Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup

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

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for cleanup

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for verification
add new | history | archives | old index

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} -

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

This is a manually created and maintained list of pages that require cleanup.

Adding a request: To add a request, place the template {{rfc}} to the messy entry, and then make a new nomination here. Include an explanation of your reasons for nominating the page for cleanup, but please put any extensive discussion in the discussion page of the article itself.

Closing a request: A conversation should remain here at least for one week after the {{rfc}} tag is removed, then moved to that page's talk page from here. When the entry has been cleaned, please strike the word here, and put any discussion on the talk page of the cleaned entry.

Pages tagged with the template {{rfc}} are automatically placed in Category:Requests for cleanup. They are automatically removed from the category when the template is removed, or, if the template has not been used, when Category:Requests for cleanup has been removed from the page.

If an entry needs attention from experienced editors in a specific language, consider using {{attention}} instead of {{rfc}}.

See also Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion process, Help:Nominating an article for cleanup or deletion, and Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion elements. Category:Pages with broken file links should also be cleaned out periodically.

Oldest tagged {{rfc}}s


Unresolved requests from before September 2014[edit]

September 2014[edit]


If anyone fancies a big job of bringing an entry into the 21st century, have a look at settle. I did my best to modernise some of the definitions and reformat things, but there's still a decent amount of work to be done to make it looks reasonable. --Type56op9 (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. - -sche (discuss) 05:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


Another archaic entry. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]


I think the "Derived terms" and "Related terms" need some attention. In my opinion, most if not all entries under "Related terms" are actually "Derived terms". Donnanz (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I have tackled this myself, putting everything under one heading (derived terms), and have removed the rfc. If anyone disagrees, they are welcome to change it. Donnanz (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Is spatial derived from space or from Latin spatium? It's not exactly a massive issue. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
DCDuring has just done some work on this, but both space and spatial are derived from spatium apparently. Donnanz (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Spatial was apparently coined in English as space + al, but modified to look like it could be from the imaginary Latin spatialis. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits to single-kanji entries by (talk)[edit] (talk) has been adding def lines to the ===Kanji=== sections of single-kanji entries. In and of itself, this is generally a good thing. However, 1) they're going for comprehensive instead of summary listings, and 2) they're causing copyright violations, since (so far as I've seen) they're directly copying and pasting in content from WWWJDIC.

I'm still far too busy at work to make any concerted effort at cleaning up this mess. I would greatly appreciate any help in vetting this user's edits, especially to single-kanji entries. In particular, compare what they've added to the definitions listed at http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1B and make sure they aren't just copied straight over. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


Derived terms: This very large section includes many vernacular names of pigeon species and subspecies and many pigeon breeds (shown as Columba livia domestica, which is not a universally accepted species AFAICT), such as the 700 or so listed at w:List of pigeon breeds. These are probably legitimate. Some of the items in the DT section seem on their face to be SoP, but may be on the list or be short names for breeds on the list. It would help if someone knowledgeable about pigeon breeding could sort through this list. I will work on the vernacular names of species in the meanwhile. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO most of the domestic pigeon breeds shouldn't be included here: pigeon isn't an integral part of the name, and a Google books search for "Arabian trumpeter pigeon", for example, turns up exactly zero hits. It would be like having bassett hound dog as a derived term under dog. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]


Italian: feminine plural of muro. Makes no sense, muro is listed as a masculine noun with the plural muri, it says see also mura. If muro did have a feminine form, mura would be the singular and mure the plural (using the usual rules anyway). If there is such a meaning, what it is? Because we don't have it. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It really is the feminine plural of muro. Mura is used to give the idea of “togetherness”, in the same way that collective nouns are used. But the presentation can certainly be improved. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like it could have been a direct descendant of the Latin neuter plural, except that mūrus is masculine. Does it really take feminine plural concord, e.g. Le mura sono alte? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
It does. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a job for a usage note and example sentences. No one is going to expect a masculine noun to have, in addition to its regular masculine plural, a feminine plural form that looks like a feminine singular. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Preferably a templatised usage note (or a definition-line template?) since there are many words like this. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Muro doesn't mention it (at least not its meaning) and mura really doesn't mention its meaning either, so of one these entries has to mention what it means. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Bump. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

On this page is an example: https://www.camping.it/italy/lazio/lepalmevillage

Appendix:Hepburn Chart[edit]

An IP complained about the font size on this page, which is understandable, but that's just part of what's wrong with it. The table is hard-coded html, there's no wikilinking or font support, and it's just plain ugly. Can someone de-uglify this thing? Chuck Entz (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Wow, I never even knew that page existed. It's only got three incoming links: this RFC, the index to appendices, and the English term entry Romanization.
@Atitarev, Haplology, TAKASUGI Shinji, Wyang is there any value in having this table? It isn't referenced, it's poorly laid out and hard to read, and it doesn't cover all of the modified-Hepburn romanization conventions we use here. Nominate for deletion? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 09:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind if it goes, not a great table but we should probably have a better appendix for kana, if there isn't one already. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
If we need an appendix for kana, we should rather rewrite the existing appendix than delete it. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree but I won't be able to do it well. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • We already have Wiktionary:About_Japanese/Transliteration as a text-based (as opposed to tabular) explanation of how we romanize Japanese terms here on the EN WT. That page has better potential visibility (with a link to it right on the WT:AJA page) and is more comprehensive in its treatment of modified Hepburn. It could probably use updating, granted, but it's a much better resource and better location than the nearly-orphaned Appendix:Hepburn Chart page.
If there's anything worthy of salvaging from the Appendix:Hepburn Chart page, I propose that we move that salvageable content over to Wiktionary:About_Japanese/Transliteration and then delete Appendix:Hepburn Chart. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Eirikr It's not just about salvaging what's missing. Tables are easier to view and use, provided it's done well. Wiktionary:About Japanese/Transliteration doesn't seem complete and easy to read. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, apparently I wasn't clear -- To restate, I think the Appendix:Hepburn Chart page is a horrible location for any of this information. It's not linked from anywhere, it's not highly visible, and I doubt many people even knew it existed before it showed up on this page. (I certainly didn't.) The content could be absolutely golden, and a perfect explanation of the wonders of the universe -- but if it's hidden away in a page location that is obscure and unfindable, there's no value.
If you like the table format, great -- let's move that content to Wiktionary:About_Japanese/Transliteration. I happen to agree that the table layout is more easily digestible. However, the Appendix:Hepburn Chart page is not the best place for this. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@Eirikr, Haplology, TAKASUGI Shinji, Wyang. Yes, sure. The first step is to move the table, then reformat. I had no objections about the location. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
it looks fine. Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits by IP socks of Fête/Phung Wilson[edit]

Both of these globally-blocked accounts belonged to the same person, who lives in Quebec and has a pattern of bad edits and incessant asking of questions regarding pronunciation. Since then, he's popped up as one IP or another to ask pronunciation questions. I haven't blocked him so far, because he seemed to be just asking questions. I finally blocked his latest IP after he edited a pronunciation module, and checking contributions has turned up a number of pronunciation edits. Here's a list of the IP's I've been able to find using wildcarding from edits I knew about (there are probably more that I've missed):

There are also lots of edits by the original Fête and Phung Wilson accounts that don't seem to have been thoroughly vetted- it's hard to find Quebecois French pronunciation sections that haven't been at least tinkered with. I noticed an odd, rambling pronunciation note at mayonnaise, and, sure enough, it was added by Fête. If it weren't for the IP's request for audio bringing it to Mr. Granger's attention, it would still be there in its original form.

I would appreciate someone who knows pronunciation going through the mainspace contributions of the above and checking for bad edits. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Stale, I believe. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


Adjective meaning "(grammar) Qualified". I can't see which sense of qualified or qualify applies, certainly none of them are marked (grammar). Could we just use a definition consisting of more than one word, perhaps? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


  1. Is there any reason why this should have the plural as lemma? The singular is attested;
  2. the second definition needs rewording. It’s not “the relationship [] ” but “people having the relationship [] ” (I can’t think of a way of doing it elegantly);
  3. looking at google books:"co-parent-in-law"|"co-parents-in-law", it seems the most common use is in translating languages that have a single word for this. Is this worth mentioning in the usage notes? Or maybe a context label like chiefly anthropology and linguistics.

Ungoliant (falai) 22:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. Not AFAICT.
  2. It does.
  3. Both usage notes and context label may be warranted, as they indicate different aspects of usage. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]


These pretty much all need checking. Poor quality English and inaccuracies. Some relatively minor, using ===Idiom=== header where ===Verb=== and {{context|idiomatic|lang=en}} would be standard practice. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I've tried to fix some of his/her previous creations. In particular (aside from some silly SoPs) I'm concerned that he/she is creating everyday phrases with the wrong definition. Equinox 00:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
keep your head above water, doesn't mean that, does it? I thought it meant to survive (because if you don't keep your head above water, you drown). Current definition says 'be vigilant'. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
slow your roll. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be redundant to keep one's head above water. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
This user is still doing what Equinox described above. - -sche (discuss) 06:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


(Turkish) Etymology 1 and etymology 2 are exactly the same. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Or at least the spellings are identical. Perhaps there are two different Old Turkic nouns 'bod' and two different Proto-Turkic nouns 'bod' too. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I suspect they copied the text from the first etymology and forgot to change it. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You're right that's more likely. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

track record[edit]

Sense 2: The wording is strange to say the least, a bit like gobbledegook. Donnanz (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

To me that seems a lot like Used other than as an idiom: see track,‎ record. in the context of horse racing, ie, SoP. It would be just like course record, league record, conference record,etc. DCDuring TALK 12:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a fairly drastic solution, but I must admit I was only looking for the idiomatic sense. Donnanz (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]


I think that the fifth definition of the verb twitter (" To use the microblogging service Twitter.") should be moved to Twitter and twitter should be an alternative spelling of Twitter. In addition, the Twitter entry probably needs a definition as a proper noun ("An online social networking service founded in 2006."). What do you think? Einstein2 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Proper noun: yes, perhaps. I don't generally like adding brands/trademarks/IP but I suppose Twitter has become a sufficiently significant thing to merit an entry by now, i.e. it's often mentioned in newspapers etc. out of context, without explaining what it is. Verb: really an RFV matter, dependent on how we find the word used in practice. Equinox 22:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]



Template:list:religious texts/en

Maybe a good idea in principal, but these have been transformed by Pass a Method into lame POV cruft: their theory seems to be that no religion should be mentioned unless all the religions are mentioned. The problem, of course, is that there are lots and lots of religions, mythologies, pantheons, etc., and many of them are virtually unknown, so lists like this tend to be hit-and-miss, and give undue weight to trivia.

Add to that the fact that PAM has very poor judgment, and seems to be randomly adding anything they run into as a religion without really thinking through whether it actually is a religion. Some of the "religions" are being rfved at the moment, and I suspect that there are some secular philosophies and ethical systems mixed in, too. I included the religious texts, as well, even though they do seem to be all real religious texts, because I have my doubts as to how representative the list is. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The majority of the entries correspond with a list of what the UK governemnt regards as religion. The UK government's statistics can't be that erroneous can they? Check out the Uk governemnt census here. 09:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
That's not the list of official UK religions, that's the list of (statistically significant) write-in entries on the census (note that all major UK religions - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism - are absent from that list). The government doesn't regard Jedi or Heavy Metal as religions, it just noted that it received a large number of these as write-ins. The actual census question used "No religion, Christian (all denominations), Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Any other religion (write in)" - which is not to say that those are more official than other religions in the UK, but just that those were the most statistically useful to list (for instance, paganism is roughly as common as Judaism or Sikhism in the UK, but wasn't included because it covered too many different traditions). You can read a very detailed analysis of the technical details of creating a useful but not over-comprehensive list of religions by the Office of National Statistics here, which might give some pointers for creating more useful versions of these templates. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggest either turning the template into a list of only the ten or so biggest religions, or deleting it and directing users to the category instead. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


It looks like it needs cleanup overall —umbreon126 04:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The Chinese section is done. The Japanese is kyūjitai. Ideally we should have a soft redirect to lemma at . Korean and Vietnamese are only used as components, not separate words. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The contributions of IP user[edit]

This individual has been adding truckloads of references to Latin entries, including massive, unbroken blocks of untranslated Latin- they obviously have no clue about what Wiktionary referencing is all about. I've attempted a clue transplant via their talk page, but there's no guarantee they'll read it, and their existing edits need to be cleaned up.

I should mention also that they tried to remove an etymology section with an edit comment referring to "Der germanische Ursprung der lateinischen Sprache", which is a historical oddity published in 1836 that tried to prove that Latin was derived from Germanic. From this I'm guessing that their contributions will also have to be scrutinized for state-of-the-nineteenth-century-art clinkers.

I suspect this may be the same person that has been doing similar things to part-of-speech entries in German and English using other IPs and at least one account, but let's deal with this one, for the moment. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Stale, I believe. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]


This anon added a bunch of translations directly from Google Translate. --WikiTiki89 15:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89 Most translations seem correct and Kyrgyz and Turkmen are not on Google Translate. Please check others, if you can. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The Armenian (checked by Vahag) and the Yiddish and Hebrew (checked by me) were all wrong and correspond to what Google Translate gives (at least as a drop-down option). I don't see that he added any Kyrgyz, but you are right about Turkmen not being on Google Translate, but have always had an entry for the one Turkmen word he added gyzyl, so maybe he just searched for it. Also, I don't know our general policy for translations of colors that are nouns in English, some of them he gave as adjectives (пурпурны (purpurny)) and some as noun phrases (пурпурен цвят (purpuren cvjat)), again corresponding exactly to what Google Translate gives (not also that the Belarusian and Bulgarian Wikipedia articles are titled маджэнта (madženta) and маджента (madženta), respectively, which may be a better translation). --WikiTiki89 14:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]


An English section was added by our incompetent supernatural-obsessed IP from England. In typical fashion, everything that isn't copied verbatim from Wikipedia has problems. Still, the name is used in English, and we should have an English article for the mythological character (and probably the given name, too) under some variant of the name, with alt-form entries under others. Can someone sort this all out? Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits by User:Ajellid[edit]

This user has been creating entries for romanizations even though we generally disallow those. The layout of the entries is also not up to par. —CodeCat 13:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

w:Tarifit redirects to w:Riffian language, which gives the code rif and lists Latin as a script. If this is true, then these are valid. Or they might be (I haven't Googled them or anything). Renard Migrant (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
See w:Berber orthography for the nature of the controversy. DCDuring TALK 17:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I make use of the w:Berber latin alphabet, which is more in widespread use then w:Tifinagh (Berber alphabet). Ajellid (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


Along with anhypostasis, can we make these entries make sense? Anhypostasis, for example, is a little far off from the OED's defintion: “Lack of a substantial or personal existence.” —JohnC5 02:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]


This entry has a "Request for cleanup" on grounds of "re-split by etym" dating from September 2011, which seems a long time for such a basic word. There does not seem to have ever been a discussion about this (I finally located the original entry here). Ideally this should be attended to. I would be tempted to put everything under one etymology. Is that a good idea? 00:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There has been discussion of a similar case in which some definitions seem to from an Old English verb and some from a cognate Old English noun or adjective. There are a significant number of basic English words with this characteristic. Some favor combining, some favor a split. Some entries seem to be easy to split, others not so much. I would recommend registering and earning whitelist status by working on less controversial entries. DCDuring TALK 02:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not important that I do it. I think the main point is that a 3 1/2 year-old cleanup tag on a very common word probably should either be addressed or removed. 02:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that the main point is that there is a larger disagreement that prevents this from being resolved without risk of edit war. DCDuring TALK 14:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
What/Where is the larger disagreement? It would be useful to point the link at right to that discussion. 00:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion at Wiktionary:Tea_room#prick is of the same issue for a different word, illustrating the disagreement. DCDuring TALK 14:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

all over the place[edit]

I don't see the point of having similar definitions and examples under three categories: Adjective, Adverb and Prepositional Phrase. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Blame me. I had RfDed the adjective and adverb PoS sections 1 Sept, 2010 at the conclusion of the RfD discussion for the "Preposition" (not "Prepositional phrase") section. I did not institute the new RfDs on the RfD page because I thought the not-yet-removed previous RfD needed to stay a bit longer and I believed the headers interfered (which they do) meaningfully (which they don't) with each other. Liliana-60 removed the RfD tags a year later.
Though the desirability of removing the Adjective and Adverb sections is obvious to me, I think they need to be RfDed. DCDuring TALK 14:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you think you have included in the Prepositional Phrase -section everything that is worth including, i.e. could the Adverb and Adjective sections just be deleted (after copying the translations, of course)? --Hekaheka (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I just copied all translations from Adverb and Adjective sections to the Prepositional Phrase -section. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I hate to do things out of process. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

alpha privativum[edit]

Is the plural alpha privata correct? The Google Books hits for alpha privativa look like they are an alternative singular rather than the plural, while alpha privata doesn’t look like it passes the CFI and alpha privativums definitely doesn’t. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's countable. There's only one alpha privativum. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Both alpha privativum and alpha privatum (about 15% of usage), both singulars, seem attestable, apparently used to mean the same thing. Alpha privativum is used with an sometimes so some users seem to refer to each word beginning with such an alpha as an instance of such alpha, which suggests that plurals of both could be found, though I haven't found three instances. But it seems that some users assume alpha to be feminine rather than neuter (and indeclinable), so some instances of alpha privativa and alpha privata seem to be mistaken singulars rather than plurals. DCDuring TALK 04:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
alpha privative is attestable in the plural, apparently referring either to multiple words that begin with such suffix or to multiple occurrences of a word in texts. DCDuring TALK 04:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


Weird formatting. --Type56op9 (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


Appeared on the cleanup page User:Yair rand/uncategorized language sections/Not English. --Type56op9 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Yair rand/uncategorized language sections/English[edit]

A few pages incorrectly categorised - User:Yair rand/uncategorized language sections/English --Type56op9 (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like there has been cleanup of many of the entries, correcting the underlying problems, which included {{term}} with no explicit lang= in Etymology and no definition or missing-definition template. It was based on a January XML dump. I don't know how the list-extraction script worked or what was intended, but the list doesn't seem to correspond well to the page title. DCDuring TALK 17:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
It's OK, I fixed them all. --Type56op9 (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]


MWOnline has 7 senses. We have 14. Our definitions have a large amount of overlap, no subsense structure, and not even an intelligible order of presentation. DCDuring TALK 13:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

bitch off[edit]

bitch off says "To complain or criticize", which I've never heard of. I see some use of something similar, but nothing citable, and I think it may mean something more like "to run off through complaining or criticizing". This Dictionary of Slang just records bitched off as "furious", no verb. WurdSnatcher (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Google Books has some "bitching off" instances: [1]. Equinox 16:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


Needs to be rewritten in correct English. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I've tidied it a little, but further improvement is probably needed. Dbfirs 16:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


First definition is meaningless. Second one is that of a proper noun, and needs a translation. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for you query. I have added the reference and link to the Monier Williams Sanskrit to English dictionary. Kindly make any corrections if there is a mistake.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


Overlong etymology is not consistent with the following definitions. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


Dinner can refer to either the midday meal or the evening meal. Glosses need to be added to the many entries which define themselves simply as "dinner" (see Special:WhatLinksHere/dinner) to indicate which meal is meant. Perhaps, in the interest of not confusing people, dinner should be removed altogether from definitions and replaced with either "lunch (midday meal)" or "supper (evening meal)". For example, I just "clarified" kvöldmatur, but it would probably still confuse a working-class Brit as much as e.g. "breakfast (evening meal)". - -sche (discuss) 04:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Even worse, there is no such thing as the midday meal or the evening meal. Every culture has its own mealtimes that do not necessarily correspond to other cultures. Ideally definitions of meals should indicate roughly what time it is eaten at, what kind of food is generally eaten (heavy?, light?, etc.), who the meal is generally eaten with (family?, coworkers?, etc.), where the meal is generally eaten (home?, work?, etc.), etc. --WikiTiki89 14:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I've only looked at the first few links, but they all seem to be appropriately linked to dinner. Which others are not appropriate? (We working-class Brits are not that easily confused, but thanks, Sche, for clarifying kvöldmatur. ) Dbfirs 16:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not the linking that -sche was complaining about, but definitions that just say # [[dinner]] without specifying which meaning of "dinner". --WikiTiki89 16:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Right. Links like Abendbrot which clarify which meal they mean are OK, I suppose, but hapunan is defined only as "dinner", without any clarification of whether it refers to an evening meal or a midday meal. Pranzo is defined as "lunch, dinner", which could either mean it refers to the midday meal, or that it refers to the big meal of the day whether that meal is eaten at midday or in the evening.
Btw, in case it's not clear to anyone, my reference to working-class Brits is because dinner’s usage notes say they use it to refer to the midday meal, so I imagine a definition (like kvöldmatur’s} that to them means "midday meal" but is immediately glossed as "evening meal" is, ah, weird. Certainly, I would be confused if I saw a term defined as e.g. "breakfast (evening meal)". - -sche (discuss) 16:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Then you must be pretty confused by this. --WikiTiki89 16:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd be confused if I were flipping through a Hebrew or Yiddish dictionary and it defined [whatever the term for that meal is] as "breakfast (evening meal)". (In German one wouldn't face that ambiguity/polysemy: Frühstück is exclusively an "early piece" of food.) It'd need to have the sort of additional clarification WP has. Incidentally, I'm curious if such a break-fast (or break fast, WP spells it both ways) is really pronounced or normally spelled the same way as breakfast, as breakfast currently implies. I've started Wiktionary:Tea room/2015/July#breakfast. - -sche (discuss) 17:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks, I didn't look far enough down the list. I agree that clarification is needed, but "dinner (evening meal)" is seldom confusing to us working-class Brits because we have heard the middle class talking! Apparently, Italians use pranzo to mean either pasto di mezzogiorno or pasto principale depending on context. The British are not the only nation that gets confused. Dbfirs 16:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


This article, particularly the adjectival sense is an absolute mess. The glosses on the translation tables don't clearly match up with definitions, are out of order, and many are missing. I attempted to rearrange the definitions a bit to add some clarity, but I found the mess absolutely confusing myself, so what I've done may be undone without causing me any offense, so long as the article is improved. The definitions also contain a level of vocabulary above that of the word they're defining, which will absolutely not be helpful to most people looking up the word.

I was halfway through fixing the translation section when my browser crashed, leaving me absolutely annoyed, so I'm afraid I must pass the unpleasant job off to someone else, since I feel what I tried to do ended up being an absolute waste of time. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


I suspect each of the three senses here should be under a separate etymology header... This, that and the other (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Split into two. I would assume the car-steering thing is from swing. Equinox 18:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


The English symbol section is a total mess and needs to be cleaned up and verified. -- Liliana 21:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]


This entry is full of nonstandard abbreviations/jargon. ~Eloquio (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been copied directly from Monier-Williams's (now public domain) dictionary. Using {{sa-a}} creates a link to Appendix:Sanskrit abbreviations. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Cleaned the text. Thank you.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


See waive. Waive has six verb senses under two etymologies, which apply? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


The wording of the definitions is an embarrassment to Wiktionary, IMO. At least two senses seem virtually identical. Some senses may not be attestable. DCDuring TALK 22:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


11:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]


English, French, or Romanian. DTLHS (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Romanian. Though ro:magaziner seems to suggest it means warehouse distributor. I ran it through Google Translate and magazie seems to mean warehouse, which is also what warehouse#Translations says. ro:magaziner also says from French magasinier which is in that case, doubtful because the meanings aren't the same or even similar! Renard Migrant (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


Sense: (finance) A directional position or interest, by a dealer in a financial market – if one wishes to unload stock, one is “axed to sell” or “has an axe”.[1] Derived from “have an axe to grind”, which is also used.

Note that the definition includes some etymology and derived terms, but is a little vague on the actual definition. DCDuring TALK 17:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I've make it shorter and a little more concise, with two examples to make it clearer how it's used in relation to financial markets. Page already mentions "axe to grind" as a derived term, so that was removed. Reference stayed, because it really does help explain the usage further. I'm not a regular contributor, so I'm sorry if it's a little out of order but I think I got it all right. 2601:602:8601:4A00:B9D5:E880:DCC3:A631 16:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

quel que soit[edit]

My French isn't that great, but this doesn't look like a prepositional phrase to me- to start with, it has no prepositions in it. I'm not sure what its actual part of speech is, though. On top of that, the definition is unclear.

It has three associated form-of entries, with the related problem that their POS is given as "form of prepositional phrase", which would be backward from the way we do POS names even if it were the real POS:

Chuck Entz (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

We call no matter an adverb, so maybe this is one too, but I'd have to see examples of how it's used in sentences to be sure. To be on the safe side, we could just call it a Phrase without specifying what kind. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll chime in because I made this one. I wasn't very happy with what I called it, but I chose to title it a prepositional phrase because Wiktionnaire did so. Typically, when in doubt with French terms, I look at how Wiktionnaire handles it, but that doesn't always resolve the issue. It's a bit of a confusing entry because it both conjugates and has gender. I disagree that it's an adverb. Perhaps it's an adjective, as it clearly acts on a noun, not an adjective, adverb, or verb, and must agree with the noun in gender and number. For example:
Quel que soit votre problème, nous pouvons vous aider.
Whatever your problem might be, we can help you.
Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I added the above example sentence to the entry. Is the definition still unclear? Could you please elaborate? I can probably improve it if I know what isn't clear. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it isn't a single lemma at all, but a pronoun quel que (f. quelle que, m.pl. quels que, f.pl. quelles que) that collocates with the subjunctive. Can you say "quel qu'ait été votre problème" for "whatever your problem might have been"? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
You could use it in the past subjunctive, yes. I'm inclined to disagree that we should change it to "quel que", simply because it never occurs (as far as I am aware) without the verb "être," which is always in the subjunctive in the phrase. Wiktionnaire has no entry for "quel que" but does have one for "quel que soit." It's worth noting, however, that my Petit Larousse illustré has "quel que" as its headword, noting that it is placed before the verb "être" (it's also worth mentioning that it lists "quel que" as an adjective). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
On the assumption that it's not "être", but a copula that's required, I looked for the equivalent to an alternative copula that exists in English, "become": quell que devienne. It's definitely rare, at best, but if I'm correct that these are examples, their very existence would call into question the inclusion of "soit" in the lemma. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Interesting find, especially because it isn't included in Wiktionnaire. It just goes to show that there is still work to be done on seemingly comprehensive wiki projects. I am in support of making "quel que" the lemma and adding a usage note to indicate its use with the subjunctive and that it is almost universally used with "être." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
We should have a dedicated entry for quel que soit just as they do in the French Wiktionary. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]


Derived terms for noun and adjective are mixed up, and need sorting. Donnanz (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Done to the best of my ability. Admittedly it's hard to decide which section some words go under: I decided waste pipe is a pipe for waste, whereas waste in waste water is an adjective, but someone is bound to disagree. Donnanz (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


Needs some grouping / linking. Jberkel (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

goblet drum[edit]

See Talk:goblet drum. Both Wiktionary and Wikipedia have, for some time, described "goblet drum" as though it is a synonym for the darbuka, which is one type of goblet drum. "Goblet drum" is a musicological term, there are lots of goblet-shaped drums. goblet drum does not mean darbuka any more than flat-backed lute means guitar. So I've added a better def at goblet drum, but the translations appear to mostly be translations of darbuka, not goblet drum. Some are not. Can someone who knows more about the applicable languages move most of the translations to darbuka? WurdSnatcher (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

zha bo[edit]


The creator doesn’t make it clear whether this is English or Hokkien. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The quotations are in English, so I attempted to clean it up. Aryamanarora (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wyang, Atitarev, suzukaze-c I'm not sure which script/spelling combination is appropriate and attestable here, but it certainly won't work the way it is. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, Metaknowledge, Aryamanarora "zha bo" has to belong to Singapore English and a new entry 查某 (zābò) to Singapore Chinese which does have a Min Nan reading "cha-bó͘". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


There are two senses added by our problem IP:

Unless I'm mistaken, potentiality is something associated with indeterminism and quantum indeterminacy, but not the same as indeterminism or quantum indeterminacy themselves. I was tempted to just revert the IP's edits, but that would leave this entry without any link to indeterminism or quantum indeterminacy- and this term seems to be important to both. Could someone fix this? Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how important the term is to either topic. The Wikipedia articles don't mention the word. Are there sources that say it is important? I'd just delete sense 4 and 5. Dbfirs 01:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015[edit]

black canker[edit]

  1. A disease in turnips and other crops, produced by a species of caterpillar.

As far as I can tell from a glance at Google and bgc, black canker is the caterpillar itself. I haven't seen anything indicating it's the disease (but didn't look properly). Separately, there seems to be a disease of trees, or maybe a fungus that causes such, of the same name.​—msh210 (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

In plants black canker seems to be any cankers that manifest in black disfigurement of plant tissue, including various ones affecting cherry, apple, parsnip, soursop, willow, and mango. There is a black canker caterpillar (genus Tenthredo), but modern sources refer to fungi and bacteria as the causal agents, mostly differing by affected plant. Perhaps the caterpillar is a vector for some black cankers. It seems like yet another little research project for proper disambiguation. DCDuring TALK 00:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It is fairly common that vernacular names for diseases are used as vernacular names of the causal agent (or agent thought to be causal). DCDuring TALK 01:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI, Tenthredo aren't caterpillars, they're sawfly larvae- primitive Hymenoptera. They do look a lot like caterpillars, though (sometimes it takes counting legs to tell them apart- sawflies have more pairs of legs than caterpillars do). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Here is an example of the larva being called black canker without any mention of a disease. Sawflies tend to appear in large numbers and devour everything in sight belonging to their food plant species with unnerving speed. If your entire crop is being rapidly destroyed by a huge mass of insects, you might start to think of them collectively, as a force of nature like a disease. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


Has two different pronunciations that don't match. Says it's a collective noun and the lemma form gender doesn't match the singular form. Already an entry at the singular form with another pronunciation. DTLHS (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015[edit]


SemperBlotto tagged it without posting it here, so it'd never get any attention and it would never get cleaned up and the banner would stay forever, so I'm posting this here.

January 2016[edit]


A rare, obsolete term with extensively-footnoted usage notes mentioning just about everywhere the term was used. I'd call this encyclopedic, but it's far too boring to work as an encyclopedia article. Can someone prune this down to something that looks like a dictionary entry? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


Apart from the abbreviation header, this is just a bit of a mess and I couldn't decide what to do with it. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


This is a Webster 1913 entry that illustrates how much has changed in a century. No serious scholar uses the term anymore- not even the Altaicists. I don't know about the adjective section, but any modern-day anthropologist or linguist will tell you that the noun and proper noun sections are completely wrong. In addition, as you can see from the disambiguation page at w:Turanians the term has been used at one time or another to refer just about anything in Europe and Asia that moves and isn't Afro-Asiatic or Indo-European. Can someone rework this and make an honest entry out of it? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to clean it up. - -sche (discuss) 16:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]


Three of these are dubious and the fourth was plain wrong (no noun 'to stop working due to old age'). The writing style leads me to think this is a child, high school age or possibly younger than that. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

These search results[edit]

I'm having a hard time telling which instances of * * are purely formatting errors and which ones are linguistic notation. ([2] might need checking also) —suzukaze (tc) 03:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I eliminated a few that I felt were unneeded, principally in citations. As for the rest, the second of some of the paired asterisks seems to be intended to appear, indicating some kind of language error. Some are hard to discern. Many could use some kind of explanation of why they deserve to be so marked. I'd consider grouping them by language and rfcing them that way. DCDuring TALK 04:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Some linguists use a double asterisk to indicate a form that is both reconstructed and wrong. Thus, parallel to something like "In English, shrimp is a possible word, but *srimp is not a possible word", they might write "In Proto-Indo-European, *bʰerdʰ- is a possible root, but **berd- is not a possible root". I don't know if any of our double asterisks are serving that function, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


Confusing entry. Jberkel (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I had trouble with the definitions, too. I hope I have not been a mischief (3.1.1) and that any mischiefs (1.3) I may have undertaken do not rise to the level of (serious) mischief (2.1). If the definitions are comprehensible then it would be easier to proceed to the specific problems that @Jberkel had.
I had the most trouble believing in the "agent of trouble" definitions (3), but found one citation for each and could probably find more. DCDuring TALK 01:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I moved some synonyms around and removed the quotations header, it's a bit better now. Jberkel (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It would benefit from some simplification, but the older uses seem quite distinct, at least in degree, from the most common current senses. DCDuring TALK 14:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think synonym lists should be removed from mainspace and moved to Wikisaurus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
In general I agree and avoid moving things to Wikisaurus but for these longs lists it makes sense, it's even specifically mentioned in WT:ELE: "Instead of listing many synonyms in each of several synonymous entries, a single reference can be made in each to a common Wikisaurus page". – Jberkel (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It is one thing to add a reference to a Wikisaurus page to an entry that had no synonyms, and it is another thing to remove lists and replace them with the references only. WT:ELE should probably be edited to clarify whether editors find such a replacement okay. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I liked this revision and found nothing confusing. By contrast, what I see now seems rather confusing, above all the subsensing, although it is probably more accurate and refined. I especially do not understand what is going on with the 3rd sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky I like oversimplifications sometimes too. We could achieve a much simpler entry that remained true to the (selected) facts if we ignored the no-longer-common definitions. DCDuring TALK 21:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why moving things around is such a controversial thing, especially given the size of these lists. Why can't entries be modified according to guidelines? Some options we have: 1) Keep synonyms in the entry and add a mechanism with a collapsible display, similar to {{der3}} and {{rel3}} which makes it feasible to include long lists 2) move long lists of synonyms to Wikisaurus + add references. 3) cap the size of lists. I personally prefer 1). – Jberkel (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky Sense 3 and its subsenses are about cause. The others about effect. DCDuring TALK 15:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
While we're here, am I the only one that pronounces it /ˈmɪstʃiːf/ (as chief in other words)? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
For me it rhymes with tiff. DCDuring TALK 17:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jberkel: Too many people oppose moving content away from the mainspace; multiple people proposed abandoning Wikisaurus and moving its content to mainspace. It is therefore wise to tread lightly and avoid harming Wikisaurus position and reputation by avoiding associating Wikisaurus project with content being moved away from the mainspace. As for the comma-separated list to be too long to display directly, I think you'll find you are in the minority of people who have any problem with them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't like long lists of anything (except definitions) unless they can be concealed by a show-hide. These particular lists seem like a hodge-podge of things which don't match the headword's various definitions very well, so they could readily be shortened, one list at a time, once the definitions were stabilized.
But in this case the lists would be made more useful if they could match some of the definitions. For example, the main current sense of mischief as something "minor trouble or annoyance" would warrant a subset of the current list which does not differentiate by degree of trouble or harm. Thus, annoyance, nuisance, and prank might belong whereas sabotage might not.
A more drastic approach would be to not have any long list of synonyms for any obsolete sense or one that is currently rare. A Wikisaurus link could still provide access to a fuller set of synonyms. One advantage in the case of this entry is that it would somewhat reduce the weight of the obsolete/less common senses in the entry.
For any of this to be worth doing we first need to stabilize the entry. OED has even more senses than we now show. I don't know whether a fuller set of definitions can usefully be brought into any sense/subsense structure that I can produce. DCDuring TALK 20:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
If the lists are deficient as for accuracy or coherence, they need to be pruned rather than dumped to Wikisaurus. If they are considered too long even after that pruning, they may get shortened to contain only the most salient or common synonyms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
BTW, could someone with access to the OED see whether they have a different, preferably shorter, list of senses and a similar delineation of which senses might be considered archaic, which countable, etc. Cambridge Advanced Learner's has only two senses, both uncountable, one for "behavior that is slightly bad", another for "damage or harm", but links to entries for do sb/yourself a mischief (we don't have any corresponding entry), ie, countable mischief, and make mischief which means about the same as stir the pot. DCDuring TALK 17:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I am informed that the OED has 13 senses and subsenses, but some of them seem to be archaic (they label them obsolete) or rare in current use. Two are legal, too finely distinguished for me to even paraphrase. DCDuring TALK 18:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confusing word ⇒ confusing entry. DCDuring TALK 21:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Entries in Rhymes:Romanian[edit]

After last night's controversy over Rhymes:Romanian/abilitate, which Equinox thankfully deleted, I have been going through this category and discovered that the user who contributed, has made a lot of errors. E.g.:

If anyone is up to the task, please feel free to do so or let me know how I should go about making corrections. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Dutch words suffixed with -en[edit]

moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2011/Unresolved requests

Most of the members of this category are just verbs, which end in -en because that's the infinitive suffix in Dutch. In theory any verb could go here, so that doesn't really make much sense. The only legitimate example of -en as a suffix seems to be the 'material adjective', which is the same in English ('golden'). —CodeCat 18:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

By way of analogy rather than as a true response, many French verbs are formed from stem + suffix. Aimer is undeniably from Latin amō, but podcaster is from podcast +‎ -er. So there are some French verbs suffixed with -er. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
So, should the category be deleted? Or simply purged of erroneous content? - -sche (discuss) 22:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

Roma locuta est, causa finita est[edit]

Language: English

Part of speech: Adjective


  1. {{sense|idiom}} A statement meaning an end of a discussion.

Added by a notoriously incompetent IP who managed to get a little bit of everything wrong. There may be something worth salvaging in this, but I'm not sure if it's English or Latin, and not 100% sure that it's not SOP. They provided a link to an article on a Roman Catholic website as a reference, which suggests that this is in use among Catholics. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I've seen this phrase before, it's an old maxim that (if I recall correctly) pre-dates the RC / protestant schism, that says that in matters of canon law &c. decisions of the bishop of Rome are final. Nowadays in protestant circles mostly quoted as an example of how not to go about things. I can imagine it could metaphorically also be applied to other cases where someone's word (presumably the word of someone with authority) ends a discussion or dispute, but even so I think the lemma as quoted is confusing and unclear.

synchronous orbit[edit]

Another term extraordinary entry tagged with {{lb|en|military}} by CORNELIUSSEON (talkcontribs). I'm surprised he didn't tag sun and rain as military. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


"In an intelligence context, application of intelligence sources and methods in concert with the operation plan." Sorry I have no idea what this means. Anyone? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


Usage notes with reference (not included here): "Accountability is condemned by some as jargon of the political élite and referring to a mechanism for democratic good-governance that is unworkable in practice."

I can't quite work out what it's on about and the fact that this is mentioned in one book, without seeing the citation in question, so what? One author expresses an opinion on a word and we put in some usage notes? Also very weasely. Condemned by some? Who? I'm looking for a reason to not just delete these as nonsense. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


This is apparently unattested for CFI purposes as a single word (there are lots of web hits, though, so it probably needs to be moved to tracker phone. The definition gives the impression that it's used for tracking other people or things, but the usage seems to indicate that the idea is a phone that can be tracked. There were a few other problems, but they were easily removed as clearly wrong.

There's probably a real entry in there, somewhere, but it needs to be either fixed up or deleted. I don't have time for either, at the moment. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


How can we prove that 甪 was 角 by mistake? Find a reference for this, or delete.

This is being discussed at WT:Etymology_scriptorium/2016/March#甪. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No, please put a citation to a trusted source, so that we can prove 甪 is 角 written by mistake. 15:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You mean 'no, don't discuss it before editing it?' Renard Migrant (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, how the **** is this character pronounced "gluk" ?!?!?!?! Johnny Shiz (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not pronounced that way anymore, and perhaps it never has been. When we want to verify an etymology, we tag the entry with the template {{rfv-etymology}} and start a discussion at the Etymology scriptorium. I have done so. Your comments would be better posted there. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


This character is mislisted as a simplified character, when in fact the right component, , is a traditional character.

I do not see anything marking it as a simplified character. —suzukaze (tc) 17:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The only thing I found marking it as a simplified character was in {{zh-forms}}, which I have fixed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
赵孟頫 look at the template 14:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, you should have asked for that page to be cleaned up instead.
It was listed as simplified because its simplified form is hard to enter on computers (technical difficulties). That page shouldn't exist, though. —suzukaze (tc) 02:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
When the page was created, the simplified form was still not encoded in Unicode. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


So far, this template only has coverage on the Mandarin, Cantonese, Wu, Hakka, Min Nan, and Min Dong dialects of Chinese. Is there any way you can include Xiang, Shandong, and other lesser-known dialects? Also, make sure that most (if not all) pages contain these and existing dialect pronounciations. Thanks in advance. —This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Shiz (talkcontribs). 15:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Xiang (x) and other topolects like Gan (g) and Jin (j) are included. Since they do not have well-known romanizations, they are in IPA. See (shuǐ) for an example. We currently do not support dialects of Mandarin, like Shandong or Sichuanese Mandarin. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please improve the coverage of these dialects and try to make sure most common Han Characters have these pronounciations.
We don't have speakers of these varieties, so it may be difficult to have good coverage at the moment. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
We don't have a proper coverage for Gan, Jin, Xiang and won't have in the near future. Not just because of the shortage of native speakers but because of the lack of other resources. (shuǐ) is probably an exception, which covers 9 Chinese topolects + Middle Chinese and Old Chinese. The infrastructure is there, though. See Category:Gan_lemmas, Category:Jin_lemmas, Category:Xiang_lemmas.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The only online resource for Gan, Jin and Xiang readings that I'm aware of is 小學堂, which has coverage of many characters in many Chinese varieties. I think the readings for 水 come from this website. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


how is #58 (門) pronounced yan2? Also, if youre right and im wrong, cant you:

  1. add the yan2 pronounciation to the page
  2. also add the simplified form of 門, , to the list?

Thanks in advance, Johnny Shiz (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz You are right. 門 is not pronounced yán. It probably came from an old version of the Unihan Database. (See this old version.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


If etymology 2 is correct, some definitions need to be brought over from etymology 1. I'm not sure if this belongs here or in the Etymology Scriptorium, but at any rate, I don't have time to fix the entry myself. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

One approach is to split the noun and verb senses now in Ety 1 leaving all or most noun senses in Ety 1 and putting all or most verb senses in Ety 2. Another is to combine Ety 1 and Ety 2 on the grounds that the stems of the etyma are the same. The MED asserts that Middle English rakken (verb) is deemed to derive from rak (noun). I have the feeling that the etymology is confused by the persistent trend to Dutch etymological imperialism that characterizes many of our etymologies. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]


number 9 on list Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I propose we regenerate all these pinyin pages from a better data source because the quality is shamefully bad. —suzukaze (tc) 00:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


Should the proper noun be uppercase? Everything should probably be at the non-ligature spelling (we tend to lemmatize modern rather than archaic and ligatured spellings when possible). - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

argumentum ad hominem[edit]

Tagged by an IP, not listed. Equinox 23:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It could be RFV as the user is claiming it's not used in Latin (not as an idiom, anyway) but rather it's used in English, obviously a coinage based on Latin if that is indeed the case. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't make it English though. I've seen the same term used in Portuguese, German, French and Dutch texts, and I think readers are aware of the fact that this is a Latin coinage. So labelling it as English seems a bit silly and it would also require the lemma to be duplicated for pretty much every European language and even some non-European ones. And it also assumes there is no such thing as modern Latin. For what it's worth, the Latin wiki article on the topic uses this same phrase.
(And I may have found a New Latin (1708) attestation: https://books.google.nl/books?id=He9eAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA42#v=onepage&q=%22argumentum%20ad%20hominem%22 But be careful: the context may influence the meaning and I haven't read the surrounding text.) —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 13:54, April 8, 2016.
I've found a text (https://books.google.nl/books?id=ZdaP5IehqFsC&pg=PA398#v=onepage&q="argumentum ad hominem") saying that around 500 AD the term was used in a different sense, namely an argument that tries to convince someone by reasoning from his own (possibly mistaken) assumptions. The example quoted is that if the other person beliefs all useful things to be good, you can convince him that something is good if you can prove its utility. (In that sense the modern use could be considered a narrower sense, since it follows the same general form: if your audience beliefs that cat people make for unreliable witnesses, you can convince your audience that someone is an unreliable witness by showing him to be a cat person. Note however that originally ‘homo’ referred to the person to be convinced or the audience and not necessarily to the person to be attacked.) —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 08:55, April 10, 2016.
Thanks. I'd noticed that the older usage was as you say. Century 1911 had that older concept at the core of their definition, but referred to medieval logicians who, extending a point of Aristotle's, said ad hominem arguments were of two kinds: one against a person's positions, the other against his person as "by taunting, rayling, rendring checke for checke, or by scorning." (Thomas Blundeville c. 1575). This isn't quite the modern meaning which includes smear campaigns, IMO. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Blundeville said: ‘Confutation of person is done either by taunting, rayling, rendring checke for checke, or by scorning.’ So according to him, refutation of person means to either ridicule someone or show contempt for him. Both those meanings fall squarely into the modern category of ad hominem. (As such I'm a bit puzzled by the use of ‘thus’ in the C1911, but maybe the editor meant what I meant by ‘narrower sense’ above.)
The quotation of Wilson immediately afterwards though seems to draw the distinction between the Aristotelian straight solution and the solution tailored to the man, which is the old sense again. Or so at least it seems to me. And I think the same applies to the quote of More.
I think I may have found some more quotes from Latin texts around 1700 (give or take a century) but vetting them would take a lot of time. So I don't know if these texts use the old or new definition. Still, by now I think it somewhat probable that this phrase was indeed somewhat commonly used in Latin texts, at least newer ones.
An other interesting thing is that the old-style ad hominem can also be used to argue not from someone's actual assumptions, but from things he must assert for some other reason. —This comment was unsigned.
The modern definitions, from A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms 2nd ed, (1991):
"#Abuse of your opponent's character.
"#Basing your argument on what you know of your opponent's character."
But, perhaps more significantly for this page, per COCA, ad hominem is currently used with attack much more than with argument or argumentum. Even when used with argument or argumentum it retains the same sense of attacking the source of an argument rather than its substance (ad rem). I can find no trace in current use of the historical sense, which seemed to be standard even in the 19th century. There was, however, in the 19th century much use of the term in reference to what we now call flip-flopping, which seems to have become an attack on the sincerity of the flip-flopper, not just an observation of logical inconsistency. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The only general dictionary that includes it is Collins, as follows:
  1. fallacious argument that attacks not an opponent's beliefs but his motives or character
  2. argument that shows an opponent's statement to be inconsistent with his other beliefs
  3. an instance of either
The general classical sense is not mentioned, nor does it appear in Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg ad hominem on Wikipedia.Wikipedia . DCDuring TALK 21:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


I think the words ‘capital’ and ‘principal’ are too ambiguous to be used as definitions by themselves. Somebody fluent in Sanskrit should verify what exactly is meant.

The definitions for मूल्य (mūlya) at the Sanskrit Dictionary suggests that the capital sense is more specifically capital in the form of goods purchased, rather than capital in the form of the monetary amount initially invested: the principal as opposed to the interest. The latter sense is what is given for मूल (mūla) instead.
That said, I'm happy to be proven wrong: I am very much in my infancy when it comes to Sanskrit studies. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone really fluent in Sanskrit anymore? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Apparently there are plenty of Indian Sanskritists who converse to one another in fluent Sanskrit - but I suspect that perhaps none of them are Wiktionarians. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I notice a discrepancy between our definitions for मूल (mūla) and मूल्य (mūlya) and those of SanskritDictionary.com. If the latter are more reliable, then maybe some knowledgeable person could work on this.


entries 1 and 2 Johnny Shiz (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A tale of two IPs[edit]

I keep seeing edits like this where a US IP ( (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks)) is removing Spanish terms from Descendants lists, which sets my vandalism alarms going, but then I check the term they removed, and I can't find any evidence for such a Spanish term. It looks like a Costa Rican IP ( (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks)) has been adding these. Could someone with Spanish sources check through the Costa Rican IP's edits to see whether there's a problem? BTW: I used the {{vandal}} template above for convenience, not because I think there's any actual vandalism involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

entries like subrogation, cognovit clause[edit]

...some of which use "(Black's Law)" as a context (not formatted), and many of which say "(A Non-Copied Entry)" in the references, which is probably not necessary to note. Check the contributions of and X8BC8x. - -sche (discuss) 19:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

These are mostly fixed (I may have missed some) and the majority of them are at RFV anyway so they can be formatted if kept. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The user has replied to me in private. He/she seems to intend to not edit anymore. Seems inexperienced with wikis as I would normally expect a reply on a talk page to go on the talk page rather than in private message. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, dear. We don't want to scare people off, but we do want them to exercise some care and ask for help if needed. Maybe we can refer the user to some places where he or she can seek advice? — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't really want to quote a private message directly (even one with no personal information in it) but I get the impression they hadn't been scared off so much as they feel like these entries would be better handled by someone with Wiktionary experience. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


As seen on Донецкая Народная Республика, this template adds "CE" after recent dates. This is possibly because it was initially designed for use on entries in ancient languages that were spoken a few hundred years on either side of the start of the common era. However, "CE" is unnecessary on more recent dates (and POV, as "AD" would also be: let's not wade into that issue when we don't have to); it should be suppressed. In general, the template is poorly named and the introduction of yet another quotation template with a different style was a questionable move. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I accidentally changed a load of these from {{Q}} to {{qualifier}} as it has the same title, apart from capitalization as {{q}}. For which I apologize but I have no idea that this existed. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why it's so confusing for {{q}} and {{Q}} to mean different things. As for "CE", I think we should use it for all dates before 1500, and drop it for those after. I don't see a POV issue with it, in fact the whole point of CE is to avoid POV issues, but regardless, as long as it is tagged with the CSS class ce-date, we have a preference to change it to display AD. --WikiTiki89 15:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
There's no non-NPOV way to refer to the eras; AD/BC is one POV, CE/BCE is another one. I think 1500 is too late to stop labeling years; I'd use it only up till AD 999. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree on both points, particularly that 1500 is too late. I'd stop it even earlier than 999, personally, but I can live with adding the label up to (and stopping at) 999. In my opinion, the ideal would be if the labels were only applied to (or could be shut off for) specified languages: that way we wouldn't have an Old High German entry with quotations from 997 and 1002 where one was labelled and the other wasn't. - -sche (discuss) 02:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I have added an AD_limit variable of 999 to Module:Quotations/date validation. DTLHS (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Донецкая Народная Республика[edit]

Hello. On that page, we list ДНР as an "alternative form" of Донецкая Народная Республика, but AFAICS it's just an initialism. Should we move it somewhere else? Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Any suggestions? Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess we usually list initialisms under Synonyms (e.g. at United States of America and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
We used to put forms such as that under the heading ====Abbreviations====, but I believe that has been discontinued. I don’t know what if anything has taken its place. —Stephen (Talk) 15:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I searched and see that there are quite a few entries with an ====Abbreviations==== section, so maybe it is still being used. For example, seee мужской род. That would be my preference. —Stephen (Talk) 15:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, we should use the header ====Abbreviations====, although some words that start out as abbreviations take on a slightly different shade of meaning or usage and then would have to be put under ====Synonyms==== or ====Related terms====. --WikiTiki89 15:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I believe it was the POS header "===Abbreviation===" that was discontinued. I don't know anything about an "====Abbreviations====" subsection header. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


Unusable. —suzukaze (tc) 07:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

wut? 22:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


The third sense could use some attention:

Ostensible source/founder of Mithraism, the "mysteries" of the Roman Mysteriae Mithrae ("Mysteries of Mithras", "Mithraic Mysteries"), an astrology-centric, middle-platonic mystery cult of the 1st-4th century Roman Empire whose adherents worshiped in "caves" (i.e. Mithraea) in imitation of "Zoroaster". (Porphyry, De Antro Nympharum 6)

- TheDaveRoss 12:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


On this page, it says "A Korean character used in transliteration." But transliteration in which language. Chinese or Korean? TIA 21:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

Jüngste Tag[edit]

Although I understand the concerns of this anon, I don't believe that recent changes are in line with how we treat German lemmas. Any input from more seasoned German-speaking users? --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The lemma should be Jüngster Tag; likewise the lemma of Jüngste Gericht should be Jüngstes Gericht. The forms with "jüngste" could be listed as inflected forms, though I'd prefer to simply redirect them. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


This needs fixing up to conform to our standard layout, with headword lines and such. —CodeCat 19:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


Moved from: Wiktionary:Requests for verification#ngaa

The Pitjantjatjara word had a cleanup request from 21 February 2015 with the comment: "Almost certainly not Pitjantjatjara. It appears to be Ngaanyatjarra, but I can't be sure of that." IMHO that doesn't sound like it's a matter of RFC but of RFV. -Ikiaika (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but unattested items appearing in RfV could be deleted after just 30 days. RfVs for items in languages with very few contributors might not be seen for quite some time. RfC allows more time. DCDuring TALK 17:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
It had an RFC tag for over a year and nothing changed. I might be mistaken, but I doubt that anything would change in the nearest time and I doubt that there would be much attention for the entry. So I hope that this discussion brings some attention towards the entry and that the RFC/RFV can be resolved. As ngaa also has other entries ("Gamilaraay" and "Hiligaynon"), it wouldn't be completely deleted anyway and one could still find the 'Pitjantjatjara' entry through the version history. However, I'd be okay with changing it to RFC again and moving this discussion to Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup to raise some attention and to give the entry some more time.
Maybe @Vedac13 (he once added the Pitjantjatjara entry) or @This, that and the other (he once added the RFC tag) can help to resolve this issue? -Ikiaika (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
There is heavy overlap between Pitjantjatjara, Yankunytjatjara and Ngaanyatjarra. Some would consider them dialects of the same language. To make matters worse, texts are often misidentified as being in one language when they are actually in one of the others; a lot of reference works relating to these languages are old, use idiosyncratic orthographies, and contain inaccuracies; and Ngaanyatjarra in particular seems to have quite little material available. All this makes it very difficult to sort out the entries in these languages. We really need the assistance of an expert in Western Desert languages to sort out the situation and help organise our coverage.
It probably is a matter for RFV, but I don't think there are many users here who would be able to deal with this problem. I'd favour keeping the RFC tag in place for now. I will have to go and look up a Ngaanyatjarra word list in a library when I have time. This, that and the other (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@This, that and the other Thanks for your reply. I changed it back and moved the discussion. Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:German unknown gender nouns[edit]

Many nouns in the category have a known gender: Given names of male persons are masculine, given names of female persons are feminine, names of cities are neuter. While it's easy to add the gender, it's maybe not so easy to verify it, and it's not so easy to add the genitive.
As for the gender:

  • For greater cities one should be able find examples like "das schöne Berlin", "in Berlin, das", "Berlin ... es". For smaller and less known cities it might be harder to find such examples.

Some examples for the gentive:

  • Catharina should have the genitives (der) Catharina and Catharinas, maybe also Catharina's (obsolete nowadays, though colloquially it might be written with a Deppenapostroph). Note that the proper noun genitive Catharinas is an exception of the rule that feminine nouns are invariable in the singular.
  • Kassel should have the genitives (des) Kassel and Kassels, maybe also Kassel's (obsolete nowadays, though colloquially it might be written with a Deppenapostroph).
  • Worms should have the genitives (des) Worms and Worms', maybe also Wormsens (similar to e.g. Klausens). "Wormsens Bischof" and "Bevölkerung Wormsens" can be found, but "Wormsens" is rare anyway.

When just adding the gender, the templates often automatically add a genitive which (often) is incorrect or incomplete in case of proper nouns. -Ikiaika (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


Second "definition" needs rewriting as an actual definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

  • It looks like a separate entry is needed for heterotypic synonym (and a Derived terms section in this one). There is information here which may not conflict with the "definition," but does seem to indicate a connection with type species.— Pingkudimmi 16:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


I think most of the descendants listed are loaned or inherited directly from Latin. Another shady one is English Gus. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Both Κωνσταντῖνος and Constantinus#Latin listed "German: Konstantin" as a descendant.
I don't know how one could prood either of these statements, but German should have it the name from Latin. The older German spellings Constantin and Constantinopel (now Konstantinopel) are evidences for this. In older German texts one maybe can even find the Latin names and maybe even declined the Latin way.
"Finnish: Konstantinus" looks like it even has the Latin ending -us, not a Greek os. I don't know how Finnish borrowed Latin and Greek words, but the entry Konstantinus says it's from Latin. Similary "Icelandic: Konstantínus", "Estonian: Constantinus" and "Turkish: Constantinus" (all in -us and not in -os) could be from Latin.
According to Gus, the English name has another etymology and is unrelated to Constantin. -Ikiaika (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


Messy. If it's the same as 糗, {{alternative form of}} should be used, and the usage of in Cantonese seems to be restricted to 本字 circles (and is read as gau6). —suzukaze (tc) 05:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

Contributions of User:[edit]

This user has been contributing quite a variety of new entries in good faith, but without a good understanding of what they were doing. Some cleanup has already been done, but at epithelially I ran into the definition "In a epithelial manner", and realized how much like an assembly line their definition-writing was. I think we need to take a second look at their edits with an eye for other examples of glib meaninglessness that might have slipped under the radar while we've been focusing on vandalism and serious incompetence. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • And some of the entries are listed as adjectives rather than adverbs. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

learning streak[edit]

Tone/style. Doesn't seem like a very common phrase anyhow, and I'm not even sure the meaning is correct: a streak would be a series of successes, not of failures, right? Equinox 20:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]


In the French section, one of the definitions is "the regions (provincial France)", plural sic. What does this mean? Does province refer to "one of the regions of provincial France", perhaps? Or to provincial France as a whole? Side note, the English definitions could also use some work, e.g. "The most common subdivision of Canada, but exclusive of its territories" makes it sound like a province is one thing, the way death is "The cessation of life"; a better definition might be along the lines of "One of the subdivisions of Canada that is not a territory", but perhaps someone can come up with even better. - -sche (discuss) 03:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

  • In French you say en province meaning not much more than "elsewhere than in Paris", so yes, I would say that French province often corresponds with the English plural "regions, provinces". Ƿidsiþ 11:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


The declension is incorrect. The vocative is Θωμᾶ (compare with Latin Thoma) and not Θωμᾶς and the word does not belong to the first declension. Same could be true for many other entries like Ἰωνᾶς, Σατανᾶς, Ἰησοῦς.

  • "Philipp Buttmann's Griechische Grammatik", edited by Alex. Buttmann, 22nd edition, 1869, pg. 83
  • "Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs", edited by Alex. Buttmann, 1859, pg. 17 ff. (the declension pattern is there called "weak declension")
  • "Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache", by Raphael Kühner, 2nd edition, first section of the first part, 1869, pg. 381 ff. (the declension pattern is there called "mixed declension")

No sources:

  • Smyth's grammar (e.g. here) is based on Attic Greek

-Watabib (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


The accusative is also "Thomam" besides "Thoman". Same might be true for many other Latin nouns in as.

As for the vowel length, maybe it's

  1. Thōmās, Thōmām keeping the length
  2. Thōmās, Thōmam with Greek nominative but Latin accusative (which fits to Latin genitive and dative)
  3. Thōmas, Thōmam - though maybe Late, Middle or New Latin, compare with German Thomas [ˈtoːmas] and Lucas/Lukas [ˈluːkas] which (a) should have their length from Latin or (b) could have been used in New Latin but with German vowel length.

-Watabib (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


An IP has stuffed the Catalan section full of content formatted in ways that WT:EL never could have imagined. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It's probably quicker to roll back and re-add with formatting than to just format. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


This entry uses both fr and fro. It also has the label Gascon which is a dialect of Old Provençal or Occitan. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be copied from fr:void (NOT fr:voide which has a different regional label) and for some reason, changed from Occitan to Old French. Possibly one of those things where you've got two windows open and you edit the wrong one. FWIW FEW lists vuech and voig as the Old Provençal and voide does seem to be Old and/or Middle French, either as a feminine form or as a masculine and feminine form. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


Definitions have changed over time. – Jberkel (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

've, 'm, -'s[edit]

Those three entries are in Category:English clitics. 'd, linked to from 've, is not listed as a clitic but as a suffix. -'s (note the hyphen) has a verb part of speech with the headword line "-'s ‎(clitic)" and then other parties of speech with the headword line "’s" (should that be moved to 's, with prominent cross-links between the two entries, or should the headword lines be updated to include the hyphen?). Can someone check that the entries are in the right category, check whether other entries like 'd belong in the clitic category, and check whether some of the POS sections of -'s should be moved or have their headword-lines updated? Some of the mess in -'s is probably my doing; I'm sorry. - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]


What part of speech is this? The headword-line template disagrees with the L3 header. - -sche (discuss) 04:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

せう, redux[edit]

Firstly, this should be in a category, even if only the "non-entry" category that {{no entry}} adds. Secondly, the page it directs users to for more information never mentions it ... is せう an obsolete form of every sense of しょう, or only of some? - -sche (discuss) 04:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Japanese kana entries are basically all about reading -- i.e., pronunciation. The historical kana rendering せう was formerly read as /ɕeu/. Over time, this pronunciation shifted to /ɕoː/, and during the spelling reforms of the Showa era, the kana spelling was changed to しょう to match the pronunciation. There is nothing in modern Japanese that is read as せう, with a modern pronunciation of /seu/.
I've reworded the usage note to match the above. Is that clearer?
I don't know how to categorize this correctly, so I leave that for others. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

ay çöreği[edit]

Part of speech? Definition? - -sche (discuss) 06:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


Needs to be templatized. - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

gece gece[edit]

Needs to be templatized; also, clarify the definition. - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't even the right part of speech. Still, cleaned up based on A Student Grammar of Turkish. - -sche (discuss) 15:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:English false friends for German speakers[edit]

Needs to be categorized. - -sche (discuss) 18:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


German or English, or both. DTLHS (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

By GBC it seems like "SchH" is used in English, but abbreviates German "Schutzhund" (or "Schutzhundeprüfung"). Alternative form could be SchH..
German forms could be Sch.H., SchH., SchH. German SchH could also abbreviate Schutzhundeprüfung. Related terms could be BH (Begleithundeprüfung), WH (Wachhundprüfung), maybe also AD (Ausdauerprüfung), FH (Fährtenprüfung), hyponyms could be SchH 1 or SchH I etc.
But I'm not sure regarding the use/mention distinction. Exclusionist maybe could argue that SchH is often just mentioned and not used. -16:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


Is it traditional or simplified? If it's simplified, there should not be definitions here. —suzukaze (tc) 23:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


A very wordy, POV sense was added and the etymology morphed into an equally word and POV discourse on that sense. It looks like this will need to be split into two etymologies, and the new material will need to be pruned into something suitable for a dictionary- does anyone have a chainsaw? Chuck Entz (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I have split the etymologies.
I won't try to address the definitions without citations. See WT:RFV#privateer. DCDuring TALK 15:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Trimmed it a bit. Equinox 15:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I did some more cleaning including re-merging the etymologies; sorry, DCD, I did this before I read your comment. However, the OED shows plenty of usage for this sense back to the 1600s so I think the proposed 2008 etymology was one of those spurious back-formations. Ƿidsiþ 09:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Widsith Did you read WT:RFV#privateer? DCDuring TALK 10:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't! But yes, I agree with Kiwima's conclusions, which is pretty much what I did. Ƿidsiþ 12:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


Does this actually make sense? – Jberkel (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. But I can't see a distinction between senses #1 and #2. It seems like the same thing (mild deformation of a sheet of metal) just one occurs in manufacturing and one occurs when the item is already in place (roofing). Presumably because oilcans are round and not flat sheets. I'd just reduce it to a single definition (like mine in brackets above) and be done with it. I assume existence is not an issue here? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Edits by User:Leonardo José Raimundo[edit]

They've created a whole bunch of entries with no headword templates. Also, they seem to have made some dubious edits in the past, like at one, so maybe their edits need checking in other ways too. —CodeCat 23:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hilarious edit summaries though. Maybe automated? – Jberkel (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


suzukaze (tc) 08:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Cantonese interjections[edit]

Full of Simplified Chinese characters. Cantonese uses Traditional Chinese characters exclusively.

Seems to be an issue on all of these category pages: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Cantonese_lemmas

Would fix this myself, but I'm not sure how to do it.

Cantonese doesn't only use traditional Chinese, since it is also spoken in Guangdong province, which uses simplified Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
— Jbhk (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciations by User:[edit]

This user has added pronunciations but they're entirely unformatted, no templates. —CodeCat 20:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

BrunoMed's Prefix Entries[edit]

User:BrunoMed has just created a large number of new prefix entries, apparently from lists in appendices. I've dealt with the ones where he copied content whole from entries for prefixes ending with vowels to new entries for the same prefixes without those vowels. That still leaves the majority, which are nationality prefixes. For these, he copied the same content into every entry:


Shortened unetymologically from [Latin country name] in compounds- 20th century formation, perhaps echoing terms like Afro-, Indo-, Sino- etc.



  1. pertaining to [English country name], especially as a political entity
Coordinate terms

This mechanical, cookie-cutter approach may be right in some cases, but it's clearly wrong in others. For one thing, I have my doubts about whether these are all 20th-century coinages, and there are some which are obviously not "shortened unetymologically"- such as Malayo- from Malay. This last one shows that there was no checking for whether the English country name actually exists as a country name.

Would someone please check these and either fix them or delete them, where necessary?

Thanks to User:-sche for some of the points made above. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

quibus auxilus[edit]

Is this salvageable? It seems to be an obsolete term in homeopathy. Equinox 13:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

4. ref has "Boenninghausen classified the characteristic symptoms into seven categories. They are: [...] 4. Quibus Auxilus (Concomitant Symptoms)". That should be an error. In caps quibus auxiliis is QUIBUS AUXILIIS and could be misread as QUIBUS AUXILUS, i.e. quibus auxilus, like [books.google.com/books?id=lc9zfg_dLF8C&pg=PA302&dq=%22quibus+auxilus%22 here] where a GBS gives QUIBUS AUXILIIS while searching for quibus auxilus. The correct spelling and a literal meaning can be found in the 2. ref: "Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando? - Who, what, where, with what, why, how, when?". As the 4. ref should have an incorrect spelling, it could also have an incorrect meaning or an interpretation or something like that. The literal meaning however could be SoP (Sum of Parts), and so maybe the entry should be deleted. - 11:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016[edit]


“Name the irregular forms (imperfect scibam, scibas etc. without e; future scibo, scibis etc.; anything else?)” DTLHS (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

crony capitalism[edit]

Definition seems too rambling and wordy; could use a trim. Equinox 22:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Die Grünen[edit]

Should this have the definite article in the lemma? Cf. English Greens. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

"Die Grünen" including the article is the original full name of the party, so this should be correct. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The full name? Is that not Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (which we don't have)? -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
That's the current-day successor formed from the party Die Grünen from West Germany and Bündnis 90 from East Germany (and I think some more minor organisations). I would consider nowadays' Die Grünen to be a pars pro toto. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
If Die Grünen is supposed to be an entry on the name of a political party it would need to be sent to RFD. As far as I know we don't have names of political parties on Wiktionary, Republican Party, for example, is an {{only in}} linking to Wikipedia. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The German press and even some greens themself use die Grünen, der Grünen, den Grünen, die Grünen and at least in headlines also Grüne.
  • www.morgenpost.de/politik/article208712929/Von-den-Gruenen-gibt-es-Blumen-Pfiffe-und-unklare-Signale.html: "empfangen die Grünen Daimler-Chef"
  • www.taz.de/!5346251/: "bei den Grünen"
  • www.krone.at/welt/gruene-gegen-christbaum-unzeitgemaesses-ritual-debatte-vor-advent-story-538084 : "Grüne gegen Christbaum" and "ausgelöst von den Grünen"
  • www.gruene.at/mitmachen/mitglied-werden : "warum du es bei den Grünen werden solltest [...] weil die Grünen damit stärker werden [...] den Kurs der Grünen"
  • gruene.berlin/nachrichten/sicherheit-geht-vor-neuanfang-mit-den-gruenen-zaehlgemeinschaft-berlin-mitte : "haben die Grünen"
  • www.gruene.de/ueber-uns/bundesvorstand.html : "von BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN" and short "die GRÜNEN".
Regarding Pedrianaplant's: As mentioned on Talk:Die Grünen, there is also Liberal Democrats, and also Labour Party, Labor Party. - 19:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


rfc-sense: What does

The correct Mandarin term is "代办 dài bàn"

mean? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


Strange formatting. No real definition. But seems to be a real word. What to do? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

pre-shared key[edit]

Hey thanks for the instruction manual! Equinox 16:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]


This entry is divided in a very odd fashion into three senses, with odd example sentences to go with them:

  1. A singularia tantum for the plant with the example sentence: "The beet is a hardy species"
  2. A countable sense for an "individual plant (organism) of that species". Example sentence: "They sell beets by the pound in the supermarket. All I want is the roots. Can I cut off the roots and buy them alone?"
  3. A countable sense for the "root of such a plant".

This is especially odd since the plural mass noun sense (as in "she got beets on her new blouse") isn't mentioned in the lemma or in the plural entry.

Can somebody make the senses so they make sense? Chuck Entz (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The distiction between senses 1 and 2 is grammatical, not lexical, and I have merged them. One could just as well say "the tiger/alligator/oak is a species that...". Is "she got beets on her new blouse" using a different sense than (the plural of) the "root" sense? - -sche (discuss) 20:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Not really. My point was that normal usage is closer to always plural than to always singular. There does seem to be a difference, but it probably isn't lexical: one could say "These are big beets- if you cook up even just one, it makes a decent serving of cooked beets". The first is countable and plural, while the second is a plural mass noun. Like most vegetables, mass noun usage tends to be plural only. You can still say "a cup of cooked beet", but "a cup of cooked beets" sounds more natural. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

serial time-encoded amplified microscopy[edit]

Too wordy and technical. Equinox 17:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks to be a straight Wikipedia copy as well. --Azertus (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

百正, 那由他, 阿僧祇[edit]

"Translingual numbers" under the category of "Chinese numeral symbols".

Delete. They are words, not symbols. They need separate entries in Chinese and in Japanese. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


The list of alternative forms includes many that have two syllables (eg, whoopy-doo) and therefore seem to me to be different terms. I don't know exactly how to characterize the relationship among words in the two groups of terms, but it is not that members of one group are alternative forms of one member of the other group. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

кънига / ⰽⱏⱀⰻⰳⰰ, кънигꙑ[edit]

This OCS word is only attested in the plural. We have it lemmatized twice, once at the (unattested) reconstructed singular кънига (kŭniga) / ⰽⱏⱀⰻⰳⰰ (kŭniga) and once at the plural кънигꙑ (kŭnigy). Presumably either the plural should be made into a form-of definition, or the singular should be deleted as unattested; what is the standard policy? —Vorziblix (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it a plurale tantum, like Lower Sorbian knigły? Or is it only attested with a plural meaning as well? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The former; it’s quite copiously attested with singular and plural meanings, and occasionally translates Greek singulars as well as plurals (βιβλίον (biblíon) and τὰ βιβλίᾰ (tà biblía) both become кънигꙑ (kŭnigy)). —Vorziblix (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I think there are some inflected singular forms, which need to be looked into (care should be taken in distinguishing Old Russian from OCS), such as dative "кънигу".--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The SJS claims that the one-time attested кънигоу is an error for къниги; the expected dative singular would be *кънигѣ in any case, since it’s an a-stem. All of the other attestations given in SJS and SS, which cover almost all of the OCS canon, are plural forms. Do you know of sources that attest the singular? —Vorziblix (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant accusative, not dative. I couldn't find anything, not in the normalised spelling, anyway. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

born in a barn[edit]

This entry has some real problems, but I'm having trouble pinning down exactly how to fix them. The definitions:

  1. (en, idiomatic) Lacking a sense of etiquette; ill-mannered.
  2. Of humble birth, especially when referring to Jesus Christ.
  3. (en, idiomatic) Engaging in the annoying behavior of inappropriately, and usually neglectfully, leaving open a door or window.

I'm more concerned with the first and last definitions, though the middle one seems to be just a play on the other two.

The phrase is mostly used in the rhetorical question: "were you born in a barn?". Asking that is a way of indirectly criticizing someone for bad manners, especially with regard to leaving a door or window open. Another variation is to say "you must have been born in a barn."

The indirectness seems to be where things are going wrong. The best way to see this is by substituting in the definitions: "Were you [Lacking a sense of etiquette/ill-mannered]?". "Were you [leaving open a door or window]?". To start with, the time frame of the phrase is always in the past relative to the time period of the utterance as a whole, but the first and last definitions are in the same time frame. Also, this is a rhetorical question/metaphor, so the phrase isn't supposed to be true- it's just implied that the behavior of the other person is like what one might expect if it were.

At first I thought this could be fixed by moving the entry to "were you born in a barn", but the variations make that difficult.

Any suggestions? Chuck Entz (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

"(idiomatic) In phrases such as were you born in a barn?: criticizing the person to whom the phrase is directed as lacking a sense of etiquette or being ill-mannered." — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Compare "were you born in a tent". Equinox 13:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This has only been directed at me specifically for leaving the door open. I never had the sense that it was about manners but about not knowing enough to close the door or having grown up in a place where it is customary to leave the door open (as if it would be typical to leave barn doors open, which, not having been around barns, let alone been born in one, I don't have sufficient information to comment on). Eric Partridge in A Dictionary of catch phrases actually gives leaving the door open as a sole usage for this phrase, without any attribution of any further underlying meaning. Unless it has been documented that people using this expression are specifically intending this as a comment on manners or etiquette (is there a difference?), lack of education, or humble upbringing, then it would seem to be synthesis to extend the meaning any further than "Close the door!". Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
There is also a weird use to imply delusion of divinity, and related poetic reference to Bethlehem myths. "He thinks he was born in a born." - Amgine/ t·e 16:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

December 2016[edit]


Translation of the usex is gibberish. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


Unhelpful pronunciation section, definition that may need cleaning up, and bad synonyms section. —suzukaze (tc) 21:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


The third sense if super-long. Perhaps it could be condensed? As a whisky drinker, I'd like to have some mention of that beverage on the page too --Derrib9 (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


Sense "A social pretender on the lookout for advancement; one who pushes his fortune by equivocal means, as false pretences." WTF does that mean? Who speaks like that nowadays anyway? --Derrib9 (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017[edit]

Proto-Slavic Reconstructions[edit]

Not an expert, so I can't really judge if these contributions from the same anon are unpolished gems or candidates for speedy deletion. Any takers? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/šestъ appears to be a candidate for speedy deletion, since we have Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/šestь. The others I can't comment on with certainty. — Kleio (t · c) 18:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/vъnukъ appears to be a gem, so it needs to be polished. Mulder1982 (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


An anonymous editor added a noun sense ("shirtfront"). It's unclear which of the three etymologies it relates to, or if the sense is legitimate. Cnilep (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I found this in New Partridge 2014: "up your juke under the front of your clothing [...] UK, Scotland 1985". No etymology, though. Cnilep (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

character usage note[edit]

Does someone want to take a stab at overhauling the usage note at character? Not only is it prescriptive, but it is taken directly from the 1913 Webster. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

gripe inn and other Norwegian verbs[edit]

Look at the conjugation at gripe inn. Apparently it's horrible because Template:no-verb sucks. CodeCat would be my prime candidate to improve the template. --Quadcont (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


The current definition "held" and the example sentences seem to have nothing to do with each other. DTLHS (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


The etymologies are a bit confusing. Etymology 1 has "Etymology" under it. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


Norwegian Riksmål is not a recognized language. DTLHS (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

We should probably treat it as a variant of Bokmål. We could have a category for it as a subcategory of CAT:Norwegian Bokmål and populate it by means of {{lb|nb|Riksmål}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm the guilty party. No, it's not official, but Bokmål Wiktionary uses the language code nrm for Riksmål (and no, nb, nn for common Norwegian, Bokmål and Nynorsk respectively). I'm not sure what the best treatment is. DonnanZ (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


The noun definitions of etymology 2 are duplicated in etymology 3. It's also questionable whether they are truly separate etymologies. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


I think the notes at the bottom of {{ar-personal_pronouns}} need cleanup. Huhu9001 made some edits, including notes that nobody will be able to understand. I asked Huhu9001 to improve his edits with examples as necessary, but he refuses. —Stephen (Talk) 02:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


No definition provided. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


Neginoth is listed as both "uncountable" and "plural only", and its alt form neginot is given as a proper noun. Equinox 06:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I made some basic fixes, but these really needs the attention of a competent Biblical Hebrew editor. @Wikitiki89, perhaps? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether the context label you added actually applies. It seems like it's a word only used in Bible translations. --WikiTiki89 19:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

many a[edit]

The anon who created it, who was probably Wonderfool, who had never read a poem in his/her life, tagged it as poetic. Totally wrong, right? And I'd suggest merging the entry, along with many an, into many. --Quadcont (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

many a at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that dictionaries include the term, usually as a redirect to many. I suppose what distinguishes many + [Noun] (plural) from many a + [Noun] (singular) is the emphasis on the individuality of the [Noun]. DCDuring TALK 15:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


There are lots of mistakes and mis-used templates in this definition. There is also something wrong with the usage of the reference tag as well. I don't know how to fix such thing as I am new to Wiktionary but I attempted to fix it. Unfortunately, it didn't work. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017[edit]


Re English noun: derived/related terms seem to be arbitrarily mixed up, and I think there's something wrong with the indentation levels. Equinox 07:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There could be the following problems:
  • Two "=" were twice missing, now the levels should be correct.
  • "Related terms" are present twice.
  • Many or even all of the first "Related terms" are simply derived terms. Well, one could differ between real derived terms which are derivates (new terms formed by derivation, by adding affixes) and compounds (new terms formed by composition, by combining words), but both is placed under "Derived terms" here in Wiktionary.
  • Many hyponyms are also derived terms and many derived terms are also hyponyms. E.g. "birthday party" is a hyponym and a derived term of "party".
  • "party" has several meanings like political party and social gathering. So it might make sense to split it up by senses: "green party" is a hyponym and a derived term of the sense political party, "birthday party" is a hyponym and derived term of the sense social gathering.
    BTW: Both terms, "green party" and "birthday party", might be SOP, but that might be the case for several terms listet at party.
  • "political party" is derived term of party and could be both a hyponym and a synonym depending on the sense of "party". To sense 4, "A political group [...]", it should be a synonym. To sense 3, "A group of people forming one side [...]", it could be a hyponym.
- 19:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Entries lacking sources[edit]

This category is easily forgotten. I'm posting it here to encourage somebody to take a look and help clean a few. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps that category and Category:Pages with broken file links could be indicated somewhere in the explanatory text at the top of this page, preferably in a box so that they can be spotted easily? — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Hans-Friedrich Tamke[edit]

Most of the time, User:Hans-Friedrich Tamke is a knowledgeable, careful editor, and has added a lot of good entries. He also can be extremely obsessive about including every theoretically-possible variation in translation sections, and his creation of lots and lots of theoretically-possible, but unattested forms in constructed languages such as Esperanto and Volapük has created a huge amount of unnecessary work in RFV.

Well, he's back at it. I would appreciate it if everyone would look through his translations in the languages they know and prune out the cruft. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]

alternative fact[edit]

This has gone through RfD and RfV (not all definitions). I have partially cleaned it up, but I fear that I have lost objectivity. Accordingly, could someone take a look at what I've done and correct it and figure out what to do with the "Usage notes", formerly one of the two etymologies, the "Etymology" that I commented out, and the footnotes to the calques/translations in the translation table. DCDuring TALK 01:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


RFC of the Chinese section. —suzukaze (tc) 04:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Everything but the glyph origin should be ok now. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The glyph origin has its own attention templates, so I marked this as complete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


RFC of the Chinese section.—suzukaze (tc) 04:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: It should be cleaned up for the most part. The glyph origin is still incomplete. The problem is that the glyph origin is different for the three etymologies. Should we have different glyph origin sections (Glyph origin 1, 2, 3), or should they be lumped under one? Pinging @Wyang, Bumm13 as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I think Glyph origins 1, 2, ... would be the best method. Wyang (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


English usage? (There may be other additions by this user which should be checked as well.) —This unsigned comment was added by Amgine (talkcontribs).

Try to be more specific. With "English usage", you're wasting your time and mine. Also. which user? —Stephen (Talk) 02:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
"This user" is referring to User:Fixmaster, and the request is presumably to check if the tagged definition, "to be linger", was worded right. It wasn't. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

in what world[edit]

Just created this; not really happy. Is the PoS right? Can the def be made clearer? Equinox 12:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I've done some work on it. It seems to be a synonym of how only used as the interrogative part of rhetorical questions intended to highlight the unreality or illogic of something. It reminds me of a similar (but more personal) rhetorical question: what color is the sun in your world? I just added that one. Feel free to correct it. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Sense: "A bad place of abandon", with subsenses. I'm not entirely clear on what the author intended to communicate, maybe sense and subsenses should be deleted altogether. Subsense 2 seems to be inspired by a sense labelled "ironic" in the WNT, if so then it would just be an ironic use of the literal sense. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


Very wordy, a bit unclear, not sure there are three true separate senses. Equinox 18:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

shot through with[edit]

I don't think this phrase is really an adjective either. Equinox 20:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Suzhou numeral[edit]

Any takers? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. If you think anything else needs a cleanup, then please be more specific. - 19:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


Missing templates, I actually can't even say if it's Mandarin, Cantonese or any other language. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE It should be ok now (excepting that the simplified form is not created), but I'm a bit unsure about the exact definition. @Suzukaze-c, perhaps you might know a bit more. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
All I have to say is that it is equivalent to Cantonese 冇乜嘢 and Mandarin 沒什麼. —suzukaze (tc) 21:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


confusing entry – Jberkel (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About Chinese/Cantonese/Taishanese[edit]

This is currently invoking a user sandbox module. It should be changed to a regular module. —CodeCat 21:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c, Wyang Should this be put in MOD:yue-pron? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Support +1. Wyang (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Are we sure the other sources record the Taicheng dialect?—suzukaze (tc) 08:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed its only categories are tracking/cleanup categories. It should probably be put in a "real" category. —CodeCat 14:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


The IP geolocates to Poland, but everything else points to blocked Indonesian editor Willy2000. They've been adding translations and creating entries in an implausibly broad assortment of European and Southeast Asian languages, with many of the European entries lacking basic information such as gender that a fluent speaker would presumably know. I speedied a Russian entry that had no Google Books hits, but there's enough evidence for some of the others that I don't want to risk meddling in languages I don't know without more to go on than a hunch. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Definitely Willy. I think we can trust that the Indonesian-Malay ones are fine and mark those as patrolled, but the rest is questionable. @Atitarev, there's a lot of Slavic ones — could you please check and fix the Russian and Ukrainian ones, and any others that you can check as well? Thank you! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we can also add Special:Contributions/Anth2943 to this. The overlap in timing of edits can be explained by assuming they were using two browsers at the same time, but logged in on only one. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
... and Special:Contributions/ Chuck Entz (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The Slavic contributions are very basic and primitive, lacking many important parts (word stress, gender, verb aspect, inflections, let alone pronunciations and etymologies) but they seem correct. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


Why is this plural only? Surely there could be one of them. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thats what the sources seem to show. They all have an "s" at the end. Elkenthedruuwss (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


This has a rubbish definition. --G23r0f0i (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

conceptual model[edit]

Unclear, repetitive wording, perhaps SoP. Equinox 19:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

knickerbocker glory, Knickerbocker Glory[edit]

These need merging somehow... Equinox 22:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneAɴɢʀ (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Edits by User:[edit]

They've been creating new alphabet templates using composed characters for digraphs, which are deprecated and should not be used. They also added these composed characters to existing templates. Moreover, many of the entries they created are not templated properly (missing headword, {{Latn-def}} etc). —CodeCat 17:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

They seem to have caught on to the headword and definition templates after I used them in a few articles, and first used them in this edit. — Eru·tuon 19:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]


Needs pretty much everything — templates, translations and most of all usage notes. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


Same thing, needs every component. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It's been cleaned up. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 19:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Translations of Holland and Netherlands[edit]

Presumably, the translations at Holland should use {{trans-see}} and all the translations moved over to the Netherlands entry. —CodeCat 14:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

었다, 잆다[edit]

No definitions. DTLHS (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

ชั้ย, เจื๋อน[edit]

No definitions or part of speech. DTLHS (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


Definitions are too long and the translations section may need examination. —suzukaze (tc) 03:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


Tamil? —suzukaze (tc) 03:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown, could you look at this? —suzukaze (tc) 08:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Done. —Stephen (Talk) 09:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Appendix:Zulu given names[edit]

This list was created a few months ago by someone with apparently little knowledge of Zulu. In Zulu, all nouns, including names, must have a noun prefix in front of them, but it's lacking for these, which makes the list of relatively little lexicographical use. @Metaknowledge Any idea what to do with it? —CodeCat 23:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's of little lexicographical use. It seems like the content is correct, so I'd add a note at the top about how it's very inexhaustive and the form of the prefix that names have when used in Zulu, and leave it at that. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Except that I don't know the prefix. Normally, it would be class 1a (prefix u-), as you probably know, but there's some names beginning with vowels and Zulu doesn't allow two vowels to be adjacent in native vocabulary. In theory, the prefix would become a consonant before a vowel-initial word, so is wAmahle an attested name? Modern loans use hyphens instead, so I guess u-Amahle is another possibility. I have no idea. —CodeCat 23:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The u-Amahle version is what is actually used in Zulu. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I found some results for uMahle too but whether they're names, I don't know. —CodeCat 00:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


Especially etymology 4. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Wyang (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Tbot entries (German)[edit]

Hey. So I cleaned up most of Category:Tbot entries (German), but my German skills aren't up to dealing with these remaining 11. It'd be cool to have this category cleaned out and deleted, so if anybody with de-3 or higher wants to take on this short task, I'll give them brownie points. --Shegashega (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


Has language codes and templates for both Dutch and German, language name "Liechtensteiner German". DTLHS (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Rename to Alemannic German. —CodeCat 22:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The example puzzles me: I would expect Alemannic German to have a dramatically different equivalent for Standard German wie geht's. Perhaps it is Alemannic German–influenced Standard German? — Eru·tuon 22:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I've heard hoi in this sense from Dutch people, but I don't know anyone from Liechtenstein, so I don't know if they say this or not. I'd recommend RFVing to find out if it exists in any High German variety at all, and if so, if it's Liechtenstein Standard German, Liechtenstein Alemannic, or what. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


Etymology sections should be cleaned up / merged. DTLHS (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


I can't even find the senses among those huge tables. Moreover, the senses are not marked with # in the wikitext. —CodeCat 19:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


Not as bad as the one above, but there's still a giant table in the place reserved for senses. Also, "stem set" is not an allowed section. —CodeCat 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"Stem set" is the way Navajo roots change depending on mode and aspect. It is not a "conjugation" table in the standard meaning of it, but if you feel it better fits the practices here, I can make that change.
Then, regarding the "huge" table, it is how the Navajo vocabulary is built up, around roots to which various preffixes are added. In many Navajo verb pages, a lot of information is duplicated from verb to verb belonging to the same root. It is a lot more efficient and genuine to the language to gather this info inside a "root" page. This saves the burden to add to each verb their related verbs. See for instance yoołmas, haiłmáás, neiłmaas in their "related terms" section.
Then, a group of such verbs comes usually in a number of predefined "categories", as motion, successive, operative.. depending on the set of prefixes that the roots can take (for instance, yoołbąs, haiłbąąs, neiłbąąs follows the same pattern as the examples cited above).
In the same way a Indo-European root page just lists the descendant terms in the daughter languages, in the Navajo root pages I just list the verbs, arranged by sense, theme, transitivity and "category". (The only difference being that the Navajo root is not a reconstructed root, it's a lexical root).
I believe that for learners of the Navajo language these are of great help since it helps structuring the lexicon.
The one issue I had I admit is that the # sign doesn't work when I have multiple submeanings with verb tables inbetween them.
What do you propose I do? I'm pinging Stephen because I'd like to get his input in that matter too. @Stephen G. Brown Julien Daux (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
We have pages for roots of attested languages (Category:Roots by language), that's not really an issue. They are treated like any other morpheme. For Proto-Indo-European, though, we list terms derived from a root under "Derived terms". There's nothing in principle against there being a table under "Derived terms" instead of a list, and I think it is a better location than right underneath each sense.
As for stem sets, if it's not a conjugation table, then I assume that these would be considered separate verbs, am I correct? If so, then the situation resembles that of Proto-Indo-European as well, which also had various ways to derive stems for aspects. We list those under "Derived terms" also. See *leykʷ- for example. Would such a format work for Navajo? —CodeCat 20:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Stem sets are not separate verbs, and if anything, are closer to a conjugation. For instance, yoołmas, yiłmáás, neiłmaas, all mean "he is rolling it", but the first one is progressive aspect (he rolls it along), the second is momentaneous (he is rolling it ), the third one is continuative (he is rolling it about). The difference is in the stem : -mas,-máás,-maas. Then each of these verbs can be conjugated for mode (imperfective, perfective, future...). Then many of these verbs can then take on lexical (non-aspectual) prefixes (just like English "to roll", "to roll up", "to roll out"...), like haiłmáás (he is rolling it out horizontally). That's why the notion of theme is so central to Athabaskan languages, because behind a given lexical verb actually hide multiple segments of somewhat predictable meaning, combining meaning, mode, aspect and lexical derivation. (sorry if that I'm not being clear enough).
Based on these premises, that's why I wanted to have the derived verbs right below each senseid, because the verbs are the incarnations of the themes. A meaning listed without actual verbs doesn't really make sense to me. I could move this to the derived section, but then it would be weird for the synonym section to come before the "derived" terms, because the derived terms are the root itself and a way to define it. And doing this would also make it very repetitive and not synoptic enough. Unless I'm allowed to have "derived terms" before "synonyms", and that I skip senses altogether? Julien Daux (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I haven't really ever dealt with these languages but I'm trying to understand. If you consider what you might call a "whole" verb, with all of its forms, what is included in this? Would you consider yoołmas, yiłmáás and neiłmaas to be different forms of a single verb? Why or why not? —CodeCat 22:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a very good question, and actually this is the central question of all Athabaskan linguistics. Verb mechanism in these languages is so foreign that trying to define it in terms of European linguistics necessarily leads to some categorizations and views that don't belong to it.
The lexicographic "tradition" in Navajo is to consider yoołmas, yiłmáás and neiłmaas as separate "verbs", just like "gain" / "regain" or "perceive" / "receive" are in English, even though the first pair is a predictable derivation and the second much less so. This also fits the definition by which these are the bare shape before any inflection for person, tense or mode is added. Anything that remains after removing person, tense or mode is considered a verb (in Wiktionary and in all Navajo dictionaries). This definition is workable because first this how native speakers feel it (they actually explicitly told Young and Morgan after a survey to arrange their 1980 dictionary by lexical verbs rather than per root), and also because as in any language, some unpredictable or specialized meanings sometimes emerge from these lexical verbs, so it means they can clearly stand on their own (for instance haaʼeeł means "it floats up out", but can also mean "it (a baby) is miscarried, aborted". No other verb derived from this root has this specialized meaning).
Now, other views have emerged in the 1970 that the "real" verbal unit is not the verb (like neiłmaas), not the root (like -MÁÁZ, which can occur in various actual meanings, like "to roll" but also "to be spherical", not that far semantically, but some other roots do have much more disparateness), but the theme, which is the combination of : a root, a thematic prefix compound (possibly null), a thematic classifier (possibly null) and a category (motion, stative, successive, operative....). It is a virtual unit, whose awareness to Navajo native speakers still need to be tested, but whose explanatory power is enormous, and articulates the entire lexicon. James Kari was one of the first to investigate that route with the Alaskan Ahtna language. No such work has ever been carried out for Navajo, even though the reality of themes is a striking overarching phenomenon.
A theme is for instance "Ø + Ø + -MÁÁZ (motion)" (to roll) or "ʼa + ni + Ø + -TʼIʼ (motion)" (to stagger) (you'll agree that that would be weird to have pages named so on Wiktionary, but that's how the paper dictionary of Tlingit is construed). Like many motion themes, these themes can combine with the lexical derivation "ná + di + yi + Momentaneous aspect" (to start to...), to give the following lexical verbs: "ńdiimáás" (to start to roll), "ná + ʼa + di + ni + yi + Ø + mom(TʼIʼ)" = "ńdíʼníitʼééh" (to start to wobble). The question being, can all motion themes accept this derivational prefix? Skimming through Young's dictionary, one can notice that many such combinations are missing from his dictionary, raising the question whether this combination can be freely formed or if it is lexical constrained. Until one finds this out, it better to consider each of these lexical verbs as separate lexical units as opposed to the result of a productive derivational process.
Making a break there :). Julien Daux (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Wow, ok. It seems, then, that Navajo verbs are quite similar to Proto-Indo-European ones, in that you have a root that can serve as the basis for one or more aspect stems, whose existance is unpredictable (not every root has every aspect) and whose meaning can also be idiosyncratic. However, I'm not quite clear on why it's necessary to list verbs by sense. The meaning of each verb is determined by the aspect/mood isn't it? —CodeCat 00:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, two things: 1. I needed one place where to list the verbs belonging to the same theme instead of the copied-pasted list found at the end of each verb entry. 2. Showing the actual possible verbs demonstrates the theme's well-foundedness and also shows places where expected forms would be missing. Also because just listing a root and a theme (like a+ni+Ø+T'I') is way too abstract to be useful to anyone. This was actually the first draft I came up with when I started creating pages for root, and after a couple of these, I saw how useless and disconnected from reality it was. See for instance -CHĮ́ that I didn't have time to reformat.
(Keep in mind that when I'm showing 12 derived verbs in a given theme, there can actually be close to 100 in reality...).
One thing that is in my plate is also to create Wiktionary categories for each theme, like "Navajo verbs derived from the theme X". Currently, the verb entries do not show their appartenance to a theme, the Etymology section just lists the prefixes, but doesn't distinguish between those that are thematic from those that are derivational. Julien Daux (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I suppose that "huge table" refers to the theme/classifier tables. The tables look good to me. The Stem sets are important, and that's what they're called. I can't think of a better way to do them. Maybe the Stem sets could be reduced to mere bolded lines, placed under a headline such as ====Usage notes====. Not a very good solution, but if we're going to shoehorn Navajo stem sets into a format intended for English, it might work:

Usage notes[edit]

Stem set
—Stephen (Talk) 02:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


The entry has "3. (substantive) a quadruped".

  1. This misses the gender of the substantive. According to dictionaries there a three substantives, a masculine, a feminine and a neuter.
  2. It misses the declension of the substantive. The entry would imply that they are declined like the adjective, but that's doubtful. It seems that the adjective has abl. sg. -ī and also -e (maybe in poetry out of metrical reasons?), and might have neuter pl. -ia and gen. pl. *-ium. The masculine and feminine substantive however might have abl. sg. *-e and gen. pl. -um; and the neuter substantive might have plural -ia, gen. *-ium, and abl. sg. *-ī (like e.g. animal).

A doubtful reference for the adjective declension:

Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar for schools and colleges founded on comparative grammar, 1903, p. 53f.:
"121. [...] a. The Ablative Singular commonly ends in -ī, but sometimes -e. [...]
3. The following have regularly -ī:—āmēns, anceps, concors (and other compounds of cor), cōnsors (but as a substantive, -e), dēgener, hebes, ingēns, inops, memor (and compounds), pār (in prose), perpes, praeceps, praepes, teres.
b. The Genitive Plural ends commonly in -ium, but has -um in the following:1
1. Always in compos, dīves, inops, particeps, prīnceps, supplex, and compounds of nouns which have -um: as, quadru-pēs, bi-color.
122. The following special points require notice:—[...] d. Many adjectives, from their signification, can be used only in the masculine and feminine. These may be called adjectives of common gender.
Such are adulēscēns, youthful; [†dēses], -idis, slothful; inops, -opis, poor; sōspes, -itis, safe. [...]
1 Forms in -um sometimes occur in a few others."

This would mean that adjectives like quadrupes have gen. pl. -um - which would usually imply that the neuter plural is -a and not -ia.
BTW: As for the adjective inops, A&G says it has abl. -ī, gen. pl. -um and no neuter plural (so neither *-ia nor *-a). Maybe note that there is a substantive inopes with gen. pl. -um and a substantive inopia, so finding inopum or inopia doesn't necessarily attest a form of the adjective.
However, dictionaries and grammars sometimes do not to properly differ between the inflection of adjectives and substantivations. Based on cites or references given in dictionaries, it should be like stated before the quote.
Examples of related words:

Cites (based on mentioned forms and given references/cites in dictionaries):

Note: thelatinlibrary.com (TLL), LacusCurtius (LC) etc. are just used as they are easy to mention, and although they could contain errors, the important parts should indeed appear in printed editions.


  • Plinius at LC in book 8, 9, 21, 33 has "concolori" which might be abl.


Maybe also see versicolor.
L&S: "abl. versicolori, Liv. 7, 10: versicolore, Prop. 4, 7, 50; Ov. F. 5, 356 [...] Subst.: versĭcŏlōrĭa, ium, n., dyed stuffs, colored woolens. constabat apud veteres lanae appellatione versicoloria non contineri, Dig. 32, 1, 70, § 12; 34, 2, 32, § 6" — Georges: "Plur. subst. [...] pingere versicolora (Ggstz. unicolora), Fronto epist. ad Ver. 1, 1. p. 113, 18 N."
  • Livius at TLL has: "Corpus alteri magnitudine eximium, versicolori veste pictisque et auro caelatis refulgens armis"
  • Popertius has: "et fultum pluma versicolore caput"; at TLL: "effultum pluma versicolore caput"
  • Ovid, also at TLL, has "sic haec est cultu versicolore decens?"
  • Plinius at LC has "[...] stupueruntque litora flatu versicoloria pellente vela."
  • Marcus Cornelius Fronto's Epistulae (he lived in the 2nd century A.D., but his letters were found 1815 or later) at TLL has: "Quid si Parrhasium versicolora pingere juberet aut Apellen unicolora aut"
  • Digesta cited with versicoloria are from the 6th century, though they could quote or contain an older text.
    book 32 (chapter "Ulpianus libro 22 ad Sabinum") at archive.org: "Et constabat apud veteres lanae appellatione versicoloria non contineri"; book 34 (chapter "Paulus libro secundo ad Vitellium") at archive.org: "Labeo testamento suo Neratiae uxori suae nominatim legavit "vestem mundum muliebrem omnem ornamentaque muliebria omnia lanam linum purpuram versicoloria facta infectaque omnia" et cetera. Sed non mutat substantiam rerum non necessaria verborum multiplicatio, quia Labeo testamento lanam ac deinde versicoloria scripsit, quasi desit lana tincta lana esse, detractoque verbo "versicolorio" nihilo minus etiam versicoloria debebuntur, si non appareat aliam defuncti voluntatem fuisse."


L&S: "six-footed: populi (formicae), App. M. 6, p. 177, 26."
  • Apulejus, Metamorphoses, liber VI. In: Apuleius The Golden Ass being the Metamorphoses of Lucius Apuleius with an English translation by W. Adlington (1566) revised by S. Gaselee, 1922, p. 264f.
    Ruunt aliae superque aliae sepedum populorum undae summoque studio singulae granatim totum digerunt acervum separatimque distributis dissitisque generibus e conspectu perniciter abeunt.
    Incontinently they came, the hosts of six-footed creatures one after another in waves, separating and dividing the grain, and after that they had put each kind of corn in order, they ran away again in all haste from her sight.
    The Latin text is also at TLL.
    Elsewhere "sepedum populorum" was translated as ants (here, in German "Ameisen").
    sepedum here could be an adjective like "of the six-footed peoples" or a substantive like "of the peoples of the six-footed [creatures/animals]". I guess it makes more sense as a substantive just as in the given English translation which uses hosts instead of peoples for populi.


L&S: "neutr. plur. bipedia, Aug. Mor. Manich. 9 [...] Subst., mostly contemptuously, of men: hoc ministro omnium non bipedum solum sed etiam quadripedum impurissimo, Cic. Dom. 18, 48: Regulus omnium bipedum nequissimus, as great a rogue as walks on two legs, Modest. ap. Plin. Ep. 1, 5, 14; Cic. Dom. 18, 48; Lampr. Alex. Sev. 9"
  • 3rd or 4th century, Augustinus, De moribus Manichaeorum at augustinus.it does have bipedia, and also quadrupedia: "[...], malum esse animalia in illis singulis nata elementis, serpentia in tenebris, natantia in aquis, volatilia in ventis, quadrupedia in igne, bipedia in fumo." and "Quis enim tantam perversitatem ferat, qua dicitur in tenebrarum gente, cui nihil admixtum erat luminis, animalia bipedia tam firmam, tam vegetam, [...]".
    CCEL has an English translation: "[...] to the animals born in each of these elements,—serpents in the darkness, swimming creatures in the waters, flying creatures in the winds, quadrupeds in the fire, bipeds in the smoke." and "For is it not intolerable perversity to say that in the race of darkness, where there was no mixture of light, the biped animals had so sound and strong, [...]"


L&S: "gen. plur. quadrupedium, Capitol. Ver. 5, 2 [...] equestri celeritate, quadrupedi cursu solum replaudens, App. M. 6, p. 185, 7. [....] Masc. [...]: calcari quadrupedem agitabo advorsum clivum, Plaut. As. 3, 3, 11: reprime parumper vim citatūm quadrupedum, Att. ap. Non. 495, 20: quadrupedum vectiones, quorum, etc., Cic. N. D. 2, 60, 151 [....] Neutr. (sc. animal): cetera quadrupedia, Col. 11, 2, 33: majora, id. 11, 2, 14: [...]: plurima autem obruerit quadrupedia, Jul. Val. Rer. Gest. Alex. 3, 36." — Georges: "neutr.: cetera quadrupedia, Colum.: maiora quadrupedia, Colum.: omnia quadrupedia, Pallad. [...] Genet. Plur. gew. quadrupedum (quadripedum); aber quadripedium, Colum. 1, 2, 5 cod. P. Capit. Ver. 5, 2 cod. B (u. ed. Peter). Isid. orig. 12, 7, 5 cod. Gud. 1."
  • quadrupedi/quadripedi cursu Apul. Met. 6 - TLL has: "Et alacri statim nisu lorum quo fueram destinatus abrumpo meque quadripedi cursu proripio."
    A better source:
    • Apulejus, Metamorphoses, liber VI. In: Apuleius The Golden Ass being the Metamorphoses of Lucius Apuleius with an English translation by W. Adlington (1566) revised by S. Gaselee, 1922, p. 286ff.
      Et alacri statim nisu lorum, quo fueram destinatus,
      abrumpo, meque quadripedi cursu proripio
      Then while I devised these things, I broke suddenly the halter wherewith I was tied, and ran away with all my four feet1
      1 Quadripedi cursu seems to be a phrase for galloping, as in modern Greek στὰ τέσσερα.
  • de quadrupede equo Gell. 18, 5, 5 - in PHI Latin Texts it's "de hoc anagnosta et de quadrupede eco uidetur?"
  • All the given cites for quadrupedia are for neuter substantives.
  • "gen. plur. quadrupedium, Capitol. Ver. 5, 2": At LC is "donata et viva animalia vel cicurum vel ferarum avium vel quadripedum" with the note "So P; quadrupedium B, Peter.". Translation at LC is: "and also live animals either tame or wild, winged or quadruped, of whatever kind were the meats that were served,". So it depends on manuscript or edition, and as avium is a substantive (gen. pl. of avis), so should be quadripedum/quadrupedium, although it's translated with an adjective in this English translation.
  • A GBS preview had "Gen. Pl. quadripedum, bipedum, alipedum usw. sehr oft [etc. very often]" - but it could be that that are the gen. pl.s of substantives and not necessarily of any adjective.


  • Missing are cites for the abl. sg. of the substantives.
    The masculine and feminine quadrupēs should have abl. -e as they are substantives and have gen. pl. -um.
    quadrupedia could be a plurale tantum (there are many more neuter pluralia tantum derived from adjectives, e.g. in -ālia from -ālis). But L&S gives a cite for a singular: "crocodilum, quadripes malum et infestum, Plin. 8, 25, 37, § 89" (text at LC). It should be more likely that it belongs to the i-declension like animal with abl. sg. -ī.

- 05:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

hydroelectric power[edit]

Needs templates and content. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this not just hydroelectric + power? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but we sort of already have nuclear power, wind power, atomic power, etc. I figured that it would be ok to keep it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


No language template. Needs pretty much everything. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I just speedied it as "no usable content". There are probably languages (e.g. Middle English, Old French) where it's the equivalent of -tion, but in that case it can be re-created from scratch. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
This looks like an error for -ción. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


The Latin entry only. It's a complete mess, and completely defies WT:REE. Someone who knows about Latin, could you please add the etymology, etc., and put everything where it needs to go? Thanks. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: Done, I think. — Eru·tuon 00:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

pop feminism[edit]


  1. The viewpoint that women are or should be in all ways equal to men.

It started out as a minimally-formatted statement of opinion. It was rfc-ed before, but the cleanup apparently sanitized the definition to the point that there's nothing left beyond a very generic description of feminism. Given the collision of mutually-exclusive political narratives about the referent, this needs some very careful thought as to how to say what this is without taking sides. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Very "bold" of me (in the Wikipedian sense), but I just found three citations and wrote a new def: "(sometimes derogatory) A populist, non-academic approach to feminism, suggesting that women can attain equality with men through a positive, go-getting attitude, without the need to examine or change cultural institutions and biases." See what you think. Equinox 13:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

more after the jump[edit]

Linked from after the jump and hit the jump. I think we need to resolve this with a new sense at jump, if anyone feels up to it. Equinox 13:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


Part of the second definition of the noun авось (avosʹ) contains a definition that sounds more like an adverb: "may still; might yet; possibly". Was this inserted by mistake into the wrong POS header, or is there some way in which it can be rewritten into a nounish definition? — Eru·tuon 00:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)