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 cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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
add new | history | archives

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

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.

{{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]

February 2014[edit]

Category:WC and family[edit]

When I saw that Category:Toiletry was under both Category:Bathing and Category:WC, I thought that was odd enough. Then I looked at Category:WC and saw Category:Rooms. You or I might giggle at this, but the joke is really on people trying to learn English from our dictionary, who were already confused enough by the euphemisms surrounding this subject matter. We need to change the category structure here, and do what we can to fix any miscategorization resulting from this. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

dot matrix[edit]

Idiomatic? Adjective or attributive use of noun(s?)? — Ungoliant (falai) 00:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

See dot matrix printer. We have so many SOP entries, it's almost refreshing to have a "missing parts" entry for a change. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • We also have dot-matrix as an adjective. No links between the entries either way. Donnanz (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
According to Oxford (hard copy and online) it's a noun that is normally used as a modifier. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dot-matrix?q=dot+matrix Donnanz (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It does have a plural actually; either "dot matrices" or "dot matrixes", so I think this entry should be altered to a noun. I have added a link to the Wikipedia article. Donnanz (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I've added the noun entry. Is adjectival usage merely attributive usage of the noun? Dbfirs 08:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Someone could prove me wrong, but as I see it predicate use is the best chance for showing this to behave as a true adjective:
 *"That is the most dot matrix printer I've ever seen."; *"That printer is more dot matrix than this one."
 *"It is a very dot matrix printer."
 ?"That printer is dot matrix."
I don't think that the modest amount of predicate use we are likely to find warrants an adjective entry, but rules is rules. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 20 June 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]

echarse al plato[edit]

The problems seem to be that the first two examples don't use echarse al plato, they just use echarse. Other than that the idiomaticness seems doubtful as this just means to serve to oneself on a plate. However if the idiomatic meanings are correct it must be kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this out of Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2009/Unresolved requests in the hope we can resolve it. - -sche (discuss) 03:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The second example isn't reflexive at all. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


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)



"Indeclinable" is not a part of speech that I know of. It's also missing a headword template. —CodeCat 15:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I took a first pass at it (my Sanskrit is extremely rusty, so it probably needs more work). Although it can be used adjectivally, it seems to be first and foremost an adverb. The उच्चैः "combining form" is anything but- it's merely a sandhi variant that occurs when there's no vowel following to block the change from s to h. I have no idea what-if anything- we do with sandhi variants in Sanskrit. From what little I remember about external sandhi, it could get very complicated if we had entries for all of them. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
But there's no reason not to include them. We can call them {{alternative form of}}'s, or someone could create {{sandhi variant of}} or {{sa-sandhi variant of}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

German edits by, etc.[edit]

Although it's a different IP every day (yesterday, the day before, the day before, etc.), they all seem to be the same person- for one thing, they all geolocate to the same place in Germany, and the editing style matches. Many of their edits seem to be good, but they have a tendency to carry things to extremes.

In the entry for a given morpheme, they list every term they can think of that contains it under "Derived terms", or in entries for terms containing the morpheme they include a similar list under "Related terms" (though sometimes they get the headers mixed up, as in this edit: diff). For example, they added the following to Wasserfarbe:

The problem is is that I don't know the language well enough to judge what to keep and what to remove- so I would appreciate it if a fluent speaker would go through their edits with the above in mind and also give this prolific, good-faith editor some advice on how to not waste their time on list-bloat. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

This is really a problem with how we consider related terms. We consider them only on morphological grounds, so there's nothing to suggest such lists of words are bad in any way. —CodeCat 01:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was etymology, rather than morphology. Also, most of these are SOP compounds of independent words, so they really shouldn't be considered "related" because they happen to include the same word. For instance, is Teppichfarbe really related to Hautfarbe or Türfarbe? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I may not be able to define inappropriate "Related terms" entries, but I know them when I see them, and adding all other compounds of both Wasser and Farbe to the "Related terms" section of Wasserfarbe is not what that section is for. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The obvious examples of related terms that are relevant are Ölfarbe (oil paint) and Acrylfarbe (acrylic paint). I've added these, and deleted all the others. I'll take a look at some of their other contributions. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

knock me over with a feather[edit]

Recently added. Cursory GBooks search seems to indicate this is in use. May need a better lemma, definitely needs a better definition. Keφr 20:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are the 12 instances found on COCA with a search of "* * [knock] * over with a feather"
I conclude that whatever the lemma, if it is kept, you could have knocked me over with a feather should redirect to it. DCDuring TALK 23:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Also used are "could have knocked/could knock me down with a feather," "could have been knocked down/over by a feather," and the imperative "knock me down/over with a feather." Also "might" can sometimes replace "could." — Pingkudimmi 13:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I think this should be moved to "knock over with a feather" or "knock someone over down with a feather" (depending on how we deal with phrases like this which have to be used with an internal object). It's also used in the third person ("you could have knocked her down with a feather") and the first-person plural ("you could have knocked us over with a feather"). No evidence of any real use in conjugation ("knocking...", "knocks...") on Google Books, which makes me think it only goes with modal verbs like "could", "could've", "might've" etc. I guess this is one of those phrases that falls into the construction grammar black hole, which we don't really know what to do with. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Pingku The search for the active form with down only found one instance at COCA. I expect it would be thrice attestable on larger corpora and should therefore be an alternative form. The passive (with either down or over) only appeared once, but it too is almost certainly tri-attestable.
@Smurrayinchester Three of the thirteen total instances of the expression involve non-animate things being knocked down. I conclude that knock something down with a feather should be the lemma, something presumably including someone, and that knock someone down with a feather should redirect to it. That is, unless we believe that the inanimate object uses, but not the animate ones, are SoP. DCDuring TALK 15:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The inanimate uses (what are some examples?) must have a different meaning, because "You could have knocked me over with a feather" (crucially over and not down) means "I was thoroughly astonished", which is not something that usually happens to inanimate objects. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Angr There are truncated examples from COCA above. It is a hyperbole for the situation that something physical, including a person, could easily fall apart or fail. I suppose we could have two lemmas, bidirectionally linked under See also and unidirectionally under Etymology from the "something" entry to the "someone" entry and in the opposite direction under Derived terms, but the "someone" sense is not really radically different, just something figurative. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
We don't necessarily need two lemmas, just two senses: "(of a person) to be thoroughly astonished" and "(of an object) to be flimsily built" or the like. Or I guess we do need a separate lemma using down rather than over, which is usually used of an object rather than a person, but maybe there are some attestations of its being used of a person too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@DCDuring I don't think the inanimate use of the phrase needs much explaining, really. "You could have knocked the house down with a feather" means (very transparently, if rather hyperbolically) that the house was weak, and I think that any non-native speaker with average reading comprehension could work that out from "knock down" and "feather". "You could have knocked my dad down with a feather" doesn't mean that my dad is weak, though, it means that he is surprised, and that information is not contained in the sum of parts. (There may be some occasional use of the phrase to mean "weak" when referring to people as well, but that can be covered by {{&lit}}.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Smurrayinchester I think I've gone non-native: I've gone soft on the include-every-collocation approach to inclusion and have even internalized it. DCDuring TALK 16:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Basic Frisian Phrasebook[edit]

This page uses {{IPAchar}}, but the transcriptions use a bunch of non-IPA symbols, including colons (which are obviously supposed to be vowel length marks), ampersands (not sure what those are supposed to be), @s, capital As, ... - -sche (discuss) 00:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It also has a column 'Pronunciation' after the 'IPA' column. That should be deleted ASAP. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
We have nobody except User:Vedac13 who has any knowledge at all in North Frisian, unfortunately. Should we ask on Wikipedia? Or maybe try on the West Frisian Wiktionary just in case there is anyone there who happens to have studied North Frisian too? —CodeCat 13:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


The 3rd sense (saucy) needs clarification: which sense of "saucy" is valid, or perhaps all of them? --Hekaheka (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not sense 1 of saucy. Sense 2 and 3 for sure, and maybe sense 4, though I'm not sure. However, I don't see the difference between those and sense 1 of sassy. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't see the reason for dividing the entry into five distinct senses. Doesn't "sassy" mean all of these at the same time (with varying emphasis, of course)? Dbfirs 07:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I would say no. #1 and #2 could be merged perhaps. The only definition I know isn't there, the idea of being sexy, confident perhaps cheeky too. So perhaps all of that is a single sense and could be merged into one. As for vigorous and lively, never come across these! Are they dated or archaic, should we rfv them? How is the vigorous sense used, like a sassy workout (a vigorous workout)? Renard Migrant (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
New Oxford Dictionary of English (2001) gives one sense, the same as our sense 2, but doesn't mention sexiness. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh and it says from saucy as opposed to from sass + -y. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, sass comes from "sauce", of course. The sexual connotation is just an extension of "cheeky and provocative": I don't think it's a primary sense. Dbfirs 07:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


466 hyponyms, by my best count (in a collapsible box, true, but that's still a lot). Wouldn't this be better as a category? Chuck Entz (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, but the terms in the list have encyclopedic information such as lists of ingredients with quantities in grams. No evidence that this has ever been looked at by anyone but the creator and some bots. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

oh, brother[edit]

Spare me please. Let's please not make this a redirect. Redirect for this phrase is horrible. Let's make an entry out of oh brother. Most redirects on this site are kind of bad actually. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? You can say "oh shit", "oh fuck", "oh hell", "oh damn", etc. The "oh" is a separate addition. Equinox 13:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I say either delete it altogether or make it an entry. oh, brother should have a definition like "Expression of displeasure." or something like that. Can we do this? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Is brother used on its own as an interjection? How often? I would make oh, brother an entry unless brother on its own is more common than very rare. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It can be, though I suppose it might be an elision of the first part. It's less common, at any rate. Then again, there are all kinds of expressions that are often preceded by oh- just about the whole gamut of spontaneous expressions of emotion. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I asked what was wrong with it, not what you want to do with it. Equinox 20:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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)


The defns are lifted straight out of Oxford Dictionaries. Also, I'm too lazy ATM to add a third definition. --Type56op9 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]


This has no part of speech header, just "Definitions" which doesn't meet WT:ELE. —CodeCat 20:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that single character terms are all derived from Old and Middle Chinese, which lacked parts of speech or cause significant problems defining in modern linguistics. Just one link for now Parts of Speech: Empirical and Theoretical Advances --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Rather, parts of speech definitely exist in Chinese but they are determined by individual usage in sentences or word components, only in combinations. Even then, various sources define the same terms in the same combinations as different PoS. The important thing is, which part of speech a Chinese character is has no impact, as there is no inflection. Rather than listing assumed PoS (many dictionaries don't define parts of speeches, so a Wiktionary editor has to make them up), it's easier to provide generic senses and examples of usage. See as an example. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Language code is name/ttbc/unrecognised[edit]

This category contains translations that use names that {{ttbc}} does not recognise. They need to be fixed before this template can be orphaned, per prior BP discussions. The names should be converted into the appropriate language code. As this requires a lot of specific knowledge, I hope we can get several knowledgeable editors to help? —CodeCat 20:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we treat Ripuarian as Kölsch (ksh) don't we? That's the one in winter. The one in peace, I can't spot which it is, and in I love you, there are loads! Renard Migrant (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
@CodeCat: it's finally empty. - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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)


I created the entry, yet could someone please help me clean it up? Thanks. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 07:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I did my best, take a look. Template goofs aside, expressions like "a term for X" should be avoided in definitions, unless the defined term actually refers to a term (think synonym: would you have it read "a term for a term which has the same meaning as another term"?). Other issues: are those two noun definitions really distinct? Also, I think "Central West Germany" should not have "West" or "Central" capitalised, unless this is a specific geographical term. Likewise for "Middle and Lower Rhine river". But I am not sure if it is, so I left that intact. Keφr 08:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
According to WP they are distinct senses: one refers to distinct languages spoken in the region (Luxembourgish, Franconian, etc.) and the other to the dialect of Standard German spoken in the Rhineland. I tweaked the definition to make that clearer, but WP isn’t exactly a paragon of trustworthiness so if anyone knows more on the subject please comment/edit. I also changed the POS to proper noun. Even though it refers to a group of languages and not to a single language, it still denotes an individual entity (the group). Compare Germanic (def. 2). — Ungoliant (falai) 16:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Category:English countable proper nouns[edit]

Previous discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/July#Proper nouns

{{en-proper noun}} now puts entries here whenever they have a plural. Per the discussion, many of these are probably actually common nouns that have been miscategorised. —CodeCat 13:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I am going through them in AWB. About 50 were acronyms with {{en-proper noun|undefined}} as their headword line — strange. Others are common nouns. Others are personal names which are OK as-is. - -sche (discuss) 19:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd forgotten that we have lots of abbreviations of individual entities and that we had decided to show them with parts of speech. The plurals really seem unnatural, but not necessarily, eg, "Today I looked at the websites for the YMCAs in my county.". So maybe we do need to control the display of proper noun at the level of individual entries. Sigh. DCDuring TALK 19:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Are we the only dictionary that bothers including regular plurals? Most of them only list a plural if it's something unpredictable like "mice" or "stadia" or "appendices". As usual, everyone is wasting time on rubbish when they could be adding actual words we are missing. Equinox 09:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It's one of the advantages to not being paper. We also list the inflected forms of words in inflecting languages like Latin, which most if not all other dictionaries don't. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't find an on-line dictionary that uses computer power to show plurals either, including those that have no print counterpart. Perhaps the OED or beginning language learner dictionaries? Does anyone know of one? DCDuring TALK 13:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It is curious (and unhelpful) that the common online dictionaries don't list plurals. When I look at Merriam-Webster Online and Dictionary.com, the lack of plurals makes it impossible to tell there's a difference in terms of countability / pluralization between cat (countable) and anger (usually uncountable). - -sche (discuss) 15:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Cambridge Advanced Learners' Dictionary (online) says "A good learner’s dictionary will tell you how to make the plural of any noun." on a special page, which can be accessed from the entry for plural, but it does not actually show the plural for -s plurals in entries. So either there is dissension in the ranks or they believe that the special page suffices. Most good dictionaries cover uncountability by marking the word and/or its senses, as we do. I suppose they are trying to reduce screen clutter a bit by excluding plurals, probably believing that regular plural formation is one of the very first things that language learners pick up.
Learners dictionaries also don't confuse learners by including all the special cases that we include, eg, rare uncountability, rare and obsolete spelling, including digraphs. Even having multiple languages seems to confuse some potential users. Simple is an effort to address the needs of learners who are put off by such complications. I firmly believe that one of the things that we cannot be is an introductory English learners dictionary. DCDuring TALK 16:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It's a fallacy to think that people would be adding words if they weren't adding plurals, or indeed to think that they should be adding words rather than plurals. Language learners are one of Wiktionary's audiences, and knowing how cat and Cat pluralize is helpful to them.
- -sche (discuss) 15:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Are there any facts that say who make up our usership, especially repeat passive users?
Has our slogan been further extended further into the absurdly impractical: "All senses of all collocations in all spellings in all languages for all users (except don't bother inserting translation tables for most entries)"? DCDuring TALK 17:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I went through these again. Most were OK, like Ryan. Several dozen were words that had both proper and common noun senses which had been lumped together under "proper noun", like Paiwan. A couple dozen were common nouns that were mislabelled, and a handful were cases where someone used the first unnamed parameter as if it were head=. - -sche (discuss) 08:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

accents which are not accents[edit]

Everything in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:Others should be changed to specify which "other" accents, I think. And Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:not according to standard pronunciation should be shortened to "nonstandard", at least. And how do we feel about using {{a}} to specify part of speech? See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:adjective, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:adverb, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:singular, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:plural, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:noun, etc. Should these entries be switched to {{qualifier}}? - -sche (discuss) 08:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The switch to a module has made it harder to track these, but they still exist and are problematic. In particular, quite a range of unstandardized labels are in use in German entries. It would be useful if someone could make a list of all accent labels which are in use, so that unusual ones could be standardized or (in the case of e.g. "Others") cleaned up. 07:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


The English headword line is a real mess, I can't figure out what it's meaning to say because of all the qualifiers. Furthermore, it looks like not all senses are covered. —CodeCat 16:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


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)

lore abuse[edit]

A user account (Smettems) and an IP ( are both following a common agenda: come up with etymologically-English alternatives to names of sciences that use the -ology suffix by using lore- which they're treating as a suffix- as proposed in this 1910 article. They're also adding translations to these new terms. The big problem with this agenda is that -ology isn't synonymous with lore as used in compounds: the lore compounds refer to the body of stories, beliefs and customs connected to the subjects studied by the -ologies, not the studies. Although some of these compounds are unattested except for mentions in the article I mentioned, most of them have usage that doesn't match the new definitions.

We need to go through the edits of both of these contributors (if they're not the same person), and get rid of the linguistic-engineering POV stuff. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh god. I've had a look at lakelore, and the term exists, but is not synonymous with limnology. And it's not just fixing those two lemmas (which included moving the translations for "limnology" back from "lakelore"), it's every other translation (for limnology) which has been touched. (linneolaíocht, to pick but one example, is limnology, not lakelore.)
And so on for each of these. I have no doubt that many, maybe even most of them can be attested, and I also have no doubt that they don't have the meanings given them by Smettems. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 10:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
He's also been merrily adding these terms to Wikipedia as redirects to the sciences, so he could add a link to w:lakelore or w:bonelore, and you can easily follow it to the wrong answer. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 10:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What is particularly annoying about their edits has been the removal of content from existing terms. So for instance the entire translation table was removed from trichology and replaced with {{trans-see|hairlore}}. Ƿidsiþ 11:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Lets see if we can get a list of the terms needing attention

He's also had a go at inventing deerslaughter for cervicide and catslaughter for felicide (and doesn't seem to mind that the analogous pair manslaughter and homicide are not, in fact, exact synonyms).

--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 11:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • The removal of the translation tables would make this user a candidate for blocking. The entries or the bad definitions thereon could just be RfVed, to save editing effort. I added the tags but lost internet service before I could add them to the RfV page. If no one cites them, they could be deleted to be re-added when as and if there are cites. DCDuring TALK 13:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to say, sometimes I’m sympathetic to linguistic purism, but I wouldn’t force my preferences on the project like this. (Do I get a cookie?) --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course you do. Hit F12 in your browser and type:
document.cookie = 'SETH_IS_A_GOOD_BOY=1';
Keφr 06:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Catslaughter sounds like the laughter of a cat to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:22, 12 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)


What is this an alternative form of? DTLHS (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I have my doubts that this is an alternative form of anything. Here is the context of the edit that created it. The sequence went: praeclarissime,praedaturus, praedandus, praedaturum, praedatura. The previous creation, praedaturus, also has a questionable alternative form section, and there were other errors nearby such as this: diff. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not an alt form so much as an inflected form of an alt form, which tripped up the bot. See also User_talk:SemperBlottoBot#abominandus. - -sche (discuss) 04:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This entry was fixed by an IP in December 2014, who defined it as "plundering; raiding". @I'm so meta even this acronym, JohnC5, could you sort out extergens and extergendus? Also, praedaturus defines itself as an alt form of praeurus, is that right? (praeurus is a redlink.) PS, I had cleaned up abominandus to say "which is to be deprecated or abhorred" and frendendus to "which is to be ground"; are those definitions accurate? - -sche (discuss) 03:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, John. :) - -sche (discuss) 04:12, 27 January 2016 (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)

sic semper tyrannis[edit]

The language heading is Latin but the templates are for English. I’m not sure which language this should be listed as. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say English; in Latin it would be SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd say it's Latin and sum of parts; "motto of the State of Virginia" isn't a definition, it's a way of using the phrase. Mottos are in the domain of an encyclopedia not a dictionary. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
When this book says, "It was also a not too subtle warning to the British government that 'Sic semper tyrannis'", it seems to be using the phrase in English. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. I think it is still Latin, just Latin which everyone reading is expected to understand. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Let's see if this was ever used attestably in Latin before 1776, especially in a proverbial way, when it was recommended for use in the seal of the State of Virginia. It has been RfVed as a Latin term. DCDuring TALK 15:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What does it matter whether or not it was used before 1776? That would just make it modern Latin. But nobody in their right mind would consider this anything but Latin, let alone English.

vitam impendere vero[edit]

This, from 2010, is the same issue and should be cleaned up in the same way as sic semper. - -sche (discuss) 17:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The Latin is sum of parts, but giving the citations it could be considered translingual. Plus of course, impendere is an infinitive. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I created this for the sake of this policy discussion. Please do not edit the entry without commenting in the Beer Parlour.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:04, 29 January 2010 (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)

Category:Character needing Unicode name[edit]

This category now contains entries where some form of {{character info}} template is used without specifying the Unicode name of the character with the name= parameter. Can someone who has time and knowledge go over these and add the parameter? —CodeCat 23:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't the template just get this from Module:Unicode data? DTLHS (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Eventually we would probably rewrite it that way. But that's a long-term thing, this is more short-term. —CodeCat 00:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I've done the entries in the ‎(g) section (23/395). It doesn't require any knowledge, really; just clicking on the codepoint link and then adding the character name from the relevant "Unicode Utilities: Character Properties" page to the character info box. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


Translations need a lot of work / verification- some languages we don't recognize. DTLHS (talk) 18:37, 28 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)


Six-winged what? — Ungoliant (falai) 20:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Anything that has six wings. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The current definition is ungrammatical. How about "a six-winged creature"? But are we sure this is a noun? Is this word used in the OCS corpus in any way other than to describe seraphim? Couldn't it be an adjective? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
While it’s not OCS but OES, in the Lay of Igor’s Campaign we find
»Инъгварь и Всеволодъ
и вси три Мстиславичи,
не худа гнѣзда шестокрилци
which neither refers to seraphim nor can be interpreted as an adjective. That the word in OCS is similarly a noun is supported morphologically (it’s formed from an adjective plus the nominalizing suffix -ĭcĭ) and etymologically (its descendants and cognates are nouns). Vorziblix (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
In OES it is a noun. The modern Russian translation uses "six-winged eagles":
И́нгвар и Все́волод,
и все тро́е Мстисла́вичи,
не худо́го гнезда́ орлы́ шестикры́лые!
Ingvar and Vsevolod
And all three Mstislavich(es),
The six-winged (eagles) not from a poor nest!
--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, that’s what I meant (note the “neither... nor” above). Sorry I wasn’t clear. Vorziblix (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
By its ending CU "шєстокрилатьць" can't be an adjective, it's a pure noun, not a nominalised adjective. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
A nominalized adjective is a pure noun, if it’s formed with derivational affixes (as is the case here). Of course you are right that “шєстокрилатьць” can’t be an adjective, but it is nonetheless derived from “шєстокрилатъ” (an adjective) + “ьць” (a nominalizing derivational suffix). Vorziblix (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Cleaned up by adding "creature" as suggested above. - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


Just… everything (including edits from Pass a Method's previous account). I lost my patience when he created genital- and Category:English words prefixed with genital-. This user ought to be blocked indefinitely. The definitions are poor and some terms seem plain made-up. The citations that are there are not in chronological order, and their quality is also questionable: do we really need to accept citations of usage by someone who cannot even be bothered to spell "Obama" with a capital letter (2009 citation here)? Keφr 06:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've tidied a few, patrol-marked the good ones, and deleted some clear junk. Much more to do. Be especially suspicious regarding hyphens, since he never checked sources to see whether there was a hyphen in the word. (Google's snippets remove them at line endings.) Equinox 13:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Usenet citations, no matter the ambient orthography, are fine as citations of words, at least words with acceptable spellings themselves. Fast typing without capitalization could be considered evidence of the near-colloquial nature the speech recorded in Usenet. DCDuring TALK 13:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Not terribly relevant, but I can't think of any single-word compounds with 'genital' as the first word. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Add User:Zigguzoo to the list... Equinox 21:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Does this count as sockpuppetry now? Technically he switched accounts after his block expired. Keφr 14:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I want to stress the large number of bad sloppy entries and the high rate of ongoing creation. Equinox 22:17, 17 November 2014 (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)

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)


"Process of hearing something that is contrary to what the receiver thought that they heard." Renard Migrant (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a terrible definition. I've added an etymology, though I have to say that I've never encountered this word myself. Equinox 23:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, wait, I see what you mean: it's actually contrary to what the speaker said. Will try to fix. Equinox 23:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Any difference between this and mishearing? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Good spot, let's just put "A mishearing". Renard Migrant (talk) 14:24, 16 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)

people-first language[edit]

Lots of formating problems. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Better? —Internoob 02:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence is not clear. The second sentence is not worded as a definition.
The entry could use {{examples-right}} to enclose contrasting examples of "people-first language" and the other kind. DCDuring TALK 14:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

deviere, a Romanian entry[edit]

I made this entry but was confused when making the declension table. I tried using Template:ro-noun-f, but it just didn't seem right. Compare my entry to the actual entry's declension template on the Romanian Wiktionary, and you'll see what I mean. Where are the dative cases, genitive, vocative, where is all that on this table? I don't understand. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 21:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That's an awfully good question. An even better one in my opinion, what the Hell is {{ro-noun-f}} for if it's not suitable for Romanian feminine nouns? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If you look to the left-hand side of the table, you should see nominative/accusative and genitive/dative. The way the articulation forms are laid out is much clearer to a nonnative speaker. —Stephen (Talk) 10:27, 26 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)

December 2014[edit]


The second and third definitions look like they should be moved to a (proper?) noun section. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I've seen {{context|substantive}} in Serbo-Croatian adjectives before. I have no expertise to say why. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I would absolutely not change it without good knowledge of the language. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems to be standard format, at least on en.Wikt. @Ivan Štambuk, are senses 2 and 3 indeed adjectives rather than (proper?) nouns? If so, feel free to detag the entry. - -sche (discuss) 18:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Language names are not considered proper nouns in the SC lexicography/grammar. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Contributions of User:Amateur55[edit]

This person seems to be fairly knowledgeable about several Cyrillic-based languages, but they've been changing transliteration modules and transliteration pages right and left. I would appreciate it if someone who knows something about said languages (@Atitarev? @Stephen G. Brown? @Borovi4ok?) checked to see if I was correct in reverting some of their edits and checked to see if I missed any that should have been reverted. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you were right in reverting the changes. Any changes can be discussed here. They are numerous and affect various languages. With some languages it's a matter of choice and convention, like e.g. Bashkir. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me explain the changes I made before your rollbacks:
  • The Kazakh transliteration module is horribly wrongly implemented. Among other things, it romanizes both "Ы" and "І" as "I" while the latter should have been "İ" as can be seen in the Wikipedia article about the Kazakh alphabets and the Latin version of the Kazakh news agency website itself. That module also lacks a transliteration of the Kazakh letter Һ. Similarly, all the other changes I made on that module follow the national KazInform system, and thus I'm restoring my changes concerning Kazakh.
  • The Kyrgyz transliteration module itself is fine, but in this case, it's the page WT:KY TR that lacks critical information, namely the fact that the Cyrillic letter И should be romanized İ and not I. I don't see anything wrong with restoring this simple change either.
  • My other changes can be subject of some discussion so I'm not restoring them until there's a consensus, but here's my reasoning for them:
    • The Tuvan alphabet is identical to the one of Kyrgyz, and the only difference in the sound values of the letters is the fact that Ж represents a fricative rather than an affricate, hence the use of J instead of C. Being related languages, it only makes sense that they are romanized using similar systems.
    • The Bashkir language is closely related to the Tatar language to the point they are considered dialects of one language by some linguists. Again, it would make more sense to romanize these two languages using similar systems rather than one following a Turkic and the other following a Slavic convention. – Amateur55 (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Such big changes, even if 'correct' (transliteration is an art not a science after all) must be discussed on WT:BP before implementing. These are straightforward rollbacks as there is no other option. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
@Amateur55 The changes to Kazakh and Kyrgyz transliterations are OK, still you're doing it unilaterally. Bashkir and Tatar transliterations need to be discussed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Atitarev It would be nice if you (or someone else familiar with the procedure) start a discussion at the appropriate place since I'm not sure where/how to do it. – Amateur55 (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Amateur55 Your Kazakh and Kyrgyz changes seem like minor fixes, which make sense to me (not sure about others). Yes, Bashkir is close to Tatar and they are mutually comprehensible but Bashkir has specific letters and sounds, such as ҙ /ð/ and ҫ /θ/. It doesn't make sense to use ź and ś to transliterate them. Also, Tatar only has /к/ (k or q) but Bashkir has two letters к (k) and ҡ (q) and cognates don't match in spellings. Transliterations of these languages have been around for many years, so please respect the editors involved. You can suggest changes in Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/December (or a page with a corresponding month). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Atitarev Most Bashkir words with /ð/ and /θ/ are cognates with words having /s/ and /z/ in the same position in Tatar and other Turkic languages. Transliterating these phonemes as ś and ź is a common convention among Turkologists.
I don't see how the spelling of cognates regarding ⟨q⟩ and ⟨k⟩ don't match. They definitely do. – Amateur55 (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I see some problem with viewing all Turkic languages from the Turkish perspective. E.g. Tatar verb lemmas are represented differently from Russian Tatar linguists, Tatar (also Kazakh and Kyrgyz) appear in Roman letters in Turkish dictionaries, when speakers of these languages officially and mainly use Cyrillic. ś and ź represent /ɕ/ and /ʑ/ in Polish and may represent /sʲ/ and /zʲ/ in some romanised Belarusian (łacinka). Bashkir usually use ҡ when Tatar uses к, that's where a mismatch is. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Amateur55, are your transliteration schemes documented somewhere? In my opinion, we should use the Turkological convention, if it is documented in some serious published source. --Vahag (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Vahagn Petrosyan I don't know whether these count as serious published sources but, though both differ slightly in some other letters from the version I posted, both of the sources below use Ś and Ź for transliterating Ҫ and Ҙ.
The second table references the BGN/PCGN 2007 Agreement. It is a serious source. And it uses scientific transliteration, unusual for BGN/PCGN. I think we should switch to it. --Vahag (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
That system is generally fine but it has some of its own peculiarities, like the transliteration of ы as i (I think this might be an error, actually) and ә as ә. – Amateur55 (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
So you want a Wiktionary-specific mixture of established systems? I don't like that, but we have precedents: WT:RU TR. --Vahag (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


The POS is adjective but it’s defined as an adverb. Which is it? — Ungoliant (falai) 15:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be an adjective, since it always modifies nouns (or pronouns). See a- Etymology 2, though: it's basically a form of the verb. "The horns are ablare" is equivalent to "the horns are blaring", which is mostly equivalent to "the horns blare". I suppose you could say an a- word is describing the noun modified as being in the state of doing (or being, in the case of stative verbs) what the prefixed verb indicates. The confusion between adverb and adjective isn't limited to this word: ablaze has both an adjective and an adverb section, which doesn't seem to me to be correct. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer adverb as I feel like adverbs can occasionally qualify the verb 'to be'. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]


An IP just removed some of the more bizarre wording in this entry, but it still uses an obsolete English word in the definition, and could use some attention from a fluent speaker in general, given the emotionally-charged subject matter.

As "schänden" and "(to) shend" are related and as "schänden" literally means "(to) shend", I guess "shend" resp. "(literally) a person who [...] shends children" should be mentioned. As the word is also explained as "a child abuser", I can't see any problem. -IP, 19:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Shend has three meanings and I don't know which the entry Kinderschänder is referring to. Replace with a common English word; is this a 'child blamer' (sense #2 of shend)? Renard Migrant (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
A Kinderschänder is simply a child molester. There is no reason whatsoever to use an obsolete English word just because it's cognate with the German word. That's silly. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I've cleaned it up now, but it's raised some questions I'm going to bring up at RFV and the Tea room. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! You've addressed my concerns, and the remaining issue will be dealt with at rfv independently, so I'm going to close out this request. As far as I'm concerned, this is Done. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

As there are "Grabschänder" (grave desecrator) and "Leichenschänder" (necrophiliac, desecrator of a corpse or of corpses) and as "schän­den" can at least mean "1. to put shame on someone; 2. to desecrate, profane; 3. to sexually abuse someone" the etymology part with "Schänder (“molester”)" it doesn't seem to be better now. Even if it's nowadays simply "Kinderschänder = someone who sexually abuses children = child abuser, child moster, child rapist", historically it could have (also) meant "Kinderschänder = someone who puts shame on children (by sexually abusing them) = child shender" or "Kinderschänder = someone who profanes children, someone who soils the the purity of children, someone who takes the innocence (which can also mean: virginity) of children". For today's meaning it's irrelevant, but for etymology it isn't. Therefore the "molester" part in the etymology should be accompanied by some other nouns or shouldn't be "translated" at all (as all those information should be in the entries Schänder or schänden). - 23:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't have an entry at Schänden, but when we do, the word shend should only be mentioned in the etymology as a cognate- not used in the definition. It doesn't matter how close it is in range of meaning to schänden, it's not part of English as it's spoken today- you might as well use Latin or Chinese. As far as the choice of molester to gloss Schänder, that's a bit more iffy. In modern English, the more innocuous meanings of molest have fallen out of use because of their association with child molester, so that one could argue that "molest" is a term for "sexual abuse" in current-day English, but that's not an open-and-shut case. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
In the context of the word Kinderschänder, Schänder means "molester". In other contexts, it has other meanings, but this entry isn't about other contexts. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


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)


Something just seems off about the definitions and their wording —umbreon126 00:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't find anything in Chinese dictionaries. The definitions fit more the Japanese entry, including "this book". @Wyang, could you weigh in, please? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:39, 3 February 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)


The original entry was for an Albanian given name, then it was changed into an English misspelling of Afërdita. Should we be listing stuff as misspellings of words in other languages? Should we consider an English word a misspelling when it lacks a diacritic? — Ungoliant (falai) 03:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Misspelling or no, I'd RFV whether this word is used in English at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The name is used in running English text in books, apparently with and without diacritics. I think there's a rebuttable presumption that any proper noun from any language used in a personal name is used in English, at least in a Romanized spelling without diacritics.
But it seems pedantic to limit proper names, of persons at least, to a language rather than, say, a script (or script variant, as Roman-without-any-diacritics). Perhaps when we have something based on verifiable facts to say about pronunciation by those of different native languages, the pronunciations would justify multiple L2 sections.
  1. Is it defensible at Wiktionary to be implicitly prescriptive by only showing an Albanian pronunciation or Albanian orthography of this name?
  2. Would we want L2 sections in, say, Serbian, Macedonian, Greek, and Italian for Afërdita, assuming we had verifiable evidence of how the Albanian name is pronounced by such speakers?
  3. Why don't we at least have an Albanian pronunciation in the Albanian entry? DCDuring TALK 13:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Cleaned up. - -sche (discuss) 08:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


Apparent reason: "This page has an acronym". I have no idea why this is a cleanup reason. It's not even true, the page doesn't have an acronym, it's a page for an acronym. Suggest immediate de-tagging. 18:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see anything obvious to clean up either. The RFC tag (or rather, it's predecessor cleanup tag) was added in December 2010, so it's been a while. Lo Ximiendo, it looks like you were the one to tag the entry -- does it look okay now? Is there anything more about the entry that needs cleaning up? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:36, 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)


Indonesian common noun defined as “a surname”. Should it be moved to Marga or are the capitalisation rules of Indonesian different? — Ungoliant (falai) 00:55, 16 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)

social Darwinism[edit]

I'd suspect some translations are dodgy - especially the Hebrew one which uses Latin script. Others, I expect, shouldn't be uppercase. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]


Definition doesn't seem to be in line with what an internet search says, and quite frankly looks like a protologism. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 00:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hardly new! The OED has cites dating back to 1475. We could possibly expand the entry and add some older quotations. Dbfirs 21:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Does it have cites for this definition? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Which sense are we questioning? Should we combine 1 and 3? Dbfirs 21:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I added senses 2 and 3. I didn't merge as suggested because sense 1 is tagged and because of the complication I put in the usage note. Basically sense 3 is the countable version of sense 1 but reverts to something very like trope. A couple more citations for sense 1 may help.— Pingkudimmi 02:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It only had one definition at the time of nomination: [1]. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


I'm a bit dubious about some of these translations. --Recónditos (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks as though Atitarev entered most or all of the translations, and he is known to be very careful to get the correct translations. The ones that I can read looked quite reasonable to me, although I do not know what it is called officially in any of the languages. —Stephen (Talk) 09:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Officially, it's called "JLPT" in all languages, since that's the original and the official abbreviation. The translations are mostly transliterations (like "Microsoft" is normally referred to as "Майкрософт" in Russian but a Microsoft office in Russia may have only "Microsoft" sign) and what the exam is referred to be speakers. @Recónditos Which particular translation doesn't look right? Or all of them? Have you also checked the Wikipedia article on JLPT and interwikis? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 15:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


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)


Usage notes: "Psychologists recommend against using the term pedophilia to denote sexual activities with prepubescent children, because not all people with a sexual preference for prepubescent children (i.e., pedophilia) commit such acts, and child molesters often lack a strong sexual interest in prepubescent children. Also the common use of the term pedophilia, to mean any adult who has sex with any minor (i.e., under 18), is not correct. Pedophilia specifically refers to attraction to prepubescents, not to all minors. See Wikipedia for more information."

First of all, @PaulBustion88 removed 'many' from 'Many psychologists' where many is not a weasel word, because removing it implies all psychologists recommend against using the term pedophilia to denote sexual activities with prepubescent children, which I doubt is true, because I'll bet most of them have no published opinion on the matter whatsoever. "Also the common use of the term pedophilia, to mean any adult who has sex with any minor (i.e., under 18), is not correct." should obviously go because it's prescriptive not descriptive. I mean I agree with the comment, but it's still not allowable. Usage notes might be called for, and should be unified with pedophile and all the pae- variant spellings. But I think statements like "many psychologists recommend against using the term pedophilia to denote sexual activities with prepubescent children" need sourcing and cannot just be left as blind assertions. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, in general, putting ages on what constitutes pedophilia and what doesn't is not the job of a dictionary. It's not lexical, and in practice it's down to societies to define what's acceptable and what isn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you, but other editors don't, since we have those "legal" entries -- can't remember an example right now -- but like where we have "skimmed milk" and it's defined as "(US standard of identity) milk that is 30% X and 40% Y". Equinox 23:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You'll be happy to know that you're mistaken in this case. There were only a few users who favoured including "legal" senses i.e. copying all statues from all eras of all countries that have been mentioned 3x times in English and listing said statues as definitions. (See this diff of murder for a very incomplete taste of how many ways that term has been "defined" in laws.) I drafted Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-03/Standards of identity and legal definitions of terms, but agreement was subsequently reached on the talk page and concurrent discussions elsewhere to exclude such senses without even voting on it. So, removing the ages from the definition here is the correct course of action. (But entries like partially defatted pork fatty tissue, which are SOP outside of their legal meanings, still have technical definitions.) - -sche (discuss) 23:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. I also get the impression from PaulBustion88's editing patterns that he has a bit of an agenda regarding sex and age. Beware the agenda! Equinox 23:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, I think his idea may be to 'separate out' hebephilia, ephebophilia and pedophilia so they don't overlap. But real world language doesn't work like that. Meanings of words overlap sometimes. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I added a few sources for the usage note and rephrased it to be non-prescriptive. I left the clean up template since I'm not familiar with Wiktionary's norms. KateWishing (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
What does "prescriptive" mean?User talk:PaulBustion88 20:01, 24 April 2015
"preferential attraction to older children is known as hebephilia or ephebophilia." I think hebephilia and ephebophilia are off topic in an entry about pedophilia, because they're both something else than that. Maybe there could just be links to those entries at the bottom of the pedophilia entry, but I do not think they should be described in the entry on pedophilia because they have nothing to do with it. PaulBustion88 (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The 2nd citation 'Lanning, Kenneth V. (2010). Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis (fifth ed.). National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. pp. 29–30', the supporting citation does not seem to be in those pages. I can't see it, is it in there somewhere? Renard Migrant (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It's pages 45-46 of the PDF, which are marked 29-30 in the actual text. KateWishing (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
PaulBustion88 has raised on my talk page (and not here, much to my chagrin) the possibility of having two definitions. A general-use definition, an instance of an adult engaging in sexual activity with a minor, no matter what the ages are apart from those two restrictions, and a medical definition where we specify pre-pubescent. I would be in favor of it; I think these definitions are distinct in terms of usage and meaning. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to insist on my viewpoint, but ideally I would only want the medical viewpoint, I realize that there's no chance anyone will agree with me, so I'm compromising by accepting the popular definition and medical definition being covered separately. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The reason is, we can't favor your opinion over actual usage! That's not what a dictionary does! Renard Migrant (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I understand.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 13:50, 25 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)


There's an error in the Mandarin translation. Since Chinese editors insist on doing everything their own way, I have no way how it should be fixed. —CodeCat 17:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I just commented out the offending part and tagged it for attention. By the way, don't blame the Chinese editors for this one: it was originally a single parameter with a comma separating the two parts- until your favorite French IP (the one that keeps adding 21st-century Gothic) decided to split it using the "tradi=" parameter, apparently extracted from a certain orifice in the netherward portion of their anatomy ... Chuck Entz (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


Latin: "of or pertaining to a saeculum (generation, century)". Definitions must be in English, saeculum is not an English word. I assume it's just laziness to avoid copying out the definitions of saeculum, but still, laziness is bad. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you in this instance, because it shows why the word has these senses, although I think more detail should be provided on the saecularis page as well. And I would prefer a construction with i.e. over parentheses.

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:

  • [www.zeno.org/Literatur/M/Matthisson,+Friedrich+von/Gedichte/Gedichte+aus+den+Studienjahren/Sehnsucht?hl=liebest]: "Die du liebest ist fern!" (the one you love is far away)
  • [www.zeno.org/M%C3%A4rchen/M/Wallonien/Nikolaus+Warker%3A+Sagen,+Geschichten,+Legenden+und+M%C3%A4rchen+aus+der+Provinz+Luxemburg/Heidebl%C3%BCmchen/T%C3%A4ndelei?hl=liebest]: 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)

1811 Dictionary words[edit]

Many words from the 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, which are generally findable/recognizable as such because they cite that dictionary and/or use the context label "1811", are labelled and categorized as "obsolete". (Indeed, the "1811" label inalienably includes an "obsolete" label.) In many cases, however, there are as many or more citations from the modern period (using the term to create a historical atmosphere) as from the historical period, such that the correct label seems to be "archaic". FYI. - -sche (discuss) 22:01, 15 June 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]

Goldwater Republican[edit]

Proper noun seems like the wrong part of speech, the quotations need some attention, and the entry seems a bit wordy/encyclopedic. BrentDT (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


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)


Needs to at least be split into two pronunciations. The usage notes are poorly formatted definitions —suzukaze (tc) 02:53, 9 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: [2]. 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)


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]


No definition / part of speech, has a translation section. DTLHS (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The definition's in the table heading, but I don't know how valid it is. Bizarrely, there's also a link to the Wikipedia. ~Eloquio (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Update: I've done my best but it's unclear whether it's a preposition or a prefix. ~Eloquio (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. —CodeCat 17:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Added to relevant categories. ~Eloquio (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I've done some work on it. Strike if satisfied with its current state. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:de-proper noun[edit]

Discussion moved from WT:RFDO.

That template needs to be fixed. Plural (and most likely also "Diminutive" and "Gendered forms") doesn't work, or at least seem not to work.
(And there are plurals, diminutives and gendered forms of proper nouns, so it's needed. Examples: plural of China is China (e.g. "die beiden China"), diminutives of "Michael" are "Michel", "Michi", gendered form of "Michael" is "Michaela".) -16:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is this here? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


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)


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)


“A structure or device that is Dymaxion in nature.” Useless definition. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Linked to dymaxion by User:Equinox. Sorry, I left a relic when I moved Dymaxion the adjective to a different page than dymaxion the noun. Purplebackpack89 00:52, 28 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)


How do you get rid of the wide-open space at the top of the English entry? It seems to be affected somehow by the illustrations. Donnanz (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing one. I use Chrome perhaps your browser displays it differently. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it's browser-dependent- it was definitely visible on the browser I'm using at the moment (MSIE 11). I seem to remember there was a problem with {{was wotd}}, but I thought it was fixed. At any rate, putting {{clear}} after it cleared up the problem I was seeing. @Donnanz: has that fixed it for you? If it worked, maybe someone needs to look at the css that the template is using. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, so WOTD caused the problem. Yes, it looks fine now, so the RFC has been removed. I'm using Windows 7 at present, which I prefer to Chrome. Anyway, thanks a lot. Donnanz (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Not fixed: [[table]] looks the same to me with both Chrome and Firefox browsers on Win 7: still broken.
IMO we need to get some advice on a generic fix to this class of problems (right-hand side display boxes preventing others and even text from displaying properly), that could be applied to all potentially problem-causing templates on all widely used templates, preferably with all commonly selected gadget combinations, eg, right-hand side table of contents. Has the problem been faced and resolved at other Wiktionaries, at WP, or other projects? DCDuring TALK 16:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Are you seeing a massive empty space alongside the boxes on the right? That's what I was complaining about, but (for me) it's now gone. Donnanz (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
BTW, I notice the kind of problem you're referring to does occur on the Norsk Wiktionary site. Donnanz (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I use rhs ToC. For [[table]] Etymology begins after the entire ToC and wotd. On pages without {{wotd}}, The text sections run parallel to the TOC, normally with only one or two lines of unwanted space, though some display boxes demand full or nearly full width of the frame. The effect of such boxes reminds me of the problem with [[line]]. DCDuring TALK 19:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe we weren't talking about the same thing. I always have the ToC (Table of Contents) appearing above everything else, and I thought that was how it's meant to appear. Mind you, I would prefer it if the ToC did appear lower down. What happens when you hide the table? Does the text of the entry expand? Donnanz (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Funnily enough, the same thing happened with needle, but I dealt with it. Donnanz (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    We may not be talking about the same symptom, but we are likely talking about the same disease. Try using the gadget for displaying Table of contents on the right-hand side and looking at both of the entries mentioned. The rhs ToC gadget still appears above almost everything else, but utilizes the mostly unused whitespace on the right hand side of the entry. DCDuring TALK 14:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    I didn't realise what you meant by rhs ToC at first, but managed to find it in preferences and select it. I see what you mean now. Anyway I'm giving rhs ToC a trial. Donnanz (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    It's swings and roundabouts (advantages and disadvantages) with rhs TOC. I'm getting poor search behaviour with linked words, when the word searched for happens to be alongside the right-hand TOC, and the search lands in the wrong place. I have also been experimenting with {{clear}} within entries (see blokkbokstav). With rhs TOC a gap appears, but with the default setting all is fine, no gap. I'm bearing in mind that most users will have the default setting, so it should be OK. Donnanz (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed (and nothing on the talk page). Not obvious to me what the problem is, but could we explain what stressed and unstressed forms are? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Emphatic? ~Eloquio (talk) 12:00, 20 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)

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)

off with one's head[edit]

The alternative forms should be redirects and the pronunciation is messy. --Romanophile (contributions) 05:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Clean now? ~Eloquio (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
While we're at it, shouldn't this be at off with someone's head? We usually use one to indicate the same person as the subject of the sentence. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Yup. DCDuring TALK 00:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I took the bold liberty of moving the page. I have not, however, changed all the links that link to that page (they all redirect anyway, of course, so I haven't broken them), in case there was disagreement. If no one has changed them by tomorrow, I will do so. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy with the move, but the pronunciation now doesn't match the page title. Do we even need pronunciation for such a term, when it is just the pronunciation of the individual words strung together? Keith the Koala (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I created an entry with "someone" and it was modified (CodeCat, I think? not sure) and since then I haven't dared to use "someone", and only use "one". Is there a written rule about the pronoun to use? Equinox 00:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The practice as I (and apparently Angr and the people agreeing with him above) understand it is that if the subject of the sentence is doing something to himself/herself, the placeholder is "one", whereas if the subject is doing it to someone else, the placeholder is "someone": beat one's head against a stone wall ("he was beating his [own] head against a stone wall"), but take someone's point ("he took her point", not normally "he took his own point"). Entries aren't always consistent, and sometimes "someone" is dropped (take someone to tasktake to task). - -sche (discuss) 00:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Let's have a stupid boring vote to confirm this. I feel really good about it. love, Equinox 00:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that it’s fine now. Closed. --Romanophile (contributions) 09:16, 8 February 2016 (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 to Singapore Chinese which does have a Min Nan reading "cha-bó͘". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


There are currently two senses:

  1. (geology) The effect of earthquake motion propagation being greater in the direction of the rupture
  2. (physics,mathematics) The direction of motion of a moving body; Both the address and the direction of a vector.

The second is my main concern, because of who added it, but I suspect that neither really captures the core meaning of this term.

My take on the IP who added the second term is of someone of above-average intelligence who's developed a seriously-misplaced confidence in their ability to master a subject by just reading about it. They really, really want to be an expert, so they gloss over any difficulties and fill in the blanks with bad guesses. This is extremely dangerous, because 1) Most of us don't know enough about the subject matter to spot the problems, and 2) Even if they're correct on 9 details in a row, there's no guarantee they won't be massively, hideously wrong on the 10th.

In checking on the second sense, it looks like the core meaning is something like "the quality of being oriented, or of having effects/motion distributed more strongly, in a specific direction", which would sort of make it a synonym of directionality. For instance, passages in Google Books on the subject of antenna design talk about calculating the degree of directivity, which is incompatible with either existing definition. Unlike the IP, though, I know my limitations when it comes to mathematics and the mathematical aspects of the sciences, so I'm not going to mess with the entry myself.

I would appreciate it if someone with the requisite background (@Choor monster? @Msh210?) would make sense out of this entry, and give some guidance as to whether anything needs to be rfved. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

[3] and [4] make it sound like "the degree to which something's directed toward one direction". (That's terrible wording. I mean "the oomph with which it's directed", except that that's even worse wording.) Afaict from cites, it seems to be used for both sound and electromagnetic waves. But my physics is weak.​—msh210 (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
"Synonym of directionality"? Equinox 07:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be a measure of the degree to which a transmission (of sound or electromagnetic signal) is directionally focused.
The Wikipedia article describes it as a performance measure ("figure of merit") for antennae. It states that directivity is the maximum value (over all solid angles) of the directive gain, which is the ratio of the radiation intensity (power / solid angle) to the average power per solid angle (total power / 4π). It also states that directivity is also used as a synonym for directive gain.
Of mostly usage relevance is that directivity is rarely expressed as a pure ratio, but rather on a decibel scale (10 * log10 of the ratio). In any case, it is essentially dimensionless.
From [5] it seems that it may be called directivity factor when a pure ratio, and directivity index when converted to the decibel scale.— Pingkudimmi 09:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain the given definition #2 is trash. But WP and Pingku are correct, the term is definitely real and well-attested. Searching on MathSciNet for the term "directivity", there were 131 hits. (MSN does not search the articles, but AMS reviews, so actual usage is much higher.) For example, Blanco et al, "Directivity enhancement and spurious radiation suppression in leaky-wave antennas using inductive grid metasurfaces" IEEE Trans. Antennas and Propagation 63 (2015), no. 3, 891–900. In short, the better your antenna aims its signal, the higher the directivity. Choor monster (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Luckily, antenna directivity is something that I actually do know something about (earthquake directivity is effectively an analogue to antenna directivity - you treat the rupture point like an antenna, and the vibrations of the quake more or less like radio waves). I've tried to clean up the article. While I can find a few hits for "directivity" meaning the directionality of a vector, these are mostly either translated science papers or pseudoscience books. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks! Striking. If someone wants to RFV the marked-rare sense, it may be worthwhile.​—msh210 (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I've added cites (not sure how worthwhile that was in the end, but hey ho) Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:44, 26 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]


Renard Migrant (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I've given it a go. No idea about legitimacy of senses. Equinox 17:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


I propose that the third entry with grammar modal verb should be put into a separate entry for a noun (using the ===Noun=== separator), as "modal verb" can hardly be an adjective.--Sae1962 (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

We already have under the Noun PoS header "(linguistics) A modal form, notably a modal auxiliary." which seems to me include "modal verb". Perhaps the definition could be improved. The definition in question (adj def 3) should just be deleted as it is a definition of a noun. DCDuring TALK 14:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
This is one of the problems with our love of SoP entries. If we didn't have "modal verb", but simply explained what the adjective "modal" means in relation to verbs at "modal", there wouldn't be this issue. Equinox 14:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Quite a few dictionaries, but not MWOnline, have modal verb (See modal verb at OneLook Dictionary Search.) MWOnline defines modal#Adjective as "of, relating to, or constituting a grammatical form or category characteristically indicating predication of an action or state in some manner other than as a simple fact". I don't view MW's attempt to avoid SoPitude as successful in its application to modal verb.
The online Lexicon of Linguistics "defines" modal as follows: "a modal expression indicates the attitude of the speaker with respect to the truth-value of the proposition expressed. EXAMPLE: maybe, probably, possibly, may, can, etc. Modal verbs (or 'auxiliaries' because of their defective flexion) are known to allow a non-modal interpretation. Thus you may go can either mean that the speaker feels that it is possible that you will go (the so-called epistemic reading) or it can mean that you are allowed to go (the so-called root interpretation)."
Note that the Lexicon of Linguistics effectively has two distinct definitions of modal.
Cleanup would have to extend to the grammatical, linguistic, and logic senses of mood, mode, modal, modality, and possibly others. My monitor isn't big enough to allow me to do this online. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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)


#Chinese is very messy —suzukaze (tc) 18:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)





Created with nothing but a language header and an infobox. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The language header isn't even right. It should be either Ancient Greek or Translingual. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


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.


Flagged by User: on 1 March 2015‎, but not listed. —Stephen (Talk) 03:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


Tibetan section. Defined as a noun with the definiens "(Tibetan Buddhist theology) An intermediate or inbetween state in the cycle of death and rebirth, often portrayed as a place in which the soul resides between death and being reborn into the world; limbo". The entry has no headword line and is entered under the wrong script. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm tempted to speedy this, since the contributor has demonstrated a very poor understanding of distinctions regarding languages and scripts. The w:Bardo article gives the Tibetan as བར་དོ་, so it might be moved there, but it also might be SOP, since it seems to be a two-word phrase. We're rather thin on Tibetan editors, but maybe @Wyang might have time to look at this. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


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)


Needs to be converted into the unified Chinese format. —suzukaze (tc) 05:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


The examples on this page have gotten a bit out of hand, not sure what the best way to proceed is. - TheDaveRoss 06:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
There are so many example, even as an experience used I'm struggling to see the definitions. Example sentences are never meant to have priority over definitions. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


All this editor does is insert slews of Maori translations. Can someone verify them? Hillcrest98 (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I checked the last four that he did and they were correct. —Stephen (Talk) 16:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

{{cite}} & friends[edit]

It looks like {{cite}} was changed a bunch without orphaning or cleaning up the existing usage. The change was to {{cite-book}}, but I don't think that was used directly before the changes were made. See Citations:hirsute. - TheDaveRoss 20:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, in general, the Category:Citation_templates has some work-specific templates, those should probably be orphaned and deleted. - TheDaveRoss 20:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


The =Proper noun= section uses {{en-noun}}, is marked "uncountable", and has two senses: "An ethnic group..." and "The... language". First, I don't know whether the first sense is correct at all (but maybe so; I haven't looked at all for cites). Also, I strongly suspect the inflection-line template is wrong. Finally, I can't imagine why these would be uncountable rather than singularia tantum.​—msh210 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


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)


Apparent bot error: lists compellēre and compelerre as head words. Verb forms don't match up so I can't merge them as I don't have enough knowledge of Latin. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

cutout vs cut-out[edit]

Lots of duplication. Alternative form? – Jberkel (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Equinox 02:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


Are the two proper noun definitions referring to the same thing? The entry also needs templates. - -sche (discuss) 08:35, 30 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)



  1. (mineralogy) A triclinic-pinacoidal mineral containing aluminum, calcium, fluorine, hydrogen, iron, la,ce,pr,nd,sm,, magnesium, manganese, oxygen, potassium, silicon, sodium, titanium, and yttrium.

This is a good example of what can go wrong when you mechanically build a definition from a database entry somewhere: "la,ce,pr,nd,sm" are simply the first five elements in the w:lanthanide series in the periodic table, and the alphabetical list of elements is pretty much useless clutter in a dictionary entry, anyway.

I don't know much about minerals, so I'd appreciate it if someone who does would rework the definition into something that makes sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The chemical formula in the mineralogy database link includes REE (rare earth element), which covers the lanthanides and yttrium.— Pingkudimmi 04:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Not only shouldn't we feel compelled to keep such a definition, we should review other similar entries for other similar blunders. The majority of our taxonomic definitions also suffer from a lack of substance, except for their placement on the tree of life. I try to provide something substantive from the external links. DCDuring TALK 12:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Apparently, the structure of the mineral includes a vacant site in which rare-earths and other less-common elements can be absorbed and from which they can be extracted. Some sources mention it as a "rare-earth silicate", containing upto 7.5% rare earths. DCDuring TALK 12:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
There's really not much interesting about this, and it may not be easy to find out where it is from. I am sure it has no use, like most minerals, and nobody is looking up names of rare minerals to find such things. Calling it a "rare earth silicate" is simply a way of phrasing what we already have on the page, but in a moderately less informative way. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
"Not much interesting": Some might find it visually interesting, as the recently added picture might suggest. It is one of the last two minerals to be named after a person and no more such names are to be given under the mineral-naming rules.
"I am sure it has no use": It is an actual or potential source of rare-earth elements. It also has possible use in cleaning up radioactive and certain other noxious wastes and in medical ceramics.
"Not easy to find out where it is from": It has been found in remarkably few places: one in Arkansas, one in Russia, and apparently in China.
There is a small difference between "rare-earth" and a list of rare-earth elements, especially abbreviated: intelligibility to a broad audience.
I don't expect folks to use Wiktionary to find rare-earths in the real world. We are only trying help people a bit with words: our definitions should provide sufficient information so folks could learn whether they care about learning more, our translations help them find material in other languages, our external links give them ways to pursue matters in greater depth, a picture might replace the need for definitions or explain why the name is appropriate. We won't usually attract folks to look up terms here until we have sufficient breadth and quality of coverage in a given area of interest. How we achieve such breadth and quality should be a matter of concern to us IMO, but doesn't seem to be. DCDuring TALK 16:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hund, Buch, Mann (and most likely many more entries)[edit]

The dative singular with -e (dem Hunde, Buche, Manne) is "less common" but not completely "uncommon" nowadays.
It almost seems like someone either doesn't know much about German (e.g. read a German grammar book which didn't mention dative-e) or doesn't like the dative-e (e.g. because with dative-e there are more declined forms), and thus incorrectly states it's "uncommon". - 20:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The notes in the declension table could easily be changed. It does seem like a matter of perspective if something is 'less common' or 'uncommon' and to say the contributor 'doesn't know much about German' seems a bit uncalled for. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
This editor is either the same as (although the IP is from a different place) or is one of a couple editors who edit in the same manner as I comment about at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2016/January#satt. They sometimes add valid information, but their every edit has to be checked, because they also add POV-pushing and spurious things like the RFC tags they added to these entries (or a tag to dass saying it was obsolete) and messes (like on der). I finally got tired of seeing myself and other editors having to patrol and clean up after them, and have started blocking them. - -sche (discuss) 21:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm content with the label "now uncommon" in the declension table. One of my co-workers (I'm a technical translator) was thrown off the other day by a German-language source text that said something like "im Abschnitte 4". It sounds weird as all get-out, but somewhere out there, some German technical writer decided to write that, probably within the past few months. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:08, 8 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. ([6] 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)