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 February 2014[edit]

March 2014[edit]

Entries by user:Apomorde[edit]

Persian words lacking a proper headword, having misplaced pronunciation (or something) and no wikification of translations. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The race-related edits of User: and User:Artemesia[edit]

This IP has been running through the POV minefield of racial terminology, leaving oddly-worded definitions along the way. I tried to fix up Americanoid, but I was tired and wasn't too happy with the results. It's since been changed beyond recognition.

Someone familiar with anthropology and current usage needs to go through these 19th-century-style entries and bring them into the 21st century. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

They've now registered as Artemesia (talkcontribs), but they're still creating the same entries based on their same idiosyncratic terminology and definitions. Some of their edits have been dealt with, but someone needs to look at all of them. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]


Aaand lots of other assorted rubbish from our magic- and religion-obsessed IP anon. This person is really getting up my nose. They add content that isn't right, or is almost right, or is exactly wrong. The formatting is out of date and often broken. They routinely add interwiki links to entries on the FR, MG, and ZH WTs, which entries usually don't exist -- so basically they're lying to try to make their contributions look more legitimate. I'm tempted to ask for a block ban, despite the collateral damage, given the sheer volume of shit this user pours into Wiktionary whenever they seem to go on holiday.

Incidentally, does anyone know offhand what school holidays might be going on in the UK, where I think this user is located? We could implement some kind of IP block ban that lasts just until that holiday period is over, and likely limit most of the damage. </rant>

... But I'm actually serious about possibly seeking an IP block ban. This user is persistent, pernicious, and nearly deaf to our entreaties to get decent source material, format properly, stop adding dead links, stop adding nonsense, etc. etc. (I say nearly, because they did make something of an effort to figure out formatting -- albeit a bit half-assedly, and about two years ago, since when they haven't kept up at all ensuing changes.)

If you have any expertise with Japanese or Mandarin, any at all, be on the lookout for anon edits, particularly from the 90-something, 5-something, and 150-something IP ranges.

(Incidentally, I'm mostly off WT for the next few weeks due to work demands, so I can't patrol Japanese entries as closely as needed.)

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. It's a "written fortune". An example I could find for the alternative spelling "御神籤":
御神籤 (おみくじ) ()いたら大吉 (だいきち)/ (きょう) ()た。
Omikuji o hītara daikichi / kyō to deta.
The fortune /sacred lot he drew predicted very good/bad luck.
--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 07:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Eirikr Please check if you're happy with おみくじ. I've changed the definition at 御御籤. How does it look now? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 08:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
As for the block, the IP user deserves it on the grounds of using multiple accounts alone. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the IP definitely deserves to be blocked, but there's no real pattern to the addresses they use. To block them effectively would require blocking all Sky Broadband users in the UK, and probably Easynet as well. Although they account for the vast majority of edits from those ISPs, that's still a radical and unprecedented step. We've been using shorter-term blocks applied as soon as we spot them in order to limit the damage, but they've adapted by changing their IP frequently. Perhaps we need to automatically revert and/or delete all their edits regardless of quality just to discourage them- but that would be radical and unprecedented in itself. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Bad definitions are bad edits. We have a small number of editors working with Japanese who can babysit the anon user. Yeah, tentatively support’ nuking his/her new edits, no matter what quality.--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 20:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]


There are many entries for short function words that have similar problems, but we've started an off-topic discussion of this one at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#in cash, so we might as well begin with this one.

Copied from that topic:

[] The payment is done inside some sort of cash? --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I've added a sense to in (though it, and many of the other senses, could use some tweaking) that covers this usage. When you're speaking of money, you can say "in" almost anything- cash, securities, tens and twenties, even Monopoly money. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I have taken a run at a subsense structure for the definitions. I feel we are still missing some senses and have unnecessary specificity in some definitions (See the sub-subsenses.), though the usexes could stay. I find prepositions among the hardest PoS sections I have tackled, requiring a great deal of abstraction to deal with the senses that are not spatial or temporal. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Much better, though getting it perfect might be a lifetime job. Sense 3-2 seems particularly off the mark: "he met his match in her" is just another way of saying "he met his match, and she was that match". All that stuff about "a place-like form of someone's (or something's) personality, as his, her or its psychic and physical characteristics" is just unnecessary verbiage. Consider, for instance: "In boxing, he found the perfect outlet for his anger and frustration". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. I just didn't have the courage to hack away at every piece. We are certainly missing subsenses and also some senses that are hard to fit under the senses now in the entry. Having access to the OED would help make sense of the groupings, though there might be too much information not strictly relevant to current senses. I should probably put some musings on Talk:in. DCDuring TALK 21:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's also the "dressed in, wearing" sense, as in the famous quote from w:Animal Crackers: "I once shot an elephant in my pajamas- how the elephant got in my pajamas, I'll never know", not to mention the "target of an action, within a greater whole", as in "shot in the heart", or as in "they attacked the fortification in its most vulnerable section", or as in "he was shot in the fracas, which, as we all know, can be quite painful". Chuck Entz (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I had forgotten that five years ago I had created a page [[Appendix:Collocations of in]], intended to provide a factual basis for improving the entry. In principle, using that data, we could develop an approach that would apply to other prepositions, for the data is easily obtained. We need to look at other lexicographers' efforts, of course, because they will have captured some less common uses. We should make sure that any sense from a Wiktionary contributor is fully captured as our contributors may have noted a change of meaning that has eluded others. Talk:in has some useful material. DCDuring TALK 21:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Many of the recent creations of User:Angelucci[edit]

Since SemperBlotto isn't with us at the moment, a lot of Angelucci'srecent creations are going unscrutinized. Angelucci seems incapable of learning but also doesn't seem to mind his/her entries being deleted so we've been dealing with these with speedy deletions. But we no longer have an Italian speaking active admin. parlare con tono di condiscendenza, trattare con arroganza and con tono di condiscendenza look bogus to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

pickup and pick up#Noun[edit]

pickup and pick up#Noun need a bit of work. Something smells fishy with the duplication of senses.

Pretty sure the noun is only spelled pickup or pick-up. Written as two words, it's only the verb. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
In theory at least, but you know native speakers don't always follow the rules found in grammar textbooks. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Not in casual writing, no, but we rely on attestations in durably archived sources, most of which (with the exception of Usenet discussions) have been copyedited and proofread. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
To me, the sense "(tennis) a half-volley" is wrong. 'Good pickup' or 'difficult pickup' refer to the difficulty of getting the ball back into play, whereas half-volley is the shot itself. It's a very slight difference and I'm not sure any citations would lead to a distinction between the two. Perhaps a cleanup of all the sense would make it easier to fix this one. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, now I think about it, it good be a good pickup to get the ball into play, but a bad half-volley. That's what I mean. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Angr. For most if not all noun senses of pick up is an alternative form of either the hyphenated form or the solid form. This would be typical, at least for compound nouns of this kind, ie, those with an phrasal verb homonym. Some empirical work or at least consultation with authorities (lemmings) is required to confirm this. DCDuring TALK 11:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
AFAICT no dictionary puts noun definitions at pick up rather than pickup or pick-up. Searching for plurals and article/determiner combinations at COCA shows that pickup is much more common than pick-up, which is significantly more common than pick up. If noun definitions belong at pick-up they will probably be those that are closely associated or recently derived from the verb pick up.
Accordingly, I have gutted the noun section at pick up, moving the definitions to pickup or pick-up by my lights. I left the tennis sense at pick up because it has a citation, but if the preponderance of citations of that sense are of another form, its definition should also be moved. Patient work to refine this further would yield better entries. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
BNC shows the same ordering of forms, though not with as great a magnitude of difference as COCA. DCDuring TALK 12:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]


In the entry "endowment" the translations are not matching anymore the definitions--Diuturno (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I've matched the translation header to the definition, but I'm not sure that the words are correct translations. The Finnish word translates back as just "donation" (but it might also mean endowment). Dbfirs 09:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dbfirs If Finnish was the only problem, I'd say you can remove the clean-up tag. "Endowment" is a difficult word to translate into Finnish, because there's no one word that would cover all sorts of endowments. Rather, there are specific words for the different ways of endowing. I added a few of them, and also added a new English definition, as the insurance sense was missing. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the improvement. I can't remember now how far I got with checking the other languages, but there are still one or two that I'm not sure about for the investment sense. It's a difficult word to translate into any language, so perhaps we need a native speaker of each to be sure. Dbfirs 19:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

corporeal, corporal[edit]

The problem is with senses #2 and #3

2. Of or pertaining to the body; bodily.
3. (archaic) Corporal.

So we go to corporal:

1. (archaic) Having a physical, tangible body; corporeal.
2. Of or pertaining to the body, especially the human body.

So the questions are how do senses #2 and #3 differ, apart from one is archaic and one isn't? How are senses #1 and #2 of corporal different? If they are different, which sense is corporeal #3 referring to? Renard Migrant (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised no-one has cleaned up the entry yet. Perhaps, like me, they are slightly confused by the varying senses. I'll have a go when my brain is working better, though I hope someone who thinks clearly beats me to it. Dbfirs 10:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


diff, is it acceptable to move the translations from coccyx to tailbone in this way? Tailbone isn't a rare English word so, I'm reluctant to revert. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh never mind, per Google Books Ngram, coccyx is way more common. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The diff you want is this one. Interestingly, although "coccyx" is more common at bgc ngrams than "tailbone", "my/your/his/her tailbone" have been more common than "my/your/his/her coccyx" since about 1980. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Isn't it a context/register issue? Coccyx is mostly medical, possibly formal. Tailbone is the lay and colloquial term, the usage of which is reinforced by widespread uncertainty as to the pronunciation of coccyx. We do try to respect register differences in translation tables, don't we? DCDuring TALK 21:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
You're right of course. If you fancy the task, go for it. Don't expect people adding future translations to respect the difference though. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I've put in {{ttbc}}s at [[coccyx]] for terms in Roman script that seemed to be calques of tailbone and at [[tailbone]] for terms that seem derived from Latin coccyx. Others would need to complete the job. DCDuring TALK 15:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

bé bằng củ khoai, cứ vai mà gọi[edit]

An anon brought this up in feedback: it's mostly a lengthy discussion of a part of traditional Vietnamese culture, with the actual definition given a very cursory treatment. It also shows poor command of English, and, being the amateur ethnobotanist that I am, I should add that it seems to mistranslate khoai (without a modifier, it should be the true yam, Dioscorea, not sweet potato, Ipomoea batatas, or something generic like potato). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


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)



  1. the structure of attitudes, practices, and institutions by which humans dominate, exploit, and abuse members of other species.

If you wade through the verbiage, you'll find a rather negative POV. Can someone make (a) clear and concise NPOV definition(s) that fit(s) the usage? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2014 (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)


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)

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)

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)


Please 'clean up' this incorrect template. Present indicative is "du -[e]st, er -[e]t" and not just "du -st, er -t" (e.g. "lieb[e]st", "lieb[e]t" and not just "du liebst, er liebt").
Exemples of usage:

  • [1]: "Die du liebest ist fern!" (the one you love is far away)
  • [2]: Du liebest mich, ich liebe Dich, / So treu und ganz herzinniglich. (you do love me, and I love you, / ...)

Maybe kind of famous grammar books in which German conjugation is explained:

  • books from Johann Christoph Gottsched
  • Johann Balthasar von Antesperg's Kayserliche Deutsche Grammatick

- 17:32, 28 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: [3]. 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)

Entries in Category:Cuneiform[edit]

These entries don't conform to our standards; they don't have headword lines. Well, they do, but they also have a whole lot of other information spread over several lines, that doesn't belong there. They're also lacking definitions. —CodeCat 00:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Cuneiform is hard. Almost as hard as Chinese characters, in terms of variation of how they're spoken, what languages they're used in, and what meanings any one glyph might carry. It will be a non-trivial project to make the Cuneiform entries comprehensible to anyone who doesn't already know what they're looking at, which project will probably involve coming up with a standard and user-friendly format with which to present the relevant information. (I would ask what you mean by "doesn't belong there", by the way. Which information, and do you mean "belongs somewhere else", or do you mean "I don't understand it so we should delete it"?) --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 02:11, 29 October 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.


See Talk:some#Determiner, quotation at sense 1. Thanks in advance, --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The usage example is clear enough, isn't it? I agree that the quotation is too damned long for a quick understanding of how some is being used. Furthermore only the expression in some cases, which is not even grammatically essential in the sentence, gives any good context. Some would be better illustrated in an NP that was the subject or object of a verb. DCDuring TALK 23:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
User Equinox helped me there. To answer your question, no, the usage example is not clear. --Jerome Potts (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
We probably have to revisit the determiner L3 section. I don't feel up to it now and may never. DCDuring TALK 00:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


This entry for an Estonian anti-Russian ethnic slur has had several additions that apparently mean something to those who added them, but not to ordinary readers, phrases such as "Russian slurry expression of address" and "Homo Sovieticus perso". I've removed most of it for now, but I would appreciate it if someone could go though the removed material to see if there's anything worth saving. Also, the etymology could use some work to rephrase it so it makes sense to someone who doesn't live in Estonia. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue is not the Estonian so much as the idiosyncrasy of the person who added it. I reworked the etymology, so the only thing left is to make sure that it is verifiably correct. @CodeCat, Tropylium, do you have Estonian resources that can confirm the definition and etymology? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Repinging @CodeCat, TropyliumΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
ÕS just says venelane (Russian), that's all I can give. —CodeCat 21:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

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. ([4] 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)


For some reason, the citation is dated June 2016, which of course hasn't happened yet. Where's the bug? --Sit comfy (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It bizarrely contained a dead link, a spurious date and an incorrect title, so I redid the whole quote (untemplated). I'm going to assume this is @Smuconlaw's problem, anyhow; here is the old revision where the bug can still be seen. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
It looks like the #time function used in {{quote-journal}} does not recognize "10 June, 1713" (with a comma) as a valid date. As this is a wikitext issue there is nothing much we can do about it on this end, I'm afraid. If the date is specified as "10 June 1713", "June 10, 1713" or even "June 10 1713" the template works fine. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, @TheDaveRoss, do note that "10 June, 1713" (with a comma) is not accepted as a valid date by wikitext. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@Smuconlaw Is it possible to raise an error instead of producing gibberish? DTLHS (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm not sure there is any way to use wikitext and parser functions to check if a date is in the correct format. Or maybe there is, and it's beyond my current capabilities (for example, I have no idea how to use Lua). Anyone have suggestions? — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:15, 8 March 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)

Aoba, あおば[edit]

These two entries need formatting. Einstein2 (talk) 10:32, 26 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)

Category:English false friends for German speakers[edit]

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

Category:ar:nouns with long construct singular[edit]

"Nouns" should be capitalized, at a minimum. - -sche (discuss) 18:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Yes, capitalize "Nouns". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2017 (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)

Macedonian entries with apostrophes[edit]

In most languages, the use of curly vs straight apostrophes imparts no semantic information, so we put entries at the easier-to-type straight-apostrophe forms (that's that, c'est ça). I strongly suspect the situation in Macedonian is the same, and yet (thank-you to Wikitiki for noticing this) Macedonian entries use not only straight apostrophes (ф'стак) but also two different curly apostrophes (‘рж, ’рт). Can the latter two be moved to 'рж and 'рт, or is there a difference between them? (The curly forms can stay as redirects, IMO.) Pinging recently-active Macedonian speakers @Martin123xyz, Dimithrandir, Dijan. - -sche (discuss) 17:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the straight apostrophe ( ' ) is non-existent in Macedonian orthography. The Macedonian keyboard uses only the curly apostrophe ( ’ ), just as it uses the curly quotation marks ( „ “ ). The straight one might be used as substitute sign when there is no curly available or when technology doesn't allow it, but that's non-standard use. Since Wiktionary uses Unicode I think only the curvy apostrophe ( ’ ) should be kept, ф'стак should be moved to ф’стак. Also, the reversed curly apostrophe in ‘рж is completely wrong, it should be moved to ’рж. Dimithrandir (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Whichever kind of apostrophe we decide to use for mk entries, there should be hard redirects from the other kind. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:11, 26 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]

take a wrong turn at Albuquerque[edit]

This entry is obviously wrong, but I'm not sure what to do about it. The definition:

  1. To take a wrong or missed turn in a journey that will inevitably land the traveler in a place far divorced from their original goal.

There are examples of usage in Google Books, but they're only loosely arranged around the idea of taking a wrong turn or going wrong. What they really are is attempts to evoke the absurdity of the scene from a Warner Brothers cartoon where the phrase originated. I don't think anyone would really understand this without knowledge of the cartoon.

In other words, it's an allusion, not a lexical item. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Very strong keep. I know that this isn't a deletion discussion, but it offends me how you called this term which is used outside of reference to Bug's Bunny, an "allusion and not a lexical item." You seem to have a strong idea that allusions are somehow a bad thing. I already have 1 citation that I can put here. It's from another TV series; Beyblade. I'll tell you one thing, they've said two things in relation to Bug's Bunny in the entire anime: took a wrong turn at Albuquerque and what's up Doc (I think). I'm actually surprised that "what's up Doc" is not already here, as it is a common phrase I see in TV shows where they don't refer to Bugs Bunny at all, and it's just synonymous to what's up. These are actually used now. How much should I stress this to you? It's idiomatic, used by people outside of a reference to the TV shows it came from, and it shouldn't be deleted. If you want my Beyblade citation I can give it to you later, but now I have to go. I'm already late enough as it is. Virtually any phrase coming from a TV show could be argued to be an "allusion". on like Donkey Kong could be referred to as an allusion to the first popular culture song who used it, but heck it made WOTD for crying out loud. PseudoSkull (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Usage is key, is it used to mean what it says it means or is it only used in reference to the cartoon. Evidence, gentlemen! Renard Migrant (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I've made a couple of tweaks and cited it. — Pingkudimmi 13:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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)


Was tagged for speedy deletion, but there exists the germ of a worthwhile entry there. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course, but it needs to be redone from scratch, so deleting it removes nothing valuable. —CodeCat 01:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Better? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:11, 8 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)

German Duftanhänger and most likely many many more entries...[edit]

Most likely someone recently changed some template which now adds incorrect forms. {{de-noun}} without parameters now gives

Requests for cleanup ? (genitive Requests for cleanup, plural Requests for cleanupen)

Unchanged genitive and plural in -en is often incorrect. So many entries in which no genitive or plural was entered (e.g. Duftanhänger) now mention incorrect forms. Thus all German entries which now mention incorrect forms have to be cleaned up. ... - 06:30, 20 November 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 headword line is really way too long here. It should be replaced with an inflection table. —CodeCat 00:37, 23 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)


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)


Can we be more specific than "morpheme"? (if not and this POS is correct I apologize). DTLHS (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@WyangΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the entry. Wyang (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:19, 23 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)


The entry is currently a bit of a dog's breakfast. Each reading has its own etym, and thus the entry needs expanding with each reading given its own full treatment. I don't have time myself today, so I'm adding this to RFC. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:56, 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)


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