User talk:Sgconlaw

Archive
2014–2019 · 2020–2024

Signing posts

IP address learned to sign posts 90.167.163.65 11:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, thank you. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

WOTD audio

Please tag future WOTDs with {{rfap}}. This way our entries can be even more complete before they're highlighted. PS love what you're doing. Father of minus 2 (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Father of minus 2: sure, no problem. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Template dude

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Yeats Sophocles' King Oedipus.

The Wayback Machine link in aprimorate

Discussion moved to Talk:aprimorate.

QWERTY -- WOTD nom

Hi SGC. Meant as a joke entry. Thought you might leave it there for a short while. Then again, it wasn't exactly hilarious, was it! -- Keep up the good work. -- ALGRIF talk 05:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Algrif: oh, it was meant to be a joke? Erm, OK. You've kind of missed April Fools' Day by a month … — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

FWOTD fallback

Hi, thanks for setting up FWOTD fallbacks. I wonder if the pages should still have a {{was fwotd}} template. I see that бууз (buuz), for example, doesn't have that template. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: hmmm, I guess maybe we should add {{was fwotd}} to indicate the first time the entry has publicly appeared as FWOTD. I was just wondering if it made sense to use this template because FWOTD fallbacks do not appear on a specific date—rather, they will appear on the same day each year if no specific FWOTD for that day is set. But it makes sense to use {{was fwotd}} so editors know that an entry has already been used. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the same. It would be good to indicate the first appearance. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 14:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: by the way, please help to suggest FWOTD fallbacks for upcoming dates in June—see "Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2025/May#Suggestions for FWOTD fallbacks for June dates". — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

buckaroo

Discussion moved to Talk:buckaroo.

Template:RQ:Withycombe Christian Names

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Withycombe Christian Names.

PIE root categorization

Be careful adding PIE roots. This is neither formatted correctly for a PIE root nor (as *meh₂-) even a candidate the root of *múh₂s (now moved to *múHs because the uncertain laryngeal). As we don't know its root, {{word}} is enough. — 2600:4808:9C30:C500:24A4:A222:AC09:12B9 16:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Which entry are you referring to? — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The first phrase in the OP is a wikilink to a diff. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

In that case, is there an error in the etymology of mother? Because that's what I followed. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Aside from any issues referred to by the OP, I would advise caution about etymologies for any word used by infants. Babies make sounds as part of the development of the parts of the brain controlling speech. To start with, they have no control of their tongues, so they tend to use their lips, as in "mamamamamamamamama...". Later they progress to simple dental sounds like "dadadadadadadada..." they have no control of nasality, so it can be "m" or "b", "n" or "d". Since family members are usually the ones present at these stages, there are names for family members based on the babbling of infants worldwide and throughout history (ever wonder about the similarity between "母親" and "mother"?).

That means that a word like "mommy" could be passed down through inheritance, or it could be freshly picked up from infant babbling at some later state. "Mommy" is just a diminutive of "mama", which perfectly matches infant babbling and is thus impossible to analyze with the tools of historical linguistics. A word like "mother" at least has morphology tacked on that can be analysed for sound changes, and some words like "father" show sound correspondances to related words like "pater" that would have happened through inheritance from a common ancestor. Since there's no way to tell if "mommy" and "mother" are etymologically related, importing the etymology of one into the entry for the other is misleading and probably wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Black fatigue

Hello – I'm messaging you because you were one of the users who participated in the RFV regarding sense #2 of Black fatigue. The user who created the RFV has now shut it down and removed the sense in question from the entry, in spite of the fact that four durably archived attestations had been added. Is this regular? Zacwill (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I should ping This, that and the other as well. Zacwill (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zacwill: no, I think that shouldn't have been done while the discussion was ongoing. However, I don't have time to deal with this until later today or perhaps tomorrow. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

No link terms in glosses in etymology sections

How come? JMGN (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@JMGN: I was advised against this many years ago when I started editing the Wiktionary. I think it is to avoid overlinking, since there are already links in the definitions. Feel free to start a discussion at the Beer Parlour if you wish. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thatd make no sense: its you that's reverted mine, not the other way round. JMGN (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@JMGN: I'm not sure what you mean. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

not done template

Hi Sgconlaw,

I noticed in your edit on Entry layout's talk page that you misunderstood the purpose of {{not done}}, as an indication of rejection of proposals. As the name says, it just means a requested change is not done. The documentation explains. Chealer (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Chealer: I’ve not seen it used in the way you describe. Anyway, let’s see what other editors think. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Chealer You may read it as meaning the task hasn't been done yet, but everyone else will interpret it to mean that someone has seen your proposal and didn't do it because they decided it shouldn't be done. The graphic displayed by the template is a very clear symbol of rejection. It's kind of silly tagging your proposals with something that will cause people to not even bother looking at them. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

No, {{not done}} is used to reject proposals. It's not used to mark unfinished changes. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

quote-play

I am finding that I need a {{quote-play}} because there is no standard template that allows me to enter the act and scene without using a kludgy work-around. {{quote-text}} is close, but I have to put the act number into the chapter position, which formats it as: "Act II" in Name of Play, and this is as weird as saying: "page 89" in Name of Book. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: we have been specifying act and scene numbers using |section=—see any of the Shakespeare quotation templates. Hope this helps. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The documentation for {{quote-text}} does not mention this parameter. Should it? --EncycloPetey (talk) EncycloPetey (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: yes, I think that would be a good idea. I would put it at {{quote-book}} though, since {{quote-text}} is a "temporary template [...] meant to be used as an interim between a wiki-markup quotation usage to a normal quote-x template". — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have examples there showing how to quote from a play. The only one there is quoting from Shakespeare's First Folio of 1623, and is citing a play title only. While the FF is an important source of citations, this example does not demonstrate the typical situation for citing from a play.

I also cannot find an example for citing from a volume that has multiple plays in the same volume. I do not mean an anthology or later collection. Some plays by Eugene's O'Neill in their first edition were published together in a single volume, and so there will be a volume title listing the included plays, the title of the specific play, and the act/scene info for that play. I can't see how to get the desired citation format using the template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

More WOTDs please.

I really appreciate your support on uploading word of the days so far. But it is slow to upload one. So I want you to create at least one word of the day every day. That way, we can easily get one word per day just like we do on Merriam-Webster.Thanks! AlphabetLoreFanatic2009 (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@AlphabetLoreFanatic2009: I’m not sure what you mean. So far there has been a Word for the Day every day. Also, you should not be demanding that other people do this or that. We are volunteers, not your servants. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Got it. I should consider using others nominations on the nominations page. AlphabetLoreFanatic2009 (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@AlphabetLoreFanatic2009: I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify? — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. 10 WOTDs per day from now on, pls thx Vealhurl (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. AlphabetLoreFanatic2009 (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Vealhurl. 10 WOTDs per day from now on pls, thx AlphabetLoreFanatic2009 (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:RQ:Williston Osteology

I'm still incapable of making RQ templates. Pls fix Vealhurl (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

PIE roots

Hello Sgconlaw. I notice you make many updates to WOTD nominees, mostly for the better. This includes adding root categories, which are naturally most often of Proto-Indo-European roots, but unfortunately these are often erroneously reconstructed or otherwise improperly formatted. I ask that you please be more careful adding PIE roots or exercise restraint from doing so, because of cases like this: *kHt-nú- is a stem (i.e. root plus suffix), not a root, so there should never be a category nor a reconstruction page for it. The root would be *keHt- or less likely *kHet-, if this is not itself a stem from *keH- with suffix *-t- (e.g. *-t-o-, *-t-i-).
Every mention of a PIE root that is part of a page title, whether of a root category or Reconstruction entry, should contain exactly one vowel, that being the neutral filler vowel short *e, with no exceptions. (Current exceptions like *krows- and *ḱh₂d- are improper and need to be moved! But you are forgiven for linking to these.) Examples of incorrect root titles are *h₃ēgʷʰ-, *kob-, *bab-, *wl̥kʷ-, *sisd-, *mur- and *mut-.

The same edit also added *kadʰ- as an alternative reconstruction of *kHt-. First, there should never be two categories representing the same root, even if there are conflicting opinions on its exact reconstructed form. Presumably you knew this but assumed that the two might both exist separately in PIE—I'm doubtful of this and think they should be regarded as differing opinions centered on the same Germanic etymology, with (at best) inconclusive supporting data from other branches of IE. Second, this is a highly unlikely root shape for two reasons: it contains (1) a T-series ("plain" or tenuis) stop consonant preceding a Dʰ-series ("voiced-aspirate" or media aspirata) stop; roots of this shape are believed to have been originally prohibited in PIE, and (2) the rare and highly controversial vowel *a, which is an incorrect reconstruction based on an outdated model of PIE phonology, and in the mainstream literature it is now regarded as purely allophonic (from *e next to *h₂) or nonexistent in PIE. Combined with the etymology's overall shaky semantic connections and heavy reliance on nouns (which are prone to borrowing), these facts all scream to us that the existence of a PIE root *kadʰ- is almost certainly an incorrect conclusion from the available data.

tangent

*a is unusual for a PIE phoneme because it has no zero-grade counterpart (or inconsistently ∅), nor does it participate in the characteristic Indo-European e–o ablaut system. On a phonetic level it also doesn't quite "fit" into the PIE vowel system, where *e ≈ /æ/ ~ [ɛ ~ ə] and *o ≈ /ɑ/ ~ [ɒ ~ ɔ ~ ʌ]; these two a-like vowels were similar enough to merge in Proto-Indo-Iranian and partly merge in other branches, along with the supposed *a, suggesting there was nothing in between *e and *o on the vowel chart other than maybe the allophonic [ä]. All cases where it does obey ablaut are now believed to be incorrect reconstructions, usually based on descendant languages' /a/ arising from the zero-grade or allophonic effects on *e or *o at some stage. Latin for example is notorious for generalizing /a/ to roots, and when there is a coincidental corresponding *a in, say, Germanic or Celtic (usually arising from *o, the parameters for which are not well understood in the case of Celtic or even Italic), it has often tempted indoeuropeanists past to reconstruct *a for their PIE root. Some cases like **brāk- (the correspondence between Greek βράκα (vráka), Latin brācae and Proto-Germanic *brōks “trousers, breeches”) and even **bʰardʰeh₂ are later Wanderwörter; others may be non-IE substrate words separately borrowed into a couple of geographically adjacent branches. The views of Byrd and Ringe that reconstructing *a is necessary are in the minority, and even they are forced to admit that it is a rare, misbehaved phoneme. See Lubotsky (1989) and Pronk (2019) for more.

So, if you see a page mentioning a root containing *a, do not proliferate it whatsoever, as it was not a PIE phoneme. Nor was likely *b, except perhaps in some very late dialectal stage and in a handful of onomatopoeias that were independently lexicalized in daughter languages, e.g. **bak-. In fact such irregular correspondences pointing to *a, *b or a prohibited root shape are often used as a telltale indicator of substrate origin, such as for Pre-Greek. Again, you can find a few examples of PIE entries with ⟨a⟩ or ⟨b⟩ in the headword, but most will be moved or deleted in the future, and we should certainly not be creating more.

In summary, it is not necessarily the case that if you see a redlinked PIE reconstruction then it is correct. They seem to have obvious problems up to half the time, most often non-roots containing hyphens, nonstandard (for Wiktionary) diacritics, or roots without a final hyphen, owing understandably to editors' general unfamiliarity with our formatting rules for PIE combined with the necessity of filling in etymologies. We are of course always in the process of improving the quality of etymological information, but with regard to protolanguages in particular it's still frankly far from reliable. As for adding the finishing touch to WOTD entries, I don't think blindly copy-pasting PIE roots is worth the risk of actually making the entry worse and leading bots to create sloppy categories that other editors are left to clean up. — 2600:4808:9C30:C500:C003:32B6:CEA7:8215 18:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

An older edit, but you sometimes also add affixes as "roots". — 2600:4808:9C30:C500:C003:32B6:CEA7:8215 20:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I have simply been consulting the etymologies of entries such as Proto-Germanic *teuną, which were not created by me. If these are incorrect in some way, then please discuss them at the Etymology Scriptorium. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

This is not a valid strategy. You seem to have missed my whole point about proliferating sloppy, often redlinked reconstructions. And that is no excuse for adding non-roots as roots. How does copy-pasting without knowing what one is doing ever improve Wiktionary? Have better standards. — 2600:4808:9C30:C500:B4FC:9261:44A1:80BB 20:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why I should be blamed for other editors' "mistakes" (as you claim). Also, I have no basis to judge whether your comments and views are more valid than those of others. Please add references to the reconstructed entries and discuss the matter at the Etymology Scriptorium. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

posterize

Discussion moved to Talk:posterize.

Scots in English

Discussion moved to Talk:scaud.

Silent letter series for m and n for September 27-28.

Hello Sgconlaw, I mentioned that the silent letter series are from September 15 to October 11. And the words crisp and fount don’t have a silent m nor n. How about you change these words with a silent m and n? Thanks. AlphabetLoreFanatic2009 (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@AlphabetLoreFanatic2009: those dates have already been set, so we will skip them and continue the theme on 29 September. The same will happen for various dates in October. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. AlphabetLoreFanatic2009 (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

2 questions

Do WOTDs have to be created every day? And is there a WOTD every day? Pardon your convenience that you forgot to add September 21st. Also, will there be no WOTD on this date? AlphabetLoreFanatic2009 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

S'pore

I was just wondering... does anyone (possibly in a very informal setting) pronounce S'pore as one syllable, just like spore? Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Not that I’ve ever heard. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh okay, thank you. Maybe someday I will find this pronunciation in an obscure YouTube video with 7 views... Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Epic user

You're epic, and great. Glad to have spoopy on the front page, as it contains poop Vealhurl (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Truly putting the 💩 in 🕵️. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:40AC:CBD6:D751:777D 21:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Er, OK … — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Let's get a WOTD series of rude words inside non rude words. sniggerer, swanker, eshitmoq, on the scunt etc. Vealhurl (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

"on the scunt", is this a WF invention? When I clicked it the red link made me laugh really hard. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:40AC:CBD6:D751:777D 22:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

It's a page on my watchlist I sometimesccheck to see if it's been RFV'd (it'd fail) Vealhurl (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I have another list of obbvious WF bullshit they add, but most get found. One from 2010 is still there.22:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Periodic table of elements theme

A great theme for WOTDs. It will start on the first day of December and ends at March 28, 2026. Will that be a good suggestion for this theme? AlphabetLoreFanatic2009 (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@AlphabetLoreFanatic2009: there are currently 118 known elements. I think it would get quite dull for readers if every single element were featured as a WOTD, since most of them have uninteresting definitions. Also, I think it would be too much effort to work on these entries. However, we could perhaps feature a selection of five elements from 7 to 11 February 2026 around the birth anniversary of Dmitri Mendeleev, known for developing a version of the periodic table of elements, who was born on 8 February 1834. For example, mendelevium could appear on 8 February, and an element like curium named after a female scientist on 11 February (International Day of Women and Girls in Science). — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Okay , we’ll do that. I can’t think of any theme suggestions, except we can use non-English words. Or we can use words that don’t appear in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary. AlphabetLoreFanatic2009 (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd favor a focus on groups of elements starting with those that have corresponding, but distinct, non-scientific definitions, starting with these identified long ago, like iron, copper, silver, gold, lead, tin, and sulfur. We could progress to the gaseous elements first identified. Some of the elements, especially with higher atomic numbers could be treated as a group, where there is a suitable name, like rare earths, actinides, lanthanides, alkaline earth metals, halogens, triels, tetrels, pnictogens, and noble gases, while also covering significant individual elements in those categories, like uranium, plutonium, iodine, neon, etc. Some elements might be limited to being derived terms of proper names like Seaborg, Rutherford, Curie, Thor, Nihon, Moscow, Prometheus, Darmstadt. DCDuring (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@AlphabetLoreFanatic2009, DCDuring: no objection in principle but this would need to be spread out as several groups of themes over an extended period rather than all in one period, otherwise it will be rather dull, as I mentioned above. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. This is a potentially interesting source of WoTDs, but interest and not completeness or consistency are what we should be looking for. And not every possible class of items that I mentioned above is guaranteed to generate interesting WoTDs. DCDuring (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Colors theme for December 2025 or for any month of 2026

I noticed that from December 2025 through December 2026 are blank and there are no WOTDs there. I’d like to focus on a theme of colors since we had used them in the past. We can use these colors as our WOTD for the last month of 2025. Or we can also use them for any month of 2026. That way, we can easily see many different colors. Many people will see colors they’re never heard of or they will see colors they’ve seen, heard of, or learned of. How about that? Will that be a good theme? AlphabetLoreFanatic2009 (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@AlphabetLoreFanatic2009: no objection in principle but since we have a backlog of nominations stretching back to 2021 I would prioritize WOTDs that make use of existing nominations rather than constantly using new ones. I suggest you go through all the current nominations and see if four or five at a time, say, any can be featured together creatively under a theme. Also, note that entries that have a lot of senses (like red) are not going to be given priority because they just take too much time and effort to clean up. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Creating WOTDs

How do you create WOTDs? I just want to know how you create them. AlphabetLoreFanatic2009 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

WOTDs step-by-step

How does a word become a WOTD? I know that I nominated some words but they aren’t a WOTD. Sometimes it’s hard to think of a word to nominate for a WOTD with a brain. But I can get an “A-ha!” Moment for that. AlphabetLoreFanatic2009 (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Start of being a WOTD creator

Since when have you been in charge of sprinkling WOTDs with magic? AlphabetLoreFanatic2009 (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@AlphabetLoreFanatic2009: it's been a few years; I don't recall exactly when. — Sgconlaw (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

disrepitable

Hey. I forgot how to make quote Scots again. Vealhurl (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Same with preceesely,onything,onybody,onyway. I tagged lang=sco, it failed Vealhurl (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Vealhurl: the parameter is |termlang=sco, like this. — Sgconlaw (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Changed, but preceesely is tagged English for some reason Vealhurl (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Got it Vealhurl (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Vealhurl: yep, you figured it out. {{RQ:Scott Legend of Montrose}} relies on {{RQ:Scott Tales of My Landlord 3}}, so |termlang= needed to be added to the former template for the value of the parameter to be passed on to the latter. — Sgconlaw (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Same problem with sprechery (TBF, it's probs not Scots)Vealhurl (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Vealhurl: it kind of looks like Scots, but the OED (under spreaghery; not revised since 1914) treats it as an English entry without even an indication that it is used chiefly in Scotland. It provides two citations, both from Scott, one from Waverley (the one already in the entry) and the other from Rob Roy, volume II, spelled spreagherie. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Vealhurl: I've fixed the quotation template. You now have to add termlang to |allowparams=. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Vealhurl: we should probably change it to Scots. See “spreath”, in The Dictionary of the Scots Language, Edinburgh: Scottish Language Dictionaries, 2004–present, →OCLC. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

There’s been a mistake

Hey there. I noticed that the date is wrong. It says December 2025 instead of December 1. I thought it means that it’s the word of the month. Also, I’m trying to avoid Merriam Webster words to nominate. I’ll try to think about a word before I nominate AlphabetLoreFanatic2009 (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

sorry

For this. Rippy was pretty smashed last night! She must've got overexcited editing Karma Sutra. Vealhurl (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Vealhurl: oh, it was you … Please try not to do stuff like that. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Nesting of Template:...

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:LintErrors/html5-misnesting?wpNamespaceRestrictions=0&titlecategorysearch=&exactmatch=1&tag=cite&template=all

• translate
• mooktar
• carbonado
• chancellor
• champaign
• remission
• sumac

Please review. —Fish bowl (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Fish bowl: what does “nesting” refer to? — Sgconlaw (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

{{nb...|through Flanders, the Rhenish Provinces, Prussia, Russia, Poland, Silesia, Saxony, the Federated States of Germany, and France. {{...}} In Two Volumes.}}

—Fish bowl (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

book= in Template:RQ:Smith Generall Historie

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Smith Generall Historie.

Etymology of triumvirate, wording

Discussion moved to Talk:triumvirate.

Sorry in advance

Gonna go on a vandalism spree now. It's been over a year since Wf's last, they gotta get this out their system. WF's aiming for 8 minutes before being shot down... Suffolk Crown Court (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Suffolk Crown Court: just ask to be blocked already. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Singlish dictionary

Now that http://www.mysmu.edu/faculty/jacklee/ gives a 404, do you know of anywhere else remaining where the public can access the wordlist? It’s been a mighty helpful resource. —⁠Desacc̱oinṯier 15:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Desaccointier: ah, they finally deleted it (I left their employ nine years ago). I have an offline copy on my computer and have been meaning to upload it to Wordpress, but have not got around to doing so. In the meantime you might try the Internet Archive. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Good to know it’s not become lost media at least :) Incidentally, were you the one who registered singlishdictionary.com? —⁠Desacc̱oinṯier 15:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Desaccointier: yes. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Spenser Astrophel

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Spenser Astrophel.

Nominated by you

Did you nominate any words in the nominations page? AlphabetLoreFanatic2009 (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@AlphabetLoreFanatic2009: no. We have more than enough terms nominated by other editors. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Template:RQ:Nesbit Railway Children

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Nesbit Railway Children.

Trumpenstein

Hey, Sgconlaw! This entry was nominated for RFV as WT:DEROGATORY, but it got deleted for not having durably archived cites. Is it possible to restore the entry now that durably archived cites have been provided at Citations:Trumpenstein? ~2026-73884-3 (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

silvopasture

Sgconlaw, the alt. form is normally included in the top header for attention purposes, e.g.: drumskin. box16 (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Box16: Wiktionary:Entry layout#Headings after the definitions specifies that it is also acceptable to put them after the definitions. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. box16 (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)