if that goes nowhere. I can see how it might be allowed as an alternative spelling, but only if you could show usage the meets our Criteria for inclusion. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have a point. Since Wiktionary does not use the convention of writing rho as ῤῥ, there's your point. It's truth that it's not a norm, but a convention. So unlike you've said, I'm not trying to change which side of the road people drive, I'm just using the convention I'm used to. No need to be that ad ridiculum with the modifications I've done.
I don't even care if you've been learning Ancient Greek for 50 years or else, because it doesn't matter now. I know that could give you more credibility, but the pseud-norm I said it's just a convention, and no experience can determine which convention is right or wrong. According to that, I must apologize, because that's the same thing I've done, because I didn't know this was a convention, and thought it was a norm.
So, I'll leave it as you said, since it's the convention Wiktionary uses, but this doesn't not mean writing rrh as ρρ is less valid than writing it as ῤῥ. LAtinistFato (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. I accidentally pushed a change to Module:languages that renamed a critical function in such a way as to introduce a direct infinite loop (the function called itself). I reverted this after about 60 seconds and keep purging CAT:E but it is still filling up with junk an hour later. Just FYI. Going to sleep now, hopefully this will stop on its own soon. Benwing2 (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have it purging CAT:E in a loop, so as soon as new junk appears it should get purged. Benwing2 (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback in Wiktionary page about re-[edit]

On re- for French, can I edit it for Revenir and Venir to mean back? Lumbering in thought (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


jigaboo Big Bald African Dude (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not Bugs Bunny, and I'm not Yosemite Sam, so I'm afraid you won't get the reaction you were hoping for... Chuck Entz (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chuck,

Further to your revert of parabellum, may I enquire why you made the change?

Let's work together to try and improve the Latin definition fo parabellum!

Thank you,

WC — This unsigned comment was added by WritersCramp (talkcontribs) at 10:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@WritersCramp: First of all, the Latin phrase is para bellum, and it's the sum of its parts: "para"="prepare (2nd person singular imperative)" and "bellum (accusative singular)". The fact that someone made an English term out of it by removing the space doesn't make the version without the space a Latin term. If it was Latin, it would have to have a part of speech header and a headword template. The definition starts with '"prepare for war" and is often used'. That doesn't really parse as English. Ignoring that, the phrase "Si vis pacem, para bellum" does not use "parabellum", it uses "para" and "bellum". In fact, I can't imagine how one would use "parabellum" in a Latin sentence. Does it inflect? what endings does it take? What does it mean? Chuck Entz (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]