Wiktionary:Information desk

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Wiktionary:ID)
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Information desk

You can search in the archives of Information desk:

Welcome to the Information desk of Wiktionary, a place where newcomers can ask questions about words and about Wiktionary, ask for help, or post miscellaneous ideas that don’t fit in any of the other rooms.

To start a new topic, clicking on the “+” tab, or click here: Start a new topic.

Sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), code which produces your signature, followed by a UTC timestamp.

For past questions, see /Archives.

February 2015


is "oop a day" related to "whoops a daisy" ?

beware of Greeks bearing gifts[edit]

Do people consider this proverb offensive? It just seems like this could easily be felt as xenophobic if interpreted literally. --Romanophile (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

judgmentalism vs. judgmentality[edit]


Apparently I have coined the term "judgmentality" which to me is superior to judgmentalism for the idea connoted. Rationale: The "ism" ending is generally used to indicate an "ism", i.e., a system of beliefs as in communism, capitalism, atheism, socialism, etc. Whereas, just as mentality is the outgrowth from mental(as opposed to "mentalism"), "judgmentality" should be the logical evolution from judgmental.

I facetiously noted that "apparently I have coined the term" only because I have spent a half hour searching and cannot find the word "judgmentality" recognized anywhere in my internet searches.

Your response would be greatly apprecialted.

William Mitchell,

We're interested in words that are already in use for more than a year by multiple authors. In this case, judgmentality gets over 300 hits on Google Books (including about 50 for non-judgmentality), so you weren't the only person to coin this term, and we could probably include it. Someone would have to look and see if the way it's used in those books corresponds to your proposed meaning, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Dull pain[edit]

I hope this is the right place for this... in dull, I can't find a definition that can explain the sentence "dull pain" -- 16:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

  • It is an extension of sense #1 - but I've added a separate sense to make this clear. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


Template:suffix categorises words into Category:German words suffixed with -ismus, while there's Category:German nouns ending in "-ismus". That's irritating and kind of redundant. So please improve this. -10:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it a contraction if only the space between two words is omitted?[edit]

In Dutch, the combination de zelfde (the same) is written as one word, dezelfde (literally thesame). Would this be considered a contraction in the sense of {{contraction of}} and Category:Dutch contractions? Or what else is it called? —CodeCat 15:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The closest English parallel I can think of is cannot, which we simply call a verb, not a contraction (the contraction being can't). German does the same thing with derselbe, which we call a pronoun (though I'd say it's a determiner), not a contraction. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like a good idea to duplicate the definition of zelfde on each page, though. So I wanted to have a definition that simply says "(something) of de zelfde", because that's what it is. Of course that means knowing what form and part of speech it is, contraction is the only thing that came to mind. —CodeCat 16:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
How about "synonym of" in the sense line — and put the details of its compound construction in the etymology? Equinox 16:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem there is that the word is never actually written separate, I think that's actually nonstandard. So it's not a synonym in the sense that de zelfde doesn't actually exist in that spelling. When people say "de zelfde" they just write "dezelfde" in all cases. —CodeCat 17:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
"On each page"? How many pages are we talking about? Why not just call dezelfde a determiner that means "[[the]] [[same]]"? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The forms that are written without space are listed at zelfde. The difficulty is that you essentially end up repeating the meaning of both words over and over. For diezelfde you'd end up with something like "that same (distal; masculine, feminine or plural)". These combined forms are not really idiomatic, they wouldn't be if they were written as two words. So I really just want a minimal definition that says which words. —CodeCat 17:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, cannot wouldn't be idiomatic if it were written as two words either, but it isn't (at least not with the relevant meaning), so we list it and give it a full definition. The only difference is that cannot is just a single form, while dezelfde is (if the list you linked to is exhaustive) one of six forms. If you balk at listing very similar definitions six times (which doesn't seem excessive to me, but maybe it does to you), you could call the others pseudo-inflected forms of dezelfde, e.g. by defining diezelfde as "{{form of|masculine, feminine or plural distal|dezelfde|lang=nl}}". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
You have to keep in mind that there are other forms with zelfde that are written separately, like ieder zelfde (every like), geen zelfde (no like), zo'n zelfde (same such a) etc. dezelfde just fits into that pattern, the lack of a space is merely a spelling exception. —CodeCat 18:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
So? We don't have entries for SOP phrases written with a space; we have an entry for cannot only because it's written together, but we don't have entries for parallel constructions written separately like could not, may not, would not, ought not, etc. (We have must not because its scope is unexpected.) For Dutch we only have to worry about the ones that are written together, not the ones that are written separately. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Display definitions of English words only[edit]

I would like to have Wiktionary only display definitions of English words. I have searched and searched and find no way to make it do that.

It is possible and, if so, how do I get only English words displayed.

For example, when I search for "levantase" I would like to get NO RESULTS because it is not a valid ENGLISH word. (Of course, possible also is that no one has entered it's definition.)

There is a table of contents at the beginning of each page. Just click on English, and don't look at possible additional sections. And a suggestion: if you don't want to find results for a word, don't search for this word. Lmaltier (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not possible, because we use a system that was designed for the needs of an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The best you can do is to add "English" after your search string (i.e. levantase English). This won't directly find your entry, but the list of results further down on the page will contain terms that have both your search term and the word "English" somewhere on the page. Since the vast majority of occurrences of "English" are in English entries, and there should be no English entries without the word "English" in them, it will eliminate most (not all) of the non-English results, and give you all of the English ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t anthropology technically a branch of primatology? --Romanophile (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

How to structure fire philosopher, philosopher by fire, and similar[edit]

I created the entry and citations pages for fire philosopher and fire philosophers. I want to add the alternate forms: philosopher by fire, philosophers by fire, philosophers of fire, and philosophers of fire. Should the citations be located on the fire philosopher citations page under a combined subheading for each singular and plural combination? Should I use {{alternative form of}} or {{alternative name of}} to relate these? Should I create {{alternative case form of}} pages for each? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you should {{synonym of|...}}, as an "alternative form" is usually something closer in form, like a variant spelling. Citations should go on the appropriate citations page, though, i.e. don't put "philosopher of fire" on the citation page for "fire philosopher". Thanks! Equinox 21:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Please translate Latin to English[edit]


Non est forum translationum. Wiktionary:Translation requests quaeris. —CodeCat 20:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

What to do when I accidently entered something in upper case[edit]

I added a new entry ("Monthly meeting") which really should be lower case ("monthly meeting"). I don't know how to fix this blunder now that it has been saved. Kiwima (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You need to move the entry to the lower-case spelling. The menu option for doing that tends to be hidden in a menu labeled something meaningless like "More", but you should have it somewhere.
This will leave a redirect behind, which we try to avoid in most cases, but you can add a {{delete}} template to the redirect page to bring it to our attention, and an admin will delete it. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


How do you guys type all of these characters of various languages? Are you using a software or the your windows input? Im just curious.

Windows allows you to set up your keyboard to input alternative "alphabets" from the standard keyboard (In Windows 8 - Control panel/Clock, language and Region/Language/Change input methods). So for example I can move from the "Roman alphabet" to the «ελληνικό αλφάβητο» (Greek) at the touch of a key.   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 21:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
There are other ways, too. There's a box below the text box when you're editing a page that allows you to click to insert special characters. I also use the Windows Character Map utility; for IPA I use the Transliterator add-on for Firefox, and for Burmese I use a Myanmar character picker. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Translation Request[edit]

Hi, I don't mean to be a bother but is the translation request page being monitored? I've put In two sentences in latin a few days ago and it has yet to be translated. Could someone check that? Thanks!.

You could be a bit more patient and less demanding? Nobody here has to translate it if they don't want to. —CodeCat 13:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a context label for sectarian slurs?[edit]

The IP Formerly Known As Pass A Method added rafidah, which is very rare in English, but does seem to have some usage among English-speaking Sunni Muslims as a sectarian slur against Shiites. I thought it would be a good idea to use a context label to indicate this highly-restricted context, but I couldn't think of any. We do have "ethnic slur", but religious differences aren't necessarily ethnic ones. I'm sure we can find lots of terms to use this on, though papist, heathen and Islamofascist are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

We can go with sectarian slur or religious slur (more common). — Ungoliant (falai) 13:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Other examples are Prod and its synonyms. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


I would like to know how to cite the information that I need to use for a research paper. The information I found is on sugar.

{{senseid}} string[edit]

I added {{senseid|en|pathology}} in theism.

I added {{l/en|theism#English-pathology|theism}} in theaism and in theinism.

When I click the links in theaism and in theinism, I get taken to the top of the theism page.

Should it scroll down the page to the actual sense or stay at the top of the page? Should I just craft a bare link? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Use {{l|en|theism|id=pathology}}: theism. —CodeCat 17:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense. I couldn't find that in the documentation. TVM. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Nahuatl inflection[edit]

As far as I looked around, no Nahuatl word had an inflection table (e.g.: tlācohtli).
One might argue, that an inflection table isn't needed if a few forms are mentioned (e.g. for normal pure Latin words just nom. sg., gen. sg., for German words nom. sg., gen. sg., nom. pl., for normal regular English words nom. sg.). But as there are inflection tables for some languages, this argument isn't valid.
So, accourding to [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Nahuatl_grammar] and compared with some basic grammar information on some web sites and in a book it should be like this:

Nahuatl Latin English
sing. plur. sing. plur. sing. plur.
abs. tlācohtli tlātlācohtin servus servi slave slaves
poss. indef. tētlācauh tētlācahuān alicuius persona
alicuius servus
aliquarum personae
aliquorum servi
somebody's person/slave somebody's persons/slaves
I. sing. notlācauh notlācahuān mea persona
meus servus
meae personae
mei servi
my person/slave my persons/slaves
II. sing. motlācauh motlācahuān tua persona
tuus servus
tuae personae
tui servi
thy person/slave thy persons/slaves
III. sing. ītlācauh ītlācahuān sua persona
suus servus
suae personae
sui servi
his (her, its) person/slave his (her, its) persons/slaves
I. plur. totlācauh totlācahuān nostra persona
noster servus
nostrae personae
nostri servi
our person/slave our persons/slaves
II. plur. anmotlācauh anmotlācahuān vestra persona
vester servus
vestrae personae
vestri servi
your person/slave your persons/slaves
III. plur. īntlācauh īntlācahuān sua persona
suus servus
suae personae
sui servi
their person/slave their persons/slaves
  • In general the affix -yo would be missing, like "nonac" (my meat) & "nonacayo" (my meat which is a part of me, my own flesh). In case of "tlācohtli" (slave) this maybe doesn't make sense ("my slave which is a part of me" &c.), but maybe it can be used (similar to monarchic 1. ps. pl. "we"/"our").
  • In pillé resp. pilli it is stated that pillé is the vocative of pille. Besides that entry I haven't heard of "(grammatical) cases" in case of Nahuatl anywhere (i.e. it might be wrong), and it seems like Nahuatl has only two cases, subject and object (at least when exluding possessive/genitive like it's also done in some English grammar books). But maybe a vocative does exists or does exists for some words (like some but not all Latin words have a locative case).

-07:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC), added by IP

Question about adding obsolete forms.[edit]

I have a little question about adding obsolete forms. There was a major spelling change in Swedish in 1906 where a lot of words were changed. Therefore I like to add this to the entries with the modern spelling:

Alternative forms[edit]

So, should I put it like that above or like this?:

Alternative forms[edit]

—This unsigned comment was added by Dreysman (talkcontribs).

Portuguese has the same issue. What I do is use just {{qualifier|obsolete}} in the alternative forms section of the main entry, and add a more detailed description in the definition of the obsolete form. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

How to find language codes?[edit]

I'm sorry, I have to vent my frustration. All I wanted was copy etymology information for one word (neume) from Wikipedia.

Of course I didn't expect it to be a simple copy and paste operation. I was prepared for the fact that the format is standardized differently from Wikipedia, and when I saw that the templates {{etyl}} and {{m}} expect language codes, it didn't strike me as a problem. How wrong I was!

There was no link to the possible values anywhere, neither in the template documentation, nor in the editing help, nor, for that matter, a list of at least the most common ones in the "Advanced" editing features. After a long and frustrating search (involving several misleading steps, such as when the template description has Easter egg links marked "language codes" and "language families"), I finally arrived at Wiktionary:List of families. Now that page doesn't list "medieval Latin" under that name, so I searched for the word "Latin". That turns out to be impractical, since it occurs many times in the "Scripts" column. Then I had what I thought was a clever idea: Well, I thought, "middle English" and "middle French" are "enm" and "frm", respectively, let's look for "lam". Wrong again! That stands for "Lamba", and there's nothing anywhere near that looks like medieval Latin. Then I realized that the table is sortable, and I happen to know the family; I'll just sort by that! But no, that doesn't work since the table is split in alphabetically, which makes the sorting pointless.

So I'm giving up now; I left the original Wikipedia text as a hidden comment so someone with more experience can convert the text to the proper layout later. SebastianHelm (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You can simply type "Medieval Latin" as the language code (it's not a language of its own, so it doesn't have a proper language code - see Wiktionary:List of languages/special). I've cleaned up the entry. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Probably the easiest way to find this out on your own would have been to go to Category:English terms derived from Medieval Latin and see how an existing entry does it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I had a similar problem when I first started. It was not clear to me what the set of non-ISO 639 codes included, until I read Wiktionary:Etymology#Stages of Latin (which is only a draft). I still see a disconnect between, for example, Medieval Latin as a {{etyl}} code but Latin as the language on the entry page of a Medieval Latin etyl coded word. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC), modified 17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC) to add my username.
When writing template documentation, I always include a link to Wiktionary:Languages in there. Something like what I did at Template:number box. —CodeCat 15:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Good to know, nevertheless, Wiktionary:Languages is "a policy think tank" that may change; but the Latin probably will remain stable and not be usable in {{term}} or {{m}} or most other templates which require the ISO codes. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone - lots of good suggestions; that helps me already. Now I wonder if some of this could be included in the editing UI, so other new users can find it easily. On my monitor, there's plenty of space next to "Advanced - Special characters - Help". It seems to me this is more important than "Advanced", so how about inserting it before "Advanced"? If that's not possible, how about under Help, among the first three entries (Formatting/Links/Headings), for relatively easy discovery? SebastianHelm (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Grand Sophy[edit]

How or where do I add "Grand Sophy", "Sophy" is a title, that is also found with the "Grand" epithet/adjective? I don't think it should be a separate entry. I don't think it is a separate sense of "Sophy". Do I add "Grand Sophy" as usage note in "Sophy"? Where do place the attributions, do I add attributions in a usage note? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

*whatever* has an article on wikipedia ...[edit]

I strongly suggest to to remove this - bot-created? - thingy off of every page where the "article" on en-wikipedia is but a redirect. A redirect is not any help whatsoever on a word redirected to whereever else, instead just pissing off anyone who falls for that (bot-created?) link. Should not be that hard to check, is it ? thanks. 04:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that these links are bridges to the encyclopedic world. A link to a redirect might be relevant, but I agree that a link to the actual page would be much better. However, the major issue is that a link from e.g. a common noun to a town with the same (capitalized) name is 100% irrelevant. A bot cannot make the difference between relevant links and irrelevant links, except for entries with the same name (capitalized in both projects). Bots should not be used in other cases. Lmaltier (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I made above entry, as you can see middle of the night and probably not even sober. Ehem. Sorry.
I did not mean the problem with links to something else with the same name, but to redirects -> articles under a completely different "word". I mean whoever is here looking up things in wiktionary.org probably is interested in the word itself, e.g. etymology of "helium", not necessarily in all the technical and whatnot aspects of helium within the real world. In this case, the link "wikipedia has an entry on helium" is serving well, that article is under the lemma helium, and has a "history" section explaining why this name "helium". But if look up "harlot" in wiktionary, and lets say not satisfied with the etymology bit I click the link thingy "wp has an entry on harlot" -> it has NOT. It has but a redirect to "prostitute" and of course that article on "prostitute" has absolutely nothing about the word "harlot".
I was just hoping that it might be feasible to give that bot creating those links to wikipedia some criteria so it could decide to not enter that link thingy into wiktionary pages when the wp-target is but a redirect. dab pages would not be affected, since they are not redirects. But maybe that is not feasible ? ah, well, then … 19:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no such bot. The {{wikipedia}} template (or whatever it redirects to) creates the link based on either the page name of the entry, or on whatever it's given as a parameter. The problem is that (as far as I know), templates can't check for redirects on other wikis. Besides, the Wikipedia links aren't there for people who want more dictionary-type information such as etymologies, they're there so people who want to know more about the concept referred to by the term can read about it in an encyclopedia article. In other words, a {{wikipedia}} template in the harlot entry should be changed to link to w:Prostitute directly- but that would have to be done by hand (one could program a bot to do it, but someone would have to take that on as a project, and it doesn't sound like a very good use of a bot owner's time). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Dump of English words[edit]

Hi, is there any more up-to-date dump of English words available than the one at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Index:English dated 2012-Apr-28? 00:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes: [1]. Equinox 01:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the reply. The linked pages contain a lot of stuff which I don't fully understand, and I can't really find what I am looking for. Could you (or someone) possibly give me specific instructions on where I can download the list of English words? 01:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Anyone? 11:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Try here: [2]. You can't just get the "list of all page titles" because that will include non-English words too. Perhaps get "all pages, current versions only", and then discard any page whose content does not include the string ==English==. It might require a little programming, or some kind of search-in-files tool. Equinox 11:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. This is much more complicated than I envisaged from your first reply. So there is no way just to get an up-to-date list of English words in simple user-readable format? I think that would be a valuable facility. 17:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Once upon a time Index:English was kept up to date. But, as with all other languages, this is sadly no longer the case. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. 19:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • By the way, in case anyone cares, or ever wants to run the process again, I think there may be a slight glitch somewhere in the generation of Index:English. One or two common words, e.g. "confer", "prefer", "tolerance", which I assume must have been entered at the time of the 2012-Apr-28 database dump, are inexplicably omitted. 02:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Index:English is outdated and should probably not be used. If you want to "screen-scrape" the English word list, then you should now use Category:English_lemmas plus Category:English_non-lemma_forms. Since this involves at least as much programming as my previous suggestion regarding the data dump, I don't see why anyone would do it. Equinox 03:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Original poster, if you're desperate for the English word list (but let me warn you it will include things like aargh, bzzzt, niggerfucker and supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, so it might not suit your Facebook Scrabble game): I can probably generate it for you. But right now I'm very busy with some academic commitments so it might take me a little while. Equinox 03:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If you do ever get the time to do this, I think it would be a very useful facility. Free, high quality word / phrase lists are always valuable. From my point of view, it would be useful to include inflections (plurals, verb inflections, comparatives, superlatives), but to exclude misspellings, such as recieve. If you ever do do it, I think it would be helpful to put a link at the top of "Index:English" saying "For more up-to-date list, go here" -- that's assuming you don't replace "Index:English" itself. Another possiblity is that I may be able to do it myself from the database dump, but the main sticking point is that I cannot read the "bz2" format, and I cannot install any software to enable me to do so. How hard would it be for someone to convert the "bz2" file to a "zip" file that I can open with standard Windows software? 17:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's a shame this hasn't been updated in three years. We've added a LOT of new entries since then. Is there no one out there with the relevant expertise who can publish an updated index? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Poe's law[edit]

Can Poe, as a noun, be used as to refer to an instance of Poe's law? For example That statement is a Poe, to mean the statement is false, and has been created to discredit the purported author? LongHairedFop

  • Basically it depends on the existence of evidence. Can you see such usage in the real world - Google book search for instance. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
A quick Google search, with quotes, for "that is a poe" -power found a few relevant hits. Confounding the search is that Poe can refer to Power over Ethernet, Edgar Allan Poe, or directly to Poe's Law. The hits are
  1. http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=33187#p33168
  2. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/20/american-atheists-bench-in-florida-gets-vandalized-and-we-know-who-did-it/#comment-971511601
  3. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/islam/the-obedient-wife-club-t22840-20.html#p875855
However, they are all in comments, rather than the site's author, so there may be less weight to them. I'm not sure if it is enough of a neologism to warrant inclusion, which is why I'm asking here. LongHairedFop (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@LongHairedFop: I think describing your example in terms of Poe's law, "that statement is a Poe", would not "mean the statement is false" but that it is not discernable. I don't think it distinguishes whether the statement "has been created to discredit the purported author." In that sense, I think "that statement is a Poe" is equivalent to "that statement is indiscernible." The links you gave show a different sense, that a poe is someone or something fictitious. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

how can you submit a new word?[edit]

How do you submit a new word to Wiktionary?

Wikidictionary Babel[edit]

How do you guys know if someone truly knows a language at a near native level? Do you test anyone?

No. It's entirely based on self-reporting. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

-iter - German?[edit]

Words with -iter do (or more like did) exist in German too. E.g.: "So wie aber die Tochter das Substantiv nur pronominaliter und die Mutter das Adjektiv nur adverbialiter begreift [...]" (older book); idealiter, generaliter, realiter (duden.de). Some of these words could even be pseudo-latinisms, i.e. they might be created in German and not exist in Latin.
So: is -iter also German? If not: Should "German" -iter be mentioned anyway, of course with notes like "only in latinisms", "not productive"? -23:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Serious help needed with this template[edit]

Discussion moved to WT:Grease pit/2015/April#Serious help needed with this template.

Why is there no conjugation tables for the English words?[edit]

Why is this? I think that it would be very useful to have. The Swedish wiktionary has conjugations for its terms, the Icelandic wiktionary has conjugations for its terms and Dutch has conjugations for its terms etc. Why doesn't the English version of wiktionary have this?

What do you expect to see, exactly? We already list the inflections for English verbs (goes, going, went, gone). Equinox 20:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so the grammar isn't more complicated than that? I mean, I've never really thought about it, but isn't their some sort of archaic forms? Dreysman (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they're pretty repetitive: it's not like e.g. French or Finnish where you need huge conjugation tables for gender and grammatical case. The nastiest English verb is "be", where we do actually have a table. There are archaic forms (goest, goeth) but they don't exist for all verbs, and I think consensus is against including them at the lemma form. Equinox 20:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that's all I needed to know, thanks! Dreysman (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)