User talk:Renard Migrant

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
New messages at the bottom. Please always write in English, unless you think you are unable to



Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

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

Again, welcome! -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi there, I noticed you reverted my edit on grurë. As a natural Albanian speaker I can confirm that the meaning of this word is indeed 'wheat' 'Triticum' Etimo (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing the rfv tag doesn't stop the rfv, it just removes the link to the discussion. I'm not debating whether it's valid or not, I have no idea, naturally. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your answer correctly..why do you still need a rfv discussion if the meaning of this word is already confirmed by the dictionary? Etimo (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not my answer you don't understand, you seem not to know (by your own admission) what an rfv is. Anyway it's bad form to remove an rfv notice while the debate is still going on. You should not do it... move to close the rfv first, and when it is closed, remove the notice. I think in this instance the tagger isn't doubting the existence of the word so much as the accuracy of the meaning. I can't speak for him (DCDuring) of course. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I know what a request for verification is, feel free to fill my knowledge gaps any time you want though (I still have much to learn about Wiki rules). What I wanted to ask is, why the rfv discussion considering that the meaning of this word is quite straightforward? Because I checked the talk going on about the topic, and looks like there is some unnecessary confusion about it. The dictionary already gives a (correct) definition for this word, so why the need for a talk? Hope I made myself clear Etimo (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

IPA for English[edit]

Re: pecker. I know the correct "pure" IPA is the inverted r but thought the standard with English entries was to simply have it understood when using /r/. Is this something you just noticed? or are systematically correcting? — LlywelynII 12:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You are correct to say it 'was' /r/ because it's now /ɹ/ and has been for awhile. There's a vote on it. The vote is ambiguously written which annoys me, but everyone agrees it's supposed to mean 'always use ɹ for English and never use r'. Perhaps if you Google search this wiki you can find the vote. If not please tell me and I can find it. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
For the record, the vote was Wiktionary:Votes/2008-01/IPA for English r, and until now I only knew of one person who found its wording ambiguous — Mglovesfun. If I note that English has two r phonemes, does that make it any easier to see why the vote was worded the way it was? It was worded to apply to "the r phoneme in words like red, green and orange" (the phoneme that had sometimes been /r/, but which the vote made uniformly /ɹ/), but not to apply to the r of words like sir and her, which is technically / ˞ / (as in /hɝ/), though many entries don't distinguish that phoneme from the other r phoneme (and hence represent it too as /ɹ/). (If you're bored, see this discussion.) - -sche (discuss) 04:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Etymology of abstenir[edit]

According to [1], it comes from the Old French word astenir. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well Old French astenir and abstenir aren't different words, they're variants of the same word. Wouldn't it seem more likely that Middle French and French abstenir come from abstenir not astenir? Abstenir was the more common variant in late Old French and has simply continued to exist. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC) sums it up pretty well, you'll notice that later on abs- forms replace the as- forms, and this happens before the end of the Old French period. on the other hand gives a 1528 citation for astenir (astens), so it seems it did continue to exist into Middle French. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

my background[edit]

I am a Ph.D. student in linguistics, although not historical linguistics. My knowledge of Old French is largely self-taught but I have a pretty good understanding of Romance linguistics as a whole; e.g. I wrote most of the current article on Romance languages in Wikipedia. Benwing (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

{{fro-conj-er}} and friends can omit stem[edit]

You can now leave out the stem from {{fro-conj-er}}, {{fro-conj-ier}}, {{fro-conj-er-e}} and {{fro-conj-ier-e}} and it will fill it in from the infinitive. Can't yet do this for {{fro-conj-cier}} or other of the more-specific templates, nor for the templates requiring two stems to be specified.

Benwing (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


I have an experience working on wikipedia (Bosnian and Serbo-Croatian). A question: Why is it Bosnian forbidden here? --Munjanes (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been decided that the difference between Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian is political or religious, but not linguistic. Since they're all the same language (from a linguistic point of view) we treat them as a single language. One interesting question is if a Croatian speaker converts to Islam, does he or she instantly become a Bosnian speaker? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


You did not create this word. Mglovesfun did. He is well-known for spewing Old French errors all over Wiktionary.

Please do quote a source for this word. I know your opinion about my deleting words but in the process you are perpetuating errors. Benwing (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I am Mglovesfun (I retired that user name because I was getting too much harassment). They are not errors so much as I'm using a different system to you. I enter the most citable term where you enter the normalized form. Normalized forms are not wrong. Not usually anyway, sometimes they are. Like often has normalized forms that don't appear in any of the citations, so I use the most citable form. Bouterés is in the Godefroy anyway, under the 1360 citation. That would fall under Middle French... that's because we changed the cutoff date from 1400 to 1340 to be aligned with the French Wiktionary's dates. So the entry was correct at the point of entry.
By 'spurious' what you actually mean is you're too lazy to check so you're going to apply the rules blindly. At least have the guts to admit it. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Fine I've put you on Vandalism in progress, that should slow you down a bit: diff. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
FWIW bouterez isn't recognised by academics either, if you look at, bouterez is used in citations but not in the normalized form. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


I know it goes against that explanation, that's precisely what I say in the edit summary. But χαῦμα (khaûma) (which doesn't exist) is obviously a mistake for καῦμα (kaûma). --Fsojic (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Forget what I wrote above: I hadn't properly read your edit. The assertion that it comes from Catalan rather than from Italian is not mine; I've read it in the link you provided. --Fsojic (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

la Suisse[edit]

We have many entries in various languages that include the article in this way. Some in English, but I recall seeing many in Irish as well. If you think this practice should be discouraged globally, you should probably suggest it on the BP. —CodeCat 18:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think in the case of Suisse it's to distinguish between le Suisse (the male Swiss person) and la Suisse (Switzerland) but the gender does this already. Suisse is not unique because pretty much all proper nouns that have a gender in French are used with the definite article. Grande-Bretagne doesn't use the head-word la Grande-Bretagne for example. But yes I'm aware this doesn't answer your question, and no I have no real desire to discuss it on a policy level. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Puss and pussy[edit]

Hello, Renard Migrant. You recently cleaned up the etymology section at puss; thank you. However, in your edit you added the suggestion, "The 'vulva' sense is a clipping of pussy." That may be possible, but it is not obvious. The word puss in the sense of "cat" is older than pussy. The slang usage of puss appears by 1630 (Thomas Dekker, The Honest Whore: "This Shee-cat will haue more liues then your last Pusse had"), around the same time as pussy (e.g. "Puss in a corner" in Thomas D'Urfey 1699, A Choice Collection of New Songs: "Johnny who many Times Pussey had fed"). It's not obvious that pussy is earlier. Indeed, on the basis of these poems puss seems to appear first, but it's not prudent to rely on a few appearances in print when dealing with slang. Forms of pussy had already been used to mean "woman" or "wife" before 1630 (e.g. Philip Stubbes 1583, The Anatomie of Abuses: "So he haue his pretie pussie to huggle withall, it forceth not"), so it's hard to know if one form is earlier than the other.

I've removed that line from the etymology. If you know of any works of etymology that support the clipping analysis, we could add them as references.

By the way, if you choose to reply you can do so here. I rarely use my Wiktionary talk page. Cnilep (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you've slightly missed (or forgotten) the point. You've made the point above, I said that "The 'vulva' sense is a clipping of pussy." not that puss comes from pussy. What you're saying is about the originally etymology, whether puss or pussy is attested first; I'm just saying that in the vulva sense, puss comes from pussy, not in all senses. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added it back on the grounds you're not disputing it. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
No, I am disputing it. Sorry if I wasn't clear. In the bawdy songs puss is used as a reference to sex and sexual organs. "Fed pussy pap", for example, is a double entendre for giving a cat porridge and for ejaculating in a vagina, and the poem's title uses puss. In other words, both puss and pussy were being used as slang terms for "vulva" in the seventeenth century. Likewise "your last puss" is a reference to prostitutes, suggesting that the word may have been used in the relevant sense even earlier than pussy was. It might be the case that puss is a clipped version of pussy, or it might be that the latter is an embellished form of the former (as is the case for the literal "cat" usage), or they may have developed more or less independently from the two words meaning "cat" (or "young woman"). It is, in my opinion, inappropriate to assert the clipping etymology on the basis of common knowledge – that is, without citing authoritative sources. Cnilep (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Sauce for the gander: I'd better cite at least one secondary source for my assertion. See Gordon Williams (1994) A Dictionary of Sexual Language and Imagery in Shakespearean and Stuart Literature, in particular his discussions of D'Urfey at "pap" and at "whiskers", inter alia. Cnilep (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I see, feel free to remove it then since you have a source. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Requests for quotation[edit]

This has been replaced by Category:Requests for quotation by source, but the subcategories weren't moved. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


Interested in re-applying? You add quite a few deletion tags on obvious speedy-deletes, etc. Equinox 22:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Nah, I'm more thinking of editing less to be honest. Sometimes I think I need a better bad weather hobby. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mglovesfun/to do/English[edit]

Hi Gloves. Would you be able to regenerate this cleanup list? I've tackled most of the nouns on the list, and then got bored. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I totally forgotten. Um yeah just not yet. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I seem to think the system I used was with AWB take the entire content of Category:English nouns then in the skip box, skip entries contain

Since it doesn't involve saving any edits, you might be able to do it even with AWB rights on this wiki. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

RFD of I[edit]

Hi Renard, thanks for your input at the RFD. Your first sentence seems contradictory. What did you mean? This, that and the other (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a big mistake, yes. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Questioning opinions[edit]

Earlier you said "I think you mean questioning someone's opinions is wrong unless you or someone who agrees with you is doing it. It's the most blatant hypocrisy you will ever see"

My complaint is that inclusionists get a lot more grief than they give. Look at RfD at the present. There are a lot more delete votes with no contrarian responses then there are keep votes. Or look at your vote about CFI. None of the support votes have replies to them, and every oppose has a reply to it. It also irks me that you and Equinox and DC make the same slippery-slope/reducto arguments over and over and over again...if we keep this, we'll have to add something else... They've made them to me forty or fifty times, and it's clear no number of times they say them, I'll still be convinced that keeping entries is the best thing for Wiktionary. They're just wasting breath with those arguments.

As for the hypocrisy, a lot of my detractors complain about me being on BP and RfD a lot. Those same people often have 5-10 times as many BP or RfD edits as I. +Purplebackpack89 23:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

My arguments are not slippery-slope, as Chuck Entz pointed out to you before. Also, maybe if one group loses more debates than the other, it's because they are poor debaters and basically wrong. Equinox 19:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Call them what you will. I consider them to be poor arguments. They hinge on too many assumptions I'm just not willing to make/ If you argue "Delete article A, because what are we gonna do next, create article B?", as you and DC have a zillion times, you're assuming: 1) deletion discussions are linked and not independent, 2) article A and article B are equally (un)deserving of entries, and 3) article B shouldn't have an entry. And you never provide any evidence that any of those are true. Purplebackpack89 19:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The point is, no matter how many of them they are, they are legitimate arguments, and shouldn't be dismissed as 'harassment'. It's just so cheap to play the harassment card to avoid replying to the point made by the arguer, and it smacks of lack of understanding of one's own argument. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I think just as important, people reading the debates aren't swayed by the number of arguments but by the quality of them; if six people say the same thing but you disagree with it, it makes no difference if it's sixty people saying the same thing. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


I require your aid. I have to know what the Middle French form of très is. Is it spelt in the exact same fashion as modern French?
Did this form, très, ever exist in Old French? --Romanophile (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC) has a section Prononc. et Orth. (pronunciation and spelling) which (I think) says tres until 1718, trés is first attested in 1718, then très in 1740, and as we know très is the surviving form. I've had very little luck trying to research the development of diacritics in French. Sure, it's out there somewhere, but where? You can definitely find acute accents in Middle French, the earliest I can think of was about 1455 which was societé which I researched. It's standard practice to notate a final /e/ in Old French as é, which is why societé has an Old French section. This is because all the normalized texts do this. Literally all of them, I've never seen a single one that doesn't. So why the manuscript may say societe every typed up version (as far as I know) in the world transcribes this as societé. It's a tricky issue and you've reminded me to try and get a book on the issue. I think I once found one on Amazon but it was a lot of money. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
We have an old French section of trés, which doesn’t seem consistent with the claim that trés existed since 1718. I was suspecting that this was a modern interpretation, like spelling Old French words with j, a relatively young letter, but we still have Old French entries with j in them. Right now my current plan is to create a Spanish etymology that says that très comes from frm. tres, from Old French tres &c. I just prefer having approval to ensure that my information is accurate. --Romanophile (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I should say that a final /es/ is transcribed -és. So the past participle of trover would be trové, masculine plural trovés, feminine singular trovee, feminine plural trovees. There was quite a debate when a user speedily deleted aprés and it was eventually kept. I can no doubt dig up the debate. The thing is really, of those interested in Old French, how many are going to have access to the manuscripts compares to the normalized versions in textbooks and online sources? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You mean the original texts? Hardly anybody, of course. Photographs would suffice, but I know of no dépôt that contains photographs of Old French manuscripts. I suppose that I should stick to my original plan, then. On a side‐note, do you think that the abbreviations in Serments de Strasbourg are worthy of entries here? --Romanophile (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Have you looked at Gallica? I haven't looked for Old French, but they do have quite a few other quaint and curious volumes of forgotten lore, so it's a good place to check. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I've seen some Middle French ones in person at the Musée Boucher de Perthes in Abbeville. There are some Old French manuscripts in picture form on commons:, I believe also. I'm sure that the abbreviations in Serments de Strasbourg are worthy of entries. I thought I might have entered all the words from the Oaths of Strasbourg, but perhaps not. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
In particular s:fr:La Chanson de Roland/Manuscrit d’Oxford. Not sure my eyesight can cope with that. If yours can, good luck! Renard Migrant (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
If you compare that with s:fr:La Chanson de Roland/Léon Gautier/Édition critique/Première partie, in line 5 it says "Murs ne citet n’i est remés à fraindre". If you look at the manuscript it seems to say "remes a fraindre" without the accents. In fact it looks like "rėmes a fraindre" but I'm sure the dot is accidental. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Line 17 païs and line 22 païen seems to me to be pais and paien with tremas. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for doing these bit by bit. Line 73 "Ço senefiet pais e humilitet." First word appears to be co not Ço. Finally line 59 "Que nus perdum clere Espaigne la bele" it appears to be espaigne not Espaigne. I'm going to stop there; obviously I could spend hours just one this one manuscript before moving on to others. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Très or très appears a couple of times in the Léon Gautier transcription, but I just don't have the patience to go through all the images to track them down, given there are no line numbers in the originals, it's just a case of going through line-by-line trying to see words I can make out to find out where I am in the Léon Gautier transcription. The normalized form per WT:About Old French is trés. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Wiktionary talk:About Old French#aprés#Old French. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
A touch late, but I've discovered that the abbreviation ds. Ac. meaning 'in the Académie Française (dictionary)'. So ds. Ac. 1718 (for example) means entered into the Académie Française dictionary in 1718. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


Is there any reason why you don’t include more Middle French entries? --Romanophile (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

These things take time, and it's often pretty tedious as they're the same words as modern French. Not too many words used between 1340 and 1609 that didn't survive into modern French. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I myself would always include as many Italic sections that I know of since I’m a perfectionist, but if it doesn’t bother you, then I guess that there’s not much that I can do to turn you. --Romanophile (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
It's one of those things, whether it bothers me or not, I can't do everything. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)



Would you have quotations for this word, in French? I found quotations for Middle French, not for French.

Regards, — Automatik (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Only two. One, two. You could rfv if you like. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The first quotation is not in French (see the end of the paragraph of the quotation). The second doesn't seem to be French : please see this discussion to be convinced of that if you're interested. — Automatik (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


Why are you setting anagrams headers to L4? DTLHS (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Such as? Renard Migrant (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
[2] NVM, if you didn't do it intentionally. DTLHS (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I changed from L5 to L4, I miscounted. Renard Migrant (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

here your bot has set descendants to be a child of derived terms- more care might be needed. DTLHS (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

True, the bot doesn't check what comes before the level changing. Having said that... that entry is correct because Derived terms goes at L3 when it's not clear which part of speech the derived term comes from. Renard Migrant (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not correct, because descendants don't come from derived terms, hierarchically. DTLHS (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I mean the wikisyntax is correct. Renard Migrant (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


  1. {{zh-forms}} is not a redirect. e.g. diff.
  2. "Descendants" header is not always L4. e.g. diff, diff, those descendants are derived from the Chinese word, not from a particular part of speech.

Wyang (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know zh-forms had been recreated. I will take it off the list of redirects. As for 'descendants', I think yes we should add it to the exceptions list of L4 headers that may be L3 when not referring to a part of speech in particular. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

MglovesfunBot heuristics for Descendants section[edit]

Hi there. I just noticed your bot doesn't have a very good heuristic for the Descendants section.

It made the Descendants section of ferry into a subsection of the See also section.

That doesn't make sense. There are a few places the Descendants section does make sense, depending on whether the entry has one or more homonyms and if those are divided by etymology or part of speech, and also whether we know specifically which of those the forms in other languages descend from.

If we know exactly where they came from then it makes sense under a POS if they came from that POS. But often two or three POSes share an etymology, especially in non-inflected languages or in English where a Noun and Verb share the same form. In this case the descendants either didn't come from one specific POS, or we don't know for sure. Then the Descendants section makes sense as a subsection of an Etymology section if there are more than one, or at level three if there's no etymology section or if there's just one, meaning POS sections are not subsections of Etymology sections either.

Occasionally even when the parent word has multiple etymology sections we still don't know which of them the descendants came from, in which case the Descendants section shouldn't be a subsection of any of the etymology sections.

Anyway, happy botting! (-: — hippietrail (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with ferry is the order, not the header level. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
If I were you I would've fixed the page ferry instead of breaking it again. But hey, you're not me. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Umm well then there's obviously two kinds of "broken". Broken where sections are subsections of the wrong parents is more broken than sections in the "wrong" order, especially where few of us can keep up with the endless minor and major changes to how things "should be done" (the opposite of "broken"). If I were you I would fix my bot to fix the heading in the proper way if it's so trivial to know all the "rules". I'm not sure if you intended to talk down to me but that's how it seems. I'm losing interest in helping improve the bot if that is the case. )-: — hippietrail (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Just generally pissed off today. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

CFI vote over[edit]

January 30th has come and gone, so the CFI vote has been closed as not enacted. Purplebackpack89 15:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


Hey. Fancy merging Template:ast-noun-mf into Template:ast-noun? --Type56op9 (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Mglovesfun/to do/English[edit]

Hey Gloves. How would a page like User:Mglovesfun/to do/English be generated for Spanish? --Type56op9 (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)