User talk:Chuck Entz/2015

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



Re: msflair

Please understand that I am not ignoring you or any of the editors. I don't know HOW to find the pages to which you are referring - even this out, rather the previous, page, I seem to stumble upon them and have no idea how I got there. I simply do not know how or where to find how to use Wiktionary (sp?)

Any help you can provide would be appreciated.

Please know I am doing nothing "on purpose." And, I had no idea it was such an offense to try to add something. I really thought this was only a friendly game, Did I missed something somewhere when I added the game to my phone?

Please help! Msflair (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


What’s the matter? --Romanophile (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, we only have lemmas at the "I" spellings, so there's no point in adding it to the translations. That's not to say that we shouldn't have an alt-spelling/form entry for it, but anyone clicking on the "Jesus" link in the translation is going to be disappointed- why waste their time? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


First of all, thanks for the warnings. I'm not an experienced user on this project but I'm gradually adapting to how things work here; so if I do something wrong, please do not hesitate to correct me.

I copied terms from Wikipedia's annex and created entries about them, each containing an etymology section created through {{confix}}. These phobia-describing terms are not hard to get, since most of them only have two morphemes: -phobia plus an also Greek prefix, leaving solely the task of finding out if the prefix exists and has an actual usage. Also, I always knew these templates add categories to the entries. Whether the criterion used by Wikipedia is the same used by us or not, it seems that reliable sources making use the term are enough to create an entry, since labels such as (rare), (non-standard) etc. can be used to warn the term is not a normally used or widely-accepted one, although certain circumstances allow it to be applied or "invented". - Alumnum (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope. See WT:CFI. I'll be very suprised if even half of your phobia entries are still here a month from now. I've begun removing your etymologies, because they're only based on a mechanical separation into parts, and because you've routinely misspelled the header. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "irregardless"[edit]

The current version of the article shows a narrow transcription of the word with sounds which are not the phonemes of English ([ɨ], [ᵻ] are allophones of /ɪ/), and the transcription is in slashes, indicating it shows phonemes, not real speech sounds. I think it should be changed to square brackets. Zaqq (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Recent correction in Latin[edit]

Dear Chuck,

My bad. It was an honest mistake, and I am still only learning Latin. I have contributed several hundred definitions to wiktionary, so one mistake in a thousand is not bad going. I am only human. It is a shame there is not more thanks, than criticism (however constructive it may be), on wikipedia.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Maxwell Lewis Latham Cert.H.E. (humanitas) with Classical History specialism. (a.k.a. Anglyn)

Rollback on word blasphemy[edit]

Hi Chuck, Please reconsider your rollback on blasphemy. I revised it after checking five dictionaries, and three encyclopedias. Six of these sources are recent, that is published after 2010. I cited two, with quotes (Blasphemy, Meriam Webster (2012), Quote: "great disrespect shown to God or to something holy"; Blasphemy, in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2013), Quote: "Contemptuous or profane speech or action concerning God or a sacred entity.")

In secondary and tertiary literature, there is a difference between God, god and deity. A God is a deity, but a deity is not necessarily a God. A deity can be demigod, non-god, natural object, etc. Please check if after your revert, you have inadvertently returned the page to something with original research and POV, in light of the most widely accepted, predominant meaning of the word blasphemy. RLoutfy (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't have the same rules regarding reliable sources or original research that Wikipedia has: if a term is demonstrably in use with a given meaning, it doesn't matter what authoritative references say- we include that term and/or meaning. You can find dozens of uses of the phrase "blasphemy against the gods" (just to give one example) going back at least a century and a half, so the choice of verbiage in other dictionaries' definitions is irrelevant. As for POV, you're the one who's drawing arbitrary lines excluding certain religions- I don't see anything in the semantics of the term that would limit it to monotheism. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
My concern is WT:NPOV policy, which the blasphemy page is currently violating. The word "God" is not on the page, even though that is the predominant context for the word blasphemy. I suggest we add that context as well, or take our dispute to the tea house.
How about adding 4. Disrespect, contemptuous or profane speech or action concerning God or a sacred entity? RLoutfy (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Your thoughts on above blasphemy page dispute would be appreciated in the Tea house. See: Wiktionary:Tea_room/2015/January#Blasphemy. RLoutfy (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi, I wanted to tell you that profanity doesn't always mean that someone or someone swearing by using delicate language that could offend people. I'm pretty sure it can be something other than that like vulgar for example.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Why did you delete my addition of the French female form for Prime Minister?[edit]

In Québec the female form was used while they had a woman Prime minister, however I'm not aware if the form was or has ever been used outside of Canada. -- Sion8 (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Because we don't link to both genders in translation tables, just as we don't link to plurals, or to different tenses for verbs. The idea is that one clicks on the one gender to go to an entry that has the rest of the information. The entry for premier ministre was missing the feminine form, so I added it just now. We apparently don't have an entry for première ministre yet, but I don't know enough about how French entries for feminine forms are formatted to feel comfortable creating it. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, for nouns we do link to both genders, because they're considered separate nouns. —CodeCat 03:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

horned frog[edit]

It really is used synonymously with horned lizard, at least in Texas for the Texas horned lizard. It is especially because it is a misnomer that it merit an entry in Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png Barnstar
For all the work you're doing to add entries to topical categories, and include them in more specific categories. —CodeCat 02:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Splitting categories into subcategories[edit]

e.g. the trees and plants. I see how this adds precision; however, is there now a way for me to say "show me all entries that are trees", without having to go through the subcats separately? Equinox 23:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason I decided to do this is because there were over 300 entries in the category to start with, and I'm constantly finding more that would go there- there are at least twice that, now, and it could easily be a thousand or more. At some point, a category gets to have too many entries to be useful: going through multiple pages in a category isn't that much different from going through multiple subcategories, except subcategories are at least grouped by some recognizable criteria. There are several of my category names that could probably be improved to make them more meaningful to non-experts, but I still think they're an improvement. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you think it would be useful to have some kind of general standard for how many entries should be in a topical category, both at a minimum and maximum? —CodeCat 23:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
That's really just a limitation of the technology (in terms of retrieval times, or how many to display to a user on one page). I don't see why dictionary categories, like real-world categories, can't be enormous. I just think it would be nice to have a way to retrieve "everything in this category and all of its children". Equinox 23:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Request to Add New Subcategory "LWT" within LDL[edit]

Chuck, these are my thoughts on the matter. Please let me know if it is appropriate to cut-and-paste the comments into the Beer Parlour, or whether I should just link to my own talk page, as I am doing here. Also, please tell me if you think I need to clarify anything.

“Request to Add New Subcategory "LWT" within LDL”, in (Please provide the title of the work), (Please provide a date or year)

Emi-Ireland (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

We need to replace brackets by proper templates[edit]

With few exceptions, our entry-to-entry links are more precise if referring to specific language sections instead of the vague multilingual page. The {{l/xx|}} template can do this, but most of our links use double square brackets [[ ]]. I think we need to fix this and make our links more specific. Can bots do this work? I don't know much about them. Maybe if we put warnings in editing pages discouraging users to add the brackets, it would be also heplful. - Alumnum (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

While I sort of agree with you, there are tradeoffs: templates add a layer of complexity/overhead that some people dislike. On pages with lots of linked terms, it can actually slow down the loading of the page enough to be a problem. And there's the matter of centralizing things: if something happens to Module:links (a typo, or even an accidental deletion), every use of {{l}} and {{m}} will display a module error, and the diagnostic categories will be useless for weeks after it's fixed. Also, templates take more typing and have more details to keep track of, so there will always be people that would prefer not to use them, and who would resent anything they might perceive as an attempt to pressure them into their use.
As for using a bot: most plain wikilinks go to English sections, but a significant minority don't, and it's hard for a bot to tell the difference in many cases.
None of the technical problems are really an obstacle, but politically, any attempt to change things systematically will be met with opposition- some of it quite vehement. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. Regarding the agreement problem, I understand that the community may not appreciate the idea of pressuring users into doing something they aren't used to, and that's because I thought of bots too. I have a loose idea about how bots work, but I think it is enough if they can be programmed to differentiate between English sections and foreign languages' sections and within the latter, definitions (which are in English) between related terms (which refer to words in the foreign language concerned). - Alumnum (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
A less radical approach would be to target the use of {{l}} to those links to non-English, non-Translingual terms on pages that actually had more than one language section now. A bot would be perfect for a task that was so defined. This would give us maximum benefit, minimal performance penalty, minimum need to change behavior, and probably maximum consensus. DCDuring TALK 21:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Chiasma rollback[edit]

Hi, just wanted to ask why you decided to undo this edit:

I thought a link to chi in the etymology would be helful and unobtrusive. Thanks. Attys (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It was the "Etymology 1" part that was the problem. Since anyone can add, remove or rearrange the sections at any time, linking to etmologies is unreliable: Etymology 1 could be Etymology 2 a few minutes from now. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

re: your profile blurb, phonetics/written alphabets, pain and suffering[edit]

This is not WP relevant, but I thought might be of interest to you personally: At some moment, having studied Korean and then right after exploring Aymara, I was fascinated on how Aymara could be written with Hangul characters better IMHO than with the so far practice of using some concocted variant of Roman (like tt, t', k, kk, etc). Then, conversing with one of the greatest specialists on Aymara linguistics, and quite a brilliant ethnologist on his own right (name escapes at this moment), he mentioned that even better than Hangul is Mongolian, there being some strange semantic parallels even! Different subject, reading this page, it seems you do quite a few deletions. I assume that it's pain that makes people cry, and the fact that you do many, many more corrections than deletions simply doesn't get the credit it deserves, true? Yamaplos (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with Aymara, but, in general, Hangul is pretty good at handling all the fairly simple syllable structures, so any language without complex consonant clusters or diphthongs/long vowels fares pretty well. If you tried to use it on some of the languages around the Caucasus or in the Pacific Northwest (e.g.Bella Coola), I think it would get truly ugly in a hurry.
On your last point: I don't feel misunderstood. Most of my patrolling of recent edits really is destructive rather than constructive- by the time I've taken care of all the vandalism and revertable stuff, I don't have much time/energy to work on the salvageable edits. It's not that I take a meat axe to anything that's not perfect, though: if something is more of a judgment call or is okay aside from needing work, I tend to leave it and go on in search of the more obvious problem edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Kephir pulling my chain again[edit]

Kephir (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks)

Apparently, it wasn't clear to Kephir that he should stay away from me. He's been edit-warring with me over the categorization of enumeration with the category Category:en:Statistics. When I tried to explain to him why enumeration belongs in that category, he just undid me and deleted comments from his page. Twice. I am 100% certain that enumeration belongs in the statistics category, as part of the field of statistics involves enumerating things, so Kephir edit-warring with me on this is perplexing. The only two explanations I can see for it are 1) he doesn't really understand what statistics means (this might be borne about by his nomination of the probability and statistics categories for merger), or 2) he's just trying to fuck with me yet again. But the fact that he refuses to dialogue on this is troubling, and more evidence of the fact that the project would be better off without him as an administrator. Purplebackpack89 22:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

So "he should stay away from [you]" but you're justified in telling him on his talk page that he isn't allowed to interact with you? Equinox 22:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not the one who told him to stay away from me on his talk page. In the thread "PB(&J)P89", other users said it. But you're sidestepping the issue and trying to make this about me, when this is about Kephir's continual harassment of me. Purplebackpack89 22:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
No, it's a simple content dispute, with both sides on a hair trigger due to past interactions. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
...But I can't resolve said content dispute because Kephir disruptively pawns off anything I say on his talk page as vandalism. This wouldn't be a problem if Kephir was actually discussing this; he's currently making Marshawn Lynch look verbose. It wouldn't have happened if Kephir had left articles I edited alone; if my edits need to be monitored (which they don't, really), somebody who's less disruptive than he can do it. And it wouldn't have happened if Kephir hadn't poisoned the well with a series of bad blocks. That is why I think Kephir needs to stay away from me. I don't actively seek out his mainspace contributions and undo them, so there's not really a lot more staying away from him I need to do. Purplebackpack89 22:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not a neutral dispute between two equally valuable parties. It is clear from past interactions that you see yourself as some infallible godlike figure — you have never admitted to making a mistake, unlike most of us — and anybody's disagreement with you is taken to be some kind of wiki-crime that must be punished with removal of rights, etc. The fact is that sometimes you are wrong or misguided. But I might as well try arguing with David Koresh. Equinox 08:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you're hyperbolizing, Equinox. I also think you're ignoring the problem in this case. The problem here is that Kephir treated my edits (as he's apparently treating all my edits nowadays) as bad-faith edits that should be reverted without explanation. That's not acceptable. And don't say I didn't give any reason for why my edits should be the way they are; look at the subthread below (and, since you're an admin, you can also see the comments I made on Kephir's talk page that he deleted). And why's there some pervasive need to admit anything? Isn't just not editing the page to favor my way of looking at things enough? Purplebackpack89 15:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • 1) I don't remember Kephir admitting mistakes, but maybe memory fails me on this. 2) Kephir's undo at enumeration lacking meaningful edit summary was poor form, as was his subsequent removal of comments from his talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • 3) Yes, Purperbackpack89 is sometimes wrong. He also shows capacity for adjustment, as he did with his signature. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Argument in favor of enumeration being in Category:en:Statistics[edit]

Statistics aren't just all rates and averages and stuff like that, sometimes they are counts. The process of tabulating head-count statistics is enumeration. Ergo, enumeration should be in Category:en:Statistics. Purplebackpack89 23:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Although I can see room for disagreement on whether the concept of enumeration is within the realm of statistics, I think the categorization should go at enumerate, rather than at enumeration, if it should be placed anywhere. As for the merits: even though an enumeration produces statistics, it doesn't actually do anything statistical with them, so I see Kephir's point. It's really a form of measurement, like determining the weight, length, width, or height of something. Of course it's common practice to follow enumeration with statistical analysis, but then, that's also true of sports- there's nothing statistical about a tackle, but play-by-play announcers may very well discuss the statistical background or results of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Why didn't User:Kephir himself make that argument, and make it hours ago? Also, I think that tackles and free throws and field-goal percentage and quarterback rating should eventually be added to the category Category:en:Sports statistics when it is created. Purplebackpack89 23:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

diuca speculifera[edit]

Hi dear Chuck Entz, diuca speculifera isn't "buzulkuşu"! 88.XXX.XXX.XXX huge liar! --123snake45 (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Why I did not fix that manually[edit]

Apperantly these seven edits do not solve the problem, and thus I have not performed them: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No, but posting a description of the problem to the Grease pit would be far more effective, and you can link to diffs showing how it looked before they were corrected without leaving module errors in seven entries.Chuck Entz (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a long time since but ...[edit]

Hi, I've just checked in here after a long absence and I noticed this. I am not up to speed with the requirements of this project but I have a certain degree of expertise when it comes to caste claims etc, which is pretty much my specialism on English Wikipedia. I really do not understand how a bunch of names, which bear no particular relation to anything in particular, can be deemed acceptable. Despite appearances, the list consists mostly of names that are used by a variety of caste communities and not necessarily even those connected to the Kshatriya varna (ie: one of the four fundamental divisions in Vedic Hindu society). Really, the list is a nonsense at worst, highly misleading at best.

What am I missing? Can anyone say anything here? Could I add my own last name to the list with impunity? - Sitush (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Appendices such as this one which have been transferred from Wikipedia are a recurring problem. Yes, there's no doubt a great deal of nonsense in this page, but you can't just wipe it out in one edit all on your own. The proper thing to do is nominate it for deletion by adding the template {{rfd}}, then click on the "+" the template provides to start a discussion on the Requests for deletion page. You should explain it in such a way that someone without your expertise can see that it's not worth keeping, in spite of the high amount of interest in it by anonymous editors. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Ha! Thanks for the explanation. Anonymous editors fiddling with caste cruft are prolific in most WMF projects. It might be easier to prove a point by adding my own name and see how long it stays there. Explaining to the unacquainted why it is that the appendix is useless would require a lengthy essay, beginning with concepts such as why many Indian contributors mistakenly think that a name is a marker of a caste, which in fact has obvious problems because, for example, Helen Reddy is not connected to the Reddy caste. Doubtless, though, there is some equivalent here to this. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


Basically, you asked for it. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I appreciate the message you left on my page, I am reading the materials to better acquaint me with the Wiktionary platform hence to improve my contributions on here.Flixtey (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


Please explain edit revert. DGtal (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Interwikis for entries have to be exactly the same spelling. I know that Hebrew Wiktionary has their entries arranged differently, but, as I understand it, that's the way things work here. Our interwiki bot doesn't run as often as it should, but when it does, it's going to remove such interwikis when it finds them. Feel free to ask about this at the Information desk or the Beer parlour- there's always the possibility my understanding is out of date. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Revert on mum's the word[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if you could explain your recent revert of my edit to mum's the word. I had added the section link to the specific etymology of mum that was being referred to. Without the section, the link just goes to the page for mum, which is, of course, less focused. I'm a bit new to Wiktionary—are section links not normally used in the term template? Or is it something else entirely? Thanks. –Boomur [colloquia] 22:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Because anyone can add, delete, and/or rearrange the Etymology sections at any time, you can't really depend on Etymology 3 being the same Etymology 3 you meant to link to. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand, though it seems a bit silly that there's no workaround. How about at least linking to #English? –Boomur [colloquia] 03:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi. The Italien word is pustola [9].

Yes, but has pustula never been used in Italian by anyone? I suspect it may be an alternate or obsolete form, though I'll leave that to the people at Requests for verification. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

them -ids[edit]

When I did all those zoology -ids (which have probably done more than anything else, except possibly the minerals, to help me chase SemperBlotto's edit count) I thought they'd sit there for years unedited by anyone. It's rather fun to see them come up in my watchlist when you go through doing the categories! I wonder if there is an -id-alike for plants, other than the occasional "genus name without capitals means a plant in that genus". Equinox 01:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm on it[edit]

Fixing it now :) Thanks. --Antwoord (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

All fixed, thanks for helping me :) --Antwoord (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


if I add the italian etymological ref will you revert it also this time? --Tanet (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I had a few problems with the etymology you added. First of all, why did you have two numbered etymologies? We never format etymologies that way. If there are multiple possibilities, one might join the two with "or, alternatively,", "another possibility is...", or something along those lines. Having two seemingly mutually-exclusive etymologies with no explanation about their relationship to each other is just confusing, especially since we never use line numbers, bullets, etc. for etymologies. It didn't help that you had redlinked terms with no mention of what language they were (the language code was for Middle High German), and things seemed kind of disorganized, like you hadn't given much thought into how to fit them all together. It's true that the current etymology is a bit odd, to start with, but you didn't improve things.

Also, I was skeptical of the details of the etymology. I wasn't able to find guelcus in the Lewis & Short dictionary at Perseus, which means it must be Vulgar Latin (language code: "VL.") or Medieval Latin ("ML."), and the "gu" is typical of borrowings from Germanic languages (I should mention that language codes above can only be used in the {{etyl}} template- for the {{term}} or {{m}} templates, you would use the language code "la"). It looks to me like guelcus is the result of a word starting with "w" being borrowed from a Germanic language. The current etymology's choice of a Germanic source seems a bit of a stretch, semantically, but deriving this from guelcus isn't much better, because one is faced with the question of where guelcus itself came from. You might want to ask about this at the Etymology scriptorium.

The combination of bad formatting and jumbling of new and old information tipped the balance in favor of just reverting it so someone could start over. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

CUP OF JOE[edit]

Please read the source before reverting. 'Moreover, "cup of joe" was first recorded as entering the English language in 1930, a full 16 years after the grumblings of disgruntled sailing men supposedly put the term into common parlance.'

'His General Order 99 that prohibited alcohol aboard such vessels was issued on 1 June 1914.'

So reverting my correction to saying that 'cup of joe' predates Josephus "Joe" Daniels order is historically wrong.

You changed part of the sentence without changing the rest of it, so that it made no sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad anon[edit]

Your actions against are fully justified; diff is quite damning for the anon. The allegedly philosophical definition added by the anon was retarded continental nonsense inappropriate for this dictionary. You probably do not value my stance on this all that much, but anyway. Maybe you will get input from BD2412 as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the main reason I was asking for his opinion, rather than that of anyone I normally deal with, is that, in addition to being a veteran admin on multiple wikis, he also doesn't know me that well or owe me any favors, so he would have no reason to go easy on me. You certainly aren't known for going easy on me, so your opinion doesn't hurt, even if I may disagree with your opinions on the propriety of various actions by admins.
I wasn't happy with how things progressed: not all of the content was bad enough to merit reverting, but I was too tired to go through and edit out the bad stuff, and it was hard to figure out where to draw the line between difference of opinion and enforceable policy, so I just reverted all of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Error: Proto Malayo-Polynesian language[edit]

I recently created a page of an Old Javanese word wwe. There is an error when I try to add the etymology, regarding the Proto Malayo-Polynesian root. I think there is something missing about the ISO code for the proto language "poz". Thank you. NoiX180 (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

What's missing is the "-pro". The convention we use is that we add "-pro" to the family code to make the proto-language's code: in this case, Malayo-Polynesian is the family, with the code "poz", and Proto-Malayo-Polynesian is the proto-language, with the code "poz-pro". Families don't contain terms, since they're not a single language, but languages and proto-languages do. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Heading level[edit]

Hi Chuck Entz, why do you think Noun should be at the same level as Etymology 1? --Ngocminh.oss (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't. I overlooked that detail and forgot to check the entry after my revert. What I saw originally was one edit that did some weird stuff to the header levels, followed by another that undid some of that, but left it still wrong, so I reverted it. The real problem was that the first noun section wasn't just at the wrong header level, but an exact duplicate of the second noun section, which was in the wrong place. I've now fixed the arangement of the entry by putting the first noun section at the correct header level and removing the second one. I would highly recommend previewing your edits before saving, so you can make sure that your edit did what you wanted it to do. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for asking about this. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

deus theos[edit]

Hey chuck, I know I'm probably not formatting the edit as perfectly as could be, but θεός as a general appellation of deities or divinities is translated, quite undisputedly, into Latin texts as deus.

(On the use of the singular Θεός (and Latindeus) as a generic term by (later) heathen writers, see Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, 2nd edition iii. addit. note D; cf. Dr. Ezra Abbot in Chris. Exam. for Nov. 1848, p. 389ff; Huidekoper, Judaism at Rome, chapter i. § ii.; see Bib. Sacr. for July 1856, p. 666f, and for addit. examples Nagelsbach, Homer. Theol., p. 129; also his Nachhomerische Theol., p. 139f; Stephanus' Thesaurus, under the word; and references (by Prof. Abbot) in the Journal of the Society for Biblical Literature and Exegesis, i., p. 120 note.) -Strong's Concordance

I realize that the similarities seem superficial on the surface (superficial superficiality?), but when you've got a Greek word being translated into a Latin word, and the two words look & sound so darn similar... & they actually mean the same thing... I think the similarities go a bit beyond superficial.. AS sarcastic as that may sound, I'd actually like to get this information in the page as effectively as possible, because Theos is of uncertain origin & that being the case, we're kind of obligated to explore all possible avenues. Disregarding the fact that the two words are essentially phonetic twins, any claims concerning similarities in origin would in fact be unattested. However, the similarities in usage & pronunciation (development) do merit some degree of significance & should not simply be overlooked.Lostubes (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lostubes Hello there! I saw your recent edits and had a few questions and comments:
  • It is indeed the case that θεός is always translated into Latin as deus. This is, naturally, because they both are the most common words for "god" in their respective languages. I can say with great certainty, however, that the phonetic similarities imply very different origins. Much better and smarter minds than you or I (no offense intended) have carefully mapped the sound changes in these two languages more carefully perhaps than any other languages in history. I feel pretty confident that we know exactly how the sound laws and origins of each language work to the best of our abilities, and they just don't point to θεός and deus being related. I am always in favor of exploring other avenues of explanation, but there is no phonological evidence that they are related except a resemblance. If you can find more evidence in favor of this theory, by all means present it.
  • I'm curious about your disfavor of PIE. Through the comparative method and years and years of use, almost all linguists agree that this language existed and was the singular ancestor of many, many languages. What does it matter if it is unattested? If we can be sure to the best our knowledge that a form came from a particular reconstruction (in the case of deus we can be extremely sure), why does this bother you so much? I fear that you will not see a change in policy, but I do not want to discourage you from making your views known.
  • While I appreciate your edits to Yamato, they probably contain too much information for a single etymology section. I would not be surprised if your additions were heavily abridged. I won't touch them myself, as I know little of Japanese etymology, but I warn that they may be changed.
Please continue to contribute and edit! —JohnC5 05:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@JohnC5 You're totally right about the added information. I realize the edits are a bit rough, with yamato, I was just copy pasting info from other articles on wiki (scouring denshijisho etc.), but my thoughts are better the information be there and rough than not be there at all. As far as DEUS is concerned, I believe I've stated my reasons in the above statement. You said it yourself, Theos is always translated as Deus. I don't understand why it's so hard to realize how that is relevant... But yeah, if it's just going to be perpetually reverted, then I think a subsection denoting the similarities/differences would be in order.
  • sense evolution = etymologic significance
PIE disfavor? ....waitwait... okay, so the only difference between the PIE roots for these two words is "wo". *dhes & *dewos... are but a slight vowel sound apart... comparative to this & those... I don't disfasfavor PIE... I LOVE PIE... I'm just well aware that it's just an estimation. Words don't come from a reconstruction, the reconstruction is available as a comparative reference...
Again, I realize the first draft nature of some of my edits, but that's why I can edit in the first place, we are supposed to edit... If something is just plain wrong and uncited, then yeah, revert to the other more wrong uncited thing... whatever... that's fine... *slits wrists*. (just kidding, please improve the more right rough thing, that would be the more logical avenue)

(probably should have left the reverted edit in there, the one about how they aren't related... that's actually my mistake, but saying they aren't related & then saying they are seemed kind of...) Lostubes (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Re: Yamato, I have indeed reverted Lostubes' edits. The information given was irrelevant to the English entry, as it concerned how the term is spelled in Japanese. The changes also removed valid information about the term likely being related to Japanese term (yama, mountain), a word that has been in Japanese pretty much since there was anything identifiable as Japanese. This removal was given an edit summary about the Chinese term (shān), which is entirely irrelevant to the term Yamato and cast serious doubt on the linguistic veracity of the edit in question. (No offense meant, simply trying to describe how things looked.)
I understand the idea that “better the information be there and rough than not be there at all”, but it should be 1) in the right entry, and 2) be correct. :) Click through to the Japanese entry 大和 (Yamato) and you'll see that much of the information you added is already listed.
FWIW, I'm doing some research into reconstructed Middle Chinese pronunciations of the characters used as w:Man'yōgana to get a better understanding of the likely sound values prevalent in Old Japanese. I suspect, for instance, that there was no term yamatai, that the -tai ending is a relatively recent misinterpretation based on relatively recent Chinese pronunciations, and that yamato has been the basic phonetic form of this word from the beginning. Japanese and Chinese sources that I've seen are both reasonably clear on which characters were used to spell yamato, so the key question is how they were pronounced. Anyway, TL:DR version is that I'll be updating the 大和 etymology again in due course, to add in what I can find.
For future, I would ask that you add etymologies for Japanese terms on the pages for the Japanese terms. :)
Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@Lostubes This doesn't seem to be sense evolution. The word deus is used to translate θεός because it is one of the only words in Latin that means "god." The fact that is used is because it is the only word to use. If you are focused on its later meaning of "the Christian God," then indeed that is sense evolution, but it is impossible to say whether this meaning is borrowed from AG or internal evolution (It also the case that the Latin word for the Christian God is normally capitalized (Deus)).
The other problem you'll find is that Wiktionary does not tend to track sense evolution or even particular dates of usage as the information becomes to cumbersome. As such, even if you can show that the word θεός did affect the meaning of deus (which would be difficult), I'm sure there would be editors who would still remove that information.
Furthermore, what information does this add to the article? The word god is always used to translate deus, but such information is not included in god's article.
Concerning the similarities of the PIE roots *dʰh₁s- and *deywós.:
  • The phonemes * and *d, while both voiced and dental have completely separate reflexes in their descendants (* becomes f in Latin at the beginning of a word!)
  • The laryngeal *h₁ and the diphthong *ey also have very different behavior
Trust me when I say that they are very different. This page might be helpful.
I'd also advise against making wrist slitting jokes as they could be considered offensive. Just a thought. —JohnC5 05:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@JohnC5 " even if you can show that the word θεός did affect the meaning of deus (which would be difficult), I'm sure there would be editors who would still remove that information."

  • Yeah, doesn't that bother you? That "editors" would remove accurate information from a collection of information that should be accurate... As offensive as suicide jokes may be, the analogy is sound in its application. On Latin, "deus" is c.1300 translation of Zeus. You can actually SEE how the connection between sanskrit diva and Greek theos could have arose... in the map on the page you just told me to look at. Also, the italic languages come a tad bit later. Your Latin is from 6th to 9th centuries AD (it's differences can be attributed to... well.. check this out while Greek is from 2500 BC and 1700 BC. The "proto" aspect is paramount in this regard.
I'm not sure what you're talking about- the first Latin inscriptions date to the 6th century BC, and Classical Latin was pretty much over by the 6th century AD. The first Greek writing dates to the 16th century BC, not the 26th century. Yes, it's attested earlier, but there's no reason to believe Hellenic is any older than Italic. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, again I beseech you, please realize that PIE is not a real language. it is a comparative reference.

I suppose it would be relevant to point out that there is another missing link in this discussion, that being the Greek root word "thea" which is related to "viewing" (theater? light? fire? diva? day?) there's really, actually, for sure, some things of relevance here. blah, this is all pointless conjecture without references & I'm too tired to dig for the publications in which I've read of these similarities. Another day, perhaps. Good luck.Lostubes (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
A proto-language is an artificial construct, but it's the result of extensive work by serious scholars over a couple of centuries. It's not perfect, but it beats every other explanation ever suggested by light-years. Your addition, on the other hand, is based on your uneducated guess based on superficial similarities. Also, as John said, the fact that one language uses a particular word to translate a word in another language doesn't belong in the etymology section. Do not restore your edit again. If you do, I will block you. Case closed. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Also Chuck, I apologize for the spam on your page! I feel a little bad for all these many fruitless bytes of discussion. —JohnC5 06:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz It's not an uneducated guess. Deus is the Latin translation of Theos. That case actually is closed. AS for my edit, as I've apparently failed to explain; I plan to improve upon the format/style through which the information is presented & will, in fact, be unhindered by scare tactics. Apologies for the talking on your talk page. Thank you & good night.Lostubes (talk) 06:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

...? Have you ever heard of False cognates? Other examples of false cognates include habere (have), haben (have) and dog (dog), dog (dog). Being synonymous does not imply etymological relationship. - -sche (discuss) 07:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The word deus is used to translate numerous words for god in various languages. The word god is dog spelled backwards. These are Interesting Facts, but they don't belong in the etymology sections, because they have nothing to do with the origins of the words. You're trying to dispute things that you obviously don't understand, and you're making less and less sense as you go. Formatting and wording tweaks won't change that. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck EntzFor the record, my edit was purely intended to point out that theos is translated as deus in latin, this purely as a sense evolution comparison. I shouldn't have removed the original entry, doing so was a mistake. However, if one is truly interested in depicting a more comprehensive etymology for the word, then I'm more than happy share what is known... forgive the domain name, as it is non-sectarian & non-mystic sources are ultimately scarce.
  • "It could eventually be that the old Greek words theos and zeus were in some way related, linguistically."


  • "The etymology of Deus (God) is somehow controversial. Some etymologize it from the Greek Theos (God; Θεός), whereas others (Babiniotis etc) reject this etymology."
Wait, what's that? "Some etymologize it from the Greek Theos (God; Θεός)" Wouldn't that make them... O_o ACTUAL COGNATES Lostubes (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't. That would mean one came from the other. Cognates are terms that inherited from a common third source (the ancestor of both). So far, you haven't defined what you mean by "sense evolution", I'm guessing because you don't know, either. As far as I can tell, deus and Θεός have always had pretty much the same range of meanings, so where's the "evolution"? It looks to me like you have some vague idea that deus and Θεός are somehow related, and this is the only way you could think of to mention both of them in the same etymology. As for your sources: the lack of support for your views in etymological sources is no coincidence, which isn't to knock religious sources in general. Theology is about ideas and concepts for things that are beyond examination by science and history: it's possible to be a very good theologian, but abysmally ignorant on matters of biology or historical linguistics. It's also true that theological principles from thousands of years ago can still be quite relevant, but in etymology, no one really understood the relationship between Greek and Latin until the nineteenth century, at which time a great deal of work was done to work it out in great detail. There are still matters of dispute, but the basic sound correspondences are pretty solid- no one actually familiar with them is disputing them. The difference between *dʰ and *d may not seem like much to you, but it's quite significant, especially in a root- it's the same level of difference as what separates cat and god in English. The fact that the Latin word fēstus is cognate with Θεός, and shows the sound correspondences one would expect works against there being an exception in this case. It's rather complicated, with different suffixes and ablaut grades making Zeus and Jupiter closer to each other than to deus, but the *dʰ and *d distinction holds true throughout the sky- and god-/religion-groups of etymologies. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Both articles should state "unsure of etymolgical relation", would be more honest and less affirming. Childs play.


hello, I have seen on the Tangut discussion page that you have made some edits. I am currently learning Tangut and would like to add definitions of Tangut words to Wiktionary. I have had no success in figuring out how to input Tangut into wiktionary (or on my computer in general). If you know how to input Tangut, could you point me in the right direction? If it is a bother, do not worry about it.

I don't know much about Tangut. I added some general information to Category:Tangut language, and that's about my involvement. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way to use Tangut script at Wiktionary: we're Unicode-based, and Tangut hasn't been added to Unicode yet, as far as I know. There are fonts you can download in order to use Tangut script on your own computer, but they'll probably become obsolete when the Unicode version comes out (I'm sure there will be ways to convert from one to the other, eventually, though). See W:Tangut script for more details. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't use numbers[edit]

How do you refer to only the relevant entries? Dan Pelleg (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Butting in, not aware of context, but: try {{senseid}}. DCDuring TALK 16:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Or, for Etymologies, as in the reversion under discussion, refer to a main meaning of the Etymology. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Like this?
  1. sphere (three-dimensional object / concentric hollow transparent globes formerly believed to rotate around the Earth / one's province / set of all points that are a fixed distance from a fixed point / extension of a general conception)
Dan Pelleg (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, since all you are doing is directing folks to the right definition or etymology you can be more terse, just using one or two key words and abbreviating them. ("3-D object", "transparent sphere", "province", "set of equidistant points", "extension of conception".) BTW "one's province" is a bad definition, "one" implying a person and "province" being just one synonym with a most common sense that does not mean "sphere". DCDuring TALK 01:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok well "there's the rub" right there – say I refer the reader to specific definitions using keywords from those (e.g. "one's province"), and then some time later someone else changes those definitions. My reference would become useless. The upshot is that in Wiktionary, definitions are just as much in a state of flux as list numbers. It's up to editors to discover reference errors that have resulted if either change, and correct them. Or is there an advantage to using keywords as opposed to numbers I've overlooked? Thanks – Dan Pelleg (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
{{senseid}} does not show anything in the entry. It's purely a linking anchor by design. This means that editors will generally leave {{senseid}} alone because they know that other entries are using it as a link target. On the other hand, they're free to change the entry around, rewrite and reorder definitions, as they wish. —CodeCat 18:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


Hieher is actually an obsolete term used by German Austrians from the late 19th century. It's no longer used and I can even provide evidence for it.

Page 365 of Die Babenberger und ihre Laender by Georg Juritsch. "Dass Heinrich Jasomirgott hieher seine Residenz verlegte, waere an und fuer sich noch nicht hinreichend gewesen, wenn das herzogliche Hausdurch verschiedene politische Ereignisse nicht selbst emporgekommen waere."

You can tell me I'm wrong, use counter-evidence or revert your revert.

I didn't revert you because of any judgment on "hieher", but because you tacked it onto the etymology of hierher in a way that made no sense. Were you saying that hierher came from hieher? If so, you need to learn how to format etymologies. If you didn't, then your edit was like sticking walrus random words in the middle of your sentences: they may be valid words, but applesauce people wonder what on earth they're doing there. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Someone with experience would have fixed it instead of delete it. That's what smart people do. Hieher most likely came from hierher, as obsolete slang.

MontChevalier (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone with good judgment would have tried the Tea Room or the talk page instead of displaying ignorance of Wiktionary, the meaning of the word etymology, good lexicographic practice, and abusing people to boot. DCDuring TALK 01:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
You're quite welcome to create an entry for hieher. As for hierher, I fixed the entry by removing a totally irrelevant piece of text from the etymology section. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Wiktionary is about talking. You guys are a bunch of dictators deciding what is and what isn't. You don't give room to talk. And you're doing it now. Tea Room? Talk page? Nobody listens to those. And you guys refuse to even bother looking into them. If you guys can't just give a better explanation why something shouldn't be a part of something, you can cut the passive-aggressive crap and try acting more mature. Otherwise, I won't be giving any more of my services to this site and I'm moving on.

MontChevalier (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png Barnstar
For helping in organising Pashto prefixes ! — Adjutor101 (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
That's all very nice, but I think any of the admins would have done the same. I could see that you misunderstood our system of templates (they're extremely complex), so I wanted to give you an example to show you the right way and keep you from unintentionally creating more problems. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:circumcised - protection[edit]

Do you think we could have Wikisaurus:circumcised protected against anonymous editing, or to only allow auto-confirmed users to edit? Otherwise, more reverts are likely, and the page is already full of reverts that do not really need to be there. Registering is fairly easy, and anons can still post suggestions on the talk page of the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Origin of katakana[edit]

Dear friend, How are you doing?

I would like to suggest two minor changes to two of the articles on katakana characters.

① The first one is 「ノ」: It is stated that it derives from the kanji 「乃」. I am not saying that assertion is false, but just wanted you to know that many Japanese scholars consider that katakana derives from the kanji  「之」. This is also the kanji which corresponded to the possessive particle, when this language was written only with characters. The kun'yomi pronunciation of those two ideograms is 「no」. Because of the meaning of the second one, and also the pronunciation, quite a few scholars firmly assent that the katakana mentioned before derives from it. I though it would be a good idea to indicate that.

② Another is 「カ」: While it is certain that 「か」 derives from the kanji 「加」 (the right part of the character being represented as the stroke of the hiragana letter), the case of its katakana equivalent 「カ」 is not so clear. Many argue it derives from the aforementioned kanji, because its on'yomi pronunciation is 「ka」, and think it is the left radical of the ideogram.  Keep in mind that the katakana 「カ」 and the kanji 「力」 are exactly the same character (no right stroke in the katakana to represent), although the syllable is usually represented slightly narrower. Also, its kun'yomi pronunciation 「chi-ka-ra」 contains 「ka」, so it is definitely not harebrained to think it may have evolved from that ideogram.

So, would you kindly consider adding those pieces of information to the two articles? I honestly think it would be a good idea to add that information to the article, since the origin of a few kana are not known with absolute certainty. Also, in my humble opinion, when explaining any academic theory, it is nice to let the people know about other possible theories, as long as they are not retarded.

Anyway, thank you for reading my request to the end. I understand you are very busy and don't want to disturb you anymore. It's just that, as a native Japanese who is quite fond of his language, I'd like to help those foreigners who study the language seriously to develop a comprehensive knowledge of the language. If I can contribute to anything, I will be very happy to help. Thank you again, and have a very good day. Ikemen maru (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  碓井 磨瑠

Arrowred.png Butting in, as it were, but I saw this and felt compelled to respond.

Blue Glass Arrow.svg In the absence of any resources that present reasoned arguments in favor of other derivations, we will not be changing the stated derivations at the (no) and (ka) entries. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 09:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Aside from the merits of the etymological information (which I didn't know), the edit in question (diff was reverted because it added a contradictory explanation to the first one with no explanation, in effect making the etymology argue with itself. @Ikemen maru it would have been better to have posted an explanation like you gave here to the discussion page for the entry, preferably with {{attention|ja}} so editors knowledgable about Japanese would be alerted to it. For information that you know is correct and that you know no one will object to, feel free to just edit the page itself- but make sure you use the correct formatting. We have very specialized templates that do a lot of things that may not be obvious, so take a look at how they're used in other articles. We definitely need knowledgable people to edit Japanese entries, so please take the time to learn how we do things, and pitch in! Chuck Entz (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this rollback is in error[edit]

regarding geschrieen

At Appendix:Glossary#nonstandard it is: "nonstandard -- Not conforming to the language as accepted by the majority of its speakers.".
E.g. in [] (2011) it's: "Große Mehrheit lehnt Rechtschreibreform noch immer ab" (A great majority is still against the spelling reform) and "62 Prozent [der Bevölkerung] halten sie [= die Reform von 1996] noch immer für falsch" (62% of the citizens (of the FRG) think that the reform from 1996 is wrong). Thus one could even argue that "geschrien" has to be labeled nonstandard, though (so I guess) there's no doubt that (pro-reform) prescriptivist here wouldn't like that. So the neutral and non-prescribing way is to simple note something like "the reform from 1996 replaced <the one spelling> by <the other>". That even includes all other information like "administrative bodies shall use the new spelling (or are even compelled to use it)".
BTW: Maybe one could add reasons why words got replaced, e.g. to harmonise the spelling of <one word> with the spelling of <another word>, or because reformers didn't know several German words &c. (like Quentchen became *Quäntchen as they didn't know the word Quent or ignored it and created a pseudo-etymology deriving their new word from Quantum).
PS: Also traditional spellings aren't obsolete. Appendix:Glossary#obsolete: "No longer in use, and no longer likely to be understood." Traditional spellings are still in use and are likely to be understood. Even those people who try follow the reforms sometimes use traditional spellings (e.g. because that's the way they learned it or because they don't know which form is correct or because in case of single words they think that the traditional spelling is more common or more likely to be understood or makes more sense etc.). -13:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC), PS: 13:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the previous version was perfect, but you removed any indication at all that anyone disapproves of the word. Also, changing just the one term doesn't work: you need to discuss the prevailing practice with other German editors (the talk page at WT:ADE would be a good place to start). This is a community, and you can't just change everything on your own. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I did not remove any indication, see "Alternative forms" and "Usage notes: The spelling geschrieen was deprecated in 1996 in the German spelling reform of 1996 (the Rechtschreibreform)." || The spelling is not obsolete, so, as en.wt is non-prescribing, claiming something like "obsolete" is simply wrong. Also there are other "old" spellings not marked as obsolete, so there was most likely someone else who "just change everything on yourhis own" or at least it looks like that. -13:40 & 13:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The IP is correct that neither spelling is obsolete; they are both still in use. In the past there was some discussion about whether or not to label the spellings deprecated in a spelling reform — I forget it if was a French or a German reform — as "obsolete". I think I pushed for something like "now nonstandard", since "obsolete" seems too strong, given that there are still many French people and Germans who use the pre-reform spellings. (In contrast, labelling something like a ligatured spelling of an English word as obsolete seems sensible.) Whether or not geschrieen is nonstandard is slightly more difficult to say; it was deprecated out of official standard German; do we want to analyse the validity of various polls to determine whether or not it meets our usage-based definition of "nonstandard"? Meh. It's probably best to leave the entry as it is now, with the usage note explaining the situation. PS, @93: it is not the case that if a majority rejects the 1996 reform, geschrien is nonstandard: geschrien was not introduced by the reform; it has always been in use, the reform simply deprecated the competing form geschrieen. (I've fixed geschrieen to express this more accurately, per Wiktionary_talk:About_German#Note_on_Rechtschreibreform.) - -sche (discuss) 17:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I was going to ask you about this as my next step, because I could see I was getting onto thin ice- but you saved me the trouble. I only knew that this was a contentious subject, and removing context labels in such a situation set off my POV detectors. I'm glad to have a knowledgeable second opinion and help in sorting this out. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for common misspellings[edit]

Hi Chuck. Many thanks for clearing up my rubbish from earlier today (I'm a huge WP-editor but only dabble in Wikt.). However, when I tried to convert comaraderie into a Redirect , Wikt. gave me a message that Redirections shouldn't actually be created for misspellings. Would you know the policy? Trafford09 (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

While you were posting here, I was replying at the talk page for the entry. See my comments there. We don't use redirects most of the time, because it may be a real word in some other language: see appel for a good example of a misspelling for apple that is used for lots of other things. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah - that makes sense (as did your other comments of course). Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Why deleted Witvleugeldiucagors?[edit]

Dutch Wikipedia has an article titled Witvleugeldiucagors.

Wikis don't count for CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


You're kidding me, right? "Spiel" in Eng. is "an evolutionary stage between rap and hip hop and the earlier chain gang songs influenced by gospel and Afro-Caribbean music"? Don't forget Conga and Derwish trance dance. I'm used to Wikipedia, don't you need to remove mock edits ("vandalism"), and to give a reference for info you introduce on Wiktionary, too? Check any online or printed dictionary, encyclopedia, whatever. It's an Yiddish idiom, has all the Yiddish humour you can expect in it. German is the great-grandpa, not its daddy. It's about "the same old tired song" if you want, put into proper English. A well-rehearsed, often used speech full of empty phrases used by a salesman trying to make you buy smth. you probably don't need, that would be the explanation. It comes close to shtick, for that matter. If (IF!) some music bands in NY played with it in their internal lingo, that's irrelevant for Wktionary, who's not dealing primarily with regional or otherwise restricted group slang. Even leaving aside any discussion about the utter BS in this pseudo-definition: it's illogical/poor style even in the way it's put together, chronology is the rule, so "B is interm. stage betw. A and C", not C and A. If nothing rings your bells... "I'm a fake, dingalingaling"... Whatever, it's a good joke, if anyone takes it serious, the better a joke it becomes. So yeah, don't touch it! Cheers, Arminden

The problem was that you added your comments about the etymology to the etymology: if I see a spelling error on a sign, I don't get out my sharpie and scrawl a comment on it about how stupid it is- that's a good way to get some very unpleasant attention from security. This is the same principle. How many print dictionaries do you see with phrases like "I bet my clown hat" in their etymologies? If you disagree with an etymology, there are three things you can do:
  1. Edit the etymology so that it makes sense. Of course, it will be judged by the same standards as the original would have been, if someone had had the time to check it (we rarely do, unless someone lets us know there's a problem).
  2. Add the template {{rfv-etymology}} next to the etymology. Extra credit for clicking on the "+" in the box that the template generates to post an explanation in the Etymology scriptorium (you could also just post to the Etymology scriptorium without adding the template, I suppose, but this way is easier).
  3. Post a comment on the discussion page for the entry. This is the least effective option, because there's a very good chance that no one who knows anything about the entry will see it for a very long, long time.
Those of us who patrol new edits have to look through every single edit made by anyone who isn't whitelisted. In case you're wondering, that's an awful lot of edits, and they keep coming in, 24/7. I have enough to do dealing with kids who replace entries with "poooop", jerks who add the names of their bosses, ex-girlfriends, etc. to the definitions for vulgar/insulting terms, and spambots that spew all kinds of garbage into entries to game the Google ratings. I don't have time to fix an entry after you've grafittied all over it, so I do the next best thing, which is to revert your edit- which at least undoes the damage you've done. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Latin -ior comparatives[edit]

Hi Chuck. Can you explain why you added |nocat=1 to the transclusions of {{suffix}} in esculentior, pūtidior, and ulterior, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. When you put "nocat=1" in an affix template, it still looks the same and links the same, but doesn't add the category to the entry. As to why: see Category talk:Latin comparative adjectives for what prompted this. There are currently 332 entries in Category:Latin comparative adjectives, but those were the only 3 in Category:Latin words suffixed with -ior. Theoretically, all of the 332 entries (plus esculentior, which seems to have fallen between the cracks) could belong to both, but this is a very predictable regular aspect of Latin grammar. It would be like adding all regular plurals to Category:English words suffixed with -s, or the entire first declension to Category:Latin words suffixed with -a or a whole lot of verbs to Category:Latin words suffixed with -o: the information is already provided in other ways, so why have a category that people look at and say "Well, duh!".
The problem is that templates make it so easy to categorize, that no one stops to consider if the categories are needed. In this case, it was really inconsistent having only three out of hundreds of potential members in the category, and removing three was a whole lot easier than editing hundreds of entries to add it. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Yikes! I just found out where esculentior went: we have Category:Latin adjective comparative forms and Category:Latin comparative adjectives used for exactly the same class of forms. Theoretically, one could put all the declined forms of the comparatives in the first one, but there's only a handful that don't end in -ior. Someone needs to sort this all out. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

lorem ipsum[edit]

I vaguely recall you making a post on this website where you used two nonsensical words that you made up to help demonstrate a point. I don’t remember much as I apparently skimmed over that modification, but I think that it was during this month. I already attempted to look for it, but have yet to find it. I’m starting to think that maybe I dreamt this. --Romanophile (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


What I meant by informal is no jurisdictions actually use the term age of consent in their laws. Its not a term the law uses, and I was criticized on wikipedia for using the term in an article because Malke2010 said it is a made up term, and technically, she was correct. Informal can also mean that its not a term that's formally used in a certain lexicon, in this case in the law. That's what I meant by calling it informal. Its a real law, but its not actually the term governments use for the law. Its sort of like how some people informally call the United States of America "America" or call the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland "Britain". Another example is the British Empire, that was an informal term, because it was not a term used in legal documents. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC) I just put into usage notes, the fact that the term is not usually used by governments, and I did not use the word informal explain that, that way I'm not putting that in the definition, and I'm not using the word you don't like "informal". --PaulBustion88 (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You can explain it to me all you want, but that's not the way the average dictionary user will understand it. I don't care who said what to you on any other wiki: this is Wiktionary, and your edits have to make sense by the standards of a dictionary. The wording you added was unnecessary, and it didn't mean what you thought it did. If you don't know what you're doing, leave things alone. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I left the wording out, I just added in usage notes that its simply a term people use to describe those laws, and that governments don't formally use the term. Is that ok since its not part of the definition, or do you want that taken out of usages notes? I didn't use the word "informal" in the usage notes section. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not insisting on my way and if you want me to take it out I will, and if others take it out I will not object. I also put a usage note under British Empire noting that it was not a formally defined state in the sense the USA and the USSR are. But I will not keep it there if you object to it. I will defer to consensus.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
BTW, I found a reference for my statement about the British Empire, "Legally there was no such thing as a British Empire. It had no constitutional meaning." Pax Britannica by James Morris page 197 --PaulBustion88 (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


This is why I thought the definition I added to cult was correct. Cult is also used to mean a religion that claims to be part of another religion while rejecting that religion's basic theology. Examples of this are Mormonism, which is nominally Christian but rejects foundational doctrines of Christianity, and Sufi and the Nation of Islam, which claim to be Muslim while rejecting the Koran's teachings. "II - The Preferred Definition of a Cult

Throughout this book we will be using the word cult in a very specific,precise way.

The Preferred Definition

A cult of Christianity is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrinal system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible.

Key Features of the Preferred Definition

"A cult of Christianity..."

A cult is a group that deviates doctrinally from a "parent" or "host" religion; that is, cults grow out of and deviate from a previously established religion.

Although the focus of this book is on cults of Christianity, non-Christian religions (e.g., world religions) have had cults arise from them as well.

Cults of Islam include the Sufis and the Nation of Islam. While these groups claim to be Muslim, they deviate fundamentally from the teaching of Islam, from which they are derived. Cults of Hinduism include Hare Krishna, Self-Realization Fellowship, and Vivekananda." Pastor Warren Jeffs used the term cult to describe Mormonism, and explained that he meant a theological cult, a religion that evolved out of one religion into another religion and rejects the original religion's teachings while claiming to still be part of it, in a CNN interview with Anderson Cooper. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's another example of cult being used the way I defined it. By contrast, a cult (of the Christian variety) will depart from the essentials of Christianity i.e. Trinity, Salvation through Christ alone, the virgin birth, etc but may very well resemble the same liturgical approach, and/or methods of worship as orthodox Christianity. c.f. Oneness Pentecostalism.

i.e. LDS/Mormons - The god of Mormonism is one of many gods who comes from a planet near the star called Kolob whereas Biblical Christianity adheres to the fundamental that God is Creator of all things seen and unseen including any and all planets and any and all stars (even the star named ‘Kolob’ if such a star existed) Nation of Islam: Sect or Cult? The Nation of Islam or "Black Muslims" as they're known in the US are not considered a “sect” of Islam. Black Muslims are not considered “orthodox” by Muslims but rather, are looked upon as a pseudo-Islamic cult founded by Wallace Fard Muhammad in 1930 Wallace Fard was preached, by the Nation of Islam ‘prophet’ Elijah Mohammad, to be "Allah incarnate". Mohammed touted Fard as being the Christian Messiah and the Muslim 'Mahdi' (Redeemer) however, Fard mysteriously disappeared only a few years after appointing an unemployed auto worker, Elijah Poole, who renamed himself Elijah Mohammad, as his primary spokesman. Fard was never heard from again and Elijah immediately assumed leadership of the group. The primary leaders were:

             a. Elijah Mohammad (considered a prophet)
             b. Malcolm X, a charismatic outspoken proponent for the nation of Islam. He was
             purportedly murdered by followers loyal to Elijah Mohammad who was upset
             over Malcolm's discovery and subsequent complaints of Elijah's impropriety with
             women in the movement. (Two secretaries had filed paternity suits against Elijah).

Nation Islamists basically believe in the supierority of the black race and the inferiority and wickedness of the white race, all of which are preached to be the devil. Nation of Islam believes in a different version of Allah and the prophet Mohammad than do traditional Muslims. It is for these departures from the essentials of the Islamic faith that many mainstream Muslims do not consider the Nation of Islam to be Muslim or even a sect of Islam." Cults are religions that claim to be part of an older religion but are actually different from it. An example is Mormonism which is nominally Christian but actually is more different from Christianity than Islam is. Another example is Sufi which claims to be Islamic but is not, and the Nation of Islam which also falsely claims to be Islamic. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for helping to fix all the errors that have been appearing. I hope you don't mind the changes I made to cause them? I feel it's better to make errors explicit so that they're noticed. —CodeCat 13:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Except some of them aren't errors: it shouldn't matter how many pipes there are when positional parameters aren't involved. Something like lang=sq|}} shouldn't cause a module error. Even for those that are errors, most of them would be better dealt with by cleanup categories than module errors. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

RE: Categories and lemmas[edit]

Thank you for that. I was actually kind of wary about that. I guess that makes sense. Thank you. BRAINULATOR9 17:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverted Change[edit]

Hi. You just reverted my change to Category:gd:List of topics. I don' thave an issue with your revision, but was wondering if you knew why there is not an index supplied with {{topic cat|gd|List of topics}} on that page. Kibi78704 (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by an index: all the subcategories are in alphabetical order. The parameter you tried to add has nothing to do with that, and in fact doesn't do anything for languages that have a default script: the template gets the script information from the language code, and for gd that's Latn. On top of that, topic cat takes only two unnamed parameters, so a third parameter would be ignored, anyway. I suspect you're misunderstanding something about how categories work. What exactly were you trying to do? Chuck Entz (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
{{topic cat}} categorizes category pages. Additionally, {{topic cat|en|List of topics}} and {{topic cat|fr|List of topics}} add an alphabetic hyperlinked index on the 3rd line below the Wiki title of their respective pages that allows a reader to click on a letter of the alphabet in order to go to the first entry beginning with that letter. On French category pages, this index looks similar to "Top – A À Â Æ Ä B C Ç D E É È Ê Ë F G H I Î Ï J K L M N O Ô Œ Ö P Q R S T U Û Ù Ü V W X Y Ÿ Z". On English category pages, it looks similar to "Top – A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z". If you do not believe me, test it yourself.
This index is missing from the Gaelic category pages. My question to you was whether you knew why this index was missing.
I think that your tone is a bit snarky. I have been working on Wikipedia over a decade and do quite understand how categories work.
I misread the documentation for {{topic cat}}. Have you never made a mistake in your life? Does that justify your tone and high handedness? This is precisely the tone and behavior that induces women like me leave Wiki. Kibi78704 (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere Chuck Entz made a reference to gender. Your message seems to have been the first to refer to it. —CodeCat 17:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't mean to be at all negative, and I apologize if I gave that impression. I was tired, and didn't take enough time to choose my wording. As I suspected, you misunderstood how our categories (or more precisely, the category templates) work- understandable, given the complexity of the infrastructure behind them. What you're referring to isn't an index, per se, it's what we seem to refer to as a table of contents. It's really irrelevant to the category in question, which is only two pages of entries, so I suspect you're more concerned with the categories with actual Scottish Gaelic terms in them. In order to have such things in the categories, someone would need to prepare one, and the data modules would have to be updated to use it. It's been a while since I've dealt with that, so I'll have to track down the details. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with one, though doing it right requires knowledge of the language's alphabetical order. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Apology accepted. I am also tired.
No, actually, I am more concerned with the actual terms than with the categories. Since I was creating several new articles, several of which have more than one definition, and trying to categorize them appropriately, I was flipping back and forth between the two pages incessantly. I really wanted the use of the gadget that you are terming a table of contents.
We are spending all of this time arguing semantics when all I really want to know is why, whatever the object is called, it seems absent on Scottish Gaelic category pages. Again, my original and only question was why it is missing. It no longer matters; I no longer care. I sincerely regret asking what I thought was an innocuous question. Thank you for your time. Kibi78704 (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not arguing anything. I was explaining why I was confused by your query. Ignore that part and look at the end. Short version: it's missing because no one has taken the time to set it up. I'd be happy to do so, once I figure out how, though it might save some time if you can give me the correct alphabetical order for the language. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


I undid your edit. It's unreasoned and even looks like vandalism. The derived terms are attestable (e.g. a google book search has enough results) and it's obvious that the the German term also has another meaning resp. that there are two German terms (one a proper noun and the other an appellative noun), as there is e.g. "atomarer Holocaust" resp. "nuklearer Holocaust". -13:52, 8 May 2015‎

There were some useful parts of your edit, especially the noun section and the additional Wikipedia links, but the addition of a bunch of redlinked terms that all seemed to reflect a definitely non-neutral point of view, and some of which didn't seem to be dictionary material, tipped the balance toward reverting. It was a close, judgment call, and, on reflection, I think -sche's response was better. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't create those derived terms, I only looked whether or not they are attestable. Being neutral means that words can and should be added even though some might dislike them. Some people might dislike Fascho, some might dislike Bulle (when it means police officer) or ACAB, some might dislike Arschloch or Hurensohn. Non-neutral would be to exclude some words which some might not like - especially when there is no rule of exclusion and when only some words (e.g. only communist or only nazi words) are excluded. -23:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying we should exclude such things, but we also shouldn't exclude terms that aren't that way. I'm skeptical that no derived terms in the language at all reflect the conventional POV. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Could you make an account, by the way? —JohnC5 23:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


Hello Chuck. I would like to know why you removed my edition for »σίδηρος«. Kind regards – Loftur. (Altice (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC))

First of all, deriving σίδηρος (sídēros) from ἀστέρος (astéros) is wrong in a number of ways, and shows a lack of understanding about the mechanics of Ancient Greek language change (and about Ancient Greek grammar, as well- ἀστέρος (astéros) is only a genitive form). You also gave all the Ancient Greek terms the same incorrect transliteration. In addition, the etymology of the Icelandic term is irrelevant to this entry's etymology, and is likewise seriously wrong (see jarn for a more plausible one). On top of that, we don't use "#" in etymologies. Please don't make up etymologies based on guesses- only use reliable sources such as dictionaries and research from linguistically-trained scholars. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that no etymologies should be included unless they are supported by academic sources? --Romanophile (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
No. There are plenty of people who can safely create certain types of etymologies because they know their limitations, but those who have a track record of really bad etymological edits shouldn't be relying on their own intuition, but should look things up. I'm sure Altice has the potential to be a good editor in Icelandic- as long as they don't stray into areas they don't know. I'm sure I would be a disaster at defining terms about things like the mathematics behind string theory and quantum mechanics, but at least I know better than to try. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Rollback on "tomato"[edit]

First a disclaimer: This is the first time that I've made a contribution here on Wiktionary, FYI. In doing research, I found this word that I think is the origin for the word "tomato". At this point I'd like to analize the pronunciation; Depending on which linguist we are referring to, the "c" is variously pronounced "ch" or "ts". The "x" is pronounced "eks", but it is followed by a glottal stop. Now when you think about it, "s" and "t" are much alike in that the tongue touches the roof of the mouth in exactly the same place. The only difference is that "s" is a stream of air, while "t" is a burst of air. The effect of the glottal stop is to clip the "s" sound, which makes it sound like a "t". I admit that the word is difficult to pronounce, but the first part of the word;

camoxʻo will sound like

The word "camox" means "red" and I would surmize that that word existed in the Tonkawa language long before the word "tomatl" ever existed. In persuit of accuracy, I would suggest that the word "camoxʻoʻgitc" is the origin for the word "tomatl". I admit that it may offend some to suggest that the Nahuatl was a mispronunciation of the original, but I believe that I am correct. Thank you. 01:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The world is full of strange coincidences. When you consider that any two languages have thousands of words each, there are millions of combinations. What are the odds that one of those combinations also shares a similar sound or meaning? Multiply that by the large number of languages in northern Mexico and the southern US, and a coincidence of one kind or another becomes quite likely. Then you have the selectivity of this kind of cognate hunting: you're not going to look at a list of Tonkawa words and say: "my, that one doesn't match anything in Nahuatl at all. That one doesn't either", etc. You're only going to notice any similar one that you may find, rather than the overwhelming number of non-matches.
As for the substance: I'm pretty sure that camoxʻo would be pronounced something like Chah-mow-kho or tsah-mow-kho. That's not to say that it's completely incompatible, but it's not nearly as close as you think. One thing that's universal, worldwide, is that all languages change over time. We have texts in Nahuatl dating to long before there was any contact with the Tonkawa people- how can you say that the Tonkawa word is older? or that it's always been pronounced the same?
Besides, it doesn't make sense for Nahuatl to borrow a word from a remote northern language for a basic color, in order to apply it to a plant that came from South America. I'm not saying that the borrowing you're talking about is categorically impossible, but there are much more plausible etymologies. You would have to provide a whole lot more than just a superficial similarity to make a case for it: is there evidence for contact? Are there any other borrowings that might show a pattern? What's the history of the Nahuatl word? How have Nahuatl consonants changed over time? What's the pattern of pre-Columbian occurrence of the word- did it spread from the north, or was it concentrated in the south? What other languages borrowed it? That's just for starters. Please don't add your etymology again unless you have a published source for it from someone trained in linguistics. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
First of all, it's a well known fact that the migration of people into the Americas proceeded from north to south, I'd hardly call it a "remote" northern language. Secondly, It's also a well documented fact that Native Americans in North America ate wild potatoes, which is a close relative of the tomato. I can argue that the word for a basic color is older than a more specialized word for a specific plant because it is simple logic. Evidence for contact has been found at Chaco Canyon, and just recently, plant scientists dug up wild potatoes near the foundations of one of the monumental structures in Chaco Canyon. I have no idea how Nahuatl consonants have changed and I don't see how that has any bearing on the discussion anyway. If you can't produce any evidence that the Nahuatl word is any more than a thousand years old, then your argument is worthless. I could argue with everything that you've said, but it's obvious that it would just be a waste of time. Prejudice is always pathetic. 13:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
"it's a well known fact ....". Hypotheses only become facts when there is no contrary evidence over an extended period of time. There is contradictory evidence, the full validity and meaning of which is still in doubt, about early South American settlement.
"close relative of the tomato". Was it a "relative" to their eyes or just to post-Linnean biologists? Potato and sweet potato imply that the two tubers are related. They are from different families. Native North Americans might have incorporated better botany into their everyday language than we do, but that isn't obvious.
"Simple logic" seems a lot like "common sense" or hand-waving. Could you lay out the "logic"?
"If you can't ..., your argument is worthless." That's the way to break off the possibility of a reasonable discussion! Good job! DCDuring TALK 13:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
"Hypotheses only become facts when there is no contrary evidence over an extended period of time." You're trying to argue that Central American Native Americans knew nothing about North American Native Americans, that's patently ludicrous.
"Was it a "relative" to their eyes or just to post-Linnean biologists?" Do you know anything at all about botany?
"Could you lay out the "logic"?" I'm not going to argue with you just for the sake of arguing, you're going to have to do a lot better than that. It sounds like you're trying to argue that the word "internet" is older than the word "electron".
"That's the way to break off the possibility of a reasonable discussion! Good job!" The Chaco Canyon site has been dated at around 1,000-1,200 years old, so my argument stands. If you can't provide evidence that the Nahuatl word is any more than a thousand years old, then you have no argument. 15:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Anon: The bottom line is that we follow linguistics, not whatever cool ideas come into our heads. If you're willing to admit that you don't know everything, then I recommend you peruse Wikipedia's articles about various linguistic topics, which are a great place to start, and then move on to textbooks and scholarly articles in the field. In the mean time, Occam's razor and basic linguistic reasoning lend no support to your personal hypothesis, but a lot of support to the universally accepted one, so our etymology will stand as it is. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, historical accounts clearly state that tomatoes grew "wild" across much of the southern U.S., so it's not just a "cool idea". You're lying. 14:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


You must be trolling, aren't you? Of course plurals should be mentioned, and of course the other terms are related (though more precisely "Engel" is a hypernym). -12:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The plurals aren't the problem. The Related terms header is only for etymologically-related terms. See Entry layout explained. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Then the better way should be:
  • (a) to simply remove the related terms, but not undoing everything. If you agree that the addition of the plurals was good, then the removing should indeed look like vandalism.
Instead of removing the related terms, it then should be changed into "Hypernyms: Engel" and "Coordinate term [= Cohyponyms]: Erzengel, Cherub".
-17:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

2607:FB90:2B2:2ABE:0:33:45DA:E401 (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks)[edit]

Guess who, it’s our favourite Goth. (See, that’s funnier than saying Vandal.) --Romanophile (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I tried a range block; hope it worked. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
This’s probably the third time that he’s bypassed a ranged obstruction. I’m awfully curious as to why he’s so determined to continually vandalise gothise onomatopoeias. --Romanophile (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, they seem to have switched from their ISP to a mobile account, so it looks like we're going to be playing whack-a-mole with this idiot for a while, until they realize how pointless this is and get tired of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

anhypostasis discussion[edit]

Chuck - I am at a loss as to why you would roll-back a much more accessible definition of anhypostasis. The first definition, which I am happy to leave, is virtually indecipherable for the common man. My definition was exactly what the doctrine means. I added reference to an actual adherent of the doctrine as substantiation. Greg Logan (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I have eliminated the supporting data for the definition and rolled this into a single sentence. Frankly excess abbreviation can be confusing - I don't think that is the goal especially for a technical subject such as this.Greg Logan (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest here: your added definition makes less sense than the original, which did not raise the comprehensibility bar very high itself. —JohnC5 02:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Much better, but it's still worded as an explanation rather than as a definition, and it duplicates the current definition- which is, indeed, incomprehensible. There's the matter of logos vs. Jesus and the added part about taking on a human nature that need to be reconciled (I don't care about losing theologoumenon), but you can figure that out. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

kalinppl idjots eh[edit]

u=atmy levl,gudtang?

@Chuck Entz: You seem to be getting a lot of abusive messages from illiterate anons. The last one I hid called you an arsehole. How is that not vandalism? Would you rather I not hide any revisions on your talk page in future? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Incomprehensible and cryptic, yes, illiterate- absolutely not. This person has extreme difficulty with the physical act of typing, so he uses his own peculiar shorthand. People don't understand it, he gets frustrated and angry, he accuses people of hating people with disabilities, he gets blocked, his comments get removed as vandalism regardless of the actual content- rather ugly, all around. I'm not going to second-guess the actions of the other admins on other pages, but on my own talk page, I don't really mind the comments, though I'm often at a loss about how to respond.
As for hiding edits on the grounds of vandalism: that should be reserved for cases with no usable dictionary content whatsoever where having the edits visible would reward the vandals by giving them an audience. This person is expressing his opinions on dictionary matters or asking for intervention in serious dictionary-related disputes, so his edits shouldn't be hidden as vandalism. As for him calling me an "arsehole": I don't think it was me he was referring to.
As for hiding edits on my talk page in general: that should be done only for the usual reasons of inappropriate personal information, potentially libelous statements, spamming, etc., except in cases such as mass removal/replacement of content where the intent is to damage or disfigure the page, or to hijack it for some illegitimate purpose. Clearly abusive comments can be reverted, but I'd rather decide for myself whether to hide them. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I see. I'm sorry for my presumption. Thanks for explaining. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

TA4APO[rare-soeevnmorspecial,ta!!,nowurizIS! 05:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to point out that Sven's story is a bit sad, but it's too late now — I wouldn't necessarily block him on sight for abusing multiple accounts, but I do block his IPs as soon as he starts in with the personal attacks. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

mk:'but I do block his IPs ORPRAPSwarnOREVNBETRtalk~chuktrys2? 05:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

though I'm often at a loss about how to respond.DUNWURI,u=[r]doingud;)welbuild d=[dis]betrworld,startin w/FASILITATINKLEARKOMUNIKATN[ironik,uh?]THRUABETRDICT[nINCL.DISABLD[nonlyBLIND1S!]ALONGDAWAY,nobltask!hug
PSdun'esitateASKIN4WORDGROUPSitypd o/mytalk-ilgladlyRITEOUT[wGRUPSikan,c?

ppsOFKORS,atimes ikanbTONGUE I/CHEK[fe.ABUVHEDR],IRONIK/SARKY etc2,juslikeany'normal[?]pesn-dadunSIMPL.TINGS,otoh,itssv.HUMAN-ta4getinit!![nnojusme,isawu w/odr'problem'editrs doso2,kepup dagudwork,pl.teikar no2BURNOUT[ortypurslf in2rsii..]movd/emotnlhug[asexual1tho;) btw'so it looks like we're going to be playing whack-a-mole with this idiot for a while, until they realize how pointless this..DADWASMYREF/alusn[u-idiot-namin;) 05:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a Swedish friend who has problematic English, but let me tell you, I’m not exaggerating at all when I say that it looks like Shakespeare compared to this twaddle. @Metaknowledge, I myself would prefer that you obstruct his IPs on sight. --Romanophile (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

GREATipa![edit] prapsMETASBUM'dmeik'erTHMslfS usfl?? 04:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


Dutch== Etymology=== {Brabantian}} Pronunciation=== {rfp}} Proverb=== {head|nl|proverb}}<Y.HED??[IFI'DASKmoreditrs `codecat[c.myq.ther..]dad'dspredaburdn..

  1. small things also deserve apreciation118.160.168.113


owdo isavthis,incl.daref/sources?? <nocode> ==Dutch==


2015 (not comparable)

  1. (predicative) not very good
    Mijn conditie is wel wat platte kak, maar ZALIG [ sic ] toerke gelopen met... [10]
    (over muziekalbum) De nieuwe Netsky is weer dezelfde platte kak als altijd. [11]


2015 ? (plural platte kakken, diminutive plat kakje or plat kakske n)

  1. (sop) soft stool

</nocode> ORCANU CONTACTcodecat?

+OW2LINKsop2our tekniklterms/list?

ps.ta[al!]4alfdayofBLOKLESeditin[difs'd speak4mslf[tho most~dutch.. 09:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Information of language categoriy pages[edit]

I'd like the information on these categories to be modified a bit:

  1. [[Category:Vietnamese language]]
  • Family: Austroasiatic (aav) > Mon-Khmer (mkh) > Vietic (mkh-vie)
    Ancestors: Proto-Austroasiatic (aav-pro) > Proto-Mon-Khmer (mkh-pro) > Proto-Vietic (mkh-vie-pro) > Middle Vietnamese (mkh-mvi)
  1. [[Category:Muong language]]
  • Family: Austroasiatic (aav) > Mon-Khmer (mkh) > Vietic (mkh-vie)
    Ancestors: Proto-Austroasiatic (aav-pro) > Proto-Mon-Khmer (mkh-pro) > Proto-Vietic (mkh-vie-pro)
  1. [[Category:Rade language]]
  • Family: Austronesian (map) > Malayo-Polynesian (poz) > Malayo-Sumbawan (poz-msa) > Malayo-Chamic (poz-mcm) > Chamic (cmc)
    Ancestors: Proto-Austronesian (map-pro) > Proto-Malayo-Polynesian (poz-pro) > Proto-Malayo-Sumbawan (poz-msa-pro) > Proto-Malayo-Chamic (poz-mcm-pro) > Proto-Chamic (cmc-pro)
  1. [[Category:Jarai language]]
  • Family: Austronesian (map) > Malayo-Polynesian (poz) > Malayo-Sumbawan (poz-msa) > Malayo-Chamic (poz-mcm) > Chamic (cmc)
    Ancestors: Proto-Austronesian (map-pro) > Proto-Malayo-Polynesian (poz-pro) > Proto-Malayo-Sumbawan (poz-msa-pro) > Proto-Malayo-Chamic (poz-mcm-pro) > Proto-Chamic (cmc-pro)
  1. [[Category:Khmer language]]
  • Family: Austroasiatic (aav) > Mon-Khmer (mkh)
    Ancestors: Proto-Austroasiatic (aav-pro) > Proto-Mon-Khmer (mkh-pro)
  1. [[Category:Tày language]]
  • Family: Tai-Kadai (qfa-tak) > Tai (tai)
    Ancestors: Proto-Tai (tai-pro)
    Scripts: primary Han (or Nôm Tày), also transcribed in Latin (or quốc ngữ)
I've done the Mon-Khmer part, which is relatively simple and straightforward. Austronesian is an intricate tangle of competing theories/models/trees, which I would want to spend more time on in order to get up to speed before touching anything. I know the bare bones of the structure of the family, but I've only really worked with the Polynesian languages. This is all I really have time for tonight (It's after 11 p.m. here, and I haven't eaten dinner yet). Chuck Entz (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


22:00, 8 June 2015 Equinox (Talk | contribs) deleted page in a moment (Non-idiomatic sum-of-parts term: please see WT:SOP: in a year; in two weeks) :YR=YR,momnt=lescleartho[1'5orlonger,20?>v.soon[ilgetblokdeir o/sightho:( 07:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

itryd2avoid rplyinthis[ andz[uh]forsti guers..[edit]

I have a Swedish friend who has problematic English=SKILPROB, but let me tell you, I’m not exaggeratingHM.. at all when I say that it looks like ShakespeareTALK~'TWADL.. compared to this twaddleCIVILPPL DEMSUCH REFofensiv:(. @Metaknowledge, I myself would prefer that you obstruct his IPs on sight. --Romanophile (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: you’re willing to write dictionary entries legiblymostliwords,c/p[THO STIL/ALREDYo/vergeOFWO IKANDOO, but you can’t write to people like a normal human being?GEN,DEMDOFENSIV[BUT=POINT INIT-DISABLD=NOT'NORML RE.DEIR'ANDICAP,TRU Am I missing something here?SINS10YRS.IASK4BUTN 2LEAVspoknMSGS@TALK,I/VAIN..[OWCOMblindPPL GETacomodated[p.layout4ex,no1givsROMANOardtime4beinDEPREDSD[EVNGREATR STIGMAithout,butaANDISABLD NEDS2TYPHIS andzinflamd4CREATURCOMFORTS ABLBODYDPPL?? --Romanophile (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)KAPS= 02:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)'S

The problem isn’t that you are disabled. The problem is that nobody has any idea what the fuck you’re saying. What’s your disability, anyway? Are you an amputee? --Romanophile (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
He has w:Repetitive strain injury. That means he can do just about anything you or I can do (as long as it doesn't take too much strength), but if it involves anything around the hands or wrists, it hurts like excruciating holy hell when he does it. He's obviously set his priorities on getting the entries right, since he knows his work is going to be removed if he doesn't. The big problem is that he's cutting corners so much on communication that even people who are sympathetic to him can't understand him all that much. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. But why doesn’t he seek some alternative to typing? I know that speech‐to‐text is imperfect, but it should at least be less dolorous, and it wouldn’t look like a jumbled mess. --Romanophile (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I think he's using public computers, so he can't install software or hardware. I've tried to think of solutions, but the closest I can get would be some kind of contraption attached to another body part that isn't affected, like his head. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Would typing with the feet be feasible? --Romanophile (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Here's a thought experiment for you: what would happen if you went to the public library and signed up for a computer, sat down, took off a shoe and started typing with your toes? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
People would think that I’m ‘stupid,’ because lord knows the only reasons anybody ever does something that’s ‘unusual’ is because they’re either ‘lazy’ or ‘stupid.’ In reality, the people who make such assumptions are the fools. If the owners of the computers give him any shit, he can explain his disability to them. --Romanophile (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
dragon naturally speaking worksadream[A.4ABLDBODYD1S!],onlyNOPUBLIKLIBRARYinstalzit,evnwentheySPORTacesibilitysignsn'vSOUNDPROFCUBICLS[MAKAO]-tryin2DONATEDASOFWARE2'm[kaohsiung]wasDECLINED:(( 14:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

People would think that I’m ‘stupid,’ because lord knows the only reasons anybody ever does something that’s ‘unusual’ is because they’re either ‘lazy’ or ‘stupid.’ In reality, the people who make such assumptions are the fools. IFNOW'Ddoun2othrs..[myshrthnd='unusual111.248.199.73 03:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


14:28, 9 June 2015 SemperBlotto (Talk | contribs) deleted page be off about (just too many errors)


e) (Deletion log); 08:01 . . SemperBlotto (Talk | contribs) deleted page shorten one's rotation ‎(Not dictionary material: please see WT:CFI: sum of parts) nevnIFitwer-sop=GUD4LEARNRS[usrfrendlynes=NOstrongpointofwt.. 11:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

iprovidedQUOT>?![edit] NRILIgoin2DADGUYsusrp=futail:(((((((((


d=stupidEP'rule'"NOLINKINI/EX.SENTENSES=sousrhostailUGUYS'DBashamd[asucaryCOLECTIVRESPONSBILITI:( 4NOBENFITWASOEVA[linxdunbodr,rilinot

nifuno wotfoloinstatmntmeansW/OKONTXTu=clearvoyant:([edit]

08:02 . . SemperBlotto (Talk | contribs) deleted page play high minutes ‎(nah) budadeditor'sbenRERORIZIND=PLACE4dekad+,jez

Deletion of Graecicize and related forms[edit]

Recently you deleted Graecicize, alternate form Grecicize, and related forms, claiming that it was a creative invention or protologism. Did you actually search for the word before making this assertion? Just on Google I found uses in scholarly literature dating from the 19th Century to the present. This deletion was done en masse and without any discussion. It's no longer possible for me to go back and check the history to see what was sourced or what could have been cited, but I note that no sources were required for anglicize or Latinize. Please restore these entries. P Aculeius (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Please provide examples. All I find on Google books is a single sentence in a journal article, with three other sources containing identical wording of the same paragraph- so they're not independent.
I think the problem is that our entries are arranged by precise spelling, and the spelling you used for your entry is very close to a real spelling, but not quite (plus it's capitalized- but that could have been fixed, and wouldn't affect the Google results). Search engines are designed to give you correct results with almost-correct spellings, but for us, grecize and grecicize are completely different. If you think about it Graecicize would have to be interpreted as "make Graecic", and Graecic only seems to exist as bad OCR of old Latin manuscripts' "Graecis" (there might be a couple of English uses in that mess, but it has to be extremely rare, at least).
I'm sorry your first experience had to be so unpleasant, but fixing everything wrong with your entry would have made it substantially the same as the entry at grecize, and it would be silly to delete other people's work to replace it with yours. Feel free to improve on the entry at grecize, and to add alternative-form entries for those spellings that actually exist per our Criteria for inclusion, but please read our formatting rules at Entry layout explained so you won't have any more of your efforts undone by similar misunderstandings.
The problem with having a dictionary that anyone can edit is that it requires constant vigilance to maintain our standards, and the sad truth is it takes far more time and effort to deal with near-misses than out-and-out vandalism. I have no doubt that you have the potential to be an excellent editor once you understand how this site is put together and works, so I hope this doesn't turn you off on the whole thing. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I do know a little bit about Wiktionary policies concerning inclusion. This isn't my first foray. It's not fair to assume that I merely invented the word, or tried to promote someone else's dubious and unrepeated creation. I knew the word, it seems, since I started to use it in an essay, then stopped to ask myself whether it was a real word. I Googled it and found several examples covering a century or more. I'm not sure exactly how many came up, because for some reason, I'm getting different hits at different times. This afternoon I saw sources from 1892 and 2005; later I found sources from 1917, 1992, and 2002. I've included links to those below:
I'm reasonably sure that I cited the first of these in the original entry. And if Google turns up at least three independent sources covering several decades, there are probably many more uses that aren't on Google. I wasn't familiar with "grecize" and couldn't find any other words to mean the same thing, hence my decision to create an entry for "Graecicize" and follow it up with variants. I'm not saying that "Graecicize" or "Grecicize" is the only word, or the most common word to say the same thing. But it's clearly been used for a logical meaning in scholarly literature over a long period of time. It has two spelling variants, due to the ae vowel, either of which may be capitalized or not, and it conjugates regularly. It's clearly a word, and people might expect to encounter it from time to time when reading about classical languages or Balkan culture. I believe that it meets the criteria for inclusion. P Aculeius (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
One can improve the specificity of Google searches by putting each form inside double quotation marks, ie, "graecicize"|"graecicizes"|"graecicizing"|"graecicized". One can also copy and paste the search in Google Scholar and Google Groups search. Put whatever good citations you find on Citations:Graecicize. If you find many, make sure you have at least three for each definition that seems warranted. That is usually the best way. Sometimes one discovers that the word is used in an unexpected way if one starts from actual usage. DCDuring TALK 03:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This search, from US, finds 90 citations (raw count, actual about 50, usable lower yet) at Google Books. DCDuring TALK 03:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I decided to restore both the lemma and the alternative form and see how they fare in Requests for verification. @P Aculeius: as I said, precise spelling and capitalization matter, and none of your cites is the same in those respects, so I don't see how either spelling could pass based on what you've got so far- but maybe more will turn up. You may also notice that two of the three you gave have it in quotes, which suggests that the authors didn't feel it was a real word. I messed up the notification by misspelling the template name, so here goes again... Now that I have had the benefit of looking through that search, I would say there are quite a few good ones in that- so it may very well pass. Pleae post these to rfv. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I've tried to provide examples for each usage, although I didn't spy any examples for the third one, which I think rather piggybacks on the first two. I may have gone overboard, but I wanted to be sure that the examples covered a fair span of time; there was one from the 1850's, too, but looking at it I thought it looked rather lousy, as the scholarship seemed obviously outdated or perhaps even inaccurate; that might not vitiate the use of the word, but if the author sounds like a crackpot, it might not be the best source to use. I also wanted to be sure that there were examples of both spellings, each capitalized and not. A number of sources weren't available in good previews, making it difficult to identify the precise author or article title, or get accurate publication data; so I concentrated on the others until I thought adding any more would just be repetitive. So, is this now sufficiently verified as a legitimate word? P Aculeius (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't doubt the legitimacy of some capitalization and some definitions, based on the attestation you have provided. However, each definition for Graecicize should be attested with three attestations with that exact spelling and capitalization. Some of the attestation is not supportive of the capitalized spelling. We may as well start an entry for graecicize by simply copying all of Graecicize and deleting all the attestation not supportive of that capitalization. We also should probably copy all the formatted citations (both capitalizations) to Citations:Graecicze AND Citations:graecicize. I hope that each definition will have three attestations in at least one of the capitalizations. We will figure out what to do if we can reach three citations for a definition only by combining the capitalizations. DCDuring TALK 18:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Right, each of the four forms now has between three and five citations. I have my doubts as to how useful it is to have the same word defined the same way four times, merely because there are two nearly-identical spelling variants, either of which may be capitalized or not. To say nothing of twelve more forms representing regular conjugation of each. I think it would make more sense to have all of the citations combined in one place, and all of the variants redirect to a primary form (probably Graecicize as it's formed from a proper noun, and ae seems to be the more etymological form). But if nobody else agrees, I'll be guided by the more experienced editors... P Aculeius (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Etymological considerations are always trumped by attestation and usage. All definitions are supposed to be at lemmas.
In principle I like to put each definition only at the entry for which it seems the most common form and relay on {{alternative form of}} to direct users to other entries as required. A less effortful approach is to put all definitions at the most common (or most common modern) form for all senses combined and rely on "alt form" to get users to that entry. This can lead to error on the part of users who would rely on us for some reason. DCDuring TALK 16:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'd be happy to consolidate them all under Graecicize. As I said, there's no clear preference between the four forms, but to the extent that there is a preference, I think it's this one. Plus, it has the advantage of being the most grammatically sound and etymological. But the issue is the number of citations showing it in an alternate form. If the goal is to show how the word is used, then it shouldn't matter which spelling the author used or whether he chose to capitalize it. There are quite a lot of examples, but they're divided between these four slight variants. It doesn't make sense to me to list them under four different entries, when those entries could simply refer people to the main one; nor does it make sense to include only references that use the same spelling and capitalization, since that would imply a uniformity of usage that doesn't exist. P Aculeius (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
You could arrange them all (all spellings, both capitalizations) on Citations:Graecicize, limiting those in the entry under the definitions to those spelled Graecicize that best show usage of that definition. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I note that definitions 2 and 3 don't have three valid attestations in all spellings combined. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Definition three could be merged into definition 1 if you feel strongly that it is actually in use notwithstanding the lack of attestation. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

praps he'dEFINEdaterm:([edit] usualsuspect:((

Ἀριθμοί - Koine[edit]

I have labelled Ἀριθμοί (possibly an incorrect method) as Koine - do you have a category for Koine terms, are you labelling them etc. Hopefully you are a suitable person to ask! thanks   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 11:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently we haven't been labelling Koine, though it would seem to make sense to do so- not as a language in its own right, but as a variety along the same lines as regional dialects. I've added it to Module:labels/data so use as a label will categorize into Category:Koine Greek and link to w:Koine Greek.
As for being a suitable person to ask: I'm far from the most active or the most knowledgable editor in Ancient Greek. User:Angr would seem to be the most knowledgeable active editor, and I would guesss User:ObsequiousNewt the most active knowledgable editor. You could also check at WT:AGRC. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
We already have a category Category:Post-classical Ancient Greek; I wonder if there's really a difference between that and Koine. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware we have two varieties of "post-classical Greek" allowed for by {{etyl}}:
1. "grc-koi": (300 BCE - 300 CE) Koine (syn. Alexandrian, Hellenistic, Common, New Testament Greek)
2. "gkm":(approx 300-1453 CE) Byzantine Greek (syn. Medieval Greek)
I think that in Wiktionary these, along with Ancient/Classical Greek come under the broad heading of "Ancient Greek". Greek (the modern variety) is everything after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. But then again I am willing to be "shot down in flames"   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 16:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


kanuguyz pl.OTOMATE[MASK!DAPOSTINGovrther? 02:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

international waters[edit]

Was this entry deleted without a request for deletion? I can't find the log. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I apparently speedied it, but I don't remember anything about it. At this point, I don't have any strong objections to restoring it. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Restored and expanded, with redlinks. DCDuring TALK 12:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


canimov[slfcreated]pagesMYSLF?2.PARAMETRhead=wot? 03:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


What's up with him lately? Why is he trying to portray me as a liar? And his supposed claim that I am intentionally making bad edits is bogus. Purplebackpack89 02:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he said you were intentionally making bad edits. There are two parts to this story: one surprisingly boneheaded edit, and one rather snide comment about that edit. Now maybe it was just an absent-minded oversight that you would have gone back and fixed, or maybe you were tired- but it was still the kind of edit that would make one reconsider whitelisting a new user.
The fact is, you have a very consistent pattern of loudly criticising others and almost never admitting your own mistakes. Irritation at said pattern has led Ungoliant to react in some unfortunate ways, but you act as if you were just helping little old ladies across the street and saving babies from burning buildings, and he suddenly brutally attacked you for no reason.
There's more to civility than just refraining from clearly-identifiable personal attacks. You've been implicitly attacking the competence and character of everyone who hasn't agreed with you since day one, but because it's implicit, you think it's ok. It's not. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it was an oversight, coupled with the fact that it's just something that I've never done before. But Ungoliant could've addressed it any number of ways, and he decided to pick the one that was the most demeaning towards me. It's understandable that I would not like that. Purplebackpack89 06:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I also think it's a stretch to say that I've been attacking everyone's competence and character. Questioning why somebody did something doesn't necessarily mean I think they're wholly incompetent, it means I wouldn't have done that one particular edit. Purplebackpack89 06:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Presentation of alternative ranks for taxa and definition priorities[edit]

At Capitonidae, I have presented Capitoninae as a synonym, which is true in the sense that it has the same genera as members.

But this raises the question in my mind, that I've long suppressed, of what actually constitutes a definition of a taxon that is useful for Wiktionary users and does not do violence to the systematics, including its past and likely future flux. At least six kinds of definitions occur in out taxonomic entries:

  1. Hypernym-based: is-a-kind-of, occurring within a higher taxon
  2. Hyponym-based: consists of (lower taxa)
  3. Vernacular name-based: is-called in English
  4. Image-based
  5. Differentia-based: unlike others in next higher taxon because
  6. Unsystemaitic predicate-based: found-in, useful-for, causing, etc. (not really a definition)

Only the hypernym-based definition is forced by {{taxon}}, which also forces the exact taxon name and its rank to take on an apparent importance and permanence in our definition that the churn of reclassification, renaming and reranking does not warrant. Having only a single hypernym is often not very helpful to a lay user

OTOH, we often don't have any of the other four possible types of true definitions, or even instructive predicates. Some of the information gaps are just because we haven't gotten around to it, but some information is not readily available, it indeed it is available at all. My personal preference is to provide as many entries as possible with content under Hypernyms and Hyponyms L4 headers, with vernacular names, and with images, mostly because such information is more available. Do you assign any of these higher value to Wiktionary?

A specific question is whether the wording of {{taxon}} should be altered to diminish the apparent permanence of the hypernym-based definition. For example, a taxonomic definition which now reads: {taxon|genus|family|Otidae}} could be "A taxonomic genus placed in the family Otidae" or optionally with some qualifier like "A taxonomic genus usually placed in the family Otidae", with other qualifiers including "historically" or "formerly", "sometimes", "until recently", even "briefly".

Another question is the one that got me started on this: Should reranking (as in Capitonidae/Capitoninae) be presented as making the two synonymous? Should that be limited to cases where the constituent taxa are identical or is major overlap sufficient?

Sorry to take up so much space and have such a mass of questions, but experience tells me you are almost the only active Wiktionarian to be both willing and able to take on such matters. DCDuring TALK 19:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


BUTbrands=WORDS2,NO?[ETYM/PRON.FE111.248.195.52 16:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

See WT:BRAND. There's quite a bit of disagreement over this issue, so it's hard to be completely sure about the policy. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Having Portuguese "esfregar" as a descendant at Latin "frico"[edit]

You reverted my edit at Latin frico on 10 July. See Wiktionary:About_Latin#Descendants. It says that the only descendants to be listed are those with entries whose etymology section would identify the word as the direct etymological progenitor. Terms descending from Latin derivatives should be listed on their entries instead. Portuguese esfregar comes from Latin *exfricāre or from Latin effricāre, it does not descend directly from Latin frico, if an interpretation of "directly" is to be trusted. Therefore it is not to be listed. It is also not mentioned that the lack of Wiktionary pages for the terms from which esfregar may come from will alter this practice. 2001:8A0:4302:7901:5D50:D3DE:24B4:D5FF 21:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Five days have passed and affected pages that I come across and would have edited are accumulating: clavis, puer, avis, fallo, gusto... This simple and frequent contribution of mine is halted by your reversion Chuck, which you do not talk about. This way, I will eventually revert your reversion and stop myself from being barred from editing. At Help:Reverting#Rollback the situation is mentioned as "Rollback is supposed to be used to revert obvious vandalism. Rolling back a good-faith edit, without explanation, may be misinterpreted as "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and reverting it doesn't need an explanation". Some editors are sensitive to such perceived slights; if you use the rollback feature other than for vandalism (for example, because undo is impractical due to the large page size), it is courteous to leave an explanation on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the user, whose edit(s) you have reverted." The reversion destroys the contribution, so addressing it should be given priority. Figures show Wikimedia is loosing its editors rapidly and there are more reversions than ever. In this controversial community, practically all of one’s simple contributions have been subject to a struggle resembling a court case! With this being another after enough of them. Pushing people out, it becomes the playground of an uncurbed group of editors rather than being open to contributors. Wiktionary and the other projects were not intended to be this way, unfortunately, it is the reality I must face. 2001:8A0:4320:3D01:B55E:A64B:6AE9:F132 10:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@2001:8A0:4320:3D01:B55E:A64B:6AE9:F132: I’ve moved esfregar to effricō, which I've just created. You are right that descendants should be listed at the page of the immediate etymon; however, no entry existed for esfregar's etymon at the time you were reverted. In future, please only move descendants to the right place, rather than just deleting them; if no entry exists for a given etymon in the future, you can mark an indirect descendant with {{qual|via etymon}} and, if you like, add a request for the etymon on the pertinent requests page. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, an additional moving where applicable in future cases. For clavis at least, only deleting was needed as the proper entries already listed the descendants. 2001:8A0:4320:3D01:9DD8:C508:783E:8EB0 14:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@2001:8A0:4320:3D01:B55E:A64B:6AE9:F132: Yeah, that's fine. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Citrus limon[edit]

Or is that Citrus × limon? The external databases disagree. I can't sort out which should be the main entry. Google Scholar search favors Citrus limon, AFAICT. Please help. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

See, especially, the Tropicos link in the entry. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, it's probably Citrus × limon, but I don't think anyone would fault you for keeping it at Citrus limon. The truth is, the cultivated citrus are rife with hybridization, and it's only recently (I'm not sure about the dates or other details) that it's all been scientifically demonstrated (though everyone pretty much assumed it was the case). That means that the absence of the × in a lot of older publications isn't as significant as if it occured in recent ones. The same no doubt applies to Citrus sinensis vs. Citrus × sinensis, and I'm sure to several others.
As for Tropicos: from that taxonomic note, they seem to be leaning towards Citrus × limonia, but still remaining unequivocably equivocal- they're great for researching synonyms, but they tend not to make their own judgments about which of the valid names is the accepted one. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The recent Scholar hits are almost as overwhelmingly favoring Citrus limon (100:3) over Citrus x limon as earlier hits (50:1). Maybe I should just do what I would do for a non-taxonomic word: go with the relative usage frequency.
I've certainly noticed that in many cultivated species, both of animals and plants, normal humans make distinctions that traditional taxonomy has trouble supporting: the species concept is too general and subspecific taxa would be in constant flux as humans interfere with 'natural' processes. Dogs, cats, cattle, horses, cabbages, grain, and Citrus, Prunus mostly give me fits. DCDuring TALK 01:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
And Citrus limonia is favored by a similar ratio over Citrus × limonia. DCDuring TALK 01:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Probably not the same Citrus limonia. One other factor to consider: both Wikispecies and English Wikipedia have Citrus × limon. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Citrus × limonia var. limetta is a synonym of Citrus medica, the others are of Citrus limon' per The plant list. DCDuring TALK 03:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


You'd probably find it easier to do mass re-categorization, and other changes, with AutoWikiBrowser. It has options for making lists of entries, including e.g. from the contents of a certain category, and then you can tell it to make certain replacements (such as of the old category name to the new category name); it will then show you the diff and let you check that it's correct before you hit "save". - -sche (discuss) 03:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi Chuch Entz, I noticed your edit. I take it adding images here is not supported? It was my intention to enhance the page with an image. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's ok to add images that show the item defined in order to reinforce the text. Your image, while it definitely added an artistic flair, was more of a commentary than an illustration, and was a bit too far off the topic. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
OTOH, the translation of Cocteau that is the caption of the image looks like an acceptable citation. DCDuring TALK 13:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as a citation. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Would you add it to the page? If yes, please show me how you would do it, so I can bare in mind. Thank you. Lotje (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi Chuck Entz. Do you know what would be a good category for lancelet? It doesn’t seem to fit any of the subcategories of Category:en:Animals. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I just created Category:Chordates and merged Category:Tunicates into it, along with all the lancelets I could find. There aren't really enough of all the non-vertebrate chordates to support subphylum categories, and I seem to be the only one who's ever used Category:Tunicates, so I didn't go through the formalities. Now I've got to make sure that I take care of any redlinks in all of the Category:Vertebrates language-specific categories. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What about coccidian? — Ungoliant (falai) 17:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't figured out what to do with protozoans, yet. They used to be a fairly natural grouping, but now they're split off in various ways and some are allied with various other groups, and I haven't taken the time yet to get up to speed on the recent classifications (my formal education in the life sciences dates to back in the 1980s). Perhaps User:Metaknowledge will have some insights on this. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Categories are essential, but we seem to be revisiting the inherent problems of phylogenetic vs. older approaches to taxonomic classification. Perhaps we need to make the categories reflect our own needs when we get to these reaches. The relatively small number of non-craniate chordates makes me wonder whether we shouldn't just toss them all into Category:Non-craniate chordates and have a small explanation at the category page. DCDuring TALK 19:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
That issue was resolved by having non-craniate chordates in the root Category:Chordates. Right now there are 17 English entries that could go in your proposed category, and only a handful of languages could possibly come close to that.
Ungoliant's current question is about the Coccidia. If you look at species:Coccidia you'll see an L2 header for "Classifications", which lists 4 different ways the clade has been classified, with the most recent dated 1993. The synonym species:Coccidea and w:Coccidia both have single trees, but the articles on the taxa in the trees get more and more wishy-washy the higher you go. The impression I get is that no one has published anything at all comprehensive or authoritative that would integrate the cellular-morphology approach with the molecular-biology approach for most of the single-celled eukaryote higher taxa. Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like there isn't a lot of instutional interest/funding for anything that doesn't directly affect the members of multi-cellular clades as a disease or a symbiote. Chuck Entz (talk)
After looking at things a bit more, I think we should be safe with a category for the alveolates. I'll create that now. Above that, it gets fuzzy. Below that, Wikispecies and Wikipedia disagree, but only at the top couple of levels. I'm not sure if we'll need to subdivide the alveolates any time soon- but, you never know. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The new Category of Life classification (See links in e-mail I sent you.) gives superphylum Alveolata, phylum Miozoa, subphylum Myzozoa, infraphylum Apicomplexa, and superclass Sporozoa as hypernyms of class Coccidea, for each of which there are obvious English cognates. It does not contain a subclass Coccidia. This new classification scheme is a consensus scheme designed to meet the needs of general taxonomic databases, including stability. It would seem to be perfect for us. Cavalier-Smith was one of the authors. DCDuring TALK 21:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that the whole thing is madness, and trying to follow modern phylogenetics is not necessarily our best plan, especially because a lot of the terms (although we tend to lack them as of yet) are dependent on outdated classifications in and of themselves. Luckily, the category system can evolve even faster that an alveolate, and I would recommend broader categories until more entries show up in them, in which case we can adapt. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)




  • Warning: This action has been automatically identified as harmful.

Unconstructive edits will be quickly reverted, and egregious or repeated unconstructive editing will result in your account or IP address being blocked. If you believe this action to be constructive, you may submit it again to confirm it.

A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: probably vandalism. If you believe your edit was flagged in error, you may report it on the Wiktionary:Grease pit. +GREASPITrjcts:/'disentrest/mail?svenverelst70ATgmail.com114.45.227.159 14:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


Samantha IS NOT an 18th century US name. Please see the Samantha wikipedia page for proof. The are a number of examples of use in the UK in the 17th Century. Solatiumz (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Solatiumz

درویکی امیزش لختی[edit]

Hello, when you have a moment could you delete درویکی امیزش لختی please? Thanks for your help. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Turkish templates[edit]

The original set of templates meant for very specific uses for Turkish words had names suggesting a far more general purposes; e.g., "second-person singular imperative", which I understood to be the main complaint; in any case, the decision to delete, when taken, applied to these generically-named templates and not to a template named, e.g., "tr-second-person singular possessive of". The header of the relevant entry on Wiktionary:Requests for deletion has also been struck through, and the section ends with the text "Kept after 23 months of non-deleting." Reason enough to hold that the "deprecated" label does not apply to this template, which did not even exist under this name until more than a year after the discussion was held.

It is quite understandable why (most of) the templates were not deleted. Not only are they used on thousands upon thousands of pages in mainspace, they also provide quite relevant information. So just deleting them is not an option; they would have to be expanded:

  • {{tr-second-person singular possessive of|abla}}<span class='use-with-mention'>second-person singular possessive form of <span class='mention'>[[abla#Turkish|abla]]</span></span>;
  • {{tr-second-person singular possessive of|acemi}}<span class='use-with-mention'>second-person singular possessive form of <span class='mention'>[[acemi#Turkish|acemi]]</span></span>;
  • and so on.

The best short-term option, in my opinion, is to convince some bot owner to have their bot systematically replace mainspace occurrences of "{{second-person singular possessive of|" by "{{tr-second-person singular possessive of|", and likewise for the other extant templates listed at Lots of templates by User:Sae1962, and just accept and embrace the {{tr-...}} templates until someone creates a better solution.  --Lambiam 06:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the closure was wrong: the consensus was to delete them, but they had to be orphaned first. You have it exactly backward: the Turkish-specific ones are the real offenders. They create all kinds of useless categories, and there are too many of them. The same information can be shown in the entry using the {{inflection of}} template without all the "second-person singular possessives referring to people wearing hats" categories (I'm only exaggerating slightly...). I got rid of most of them, but then a question was raised about how accurate the information was, and it was suggested that I was just repackaging misinformation. Since I don't speak Turkish I had no way to verify anything, so I backed off. And that's the way it's been for over a year. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks like this is never going to be sorted at this rate. Category:Turkish form-of templates to be deleted has been in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for ages; I've found being unable to empty the latter quite irksome. Can't we just have a bot replace all the transclusions of these templates with transclusions of {{inflection of}} (with the corresponding parameters specified)? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
That's basically what I was doing before, but I had to use other templates and kludge things a bit to make it work. The {{inflection of}} template has since been made more general-purpose, so it can now handle all of that stuff. The problem, though is that the information provided by the template is over-specific, and only someone who knows Turkish would know what to leave out. I don't remember the exact reason CodeCat gave, but I notice that the person who posted above left some puzzled edit comments when trying to fix up the existing templates.
Turkish is an agglutinative language, so the list of affixes is huge and the boundaries between inflection and derivation are really murky- it's possible to replace whole sentences with just a single word and its affixes. Sae1962 has real problems judging what's significant and what's background noise, so he/she just creates categories and entries for everything.
Even with English entries, they've had hundreds of entries deleted as SOP. In the case of Turkish, they've had a profound affect on the treatment of the language as a whole, and I suspect a competent, sensible Turkish editor would redo a great deal of it. We don't seem to have many of those nowadays: for some reason, we seem to attract people with agendas, who want to redo all the etymologies so that everything traces back to the Turks, or who want to introduce all kinds of made-up terms ported from other Turkic languages in order to replace all the non-Turkic loanwords.
Sae1962 also has problems with English spelling, so you see things like "possesive" in their templates and category names. I wish we could do something about it, but the Wiktionary community has a real blind spot when it comes to people with bad judgment who edit in good faith (or even in marginally good faith, as was the case with Pass a Method and Gtroy/Luciferwildcat). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Right, I've just looked at göç#Declension; it's remarkably complex. The predicative forms of that noun conjugate! What I take from that is that {{tr-second-person singular possessive of}} actually provides too little information, since that noun seems to have twelve second-person singular possessive forms. {{tr-second-person singular possessive of}} is currently transcluded in göçün, where it reads "second-person singular possessive form of göç"; however, it is specifically the nominative singular form of that. Unfortunately, I don't know how we'd add that missing information, since "singular" would appear twice, and would therefore look redundant.
It would appear to me that the information added is either overspecific or underspecific. The only practicable courses of action I can see are the deletion of every transclusion of these templates and their mass replacement with transclusions of {{inflection of}} (thereby preserving that over- or underspecification). We need to do one or the other, otherwise these'll just laungish here for aeons. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
See {{tr-possessive form of}}. It was created specifically to replace this mess of templates. —CodeCat 17:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Ah, thank you; that's nice and clear. Still, I think it's slightly deficient because |3= lacks switches for grammatical number; can that shortcoming be fixed? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't make sense to include it in the case parameter. The order of the suffixes is -plural-possessive-case. So morphologically, it's the possessive of either the singular or the plural of the noun. The possessive itself doesn't get a plural ending. Think of it as having four separate nouns, one meaning "car", with possessive "my car" and another meaning "cars" with possessive "my cars". —CodeCat 19:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Ah, right you are! Reading w:Turkish grammar#Nouns explained it to me, and it was obvious once I realised that the second-person singular possessive desinences -ün, -ünü, -üne, -ünde, -ünden, and -ünün are the same as the second-person plural possessive desinences -in, -ini, -ine, -inde, -inden, and -inin — it's just that the former are vocalically harmonious with the ö in the stem, whereas the latter are vocalically harmonious with the e in the plural suffix -ler. In that case, can't we just bot-replace every transclusion of {{tr-second-person singular possessive of|word}} with {{tr-possessive form of|word|2s}}? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
It depends on what "word" is. If it's always the singular form, then things might not be right if it's actually the possessive of the plural. I don't think that saying "possessive of (plural)" is really all that good either, though. The normal practice on Wiktionary is to try to link things directly to lemmas as much as possible, and "form of (non-lemma)" is avoided. So I do think that {{tr-possessive form of}} needs an extra parameter to specify whether it's a possessive of the plural of the noun, or of the singular. I don't know where that should be added in, though. —CodeCat 00:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@CodeCat: But, if the entry transcludes {{tr-second-person singular possessive of}}, it will already be an erroneous use if it's used for a second-person plural possessive form… — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Having seen and cleaned up many of the existing random mess of templates, I don't trust them to have been used correctly in the first place. So they will need some checking. —CodeCat 01:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@CodeCat: I see. Well, if they're so unreliable, why not just delete the lot, and then recreate them by bot with better templature? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 08:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is an idea of which I don't know if it is realizable. Just like Wikipedia has the template {{multiple issues}} that can be wrapped around a sequence of templates signaling specific issues, could there be a template for wrapping up a sequence of templates identifying Turkish suffixes (such as number, possessive, case, tense, person) – each optional since something being unmarked is common and does not mean the absence of the meaning when marked (for example, number and tense are often left unmarked when clear from the context, which is not the same as being "singular" and "simple present")? This would also be more flexible, as in adding afterwards an overlooked possibility – as for evlerimizdeydim: "I was in our houses", first-person singular simple past locative of the first-person plural possessive of the plural of ev. Not only can the idea (and also specific tense- and person-identifying templates) be used for nouns and adjectives used predicatively, but also for Turkish verb forms.  --Lambiam 13:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


Your rollback was in error. — LlywelynII 01:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's three, so I'll leave it alone since you guys insist, but your rollback remains completely incorrect and we should be here to improve treatment, not merely use policy to feel better about ourselves while undoing corrections. — LlywelynII 01:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If I ever go to England, I intend to drive on the left side of the street, even if I would prefer that everyone drove on the right side. Going the opposite direction from everyone else doesn't improve treatment, it just makes things inconsistent and confuses people. As long as everyone is on the same page, users don't have to look at the edit history to see what "x" stands for. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI I have opened a thread in the BP about changing the automatic transliteration: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/July#Transliteration_of_.CE.9E. - -sche (discuss) 17:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

  • You are currently unable to edit pages on Wiktionary.*
  • You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, move, or create them.*

Editing from has been disabled by SemperBlotto <> for the following reason(s): Vandalism: repeat offense (multiple)

This block has been set to expire: *13:22, 19 October 2015*.

Even if blocked, you will *usually* still be able to edit your user talk page <> and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail.

category precision[edit]

Hi there. If you are into putting terms into more precise categories, I have often thought that many words in "astronomy" ought really to be in "cosmology" (several languages) but have never had the time to do anything about it (especially as I don't think our users actually use categories). SemperBlotto (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


I am perfectly aware that the root *dṓm and *demh₂- are equivocated on Wiktionary. However, I don't use Wiktionary as a reference when researching etymologies, because it's full of mistakes and largely unsourced and unargued. I feel hesitant to make such bold modifications to the website, especially when the information is backed up by numerous credible (but outdated) published sources. This is the evidence:

  1. Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence for an *h₂ in the root (despite LIV2)
  2. All recent etymological sources seem rather to derive dṓm from a root *dem-, without a laryngeal. Derivatives preclude the possibility of a laryngeal in the root, δμοῦς (dmoûs) < *dm-ōus, dominus < *dom-o/e-nos, etc.
  3. The roots are certainly related, however, but *demH- should be seen as an extended variant of *dem- and not as it's source.
You obviously are familiar with the issues involved and know more about this than I do, so I won't object if you change it back. I was mostly concerned that you might be reverting without checking things, thus my edit comment. You should probably bring up the issue with *dṓm and *demh₂- at the Etymology Scriptorum- if it's not good enough for your etymology, it's not good enough for the appendices, either. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

northern fur seal translations for WOTD?[edit]

k'oon is soon (10 August) to be a foreign WOTD. I have added entries for Callorhinus ursinus and northern fur seal. Could you take a look? Also, if you can find any Native American translations, they would make northern fur seal more interesting. The seals apparently ranged as far south as Baja. DCDuring TALK 16:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a pelagic species that only comes to land on remote islands, so only oceangoing peoples would be familiar with them. Most of the languages I've studied are from inland cultures, and I don't have good references handy for the few that aren't. Besides, my main focus has always been on plants, and I'm not alone on this: there are several ethnobotanies available but nothing to match them on the animal side. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Only you and -sche seemed like reasonable prospects, though I suppose I could get something in Navaho, though it might be a calque. DCDuring TALK 03:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

unrelated in vernacular-name entries[edit]

We use unrelated in many vernacular-name entries, eg, lungwort. Is there any conventional technical meaning to this, eg, "not in the same family"? If not, it seems to me a word that is fundamentally at odds with the good old tree of life, in which I am a (very distant) cousin of any specimen of Archaea. As a result it would seem it should be extirpated. What would you recommend as a replacement? Or should distance of relationship not be in our definitions at all?

In the case of [[lungwort]], species:Mertensia and species:Pulmonaria are in Boraginaceae and the others are each in different families. DCDuring TALK 22:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No, there's no specific technical meaning- it's kind of relative. Being in the same family might not mean much if the family is huge and diverse, while being in the same order might be enough with small, closely-related families. In the case of lungwort, though, it shouldn't be taken too literally: it looks to me like a shorthand way of saying that being a lungwort has nothing to do with being botanically related. That said, the Mertensias are different than the others in the list because they probably owe their "lungwort" common names to the fact that they were originally described as Pulmonaria virginica and Pulmonaria maritima. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't looked at the synonyms of Mertensia, so I completely missed that. Thanks.
Even the number of genera in a family doesn't mean much too much, though I've learned that birds, for example, seem to have a suspiciously large portion of monogeneric and monospecific families. DCDuring TALK 03:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Your revert on Serer[edit]

Hi Chuck. you reverted my edit here and I just wanted to make sure whether that was an error. Thanks. Tamsier (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

revert is for vandalism only[edit]

Warning:Hi chuck i want to inform you I'm dissapointed on what you doing i know revert is only for vandalism my edit is helpful as I see please before doing revert give information why you do that please. All my edit was helpful so if you see I edit an article don't revert it OK I fix and create article to this wiki but you revert or delete it without any inform so stop it because I see you do vandalism don't use your power to do bad things like Reverting abuse and other things those not helpful response to this message Weisenstar (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You've got a live one here, Chuck. This edit history would be very amusing if only you hadn't had to spend so much time fixing it. —JohnC5 15:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Revert is for vandalism only? Cite your source. I'm guessing it doesn't exist. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


老外 (section)

This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: adding one bad word and nothing else

You are not logged in. If you save your edits to this page, your IP address will be recorded in the page's history. For that and other reasons, you should create an account.

Please do not save test edits. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Inserting nonsense, knowingly adding false information and gratuitously removing content are considered vandalism, and editors who engage in such behavior may be blocked without a warning. BoldItalic LinkEmbedded fileReference



About roll back.[edit]

I were removing some actually bad ideas.Why rollback me?--Gmaildamn (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If this were an entry for some innocuous word, I might agree with you, but this is an obscenity normally used to express very negative ideas- the sentence is actually a fairly typical example of real usage. I don't talk like that, and I would rather nobody did, but we're an uncensored, descriptive dictionary, so as long as people talk like that in real life, we need to document it- warts and all. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Benwing2 (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It was entirely selfish: I don't really want to patrol a lot of edits that don't need it, and we need all the help we can get on the patrolling, anyway (you may notice that I made you a rollbacker and a patroller, in addition to an autopatroller). As far as I'm concerned, we don't whitelist accounts, we whitelist users. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Chuck Entz: Thank you for your edit on CLOUD. I have removed the worst part of mine. However, I had studied both Grimm's Law and Verner's Law before commencing any Talk Page edits. I can recognise etymological logic, or I would not attempt any etymologies. I was aware of the sound changes between Celtic and Germanic previously; but cringe at the assumption that A.S. HŌRE links with Welsh CARA (to love). Before editing any further Talk Pages I shall write out these laws and have them in front of me. My object with all this was to provide any alternatives that would lead to the most reliable etymologies in Wiktionary. I do not take chances, but as necessary can revert to 'The Story of Language' by C.L. Barber, which is basic compared to PhD level. A novice would state that HOG < Celtic, because of Cornish HOGH (pig) that is a wrong assumption, and yet might not see any connection between the words: Spanish HOJA and French FEUILLE (leaf) - both < Latin FOLIA. I appreciate any correction of a mere hypothesis. A friend who has a degree in ancient languages is soon to peruse all my talk page edits and he will have my permission to adjust any inaccuracies on my part, if I have left any wrong assumptions in the Talk list. By the way, who has led you to believe that Greek existed before 2000 BC? Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Andrew Many thanks for your reply - I have only just found it! Andrew H. Gray 20:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Andrew

Where did I say that? There may have been some form of Proto-Greek spoken in Greece about then, I suppose, but the first real evidence is centuries after that. The earliest attested versions of the different ancient Indo-European languages show enough differences that the common ancestor of all of them had to have been much earlier, but I wouldn't claim to know that much about the details of the chronology. As for your qualms about Old English hōre, there are some very strange semantic shifts that have taken place even in the history of English- see nice and sad for a couple of examples. The time depth between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Germanic had to have been quite a bit more than that. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Chuck Entz: You certainly have the right to revert my etymology; but it is not mine and has been attested by reliable dictionaries, so it is the reader that will lose out! Andrew H. Gray 07:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Andrew Sorry! No wonder that you reverted my edit! It was just a stupid repetition. My due apologies! Andrew H. Gray 08:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Andrew

enPR: == =getinold:( ==

ref 4 getsarning: This action has been automatically identified as harmful.

Unconstructive edits will be quickly reverted, and egregious or repeated unconstructive editing will result in your account or IP address being blocked. If you believe this action to be constructive, you may submit it again to confirm it.

A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: probably spam. If you believe your edit was flagged in error, you may report it on the Wiktionary:Grease pit.

Chuck, I’m kind of curious as to why you don’t delete this person’s messages. I know that she or he is not breaking any rules, but you don’t seem interested in these messages. And why does she or he keep poking you? Why not somebody else? --Romanophile (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


I think,that the meaning of "balar" was ok in sanskrit

Perhaps, but not in that script. We normally use Devanagari. I haven't checked, but it wouldn't surprise me if we already had an entry. See WT:ASA Chuck Entz (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The language link's alphabetical order[edit]


You have undone recently a reordering of language links that exist on the left side of each article, if the article exists in at least another language. What is the rule for ordering them, if any? I see that they are most often ordered according to the ISO 639-x code, which makes the search for another language not easy at all.--Sae1962 (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocking Private IP, is a violation of privacy... EVROPHA LVAA لواء‎ LAW[edit]

Hi, you are blocking me vor short period, just because I make term request, what is your problem ??? Keep cool man... Don't waste your time with me... KUSHTOS NEZT ?

Opulbegia Pêlgia Belgia...

  • 2A02:A03F:822:CF00:E56A:B430:16E:8F5D
  • 2A02:A03F:90F:9F00:5974:293A:D39E:86DD
  • 2A02:A03F:8FA:5100:79E9:A07D:F5F0:A15C

A‑shédu ana Me‑Ħèmédi abudduhu varashuluhu varasuluhu vanabiyou

Editing 'mirex'[edit]

Hello! Just wanted to understand why the 121 synonyms I added to mirex wiktionary entry were removed. Thanks! Matthewmaclennan (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It's simple: this is a dictionary, not a chemistry-industry publication. We define things and give information about their etymology and their use as words, phrases, etc. We don't try to explain them, or to give facts about them- that's the work of an encyclopedia. The Synonyms section is for the kinds of terms that could potentially be dictionary entries (see WT:CFI). While all of those may technically refer to the same compound, I doubt most of those would ever be used in written or spoken English to convey meaning- listed, perhaps, but not used in English. At any rate, 121 synonyms is excessive, if nothing else. You might want to talk to User:SemperBlotto about the limits to use of technical information in entries: he used to be a chemist, so he's more familiar with the range of information available. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)



Thanks for suggesting I create an account. Re. the Proto-Germanic reconstructions, many of the compound words I have created, such as *handabanô are sourced from Vladimir Orel's "A Handbook of Germanic Etymology". While many of his stems are now considered invalid, I didn't realise the same applied to his compounded words, so I'll be careful in future.

Thanks, --Theudariks (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


What you state is of all importance in this subject - I shall correct mine immediately - it was Funk & Wagnell's dictionary that keeps using Icelandic, and there was certainly no invasion from there! That dictionary reeks of being compiled independently of others. Andrew H. Gray 21:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Andrew


probably wont even see the day of light but i thought i would add it.

your take on this entry? --Fdena (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey could you look through this user's contribs[edit]

Special:Contributions/ I'm unsure what is usable. —JohnC5 01:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's time to block them again. We've blocked them a bunch of times for adding given-name categories that had very little relation to the nature of the pages they were added to. I'm not sure if it's a misused bot or a clueless human, but the likelihood of anything useful in their edits is so low that I just mass-deleted all of their new pages. Now to block them. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I knew you'd know what's going on! :)JohnC5 01:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Right after their 6-month block expired, they started up right where they left off, so I blocked them for a year, this time. Apparently it's not a bot, because they made and corrected a typo. They haven't improved much: adding English given-name categories to entries with a Dutch section and no English section, adding uppercase versions of lowercase entry-names to those entries with an asterisk in front of them and nothing else- not even wikilinking- adding diminutive-given-name categories to names that aren't diminutives... They're either very stubborn, very stupid, or (most likely), both. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
That is very strange. How soon after the block ended did the editing start? How assiduously did this user await the reäuthorization of the IP address? —JohnC5 02:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it was to the minute. I blocked them for 6 months on March 25, but I'm not sure what the expiration date would have been. It must have been less than a week's gap, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm watching Jurassic Park at the moment, and they just said “Life finds a way” in reference to the dinosaurs figuring out how to breed despite the humans' preventative measures. For some reason, that sentiment seems strangely applicable in this situation. —JohnC5 02:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't you suppose you're going too far? 12:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


It looks like someone is back. 17:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


ok, what was the reason? /-: Волгаа (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Help and advice[edit]

I could really use some help and advice, Chuck Entz, and I'm most willing to listen to polite explanations -- can you please discuss with me? -- Cirt (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)




I am really not here to start a debate about ableism, sanism or misogyny; I do not really have the time or the patience. But ignoring these subjects, are you really trying to claim that it is not derogatory or pejorative to call someone crazy? Finsternish (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The pejorative aspect isn't part of the core meaning of crazy. Of course it's an insult to say to someone that they're crazy- using any term that someone doesn't want to be applied to them will probably offend them. In the same way, it's an insult to call someone Delores whose actual name is George- but that doesn't mean that Delores should be tagged as pejorative. If I'm talking about someone who believes that they're Jesus Christ and that the CIA is controlling their mind through radio waves, it's not derogatory or pejorative to describe them as crazy, since that's simply what I believe they are, though there are more clinically precise ways to express the same idea. They may be horribly offended if I say it to their face, but telling them that I think they're delusional will have the same effect. Look at some analogous terms that aren't so tagged: stupid, demented, fat, etc. Now, describing someone as a nut job is pejorative, because it's only used to describe someone in a negative light. The same with bonehead, lardass, etc. It's a subtle distinction, but I think it's valid, nonetheless. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
"If I'm talking about someone who believes that they're Jesus Christ and that the CIA is controlling their mind through radio waves, it's not derogatory or pejorative to describe them as crazy, since that's simply what I believe they are, though there are more clinically precise ways to express the same idea."
Um, yes it is? How could you possibly argue otherwise? That's, um... absurd. Finsternish (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I mean, I am not sure why, of all the examples you could have picked, you specifically chose to use the word to describe someone with an obvious mental disability. That only proves my point, and demonstrates that your reverts are biased. Finsternish (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Chuck Entz. Just because a word means something bad doesn't mean that it's pejorative. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
"Just because a word means something bad doesn't mean that it's pejorative."
Um, what? There is nothing bad about suffering from psychosis. The "bad" part comes specifically from the word itself, which has a negative connotation. Finsternish (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have phrased my comment more precisely: Just because a word means something that most people consider bad doesn't mean that the word is pejorative. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

jia you[edit]

Hi Chuck. Am new to Wiktionary and am having trouble uploading an entry. I realizes I incorrectly put it in at 加油 But now I want to put it in as an English word. I tried that and it immediately got deleted. I have good citational evidence for the word and so would like to enter it. Can you please advise? Thanks Fizfuzzy (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, 加油 was definitely wrong, because English isn't written in Chinese characters. As for jia you, I can see why it was deleted: the usage you documented looks a lot like code switching, which is where someone who speaks two languages switches from one to the other in a single utterance. This is very hard to deal with in a dictionary, because there's no limit to the vocabulary in either of the languages used: you would end up having to define large numbers of English words as Mandarin and/or Mandarin words as English, and all kinds of strange hybrids of the two as both. The example where it says '(which means “go for it” in Mandarin”)' is an especially strong indicator that this is Mandarin mixed with English, not English. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Chuck. I see what you mean, however, the term does have an English spelling (i.e. not rendered in pinyin in the citations), and in the citations for 2005, 2007, 2010, 2011, and 2015, it is used in running English text and can’t in all fairness be regarded as code-switching in these, imho.
I agree citations 2009, 2012, and 2014 could be read as English-speakers overhearing a Chinese chant and reporting on it, so these citations should best be omitted. But that still leaves reasonable evidence for the term to satisfy CFI. Also I know the term to be a genuine item of Singapore English (as I am a native speaker of SingE).
I have found some other evidence as well where its verbal function is undeniable (see quotes), so I’d like to put it in again if I may.
  • 2009 June 19, kheng wee, (Please provide the book title or journal name)[12], retrieved 2015-11-04:
    ANW i jiayoued them for their interviews next day.
  • 2007 April 13, tiptoptoe, LIVEJOURNAL[13], retrieved 2015-11-04:
    Yiting jiayoued me before we went out.
  • 2012 August 20, Trisha, soTRISHA[14], retrieved 2015-11-04:
    @XinyeePharcke hehe thanks! I am jiayouing!
Fizfuzzy (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing my Contributions[edit]

Dear Sir.

I do understand rules & regulations but, for the life of me, I can't figure out what I am doing "wrong" in order to post things correctly!

My time is VERY LIMITED (caring for my disabled partner in addition to household keeping & so much more) & if/when already online to contribute-it seems as if, instead of doing things the more direct, personal & effective way (correcting an error & notifying contributor to show how things are done correctly), some people spend their entoire time "editing" & finding technical flaws with what some of us are contributing...!

I thought that it was because I was not signing on my contributions.So, I've finally learned about the 4 tildes but WHAT ELSE AM I MISSING? WHY CAN'T I have/see my contributed input posted as others do? I would appreciate if you showed me/gave me an example rather than "throw me to the dogs..."-tough love, learn by yourself...! :) ;)

Thank you,

AviAK63 (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't sign your contributions except on talk pages, which is the main reason I reverted you. Even without that, you need to read our formatting rules: you're putting notes about usage in the pronunciation section, for instance, and you put a long discussion about your theories as to the etymology of a Hebrew word in the Yiddish section rather than in the Hebrew section (the Yiddish is a direct borrowing from Hebrew, not from Ancient Egyptian). In general, you seem to scatter things around randomly without paying much attention to where things belong. As for the etymology itself, feel free to explain your theories on the discussion page (signed), but you would have to be much more concise in the entry itself, and unless you have a source that says the Hebrew comes from Ancient Egyptian, it would probably be removed again as speculation, anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)



You have "reverted" my contribution/correction (whatecver that means).

I am a NATIVE Hevrew speaker & can ASSURE you that the word: Eden is NOT a "MODERN" Hebrew word...!!! :)

i would appreciate also you're enlightening me on what I keep doing wrong when contributing information to prevent it from being "reverted".

Thank you :)

Regarding edit for chiong[edit]

@Chuck Entz - Hi, sorry about the confusion. My edit for the word 'chiong' (made on the 2nd of November) was in good faith and I did not know that I had to create a new entry for the lower case 'chiong' as I am new to this. As you suggested, I tried creating a new entry for the lower case 'chiong' however I was unable to do so as a prompt popped up saying that my edit was flagged as potentially harmful or abusive. Can you provide me with advice as to how I can get around this problem and create the new entry? Thanks.Ngl0616 (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Administrator help?[edit]

Not sure where to post this, but since you're an administrator and bureaucrat, maybe you know what to do. This evening I got logged out while making a major edit to house. I didn't discover this until after I had saved it. As a result, I now have two accounts; one for myself, and one for my IP address, which I will never check, and the lone edit of which will not appear under my list of contributions. Is there any way to redirect that IP to my page, or change the edit history to show me, rather than a string of useless, anonymous numbers? P Aculeius (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm an admin, not a bureaucrat, but there's really no way for either to change the account for an edit. In some cases where people don't want anyone to know their physical location, we've hidden an edit or the IP on it, but the information is still there for those with access. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread the table, must have been looking at someone else's privileges before I came to you. Thanks for letting me know. P Aculeius (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

people group called Manav where to mention about[edit]

Hello I still think this should be back on the page. you can rely on me. Thanks Manaviko (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the way you put it there made it look like you were defining a term in the Breton Language. For an English term, you would need to add an English section. Please read our entry layout rules. Secondly, your "definition" is more of an encyclopedia article: an encyclopedia tells you about things, but a dictionary only tells you about words or phrases- what do they mean, what part of speech are they, what are their plural forms, and so on. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


Hello. Thanks for your welcome an for your explanation about elephant seals. I didn't know that animals belong to Phocidae nor its English name (in Spanish they are "sea elephants"). The word lhame is for sea lions, there is no elephant seals in coasts inhabited by Mapuche people. Regards. Lin linao (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi Chuck. Not sure re this. You could have put your reason in the edit summary? Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't anything against the content, but a matter of where you put it: romaji entries are only for the purpose of referring the reader to the hiragana entry, and shouldn't contain any definitions, notes, links, etc. See WT:AJA for details. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you please…[edit]

…restore my reconstructions and move them to my User space (:Ivadon/Afro-Asiatic) regardless of their validity? Thanks. — Ivadon (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ivadon: I think that is a reasonable request and I have done so for the following pages: User:Ivadon/Proto-Afro-Asiatic/qoqotaq, User:Ivadon/Proto-Afro-Asiatic/qoqatoq qoqotaq, User:Ivadon/Proto-Afro-Asiatic/qaqoq, and User:Ivadon/Proto-Afro-Asiatic/qoqatoq. --WikiTiki89 16:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Tinfoil hats?[edit]

Now you get completely paranoid. The line kaimas was simply a reference to a Gothic word that links to a PIE word *ḱóymos; same for skábma. Are you the ruler of this dictionary? --— Ivadon (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the comparison was valid, but why only Gothic? We're talking bout a well-known Proto-Germanic root with lots of descendants that are more familiar, like home. I've fixed it up the way I had in mind. If you want to add Gothic as another form, that's ok. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


Hello. I deleted this page, as owls have nothing to do with "apas" water. There is no need for such an empty Lithuanian-only category then, either. Zezen (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether there's a need for it or not, blanking it out accomplishes nothing. If you want to have something deleted, and it's pretty obvious, as in this case, tag it for immediate deletion by adding the template {{delete}}, with a short explanation as its parameter: {{delete|empty category}}. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


Do you expect that you will likely have a good amount of time to put into Wiktionary in the foreseeable future? If so, would you like to be a bureaucrat? It doesn't come up too often, but it seems that every time we need one, only Stephen is around, and he doesn't monitor votes etc closely. Are you disinterested or did you miss it?Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it. What is there to it aside from renaming accounts and setting permissions? If that's all there is, it shouldn't be too bad. As for time, Wiktionary should be my main online focus for the foreseeable future, and my life is pretty stable/boring at the moment, so I don't see anything to keep me offline for any extended periods. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
That's mostly it; there's also dispute resolution, which is probably only something that absolutely needs a bureaucrat every couple years or so. If that's a yes, I'll go create a vote for you shortly. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a yes, though the dispute-resolution part had me thinking long and hard about it. But then, I find myself doing a lot of that, anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Ruakh did a good job of that when he was more active IMO, and you remember all that. Anyway, here ya go. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Chuck Entz, the vote for your promotion to bureaucrat has passed and you are now a ’crat. You should note it in WT:Admin. —Stephen (Talk) 15:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations! Your successful campaign resulted in the largest voter turnout for any vote in recent history! --WikiTiki89 00:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a campaign: I didn't do anything I wouldn't have done if I wasn't nominated. But thanks, nonetheless! I've been fighting a cold, so I've only been doing the easy and/or obvious stuff. I need to update some things. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
What you mean is that you ran your campaign very efficiently. You spent approximately no time and no money on it, and you won unanimously. In other words, the number of votes you gained per penny spent approaches infinity. --WikiTiki89 15:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested entries[edit]

Shouldn't these be in the Wiktionary namespace. DTLHS (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that timely (and necessary) kick to the head... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


Why do you keep reverting my phrase translations of these latin words? I assure you they are accurate.

I just left you a message on your talk page. The gist of it: that kind of page shouldn't have definitions- even good ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Latin definitions and page entries.[edit]

I think it would be more appropriate to put the specific definition of each word in its own entry. Latin verbs are conjugated using word endings, and so the translation changes significantly with each version of the word. It would be counterproductive to put the translations anywhere else.

Sorry, that's not the way it's done here. Besides, what you're adding are really definitions, not translations. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocking entire IP block[edit]

Hi! I do not know if this was a software problem, but about a month now cannot do edits (with my registered account) because the adsl in my work was inside the blocked (by you) IP family Anyway, I think that blocking such a huge number of Greek (otenet) IP for a month is not a good practise. Sorry for the annoyance. --Xoristzatziki (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a software problem. There was an extremely persistent and prolific IP user who was churning out high volumes of bad edits from every IP address available, and I did the range block as a last resort. I hope the block has accomplished the goal of discouraging them, but if even it hasn't, that was as long as something that extreme could ever be done- it should expire sometime today, and won't be extended. I'm really sorry you had to get caught up in this, and I hope we never have to do anything like it ever again. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
So, it was a software bug (I am talking about my account, some days I could make edits and some days not). --Xoristzatziki (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe. Unless your ISP routes you through different IP addresses, and only some were in the blocked range. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Nematoblast: English "blast" or Greek "-blast"[edit]

Hello, I edited the page nematoblast so that it links to -blast, the Greek suffix indicating "an immature cell or tissue". This was reverted. Previously (and now again), the link went to blast without the hyphen. The page describes nematoblast as "(biology) A spermatocyte or spermoblast".

I don't understand what blasts (explosions and so forth) have to do with the biological process of producing sperm. On the other hand, the meaning "an immature cell or tissue" fits perfectly. This has to be a typo, right? -- 02:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Scroll down further to etymology 2 of blast! Equinox 03:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes alright, but why link to blast? Why not link either to the etymology 2 section, or to the -blast page? -- 13:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it should link to the blast page or the etymology 2 section, as well. Otherwise readers may click on the link, and if they do not scroll down to etymology 2, they might make the mistake that 'blast' as in nematoblast means an explosion such as described in etymology 1. As a medical student, I know there are people who use this resource routinely. If a student can understand that 'blast' refers to an immature cell - and not an explosion - when used in the cellular context, then they can make the connection between a whole array of words (nematoblast, osteoblast, spermoblast etc). Can the link be inserted to either blast or can the link jump directly down to the etymology 2 section, and skip the irrelevant (irrelevant for nematoblast) etymology 1 ? -- 16:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

War of the Rebellion[edit]

War of the Rebellion was the official name of the Civil War. Why change? Luke (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

War of the Rebellion is one of the names applied to the American Civil War. However, the best way to convey that is to create War of the Rebellion. As such, I am going to create War of the Rebellion. —This unsigned comment was added by Purplebackpack89 (talkcontribs).
(edit conflict) What do you mean by "official"? Official according to whom? Official where? Even in Hawaii or Guam? How about New Zealand? This is meaningless as written. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I think what he means, Chuck, is that "War of the Rebellion" was a term used by the War Department and the U.S. Government to refer to the war as it was going on and in its immediate aftermath. Perhaps "official" is not the proper term to use, but I do believe that War of the Rebellion should exist as an entry and it should be linked to from American Civil War. Purplebackpack89 14:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


Dear Chuck - why did you remove my entry for this word - since the citations I provided appear to satisfy CFI?--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Also, why didn't the word just get RFV'd? And why were your changes done without any explanation of why they were done? I suspect you can imagine that if someone goes to the effort of finding citations, and working up an entry which includes pronunciation, and etymology, and a good set of citations, that this entails a lot of work, and that it is completely dispiriting to whoever that editor was to just obliterate their work holus-bolus without explanation, and that by behaving in this manner you risk scaring that editor away from ever making any worthwhile contributions to Wiktionary in the future? So I guess you must have a really good reason for such high-handed reversion, and, with all due respect, I'd like to know what that is.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure. If you look on the talk page, you'll see that this has already been rfved, and failed. A look at your citations (which I moved to the citations page so they wouldn't be lost) and at Google Books and Google Groups showed there was nothing new that would justify recreating the entry: the durably-archived quotes are only mentions, and the actual uses are all on non-durably-archived websites. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I was aware that it had failed RFV before - obviously, the page states that. However, that surely doesn't mean that a term it forever and anon going to fail. Just because at one point in time there isn't enough evidence available to meet CFI, that doesn't automatically mean attestations in the future won't ever be forthcoming. I read the information about whether something is durably archived and it is extremely unclear as to what particular websites constitute this or not. Apparently websites "such as Usenet groups" .... that's not saying much as there are countless types of websites. It doesn't say that it only Usenet groups or Google groups, as your comment apparently implies. It seems to me that the 3 websites of the moved quotations are stable pages - you can't know they won't be there in the future can you? But if there are hard and fast rules about what constitutes a durably-archived quote, then I'd like clarification on that. If it is the case that it is only "Google Books and Google Groups" then surely the CFI page should state that explicitly.
And I also do not agree that all the other citations only mentions, and it seems to me that the weight of evidence is that there is enough widespread use for an entry, otherwise I wouldn't have gone to the effort of creating the entry. Also, there is a quote on Google Groups, which reads ">>What would a copoclephile collect??" This is a use, not a mention as it clearly means "what would [a person of this type] collect?" A mention would be "What does copoclephile mean?" So could I kindly request you to please reconsider the evidence put forward.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Hi Chuck, I have requested that you re-consider the case in light of my comments above. If you could be so kind.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I started this week out with very little sleep and am only starting to catch up, so I didn't handle this all that well. Feel free to post a request at rfv to have it reinstated. I'm still unimpressed by the quality of the cites, but others may see it differently. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Well @Chuck Entz: I had been trying to be a helpful member of the community - and as you can see, if you care to look, my edits were not all garbage. Sure, you may be right about this potentially failing RFV again, but as I mentioned above "it is completely dispiriting to whoever that editor was to just obliterate their work holus-bolus without explanation, and that by behaving in this manner you risk scaring that editor away from ever making any worthwhile contributions to Wiktionary in the future" ... so I'm having a break.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

sac à dos[edit]

I really don’t understand why you bother communicating with him. He constantly makes excuses. If he nuked the entire world, he’d make excuses. --Romanophile (contributions) 20:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. He is slowly making progress and learning. He isn't nearly as bad now as he used to be. --WikiTiki89 20:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. Not only that, there are several periods where he seems to have moderated his behavior for a while before backsliding into his usual habits (I read that as retreating into his comfort zone in response to stress or perceived attacks). It's not easy getting past his rationalization barriers, but if you do, he will sincerely consider what you have to say. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
It's quite simple really: respect me, don't call me a troll, be forthcoming and clear in your explanations, and I'll be happy to deal with you. Purplebackpack89 22:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: Now if only you followed your own advice, I suspect you would find yourself getting into far fewer conflicts. --WikiTiki89 22:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Saor Alba[edit]

I assume you have reverted my contributions on this page because I broke some sort of site rule. What must I do to have them put back? MarkRae (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It's kind of silly to have a dictionary entry with a definition followed by an essay explaining why the definition is wrong. It may be Scots Gaelic or it may not be, but, either way, it has to mean what the definition says it does- or the definition has to be changed. Feel free to discuss this at the Tea room or WT:RFC so we can get the entry straightened out, but don't keep trying to transform a simple dictionary entry into a two-headed monstrosity that argues with itself. Thanks. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Java programming language and Category:en:Java programming language[edit]

If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page.

Actually I'm surprised to find so Java specific words here, but this category is empty only because of the protection of Module:labels/data, for which it would need you too before starting anything.

JackPotte (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The main reason the Category:en:Java programming language is empty is a problem with the categorization when "Java" is used as a context label- right now, that categorizes into Category:Javanese English or its equivalents in other languages. I'd rather not delete the programming categories until this is straightened out. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Please let me rephrase more directly: if nobody is able to add the context Java programming language into Module:labels/data, convinced by the list above and by letting the Java word to the regional contexts, then my master expertise in computing won't be able to help this referenced empty category. JackPotte (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
We changed "law" glosses to "legal" because law is an ISO-standard language code. Perhaps a similar change is needed here? Equinox 16:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps "Java" should be removed altogether and users required to specify "Javanese" or "Java PL" (a shorter, easier-to-type alias of "Java programming language"). - -sche (discuss) 08:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

bosom friend[edit]

My edit summary was quite sufficient I believe (quote): nowhere to be found, not in Urban, not in Cambridge, possibly a spoof. I did my leg-work before editing. Please do not reinstate already challenged slang in the future without adding (or at least requesting) a reliable source to prove that the nastiness is worthy of note in Wiktionary. Otherwise, how do we know what is real ... and what is going off the deep end. Thanks, Poeticbent (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, we don't go by "reliable sources": we're a descriptive dictionary. If a term is in use, it doesn't matter what other dictionaries say, we have an entry for it. If it isn't, we don't have an entry for it, no matter how many other dictionaries include it our (see Criteria for inclusion for the details. The way to have a term or one of its senses removed is to tag it with {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}}. We will look for evidence of usage and remove it if there is none. In this case, it's rare, and most of its usage is from the 1700's but it looks real- I found two passages that used it. It's slang, so it wouldn't show up in regular dictionaries, anyway- but it's in a number of slang dictionaries, including a third quote. One of the other admins tagged it with {{rfv-sense}}, so we'll see. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: komputilo[edit]

Hey. Sorry if I stir things up sometimes; I try my best, and try to learn from my mistakes! komputilo is not an Ido word, though. komputilo is an Esperanto word, made up of komputi (to compute) and -ilo (instrument of). If it where and Ido word; we would need the verb komputar; but we don't because we see the two verbs "to calculate" and "to compute" to both means the same thing, and we use kalkular for both. I try my best to stay open, but neither the Ido Wiktionary or Wikipedia support komputilo in Ido. Keep it if you'd like, doesn't bother me, but it's not the first time I find Esperanto words used for Ido. I deleted Ido from restoracio earlier this year for the same reason (the right word in Ido is restorerio.) ;-) Kind regards/Amikale :-) - Algentem (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Request rollback for Ohnoitsjamie2[edit]

Flag group, Not global rollback, Ohnoitsjamie2 (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a chance. We only give rollback to those who know what they're doing. You've never edited an entry here yourself, so how are you supposed to know a good edit from a bad one? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
X mark.svgN Not done. 12:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

a park bench in December[edit]

"If you have something you want to complain about, go to the Beer parlour and complain about it (hint: you'll get farther if you use grammatical English and say things that have some kind of coherent logic to them). Don't create a bogus entry so you can use it to as an excuse to post quasi-random lists of links and vague, indecipherable innuendo. This is a dictionary. Clear, succinct use of language is critical to what we do. If you can't make your point in ways that other people can understand, you might as well be sitting on a park bench somewhere arguing with yourself. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)"

Since I might as well argue with myself farther, I'll take misleading information or unjustified assumptions from here. --Riverstogo (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

category grc:Greek deities[edit]

It is not a grammar-related category but all its members are proper nouns, aren't they? SoSivr (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the individual entries should already be in that category by way of the headword-line templates. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


The problem is that your way of writing is compressed to the point where it takes a lot of imagination to reconstruct your words, and half of the time it doesn't even look like words :/ —suzukaze (tc) 09:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

"octothorpe" alternate word origin rollback[edit]

Howdy, Chuck. I haven't done much with wiktionary, so please excuse my ignorance :-) . I see you reverted an edit I made: . Thanks for leaving a note saying to talk here. That edit attempts to debunk a false word origin. What's a better way to do that? Erase the whole Bringhurst section altogether? Include a link to Google ngrams a la to show the word's novelty? My naive instinct was to leave the passage in with a debunking statement. I'd love to hear a better idea. It would be sad to leave Bringhurst's tale without any warning. (Among my ignorances, I'm not sure how one conducts a conversation on Talk pages, so I guess I'll check back here in a few days.) Thank you—Larry H.

While you were right to be uneasy about the etymology, it's generally a bad idea to have an entry criticizing itself. The part about Bringhurst was presented as an alternative, so it wasn't really deceptive, but peacock language such as "highly regarded" doesn't belong in a dictionary. I reworked the etymology to get it down to the basics and avoid the disorganized listing of dueling assertions that made it look more like an article than an etymology. I added a reference to a book that discusses all of the theories pretty thoroughly, so I hope people won't be tempted to expand it again. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


You "experienced" editors need to get off your high horses and start treating others work with respect. You are

not the authorities of all things linguistic. This resource is not your sole playground. It's for everyone.

Unless you can change something for the better, just leave it alone. Please cut out the reverts and rollbacks.

Judging from the comments on your talk pages, deleting others work appears to be a frequent behavior of yours. I

am sure you are driving out many people that are just trying to help and those people have probably made good

contributions that you have eliminated. Let go of the ego. I'm done trying to make changes to wiktionary. You've lost me. Score some points for you experienced editors.

None of your content is wrong, it just doesn't belong in this dictionary entry. Dictionaries define things and succinctly summarize etymological information. They don't explain things or give detailed background about the usage of the component parts. The last issue is especially a problem in a wiki where information about a morpheme in another entry tends not to be added to the entry for the morpheme itself, or where they actually contradict each other.
There was nothing to fix about your addition, because none of it really belonged in the entry. You deserved an explanation, but that often takes time we don't have. I'm sorry for that, but not for the revert. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)