User talk:Surjection

---

Please add a new topic by clicking or tapping the button below (remember to add a subject):

Add a new topic

---

Etimología errada para tuna

Hola. Me he quedado anonadado con tu persistencia en mantener una etimología errada para tuna (pez). Hace años que me di cuenta de este error, pero no me interesó mucho hasta que las wikis han esparcido esta etimología errada por toda la internet y ya afecta al castellano.

Me explico: hay muchos nombres para estos peces en castellano dependiendo del área incluyendo bonito, mi preferido, pero me enfocará en tonina. Históricamente, la tuna era tunnina en latín vulgar hispánico, de donde nos llega a nuestro idioma el castellano. De tunnina nos llegan muchas palabras, algunas obsoletas, pero leyendo nos damos cuenta que ya en el siglo XIV toñina se escribía como tuyna por ejemplo: Citas. «Salsa de tuyna salada...frescha» (Osset, Libro cocina 5. XIV, 161). Decir que tuna viene de atún es un exabrupto, cuando claramente era una de las formas de toñina que nos viene directo del latín. Atún no es más que el artículo árabe al y tun (nombre local ibérico) y etimológicamente no hace ningún sentido que de atún se vuelva a tuna que es latín. Te dejos ejemplos del uso de toñina en la época que se colonización California: https://www.um.es/lexico-comercio-medieval/index.php/v/lexico/15756/tonyina Ahora si no me crees porque hay referencias (también hay referencias sobre la tierra plana) te dejo este artículo que al menos se atreve a poner en duda la etimología que el wiktionary está popularizando erradamente. https://www.google.com/search?q=etymology+of+tuna+fish+tunnina&oq=etymology+of+tuna+fish+tunnina&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRiPAtIBCTEwOTg1ajBqNKgCAbACAQ&client=ms-android-samsung-ss&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#sv=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-TW9zdCBsaWtlbHkgJnF1b3Q7dHVuYSZxdW90OyBhcyBhIG5hbWUgZm9yIGZpc2ggb3JpZ2luYXRlZCBpbiBDYWxpZm9ybmlhPC9iPiB3aXRoIGltbWlncmFudCBmaXNoZXJtZW4uIFRoZXJlIGlzIGV2aWRlbmNlIHRoYXQgdGhlLiBTcGFuaXNoJm5ic3A7Li4uEktXaGF0IElzIEEgPGI-VHVuYTwvYj4_ICYjMzk7XiYjMzk7JnF1b3Q7JnF1b3Q7Xl5rJiMzOTt1bS3Dr15pIMKrJnF1b3Q7KjBXfFsYACARoAFiwAEB4AEB6AEBCuEICt4Iytnb0g_XCBKyCCKvCC9zZWFyY2gvYWJvdXQtdGhpcy1yZXN1bHQ_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 ~2026-47775 (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Your etymology presupposes that the ending simply went away because it conveniences you. Please leave etymologies to editors who know what they are doing. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Surjection Do not give talk to this user, is trying to vandalize tuna on Spanish Wiktionary too. I already explained them that he cites wrongly (cites to Google Search), invents the conclusion that tuna (en) comes from tuna (es) which is not mentioned in that article, and he ignores completely the consensus principle. Dont waste your time with him. Tmagc (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear Surjection, I have created this account just to have a name rather than a number and not be patronised.

It was not my intention to impose my point of view and I apologise if you felt that way. I just want to point out to the fact that the etymology tuna via atún may be wrong. I don´t want to waste your time but I do feel that if this could improve the wiktionary then it is worth reading a little bit about it with an open mind.

If you have some time, please read John Lyman: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43800665 If you have access to the full paper, his approach makes completely sense and invalidates atún as etymology of tuna. As I mentioned above, vulgar latin tunnina has given a few words that are quite similar to tuna and that is why I support W. L Klawe tunnina hypothesis in his article: what is tuna? which hopefully you can download in my initial link. In Spanish, we still use toñina and tonina, survivors of latin tunnina and you can find this in RAE: https://dle.rae.es/to%C3%B1ina Even more interesting, you can find a collection of different spellings for this word at: https://www.um.es/lexico-comercio-medieval/index.php/v/lexico/15756/tonyina where you can even read this in the XIV century castillan: Citas. «Salsa de tuyna salada...frescha» (Osset, Libro cocina 5. XIV, 161) which further validates an origin in vulgar latin tunnina rather than arabic at-tun.

If you think that I am a nuisance, then this is my last post. If you want to have a civil discussion about some of the references, then I am happy to help. Toñina12 (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Toñina12: Feel free to make your case at the Etymology scriptorium, but replacing out of nowhere a sourced etymology reflecting widespread academic views simply because your version makes sense to you, then edit warring against an admin who reverts you, is not the way to do things around here. If you knew even a tiny fraction of the lame, wildly improbable, even idiotic ideas that have been inserted without warning into entries by other well-meaning editors, you would understand. It's not so much the quality of your ideas or anything about you, personally, but the way you did it. I can't speak for Surjection, but I suspect that if you were to get the folks at the Etymology scriptorium to agree with you, he wouldn't mind at all for your version to be added back. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Translon reference

Dear @Surjection, You have removed a reference from biological meaning [2] of translon in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/translon classifying it as 'refspam'. This reference was added by the user @Mswirski and is the correspondence letter that introduced this term. It may be useful to have this reference as it explains the reasons for the term introduction and defines its meaning. If you think that it should not be there, please, provide more argumentation. Kind regards, @Solenoozerec Solenoozerec (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Inline references are not used like this at all. This edit very much looks like self-promotion. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 23:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Should it be added to "citation" page? Solenoozerec (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Potentially. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, then this citation:

Goel, S. C. (1973). Transcription unit. Nature, 245(5425), 397-397.

"I suggest the terms 'transcon' and 'translon' for the units of transcrip-

tion and translation respectively."

Should work better, if more historical use is better suited. Other uses are, for example,

Ghatpande, V., Paul, U., Howard, M. A., & Cenik, C. (2025). Ribo-ITP expands the translatome of limited input samples. bioRxiv.

"In the last decade, an unexpectedly large number of translated regions (translons) have been discovered using ribosome profiling and proteomics. Translons can regulate mRNA translation and encode micropeptides that contribute to multiprotein complex formation, Ca2+ regulation in muscle, and signaling during embryonic development. However, identification of translons has been limited to cell lines or large organs due to high input requirements for conventional ribosome profiling and mass spectrometry."

Bruno, I., Perrucci, C., Tomè, G., Susin, G., Mazzalai, S., Sevegnani, M., ... & Viero, G. (2025). Empowering multiplexed ultra-throughout ribosome profiling with RiboWich. bioRxiv, 2025-10.

"(...) we investigated non-canonical translation events, focusing on translons located upstream of canonical initiation sites, i.e., non-overlapping and overlapping upstream translons (uTLs)." Mswirski (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The first quote is a mention, not a use. The latter two could count as uses, but are not far enough apart (at least one year of coverage) and there would have to be three of them. Please add the citations you find to the relevant discussion. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:26, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Understood. I'll add these to discussion, but please, make the tone of your opening statement socially acceptable. "reeks of..." is hostile and inflammatory, and doesn't invite for discussion. If more time has to pass for the inclusion then it is also fine. However the term was introduced in 1973, and is in expanding use since 2023, so required citations can be provided.

Also, please, clarify how the other use of 'translon' passed this scrutiny - the only citation is 2010 arxiv entry, also introducing the term (i.e. classifies as 'mention' and 'reeks of' protologism).

I noticed that many articles here are erroneous and contain no citations, other than inline - take for example https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exon

Which provides wrong etymology for exon: "Combination of the prefix ex of the term expressed (region) and the term intron." - in fact it is just ex- from expressed and -on from region, as explicitly stated in the piece cited therein. and it is inline citation, not 'use' case. Are inline citations acceptable for etymology but not for meanings? Let me know if I should edit it according to the current scientific consensus and actual origin of the term.

Please, understand that new users use these examples as a point of reference in their entries and if those are somehow in conflict in guidelines, reverting changes made by contributors based on these examples and topping it off with hostile comments is in no way helpful, especially if no reference to proper guidelines is given. Mswirski (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

rv: Cohencedence

How is this not a definition?

1. (slang, derogatory, offensive, alt-right) A portmanteau of Cohen and coincidence. The word attributes coincidental events to an assumed Jewish conspiracy.

I'm tempted to undo your revert. Xephnid (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The format "A term that..." is not a dictionary definition; this is basic lexicography. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Teach me how to phrase it then! Xephnid (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not my responsibility to teach you. Given that you seem to be more interested in calling out "alt-right" or "fascist" things rather than contributing to the dictionary in any constructive way, perhaps this project isn't for you. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to accept that my entry doesn't qualify as lexicographic. I'm a noob. That much is undeniably true.

How about this then?

(slang, derogatory, offensive, alt-right) Suggestion that a coincidence is actually the work of a Jewish conspiracy.

Some of my changes should be kept, I think:

• "Cohencedence" is anti-Semitic hate speech. There's nothing funny or humorous or sarcastic about hate speech. It's still hate speech. The "humor" is just a cheap trick to smuggle hate speech past unwitting observers.
• "Cohencedence" is alt-right/fascist terminology. It needs to be labelled as such. Failing to do so serves no one. I understand that Wiktionary should strive to be neutral. But refusing to call a spade a spade isn't neutrality. It's whitewashing.

Xephnid (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

No, "cohencedence" is not a "suggestion that a..." — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

because...

Xephnid (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, this is basic lexicography. A cat is not "a term referring to an animal...", it is "an animal...". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes it clearer! Well, here's the current entry:

> Something that seems like a coincidence but is actually the work of conspiratorial Jewish groups.

• "seems" is a bad choice because it leaves the option open that the connection is real when it is in fact insinuated in bad faith.
• "actually" is a bad choice because there is no actual conspiracy.

> Something that is coincidental but insinuated to be the result of a Jewish conspiracy.

Would that do?

Xephnid (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Definitions are not supposed to interpreted as endorsements or promotion. Compare e.g. Untermensch, which simply states how the term is used (and also in this case, in what context, but that is generally done with labels); its definition is not something like "a supposedly lesser person according to Nazi ideology". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but the insinuation is at the core of the term. "Untermensch" is unequivocally derogarative. "Cohencidence" is dressed up like a harmless joke. But it's neither harmless nor funny. It's just as much hate speech as "Untermensch". The defintion should do the insidiousness of "cohencidence" justice. Because the insidiousness is the point. Xephnid (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

If it's derogatory then we mark it as derogatory, because (as stated above and below!) that is a gloss, not the meaning or definition of the word. You do not put your opinions into a definition ever, even if you are convinced your opinions are right. ~2026-43519-2 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

"Cohencidence" is a hateful anti-Semitic slur that only far-right extremists use. It suggests that there's a Jewish conspiracy engineering events that look coincidental to the uninitiated aka normies. It uses "humor" to disguise its offensiveness, smuggle it past censors and numb the audience for a time when anti-Semitism is no longer used in jest. Mistaking it for a joke is a dangerous error.

How is any of that opinion? It's all fact. Xephnid (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Xephnid: A definition defines what something is (so apple may be defined as "a tasty fruit", not as "Term for such-and-such": an apple is not a term, it is a fruit). As Surjection observes, if you are mainly interested in pushing your politics then you are approaching things the wrong way. ~2026-43519-2 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Assfaggot reversion

Good evening, Why the reversion on Assfaggots? I've never seen it used any other way. Just adding the most common usage of the term to the page. Best regards. ~2026-50656-4 (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Doubtful. It very much seems like an in-joke used only on a couple of forums. Entries must meet the criteria for inclusion, and most narrowly used in-jokes do not. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 23:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Doubtful? Why is that? Perhaps the entire page ought to be deleted, then? I find more reference to the acronym usage of the term upon a simple search than I do any alternative. It seems the primary definition is more rarely used, if at all. ~2026-50656-4 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

You can ask the existing sense to be verified via WT:RFV. The point is that it's not our job to document every single in-joke. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 00:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Noted. My edit has been re-created with several durable sources across many years, with an RFV sense request to verify both usages. My contention is that the page ought to be deleted if neither source can be verified. I would ask that you please refrain from reversion until both senses of the term can be verified. Many thanks. ~2026-50656-4 (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Only one of those (the thesis) counts as a durably archived source. I'm not going to revert it, though, since the other quotes at least illustrate that the term is in some kind of use (which is at least relevant for the RFV). (Aeon of Strife Styled Fortress Assault Game Going On Two Sides should not be linked, though - it's not used outside this acronym.) — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 01:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I removed the link. Thank you! ~2026-50656-4 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Actually, the thesis quote doesn't even count - it doesn't use the term at all, not even as the acronym, The first quote doesn't use the acronym, only the full form. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 01:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:navbox

Does it really need autopatroller protection? It is hardly used on any reader-facing pages (just a handful of appendices and RC pages). Surely autoconfirmed is enough. This, that and the other (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to lowering it to AC, but it is used on quite a few fairly high-profile pages, such at WT:Quotations and a load of quote template documentation pages (e.g. Template:quote-book). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 01:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll lower the protection for now and keep a close eye on it. I'll raise the level if needed. This, that and the other (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Sir Surjection Please delete the page 𫡰

No usable Content given. MatweyZaharov1611 (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Adding comparative and superlative links to nainen-type adjectives

As of writing this, there are 8419 entries in Category:fi-adj with no 1 or 2, many (most?) of them -nen type. I think all -nen adjectives have comparative and superlative forms, even if they're usually unattestable.

Could we get a bot to mass add {{fi-adj|[entry]|-sempi|-sin}} to all nainen-type singular adjectives there, or is it too risky?

brittletheories (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we should add comparative/superlative forms that aren't actually in use. Sure, one could argue that they should be treated like any other inflected forms, in that they're displayed, even if the exact form is not attested. Comparatives and superlatives, however, are different; not all adjectives have them. Some are simply uncomparable, since having different degrees of the adjective makes no sense semantically, or such uses are marginal enough that they are highly unlikely to be ever encountered in text. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Weak agree with some caveats.

1. 1. As you point out, there's little difference between comparatives and other categories nominal inflections. Not all nouns have singular instructives, but we do include them when they exist (though, to play debile's advocate, we shouldn't list kivijalan even if jalan is well-attested).
   2. There's a big difference between impossible and unlikely. There is no comparative for pikku, but alavieskalaisempi is perfectly good Finnish, just like alavieskalaisittanne, which we include even if it has never been uttered by a soul.

brittletheories (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

There is a difference indeed. I once thought about making comparative/superlative forms automatically generated (User:Surjection/nopea was a prototype for how it would look, but it was never really finished). In such a case, I'd probably be less inclined to leave out theoretical, but strictly being entirely valid, forms. Something about the forms being on the headword line makes it feel like we should really know whether the forms we list actually exist or not. I doubt there's a rational explanation for that gut feeling. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

BP Jan. Reversion.

Faster deletion would have helped, also an explanation that appeared in page history. But, OK. DCDuring (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Bamf as teleport

I see people use "bamf" as a verb for teleportation all the time like "let's bambf out of here" (when playing a game like D&D that has teleportation). Please restore it thanks Jikybebna (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

For example on Critical Role Jikybebna (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see WT:EL or some other English verb entries for examples on how to format this correctly. You also removed the {{also}} from the top of the page for no apparent reason. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey Sir Surjection, please delete the page called ὕ

Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the Sandbox MatweyZaharov1611 (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@MatweyZaharov1611: Surjection spends a lot of time here, but you shouldn't count on him always being available. For such completely obvious cases, you can just tag it with {{d}}, and any admin will delete it. Otherwise you would use {{rfv}} for cases where you think it doesn't meet the attestation requirements of WT:CFI or {{rfd}} if it violates other CFI rules like being sum of parts. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

delete the page qiángjiānmínyì

Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the Sandbox MatweyZaharov1611 (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

User talk:~2026-99240-7

Hi Surjection, can you please delete and block the temporary account commented on my talk page but vandalism? ~2026-99240-7 (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Sven Montebello

Hi I saw that you blocked "Sven Montebello" with the reason "Abusing multiple accounts/block evasion". On French and Italian Wiktionaries, there's this account called "Allegra Bellavista" who seems to behave in the same way, do you think he might be his sockpuppet? Àncilu (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Definitely. There have been about a dozen accounts so far. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Legally blind redirection

'Legally blind' is much more common than 'legal blindness'. The redirection would have been useful. Aloysius Jr (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Redirects are not used for different word forms or alternative forms. legally blind should have a full entry if anything. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

The "mixels" rollback is an error

As a bit of a LEGO fanatic, I happen to be a die-hard fan of Mixels, I wanna give out that knowledge to everyone about the franchise. Especially on the Wiktionary, but I think there's been a bit of a mix-up. (no pun intended) I'm not trying to spread misinformation, I'm trying to add more to fans of obscure media, LEGO and Cartoon Network. So please stop with the rollback. JimmyDaCartoonist (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

No. What you're adding is not dictionary material. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Revert

why did you revert my edits?? ~2026-10327-52 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

1. Your edits are actively removing information - including that the term is not that rare in one particular region.
2. Don't just copy the Japanese IPA to the English template - the languages have completely different phonologies.

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:overtrace

Hi Surjection, can you please delete this talk page, temporary account commented on overtrace but nonsense gibberish MatweyZaharov1611 (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)