Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 deletion/English
add new English request | 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 verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

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

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

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

Requests for deletion/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for verification/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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.

Tagged RFCs



The etymologies should probably be split into three sections, but I don't know which senses go where. —CodeCat 00:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is principally the noun that is the problem. Some to the senses (those having a sense of "group") belong to the ety derived from secta#Latin. After those have been separate into Ety 2 3, the assignment of the remaining noun senses should be relatively straightforward. But h[H]aving an OED handy would be very helpful essential for a split between an Etymology from a OE/ME verb and the past participle of that verb. I don't know if it would be sufficient. MWOnline provides no etymology for the noun. AHD has a single etymology for all but the "group" senses.
I have begun the process, but must stop. The entry is usable., but has the non-standard title "Etymology 1 & 2". Some of the noun senses in Ety 1 may not belong there. There are also missing senses and poorly worded senses among the nouns. I haven't looked much at the other PoSes. DCDuring TALK 02:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


I find all four definitions confusing. They seem to overlap a lot. The first definition is probably accurate but really hard to understand. #4 I think is #1 worded specifically for people. #2 and #3 seem really similar. In fact I think #3 and #4 might be the same definition, but one is worded as psychology, the second is in layperson's terms. So basically, help, or put forward your own opinion. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


English Carrier[edit]

An excellent specimen of an encyclopedic entry. The entry has lots of redlinks which should either be filled with alternative forms or deleted or something. DCDuring TALK 17:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


I wasn't sure where to start on this one. (1) Layout is non-standard. (2) Some senses/translations are too specific - others need writing in simpler English. (3) Translations probably need pooling for re-checking. — Saltmarshαπάντηση 05:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The use of subsections for definitions (using the syntax ##) isn't common but I wouldn't say it's 'non-standard' either. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't come across it, but stating that the term means ppm is incorrect - its just an example — Saltmarshαπάντηση 12:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Insanely, there's nothing to cover the mental state of being concentrated. I've added a French entry for it, but the English definition it refers to doesn't exist yet. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Concentrated doesn't list it either... but concentrate does. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
But it isn't clear whether "the act or process of concentrating" (all the subsections refer to the amounts of one material in another) includes mental concentration. (1) does "mental concentration" get a 3rd subsection or a new section of its own. And (2) does the relevant translation sense include both mental and physical concentration when some languages will have separate terms? — Saltmarshαπάντηση 12:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
How much do other languages use different words for translating this as a process, an act, an ability, a result? What about the distinction between a reflexive/intransitive sense ("the concentration of the particles in the lower portion of of the fractioning apparatus", ie, the particles could be viewed as concentrating themselves) and a transitive sense {"the concentration apparatus proved effective", ie, the apparatus concentrates something else)? DCDuring TALK 20:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Or a state for that matter?


The noun portion of the entry has seven senses, which do not seem very distinct. I cannot find more than two senses in other dictionaries (Century). The entry does, however, reference the OED. Can someone verify that the OED has all the senses. Even if the OED has all seven senses, I wonder if three cites can be found to clearly support each distinct sense. DCDuring TALK 23:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"A species of landscape that is flat and open." seems too poor to be included. Some of these seem very much distinct, for example someone who farms open land is clearly distinct from the land itself. A field of study seems to be like field (expert in one's field, for example). Mglovesfun (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I thought this deserved a look after 8 years! Although the OED has separate entries for champian with 11 senses and champaign with a dizzying 13 senses, the overlap is so comprehensive that I am of the view that they are essentially total synonyms. The senses without equivalents are figurative or only have a single cite (or both). This, that and the other (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@DCDuring Chances are you've forgotten about this, but could you check what I've done? I used "synonym" instead of "alternative form" because the pronunciations would clearly differ; what is our practice in this case? This, that and the other (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks good. Probably a worthwhile simplification, even though it makes us a smigeon less comprehensive. Can you quickly (eg, from OED) determine whether champyon attestable in modern English? In the Spenser cite is champian postpositive? DCDuring (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@DCDuring OED offers cites for champyon as champion into the 1400s, but says it was still used into the 1500s without offering evidence. There is a single cite for champyon as champian, which is this text. The Spenser cite is this text – not a postpositive use. This, that and the other (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't the Spenser cite show a noun use, ie neither adjective nor determiner?
It seems a stretch to call champyon English. We have it as Middle English. DCDuring (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


rfc-sense: "The art of using similar techniques in politics or business." Similar to which sense, sense #1 or sense #2? Or neither, perhaps it means the art of using techniques which are similar in politics or business (I don't think it means this, but it's the most literal interpretation from where I stand). I think maybe it's trying to suggest that strategy can be a mass noun, which I think it can, in which case it's not limited to business and politics, in sports you can use strategy (mass noun) and not only a strategy or strategies (count nouns). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

MWOnline has six senses, none of which fit the uncountable sense, which I agree exists and is not uncommon:
  • 2001, Ronald S. Swift, Accelerating Customer Relationships: Using CRM and Relationship ..., page 319:
    Much strategy prevails over little strategy, so those with no strategy can only be defeated.
I think there are two kinds of meanings: more or less neutral: "strategizing, the activity of developing an implementable strategy"; more or less favorable: "good, clever planning". I generally don't think we should have definitions like the second if they are arguably included in a neutral sense.
The MWOnline senses are for: 1.a.1 - national grand strategy, 1.a.2 - military strategy, 1.b - a type or instance of the above, 2.a - a careful plan, 2.b - the art of devising such plans, 3 - something to capture what is imputed to a species for its successful evolution.
Obviously, our definitions combine some of these, but they also seem to omit some components completely. DCDuring TALK 22:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)



These are supposedly adjectives meaning "citizen of". I'm not sure how that works. Adjectives modify nouns, but "citizen of" would seem to require that the noun following it not be the one modified (e.g. in "citizen of Germany", "citizen of" is describing Angela Merkel, not "Germany"). - -sche (discuss) 20:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


definition: "A bump-like imperfection resembling a gall."

This appears in the middle of nine definitions of gall, none of which have a picture or a graphic description. DCDuring TALK 22:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks to belong in Etym 2, as presumably also do the senses about sores and a pit (the context of this last definition is somewhat unclear). — Pingkudimmi 07:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
@DCDuring, Pingku I moved the disputed definition to Etymology 2, but didn't touch "sore" and "pit". --Hekaheka (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


definitions: "a species of plant" and "name of various plants"

These are virtually worthless as definitions, but similar definition are common among Sanskrit entries here. Can this be improved upon at all? Similar situations in Latin and especially Greek usually generate plausible conjectures. Some of the cases where a species name is given are not much better as the species name may be used nowhere but in dictionaries or south Asian languages. DCDuring TALK 00:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There are analogous cases in Old French especially regarding plants where there's no way to be sure all the authors are talking about the same plant. I can see a lot of problems on that page, "a species of plant" seems redundant but "name of various plants" is probably as good as it can get. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
That is a typical Sanskrit page with typical problems, including no differentiation of proper nouns, except for higher prevalence of "name of" as part of the definition. The definitions look like wikiformatted copies of old Sanskrit-English dictionaries, possibly different ones combined, with the old dictionaries not being as well done as LSJ (Ancient Greek)or L&S (Latin). The definiens often use polysemic English words with no gloss to suggest which modern sense. DCDuring TALK 01:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
You haven't begun to guess at the true enormity of the problem: I've copypasted the relevant part of the Monier-Williams entry from a pdf I downloaded (enclosed in collapsible header templates for those who don't care to read through it all), and interleaved it with our definitions. The OCR severely mangled the romanized Sanskrit and it would have taken too long to fix it, so don't try to decipher that part. As you can see, our entry is simply the Monier-Williams translated into our format, stripped of the source abbreviations, and paraphrased a bit.
It seems like a combination of multiple dictionaries because Monier-Williams went through libraries-full of sources and made notes, then compressed those notes into an incredibly dense and cryptic format in order to fit everything (barely) into one very large volume. All the bulleted lines below take up what looks like a single 2 or 3 inch square in a much larger three-column page, with nothing separating them but spaces and semicolons. The amount of detail in that work is astonishing- it would take years to properly unpack all the abbreviations and taxonomic names and convert them to modern equivalents. Just one page would take days! Nobody has all the necessary reference material at hand to do it, anyway, so the best we seem to be able to do is reformat this massive lump of condensed shorthand to make it look like a Wiktionary entry, without properly decoding it.
Chuck Entz (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I had looked at some of the Dictionary pages given as references.
My interests and "expertise" are quite limited. I think I can modernize some of the taxonomic names from the 130-year-old ones that were the best he had to work with, but I have to always look at the dictionary page itself. Some of the species names I cannot find in any authoritative online source.
So our Sanskrit entries are "pretend" entries, even worse than the unchanged Webster 1913 entries (for current words). DCDuring TALK 16:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess what's worst is that many of the pages don't have the reference to the dictionary page. DCDuring TALK 16:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

DCDuring keeps repeating that we're dealing with a "130-year old dictionary" but he fails to mention that the dictionary is a synthetic result of tens of thousands of man-hours, and that it's perfectly valid today due to the simple fact that Sanskrit is an extinct language that doesn't change anymore. If the respected authorities have failed to determine what exact species of plants saha denotes in some works, then probably nobody else will. Comparing it to Webster 1913 and modern English is stupid. Regarding proper nouns - they are not recognized as a separate lexical category by Sanskrit grammarians (there is no uppercase/lowercase distinction, there are tens of thousands of deities in Hinduism representing just about any imaginable concept). I have been separating proper/common nouns in some early entries, but have stopped doing so. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a great dictionary. It's available online for free to scholars, so Wiktionary's having copied pages is simply duplicative. It's copied pages are only a first draft of a Wiktionary entry. DCDuring TALK 16:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Apart from the research done on the new interpretation of meanings of Sanskrit words in the 20th and 21th century, it's a complete entry. Sanskrit entries copied from MW dictionary are far more complete than English entries copied from Webster 1913, because the language is not productive anymore as a literary device. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I have three problems with our English entries based on MW 1913 and two with the Sanskrit entries. To me they have one problem in common.
  1. with English entries from MW 1913:
    1. it has English words whose meaning and usage context have changed in some cases, whereas we have not brought the entry up to date.
    2. it uses a dated English for all of its definitions
    3. it includes lists of synonyms in the definiens (instead of under Synonyms), a defining style we don't use.
  2. with Sanskrit entries:
    1. it does not adhere to Wiktionary format and structure eg, not having distinct L3/4 sections for proper and common nouns and non-definiens material in the definitions.
    2. it uses a dated English for all of its definitions.
Just as with MW 1913 entries: I am glad we have the Sanskrit entries. They are an excellent first draft. They need work to be up to our high standards. DCDuring TALK 01:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. I've told you already: proper nouns are not recognized as a separate lexical category by Sanskrit grammarians. This "e.g." of yours is the only objection you actually have to the structure of Sanskrit entries, and yet you keep parroting it as if it is one of many. Non-definiens material (i.e. the list of works were the set of meanings makes appearance) is essential due to the fact that Sanskrit literature stretches over three millennia, and someone reading Rgveda is not interested in the same meanings as someone reading Gita Govinda. We already include non-definiens material in all of the entries - they are called context labels. I fail to see how "this meaning is only used in UK" is any different than "this meaning is only used in the Vedas".
  2. Most of its English is perfectly fine. You're needlessly exaggerating. If you find "dated English" feel free to update it. Perhaps some terms are a bit dated, but often no clear non-dated synonyms exist, and replacing them could introduce new interpretation of some words. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
All of this makes it seem as if a user of the material would be better off to be using the complete text, not Wiktionary's half-formatted, subject-to-insufficiently-respectful-editing version. For example, see Category:Sanskrit proper nouns. Do we need 97 RfC for them?
What value are we adding if all we do is copy? One value might be that we can link to the Sanskrit from other language entries. But that is not for Sanskrit scholars who know the peculiarities of the original dictionary; it is for ordinary Wiktionarians and folks who are simply curious, even recreational users. As scholars have the free online source and should have page links in the Wiktionary entry to that source from every entry copied from it, our Sanskrit entries ought be rendered consistent with Wiktionary format to facilitate use by those other than scholars. DCDuring TALK 17:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Half-formatted subject-to-insufficiently-respectful-editing version? I'm not annoyed by your half-baked attempts of pretend-trolling. Goodbye. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The really terrible one is the neuter noun = बल (bala), because बल has 28 noun definitions. Which one of the 28, or all 28 of them? Limiting only to neuter nouns transliterated as bala, that's down to 14. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary:IPA pronunciation key[edit]

This passed an RFD with no consensus, so it has kind of just been left there. Today, an editor decided to add Catalan, which makes me wonder now, how big should we make the list? It's going to be impossible to include all languages, and people are always going to think "their" language is worth including. So we really need to decide which languages should be there and exclude any others. —CodeCat 14:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I changed the English Pronunciation Keys; therefore, I was also responsible for the changes. (AT LEAST according to "main-stream medicine", THAT'S the legalese kind of matter that we may want to deal with, right?) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Each row should be made a section. This will prevent the content from growing horizontally. — Ungoliant (Falai) 08:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
MY thoughts exactly on that, Lua-Tour-Guide! I got you from this date-of-time onwards. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
If we decide to drop Catalan, why not drop Dutch? It has less than 30 million speakers, and the dialects of most of those claimed speakers have a different pronunciation (and lexicon, and even grammar). -- 01:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


At весь#Russian, the pronoun and adjective senses are mixed together and need to be carefully picked apart. --WikiTiki89 15:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it would need to be changed into a Determiner anyway. "all" is not a property of something, but a reference specifier like other determiners. —CodeCat 00:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, the pronoun and determiner senses need to be picked apart. --WikiTiki89 00:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
You could ask Anatoli... he is the main Russian editor I think. —CodeCat 00:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I could also do it myself. I was just feeling lazy when I requested this. Mostly because the pronoun sense needs to be split across весь, вся, всё, and все. Additionally, I'm not sure what part of speech it is in "оно всё там", which is the exact 100% equivalent of "it's all there". --WikiTiki89 00:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can clean as per the nomination but I'm happy to take suggestions. The choice for SoP itself is not so obvious and the Russian Wiktionary uses "местоиме́нное прилага́тельное" (pronominal adjective). Perhaps providing more usexes would make the senses clearer? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not that they are unclear, just that the determiner is intermixed with the pronoun, when they really need separate headers. --WikiTiki89 01:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
You can try it yourself, if you wish. I'm not 100% sure what PoS your examples belong to. Which ones do you think are pronouns?--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Well if it's used without a noun, it's a usually pronoun. --WikiTiki89 02:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The split is required for derived/related всё and все then, not весь. It'll probably suffice to mention the two types of derivations, even if usexes use всё and все. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
"Бумажник упал в лужу и весь промок." What part of speech is that according to you? I guess you could say that it is an adverb and the second clause has a null subject, but then we'd have to add an adverb sense. Now that I think about it, I think that the adverb interpretation is more accurate because it also accounts for "Он весь промок." --WikiTiki89 04:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It's tricky, indeed. See also какая часть речи слово "всё" --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
That answer seems to agree with me that in "Бумажник упал в лужу и весь промок." and "Он весь промок.", it is an adverb. But this is a strange case of an adverb that agrees with a noun in gender, number, and case: "Я его всего высушил.", "её всю", etc. --WikiTiki89 04:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm lost in PoS here. Not sure. I will leave it as is for now. We can try Vahagn Petrosyan (talkcontribs) and Stephen G. Brown (talkcontribs). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
We can get more people to weigh in than that. As I said above, the exact same dilemma exists in English, only since English does not have gender/number/case agreement, there's less of a problem calling it an adverb: "They all went home." ("Они все пошли домой."), "I ate it all." ("Я его/её всего/всю съел."). --WikiTiki89 13:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Most Russian dictionaries call весь определительное местоимение. I don't have an opinion. --Vahag (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It just making everything horribly complex to satisfy some arcane sense of category. I don’t see anything wrong with it the way it is. This reminds me of a few years ago when Michael decided to rename a bunch of files to separate them into Wiktionary:X and Appendix:X, and then I could never find the pages that I used to use because I don’t share his sense of categories. I never again saw some of those pages. —Stephen (Talk) 20:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting getting rid of anything we have. It's just that certain senses are missing (the adjective/pronoun/whatever-they-are ones), but are present in usage examples. A sense needs to be created for them, and since it is not an adjective/determiner, we have to decide what it is. --WikiTiki89 20:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
That’s what I’m saying. To me, весь is one simple part of speech. We used to call it an adjective, and in my opinion, that is what it is. Or mark them with the Russian terminology, attributive pronoun. All this modernistic stuff about determiners and such is just so much nonsense to me. If you want to divide it up into all sorts of part of speech, you have to do it yourself. I don’t recognize those categories and I don’t see the need for them. —Stephen (Talk) 02:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
That's not my point at all. I also consider the distinction between adjectives and determiners to be quite useless, especially in Russian. What I'm saying here is that in the cases I mentioned, it is not an adjective or determiner. It's either an adverb or a pronoun, depending on how you look at it. It makes more sense as an adverb, except for the fact that it declines for gender, number, and case. --WikiTiki89 02:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)




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

What the hell, I'm game. Currently there are 29 Symbol senses. I've been pretty ruthless here, doing the following:
  • Speedy deleted the four "company" senses. Presumably these companies, three of which were steamship companies, used the letter "A" as some kind of identifier. That is useless information for a dictionary. I doubt you would run across these identifiers without the benefit of at least some context, allowing you to look in a more appropriate reference source.
  • Speedy deleted the "Van der Waals constant" sense. It is simply incorrect - lowercase a is used for this.
  • Speedy deleted the aviation sense. Apparently hail is represented by GR, not A, so it's another wrong sense.
  • Speedy deleted most of the scientific senses. Presumably these are standard variables for use in formulas, like P for pressure and so on. Again, a reader will run across these in a context where they know to look up a list of variables in engineering, chemistry, etc., such as w:List of letters used in mathematics and science. They are also not used as independent "terms". Therefore they fail the golden rule of CFI: "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means". Moreover, the fact that our list was essentially mutually exclusive with the Wikipedia list suggests that the deleted senses were of poor quality.
  • Speedy deleted "Fraunhofer line" sense. Same reasoning as above - you can look up a chart of Fraunhofer lines if you need to know this.
  • Speedy deleted "Assembly Bill". This isn't used by itself, instead forming part of codes for assembly bills in some legislatives (for instance, "NY State Assembly Bill A416"). This doesn't need to be in an entry for "A". If we included every way in which "A" was used as part of a code, we'd accumulate hundreds of useless senses. See also: golden rule of CFI above.
  • I'm going to send a couple of others (adulterer, ammunition examiner, includes extras) to RFV once I have checked some lemmings.
This, that and the other (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks good to me. DCDuring (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I've speedy deleted "includes extras", on two grounds: (1) it appears to actually be "a" in lowercase; (2) it is used in a highly specialised scenario and one would not "run across" it without additional context (see my comments above). You can see an example of a stock listing here - the listings that contain this symbol can hardly be described as language at all. It is more like a series of codes.
OED has some useful insights on the "adulterer" sense. It is used in The Scarlet Letter (in fact it is the titular scarlet letter), and likely meets CFI.
"Ammunition examiner" goes to RFV. This, that and the other (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]


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

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

Entries in Rhymes:Romanian[edit]

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

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

March 2016[edit]


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


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

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

April 2016[edit]


The third sense could use some attention:

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

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

May 2016[edit]


Moved from: Wiktionary:Requests for verification#ngaa

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

Yes, but unattested items appearing in RfV could be deleted after just 30 days. RfVs for items in languages with very few contributors might not be seen for quite some time. RfC allows more time. DCDuring TALK 17:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
It had an RFC tag for over a year and nothing changed. I might be mistaken, but I doubt that anything would change in the nearest time and I doubt that there would be much attention for the entry. So I hope that this discussion brings some attention towards the entry and that the RFC/RFV can be resolved. As ngaa also has other entries ("Gamilaraay" and "Hiligaynon"), it wouldn't be completely deleted anyway and one could still find the 'Pitjantjatjara' entry through the version history. However, I'd be okay with changing it to RFC again and moving this discussion to Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup to raise some attention and to give the entry some more time.
Maybe @Vedac13 (he once added the Pitjantjatjara entry) or @This, that and the other (he once added the RFC tag) can help to resolve this issue? -Ikiaika (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
There is heavy overlap between Pitjantjatjara, Yankunytjatjara and Ngaanyatjarra. Some would consider them dialects of the same language. To make matters worse, texts are often misidentified as being in one language when they are actually in one of the others; a lot of reference works relating to these languages are old, use idiosyncratic orthographies, and contain inaccuracies; and Ngaanyatjarra in particular seems to have quite little material available. All this makes it very difficult to sort out the entries in these languages. We really need the assistance of an expert in Western Desert languages to sort out the situation and help organise our coverage.
It probably is a matter for RFV, but I don't think there are many users here who would be able to deal with this problem. I'd favour keeping the RFC tag in place for now. I will have to go and look up a Ngaanyatjarra word list in a library when I have time. This, that and the other (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@This, that and the other Thanks for your reply. I changed it back and moved the discussion. Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
It's certainly not Pitjantjatjara and shouldn't be labelled as such. This and many of Vedac13's other contributions to Pitjantjatjara are flagrant nonsense. BigDom 15:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

June 2016[edit]

Contributions of User:[edit]

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

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

August 2016[edit]


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

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


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

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


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

Category:Cantonese interjections[edit]

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

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

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

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

October 2016[edit]


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

November 2016[edit]


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

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

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

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

The distiction between senses 1 and 2 is grammatical, not lexical, and I have merged them. One could just as well say "the tiger/alligator/oak is a species that...". Is "she got beets on her new blouse" using a different sense than (the plural of) the "root" sense? - -sche (discuss) 20:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Not really. My point was that normal usage is closer to always plural than to always singular. There does seem to be a difference, but it probably isn't lexical: one could say "These are big beets- if you cook up even just one, it makes a decent serving of cooked beets". The first is countable and plural, while the second is a plural mass noun. Like most vegetables, mass noun usage tends to be plural only. You can still say "a cup of cooked beet", but "a cup of cooked beets" sounds more natural. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Chuck.
I'm bothered with usage like sense 1. It feels like an attempt to make beet or common beet a substitute for the taxonomic name, which is a proper noun. It's not really singular only, either, as another species in genus Beta could also be a beet, resulting in beets in sense 1.
In vernacular name entries I've ignored usage like that for sense 1 and omitted such a definition, because it doesn't seem to be consistent, in contrast to the taxonomic name usage. Even using English vernacular names in the definition of a taxonomic name, ie, defining a proper noun as a common noun, doesn't seem quite right. One has to read the taxon definition as eliding "often vulgarly called". DCDuring (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I think this entry has been cleaned up. The disputed, above-quoted first of three senses has been folded into the current first of two senses. Take a look and see if you think anything else needs to be done. - -sche (discuss) 20:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

кънига / ⰽⱏⱀⰻⰳⰰ, кънигꙑ[edit]

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

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

born in a barn[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 2016[edit]


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

January 2017[edit]

Proto-Slavic Reconstructions[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

WF left a message on my talk page asking about these a while back. The phrases used in the examples are real collocations/idioms (see here and here for dictionary definitions). Þungt haldinn seems pretty common ([1]) but I can only find a couple of hits for vera haldinn skemmdarfýsn [[2] (top right p.22) and [3] (bottom left p.5)]. They're definitely not the best usage examples for haldinn either way. BigDom 11:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


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


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

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

many a[edit]

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

many a at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that dictionaries include the term, usually as a redirect to many. I suppose what distinguishes many + [Noun] (plural) from many a + [Noun] (singular) is the emphasis on the individuality of the [Noun]. DCDuring TALK 15:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Not totally wrong. It definitely has a whiff of song/poetry to it – "I've been a wild rover for many a year…", "Many a time and oft on the Rialto…" – these are expressions familiar from songs and literature, not current in contemporary speech except when trying to generate various kinds of archaic/jocular effects. Ƿidsiþ 14:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I did some work on this but didn't remove the label. I will let others decide that. -Mike (talk) 07:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

February 2017[edit]


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

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

March 2017[edit]


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


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

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


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

April 2017[edit]


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

Appendix:Zulu given names[edit]

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

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

One should also consider that the noun prefixes would only apply to languages that use them. (A super-obvious forest that seems to be missed for the trees of Zulu-ness.) These are the names as they would be used in many other languages that either don't have noun prefixes on names or use different ones. By stripping these down to the bare name, they are far more useful and less confusing. The noun prefix could be covered in a simple sentence: "When speaking Zulu, all the names would have the noun prefix 'u-' but this might not be a part of the name in other languages." Rather like the "o-" for female Japanese names at one point. So someone stopping by here from NaNoWriMo won't come to the conclusion that all their Zulu characters must have names beginning with U in their novel written in English, Spanish, or Mandarin.


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


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

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

Usage notes[edit]

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

May 2017[edit]


Verb entries 2 and 3 doesn't seem clearly differentiated. Entry 1 talks about technology, but seems to refer to hardware. Only entry 3 is labeled as computing, though all seem tech-related. It seems to me that the example phrase at entry 2 fits better under entry 3. --SentientBall (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that there is any transitive use of upgrade that is computing-specific. Differentiating transitive and intransitive use is a good first step in improving the entry, perhaps along the lines of MWOnline's:
transitive verb
to raise or improve the grade of: such as
a: to improve (livestock) by use of purebred sires
b: to advance to a job requiring a higher level of skill especially as part of a training program
c: to raise the quality of
d: to raise the classification and usually the price of without improving the quality
e: to extend the usefulness of (something, such as a device)
f: to assign a less serious status to upgraded the patient's condition to good
intransitive verb
to improve or replace especially software or a device for increased usefulness
DCDuring (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I've added a missing noun sense, an adverb PoS section, transitive/intransitive labels, some new verb senses, some citations and usage examples. Senses a and f from MWOnline are clearly needed. I'm not as sure about b-e. DCDuring (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


I was asked to put a notice here. The etymology is poorly written; it needs to be formatted and more easier to read. I am not an expert on Greek, but I have an interest on that language. TatCoolBoy (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

people's republic[edit]

I can't make any sense of the etymology. Maybe someone willing to improve on it? TatCoolBoy (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


Someone has been replacing translations that are direct borrowings from English (i.e. the word malware in other languages) with other terms. I have checked the three Portuguese translations they added and found that malware is much more common (about 5 times) than the most common of them, and the other two are quite rare.

I suspect that they’ve done the same thing to translations in other languages. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Removals were done by Special:Contributions/ here. —Stephen (Talk) 13:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the translations a bit and restored those borrowed terms. --2A00:F41:4860:4FD7:3411:839:4F7D:67C2 19:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts and your participation in this discussion anon, but I feel that there are still some issues with your edits:
  • you have reintroduced the rare term software mal-intencionado, writing that it is “used by Microsoft in Brazil”; however, even in Microsoft’s website this term is significantly less common than malware;
  • the regional qualifiers you added to software malicioso and software mal-intencionado are absolutely incorrect; both (including software mal-intencionado, despite its rarity) are used in Brazil and Portugal;
  • you added the qualifier Anglicism to several translations and as a label in the definitions; surely that’s information that belongs in the etymology sections of their respective entries, not in the translation table.
Ungoliant (falai) 20:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I've just corrected it. Please take a look.
As for software mal-intencionado, it does seem to be used by Microsoft as a translation of malicious software quite commonly. You can verify that here: https://www.microsoft.com/Language/en-US/Search.aspx --2A00:F41:4860:4FD7:3411:839:4F7D:67C2 20:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


IP users (maybe the same person) have made a number of sum of parts entries in various languages, which are translations of the English malware. I {{rfd}}'ed some of them. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be the same person. They seem to be working off of some source with the translations of PC/Computer terms into a wide variety of languages- I'm guessing something put out by Microsoft. Since they don't know most of the languages, they can't tell if the terms are idiomatic. The entry at malware seems to have been their initial and main focus, but they've been working on the whole range of terminology relevant to PC operating systems and software.
I brought up the subject of their edits here in March with a concern that they were editing in so many languages that they couldn't possibly know all of them. You confirmed that their edits seemed to be accurate, and the discussion was archived to User talk:Anth2943. That account has since been renamed, so it's now User talk:Deletedarticle. There have been a series of edits blanking the page and others reverting the blanking, but for the moment you can see the archived discussion there. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

words ambiguously defined as "dinner"[edit]

These words define themselves as "dinner", which can mean either "midday meal", "evening meal", or "main meal of the day, regardless of when it's eaten". Can you clarify which sense is meant if you know any of these languages? (A few entries define themselves as "lunch, dinner" or "dinner, supper", but I can't tell if the second word is intended as a synonym or an indication the word refers to both the midday and evening meals. Some entries are homographic with words meaning "evening", but that doesn't ensure they mean "evening meal", compare middag!) Strike through words you've done. - -sche (discuss) 04:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. dinnéar
  2. jantar
  3. jinnair
  4. long'
  5. pranzu
  6. päivällinen
  7. pāʻina
  8. unnukkorsiutit
  9. àm-tǹg
  10. вечера
  11. вячэраць
  12. дэшхын
  13. обед
  14. обеденный
  15. обід
  16. обѣдъ
  17. оройн хоол
  18. павячэраць
  19. поужинать
  20. ручати
  21. ճաշ
  22. սպաս
  23. ארוחת ערב
  24. تعشى
  25. شام
  26. عشا
  27. عشاء
  28. غدا
  • What makes this one special? This kind of problem is so widespread that we could use some kind of automation to at least assist in identifying all the deficient FL definitions.
Don't we have {{rfgloss}} (or {{gloss-stub}} or whatever its real name is) for this? If not, we should create a template that addresses this specific kind of problem. DCDuring (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
An inspection of the number of entries in Category:Requests for clarification of definitions by language shows the very modest level of use of these templates. DCDuring (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I've tracked down references on, and clarified, a few more. - -sche (discuss) 05:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


Should the common noun sense be lowercase? Compare Arbër, arbër? (Also, will whatever bot adds {{also}} reach these at some point?) - -sche (discuss) 19:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


It's a mere stub. —suzukaze (tc) 04:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, do we want this entry? Can't this be analysed as just と+言う? (although, it is present in other dictionaries.) —suzukaze (tc) 06:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I see it also in dictionaries, and that puzzles me -- this doesn't strike me as particularly lexicalized, it's just (to, quotative particle) + 言う (iu, to say).
@Shinji, are we missing something? Do you view this as more than just SOP? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 09:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
How about making it a redirect? Daijisen has an entry for という, but the content is repeated in the entry of いう. という is special in that it can have a pause before it, but it is rather a characteristic of the particle . — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

get this[edit]

POS? DTLHS (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. A nonnative speaker who knows what get and this mean might well be baffled by "get this!". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it's an interjection? - -sche (discuss) 22:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that someone with too basic an understanding of English might have trouble getting this, when it is used in the way indicated, at least in written dialog, if not in speech, where tone and gesture supplement the words. But the sense of get (to understand) is fairly common and is used with any number of objects, though, eg, Get her. Did you get the car he was driving? I didn't get what they were trying to say., He wasn't getting it.. It's the same as or close to get in He didn't get the joke.
It seems SoP to me. DCDuring (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
"I'd hear those thrift shop cats say, 'Brother, get her! Draped on a bedspread made from three kinds of fur!" Equinox 22:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

June 2017[edit]

Entries in Category:en:Language families[edit]

Language family names are generally both adjectives and nouns. But some of the entries here contain only an adjective definition, while others contain only a noun. Would anyone be willing to sort these out? —CodeCat 16:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Entries by User:Vuzorg[edit]

They seem to think every word is a noun, add random invalid parameters to templates, and have also added odd "Zazaki language" definitions to some entries. —CodeCat 13:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Because they are noun. Vuzorg (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Not if your definitions are correct. For instance, you defined berz as "high", which is an adjective, and you put it in Category:zza:Grammar without any explanation as to what it has to do with grammar. @Vahagn Petrosyan do you think this might be a Marmase sock? Chuck Entz (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Looks like Vuzorg does not know English as well as they think they do (en-3 in their Babel box; I would speculate en-1 would be more accurate), and they do not quite understand the proper entry format. — Eru·tuon 19:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but I would go further and say they don't understand the concepts behind the formatting, either. For instance, they had inca derived from "Indo-European English here", which shows they don't know what an etymology is for, and elsewhere they had a definition line that said "Zazaki language" before the actual definition lines, and added Category:zza:Grammar to several entries that weren't about grammar.
Their account was created a week after Marmase was globally locked in 2015, and they've avoided notice because, until today, no one has looked at or edited their work except for bots (and in one diff, User:Embryomystic editing like a bot). Unless Vahag can confirm the accuracy of their edits, I'm inclined to delete and remove it all as "No usable content given". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I have cleaned up after the user based on my Zazaki sources. His definitions are usually correct, but the formatting is terrible. I don't know if this is Marmase's sock. @Vuzorg, please look at the changes we made to your contributions and learn our formatting guidelines. --Vahag (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey what's problem there? I'm not sock puppet of Marmase. I only don't know formatting guidelines very well. I won't contribute anymore. And Eru·tuon, you, be careful when you speak about a subject, don't attack me, even you don't know me, you can't judge me and my English. Do I know you? No, so I don't talk about you. Vuzorg (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@Vuzorg: You're right, and I apologize for my comment about your English. — Eru·tuon 19:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About Japanese[edit]

Still mildly out-of-date, and the formatting makes it difficult to understand sometimes. —suzukaze (tc) 17:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About Han script[edit]

Out-of-date. —suzukaze (tc) 17:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017[edit]


Maybe this definition should be distributed into the appropriate language sections. —suzukaze (tc) 03:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017[edit]

Transliteration modules[edit]










Transliteration modules created by a user banned for making bad edits to transliteration modules. —suzukaze (tc) 03:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

(None of them are in use.) —suzukaze (tc) 10:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Some of these are still problematic. @Allahverdi Verdizade, fancy fixing them? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I have struck the ones that have been overhauled since. Maybe the rest should just be deleted? — surjection??⟩ 21:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


I have created a new entry for movie camera, and found some translations under camera. I would transfer them, but they appear to be a bit of a mess. DonnanZ (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:English surnames from India[edit]

These surnames should be categorized by the respective languages. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


First definition:

  1. A Sanskrit philosophical term that may be literally rendered in English as nonduality: denoting that though differences and variegation appear in the human condition they are unreal or illusory and are not ultimately true.

This is supposed to be an English-language entry, not a Sanskrit one, and the wording smells of teaching Enlightenment to the ignorant. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

प्री (prī)[edit]

The definitions are unreadable. Heydari (talk|contibs) 16:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


suzukaze (tc) 05:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


Is "numeral" really the right way to describe this? —suzukaze (tc) 06:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

No, "SOP" is a much better description- unless you think we should have entries like "四十三本"... Either delete it, or use {{&lit}} like the Chinese section already does. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

A numeral with a counter is traditionally classified as a numeral. See 数詞 on Daijisen. “SOP” is not a lexical class, so it’s irrelevant here. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In English terms, any numeral + counter = noun. Consider "one pair", "two braces", "three sets", etc.
I've had an initial go at a cleanup. The entry still needs more work, including many senses yet missing from our page. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

September 2017[edit]


"Scottish", could be Scots or Scottish Gaelic. DTLHS (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I did find it in Scots. I've make the distinction clear. Not sure if in Scots Gaelic though Leasnam (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

measure the drapes[edit]

The etymology needs a little bit of cleanup. 06:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


Unclear what the multiple forms refer to. 21:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017[edit]


Leaving aside the question of whether the proper-noun sense meets the requirements of WT:FICTION, this entry has a translation table full of terms in languages the sole editor of the entry doesn't speak, including Gothic. That's right- Gothic. Even scarier, some of the translations are bluelinks- because that same editor has been creating entries in languages they don't speak for a term that probably doesn't meet CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

And what exactly should be cleaned up? Should t (in {{t|CODE|TERM}}) be changed into t-check? The German translation for example is correct, so it could be changed back to t. Whether or not the German term or any other translations meets WT:FICTION should be a matter of WT:RFVN to decide. - 09:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


Someone asked me on my talk page to clean this up. I don't really know what to do with it. Equinox 23:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Looking at User talk:Equinox, it doesn't seem like someone asked you on your user page: user page's first post is from 20zh November 2017 (this revision)‎, post above from 12th October.
  • The etymology seems to be copied from it's source (Adrian Room, Dictionary of Pseudonyms, 5th ed., p. 518, s.v. C.J. Yellowplush). Is it a copyright violation?
  • "used this name" - which name? The source makes it clear by the dictionary entry: The pseudonym C.J. Yellowplush.
    "The same character appeared" - which character? Charles James Yellowplush is the purported author and the servant was a living guy. "character" seems to refer to Charles James Yellowplush as if he is the purported author and the character in his story, but IMHO it's not so clear.
- 04:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

word up[edit]

These definitions are probably all pretty good, but formatting is weird. Dunno why someone put all those "unnecessary" "speech marks". It's something I can't stand. --P5Nd2 (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


A lot of entries here would be better placed in Category:en:Body parts or its subcategories. —Rua (mew) 14:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


A lot of entries here would be better placed in Category:en:Diseases or Category:en:Disease. —Rua (mew) 14:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


Significant overlap between definitions; ambiguity as to which definition each citation actually supports. DCDuring (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Etymologies by User:Rajkiandris[edit]

They're formatted incorrectly and aren't actually etymologies, all they do is mention a Finnish cognate. They do this even if said Finnish cognate has an entry on the same page with a proper etymology. It seems to me like they just don't want to put any effort in but would rather leave it for someone else to clean up. —Rua (mew) 16:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tropylium, if you haven't noticed. I'm not sure anyone else has the expertise needed to clean these up. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed, yes. My workflow on cleaning up the minor Finnic languages goes usually through checking up from Proto-Finnic entries once they've been sourced, though, so that may take a while before it hits all of these "naturally". I've barely even started the initial source literature scan (going on at User:Tropylium/Finnish inherited vocabulary).
This also makes me wonder if a database dump search for Etymology sections that do not use any of our etymology templates ({{der}}, {{inh}}, {{bor}}, {{suffix}}, {{compound}} etc.) might be worthwhile at some point. Maybe after our eternity project to depreciate {{etyl}} finishes… --Tropylium (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

absolute superlative[edit]

This entry is a confusing mess. The formatting issues are just the beginning; the real issue is that the definitions are actually just a collection of examples from various languages. As noted in the talk page, the concept of absolute superlative should be language independent; its definition should be something like:

  1. An adjective form indicating a quality expressed to the greatest possible extent, in contrast to the comparative superlative, which instead indicates a quality expressed to the greatest extent within some specific context.

A significant feature of absolute superlatives is that some languages use different inflections for the absolute and comparative cases. Accordingly, it is reasonable to still include some language examples in that context.

As an additional observation, I think the Romanian examples are actually just intensifying adverbs, not absolute superlative forms. Wikipedia provides a different explanation using the adverb phrase cel mai and related forms. ―Rriegs (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Formatting should be slightly improved now (diff), but that doesn't address the real problems. The current senses maybe are better as usage notes in foreign entries; e.g. the Romanian sense could be put into an Romanian entry superlativ absolut (if the statement is accurate). - 03:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

November 2017[edit]

Old Dart[edit]

The definition is unclear, the sections are in the wrong order, and the entry is generally confusing. I tried to fix it a little by moving a description that was in the definition into a Usage Notes section, but it's still kind of funky. Also, there's a misplaced synonyms section. Globins (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


What is a "Spartan verb"? DTLHS (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@DTLHS: Based on the LSJ entry, it means the Ancient Greek dialect of Sparta, Laconian, a subvariety of Doric. — Eru·tuon 21:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I've made a first attempt at cleaning it up. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


This template is basically a copy of an old version of {{en-verb}}, and is woefully inadequate for Middle English. Middle English verbs have many more forms than just the ones given in this template. There should be a proper inflection table. —Rua (mew) 16:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The Middle English templates in general could really use some love. Some templates just don't exist where useful ModEnglish varieties do (e.g. {{enm-adv}}, as well as a number of grammatical boxes such as personal pronouns)); in others a number of factors make ME more complicated than English (some adjectives having plural forms in addition to the typical comparative and superlative forms.) I'm fairly new so I don't know how templates are born or altered here (or even whether this discussion belongs in RFC as opposed to the Grease Pit), but it would make a huge difference if someone could update and expand the Middle English templates. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

December 2017[edit]


Multiple pronunciation sections and multiple etymologies, unclear which refers to which. DTLHS (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


I think the long translations of the full name should go to Japanese-Language Proficiency Test#Translations, and JLPT#Translations should be reserved for equivalent acronyms in other languages. —suzukaze (tc) 04:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018[edit]


Etymology 2 has no definition or part of speech. DTLHS (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's just one term and just etymology 2 belonging into 1 like: "From Old Swedish ..., from Old Norse ... (worth)" (Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/werþaz)? - 17:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


The definition is far to simplified. "act of being relegated" - there are many subsenses missing. --Gente como tú (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Contributions of Special:Contributions/[edit]

In other technical details besides IP range, this IP is a perfect match to יבריב (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks), and indeed shows the same indiscriminate, high-volume and diverse editing- They seem to be adding translations in just about any language they can think of. Given that יבריב was blocked for making crappy edits in languages they don't know, this makes me very nervous. Depending on the source(s) they've been vacuuming up, their edits could very well range from ok to horribly, horribly wrong.

These need to be checked, but I don't have the expertise to do it myself. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


  • The definition goes “One who's suspicious post-death [] ”, but the quotations all use “Requiem for the Suicided”, which suggest something similar to “the Irish” or “the poor”. No plural is given.
  • Poor grammar and spelling.
  • Synonyms that are really hypernyms.
  • The list of quotations could be simplified.

Ungoliant (falai) 16:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I just whittled all that information into one line - # Someone who has committed suicide --Cien pies 6 (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


Etymology 1 needs further splitting - these do not have the same etymology. --Gente como tú (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I split off a few of the definitions which come from a common source, and added another sense with its own etymology. Etymology 1 still needs further work clarifying origins. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


RFC sense ‘One who works by the job and recruit other people’. Between the vagueness and the grammar problems I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 05:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

A jobber is one who's job is to recruit others to work for a company or some other entity, i.e. someone who recruits nurses to work for a travel nursing agency. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2600:8807:5401:f760:6108:f455:228c:f21c (talk).
Thanks for the useful information anon, but please add them as your own on a new line and not inside somebody else's comment. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


Poor etymology formatting, dubious pronunciation. —suzukaze (tc) 04:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


Synonyms are listed somewhat randomly. --Gente como tú (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, most of the synonyms are included in the definitions themselves. Surely that duplication isn't necessary--either the definitions ought be pithier or the synonyms omitted. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The addendum to the request, added by another person on 28 October 2018, has not been addressed here at all, nor discussed at all, in almost 14 months of time. Moreover, it is simply personal opinion. I would reckon that the King James version of the Bible itself is among the commonest places that people encounter the word today. In addition, it is found in multiple contexts there, revealing several of the usages present in this entry. It does not strike me that the balance is undue. 00:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

In addition, I find the user who added to the request, XY3999, was later banned permanently from editing, for abuses rendered. 01:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


Are these edits good or bad? - -sche (discuss) 23:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


German entry, but abbreviating a Latin term. At the momemt it's mis-categorised because of Category:Latin abbreviations.
Properly, {{abbreviation of|TERM|lang=CODE}} would need two language parameters to produce "Abbreviation of [Latin] {{m|la|TERM}}" with category Category:German abbreviations.
Should the abbreviation template be replaced by text and the category be added manually? - 16:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


Lots of annoying elipses in the defn. Surely there's a better way to define it. --Gente como tú (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


The definition is # Bad; wicked; false; worthless; slothful; lazy.

Lots of different synonyms listed. Either simplify it or split it. --Gente como tú (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

this way[edit]

No OneLook reference has even a redirect let alone an entry for this, but we have had the entry since before 2007 and we have translations etc, so we might want to try to make sense of this. I have a few questions:

  1. What does the label "imperative determiner" mean? If it is a determiner, why is it in a Noun L2?
  2. Isn't the noun definition SoP?
  3. The three words presented as definitions on the same line in the Adverb L2 don't seem synonymous to me and there are no usage examples, let alone citations. Does anyone have a view on this.
  4. Should we just RfD it? DCDuring (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I added an example that might be of non-SoP usage:
It's good that he's gone. This way we don't have to argue with him all the time.
I don't know how to define it. It might just be an elliptical deixis, which doesn't seem to me to be much of a basis for inclusion. Is it? DCDuring (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
There's also "I wish he'd gone; that way we...", and "I would have preferred things the other way", etc. Equinox 00:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Also with other definite determiners like "his way", "John's way", etc. I was just looking for something I was familiar with that might be idiomatic, it doesn't seem very idiomatic to me. MW Online has a two=definition entry for that way that resembles ours for this way. Oxford has a euphemistic sex-romance usage.
I am tempted to add as citations the lyrics from Walk This Way and Did You Ever See a Lassie?. DCDuring (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018[edit]


Korean. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


Korean: There is some extra information that shouldn't be there. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon and Middle English in (New) English entries[edit]

As Anglo-Saxon and Middle English are not (New) English and as thus Anglo-Saxon and Middle English cites do not belong into (New) English entries but might nontheless be useful for Anglo-Saxon or Middle English entries to be created, I'm moving them to here now:

  1. from God the Son, God the Father,God the Holy Ghost (maybe for God Fæder, Godes sunu, God þe son, God þe holi gost, though are the latter three idiomatic enough and not SOP?):
  2. from thereto (maybe for þher-to?):
    • c. 1430 (reprinted 1888), Thomas Austin, ed., Two Fifteenth-century Cookery-books. Harleian ms. 279 (ab. 1430), & Harl. ms. 4016 (ab. 1450), with Extracts from Ashmole ms. 1429, Laud ms. 553, & Douce ms. 55 [Early English Text Society, Original Series; 91], London: N. Trübner & Co. for the Early English Text Society, volume I, OCLC 374760, page 11:
      Soupes dorye. — Take gode almaunde mylke [] caste þher-to Safroun an Salt []

- 19:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I added the þher-to quotation to ther-to. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This is difficult to address because our Middle English entries (if they exist at all) are in a poor state, with little standardization of spellings. DTLHS (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Follow the headwords in the Middle English Dictionary Online? — SGconlaw (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
As for a clean-up of (New) English entries, moving it to citation pages (like Citations:God, Citations:þher-to) as somewhat suggested in WT:RFC#thereto seems like a good idea. With Category:Old English citations, Category:Middle English citations the citations can than be found.
MED? - 02:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Following the headwords in the MED is a good safe bet, I think. We could then put the other spellings in alternative forms, I suppose? In some cases there are a plethora of spelling options, some of which are universal (e.g. the '-e' ending that may or may not be included; 'þ' and 'ð' instead of 'th' and vice versa, the wynn and the yogh, etc.)--it might be good to somehow standardize how those are handled as well. Or, perhaps, there are already ways the treatment thereof is standardized here--if so, I'd love to know. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
No, there's not really any standards. This should be documented at Wiktionary:About Middle English, if something is agreed upon. DTLHS (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not really that simple. There is no hard dividing line between ME and modE, it's more of a sliding scale and some texts (like Malory) could fairly be counted as either. I think ME citations should not be removed from modE entries if they are doing the job of showing the word's usage through time. Ƿidsiþ 09:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
By time and WT:About Middle English, Malory is Middle English. - 05:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, we picked 1500 as a dividing line, but that is arbitrary. Language did not morph into modern English overnight. Malory is right at the end of the ME period, and in fact is functionally identical to early modern English. He is a world away from (for example) Chaucer. Ƿidsiþ 04:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I see this as a four-step process:
  1. make a list of works/authors used in English quotes and quote requests
  2. select from those a list of those which are from before modern English
  3. make a list of English entries with pre-modern English quotes
  4. go through the list and fix them
The first and third require processing the dumps, the second can be done by anyone who has the time to research or who knows already which is which, and the last requires someone who knows ME well enough to create entries.
It won't get everything, but it will at least catch a large subset of obvious ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Quotes are not parseable enough to make step 1 feasible. DTLHS (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
It's also not necessarily desirable, since it's been established here already that Middle English citations can be used to support modern English definitions if the definition in question is also attested from the modern English period. Ƿidsiþ 14:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


Sense - Not direct; roundabout; deceiving; setting a trap; confusing.

  • This definition doesn't help much, IMHO. Also, it's missing a few more definitions. I also found a noun out there, but am not sure what it means. --Pas un coiffeur (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


User:Kaixinguo~enwiktionary and myself spotted mass-editing of Arabic verb forms. The anon refuses to interact and the edits don't seem right. He may be a native speaker or, more likely an advanced learner, but they are not familiar with some forms and they bulk-remove them. @Erutuon, Kolmiel, Wikitiki89, ZxxZxxZ, Backinstadiums, please review the edits, if you can. I have briefly checked some and I don't like what I see but would be better if they actually explained their actions. Please advise if a block or a warning is warranted. I wonder if they are one of formerly blocked users? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't speak Arabic, but if you think the IP requires blocking please ping me. I will be online for the next few hours. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
In some cases, like this or this, this user seems to be deleting definition lines that have the same inflectional categories as another definition line, but link to an alternative form of the lemma. In the first case the alternative forms are اِسْتَحْيَا(istaḥyā) and اِسْتَحَى(istaḥā), in the second مَاسَّ(māssa) and مَاسَسَ(māsasa). WingerBot created the entry, and I guess Benwing had decided to include both alternative forms. — Eru·tuon 20:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


Rfc for "the act of submitting", this clearly needs to be split into different senses and clarified, its translation table contains translations for very different senses (act of surrendering, act of submitting mail). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


Italian: Contains a lot of stuff that belongs in a template. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, yes. Some of the information should probably go into the usage notes. Jberkel 11:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo, Jberkel Fixed it. As per the instructions above, all I need to do now is strike the heading of this section, right? (Moving this to the talk page of tuo might be unnecessary?)--Ser be être 是talk/stalk 07:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

tunafoto, tular, gegantung[edit]

Malay or Indonesian. DTLHS (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen them being used in Indonesia, but maybe an Indonesian could chime in. — Jeluang Terluang (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

March 2018[edit]


This has a translation table without a corresponding sense and the entry is classed as an autological term which makes little sense based on the current definitions, probably based on the translation table's "tending to use large or obscure words, which few understand". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Reason for the inconsistence: diff (June 2016, sense "tending to use large or obscure words, which few understand" was removed while the transes stayed), diff (November 2017, a new second sense was added).
Compared with dictionary.com the old 2nd sense was wrong, which means the old transes should be deleted as well (or be checked, if they fit for the 1st or new 2nd sense). As for proper procedure, it would be more correct to re-add the old 2nd sense and add {{RFV-sense|en}} and have an RFV process. - 12:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


Etymology might need tidying. —suzukaze (tc)

I took an initial stab at cleaning it up. I think it is still far from ideal, but I tried to sift through the information to find the essentials, to pare away what might be considered unnecessary or over-encyclopœdic. Maybe some of that information should be added back in; I wasn't sure. I'm also not totally happy with a list format, but it seemed like a good starting point at least. SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Webster 1913 has it ("prob.") from Old French coulouere, but that word doesn't appear in Robert at all. DCDuring (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I've tried to do a little digging, but I'm not strong enough in Old French to be of much use on that front. I'm also curious about the Tamil theory that was in the original etymology. There's no citation that points that way. The same conjecture is mentioned on the Wikipedia entry for culvert, and again here, notably as the only one without a reference in the table. That seems curious to me. SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

esthetic information[edit]

Strange entry that hasn't been touched by humans in 10 years. —suzukaze (tc) 02:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Lux Mundi[edit]

Tagged but not listed. The comment was "la [or en?]", which I interpret to mean that it may be SOP in Latin itself but entryworthy in English. Maybe a case for RFV rather than RFC in that case. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 17:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Originally it was Lux Mundi but head "lūx mundī". That didn't fit.
The senses don't seem to fit too: "3. Light is Protecting the World [Lux est prōtegēns Mundi]". The meaning seems to translate the Latin sentence and not just "Lux Mundi" or "lux mundi". - 05:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)



  1. A taxonomic group of plants or algae, e.g. arthrophyte, cyanophyte.

Wrong. The taxonomic group names are translingual and end in -phyta. A cyanophyte is a member of the phylum Cyanophyta. I'm not exactly sure how to rework this, since it seems to be tied specifically to translingual -phyta, rather than being a general term for some taxonomic group. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it only misses a label like "in plural", as e.g. cyanophytes (collectively) = Cyanophyta. - 05:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


Metaknowledge expressed concern to me about the military senses. "Way too many badly written military senses... probably should all be clarified, and some might need to be sent to RFD". I agree, and I'm not familiar enough with the military to make a perfect judgement, but I can tell you now some of the red links look questionable, and one of the defs looks unnecessarily long. Any takers? PseudoSkull (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


Misuse of the {{quote-newsgroup}} template. —suzukaze (tc) 03:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw should be able to help both with the word and formatting the (non-durable) cites. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 11:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

April 2018[edit]

Appendix:English–French relations[edit]

The "identical spelling" section is a mess. Some entries are red linked. Some have only an English entry and some have only a French one. Would it be simpler to just delete it? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Not having an entry isn't a good reason. Not existing in English or French would be a reason for removing single terms. A note could be missing: "The gender only applys to the French, not to the English". A reason for deletion could be, that the list would get to long as ~1/3 of the English vocabulary is of French (Old, Middle, New French) and Anglo-Norman origin, cp. File:Origins of English PieChart.svg, after all, l'anglais est un créole. - 09:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

ice bag[edit]

Why are there two noun sections? Why is one at level 4 underneath alternative forms? DTLHS (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd understand it as two different words:
  • ice bag, also spelled icebag, the bag for an ice pack (bag containing some gel which is put in a freezer and used in case of inguries)
  • ice bag, the calque
Fitting a more usual style it could be
===Etymology 1===
(ice + bag)
====Alternative forms====
... 1. ...
===Etymology 2===
(ice + bag,) calque
... 1. ...
===Alternative forms===
ice + bag. 2nd sense is a calque
... 1. ... 2. ...
[1st sense and 2nd sense should better be paraphrased as numbers can change]
- 09:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Fixed, I think, along the lines of 84.161's second suggestion. I doubt only speakers in the Philippines call a bag for making ice an "ice bag", btw, so I'm sceptical it's a calque and not a straightforward compound, like "soup bowl" etc. - -sche (discuss) 20:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


The first interjection sense is defined as a noun and as a verb. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Ostara, Ostra, Ostora[edit]

If these aren't attested (as the ue of {{reconstructed}} and an asterisk would suggest), then they don't belong in the main namespace, and should be handled like attested vs unattested Latin (if there is a reason to include them, e.g. descendants suggesting they existed). If one is attested (as the absence of an asterisk on the plural forms might suggest), then the entry should not use {{reconstructed}}, and should perhaps be located only at the plural form, with a better gloss. - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I object to this decision. What is the harm of leaving it the way it is? I mean it's clear that to anyone who will look at it will know what is and isn't attested. It will help those writing Old High German and especially help those understanding feminine n-stem nouns. Pagans would benefit greatly from the entries. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably it's an easy case: The OHG name for Easter (feast) being attested and being a plurale tantum (and beginning with a small latter); but the German name for the Germanic goddess of spring first being attested in NHG (Ostara). An RFV for Ostara (goddess of spring) should result in RFV failed, and would be an easy way to solve this (though it takes some time, at least 30 days, for the RFV process)... - 10:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, what is exactly "RFV"? I mean I think the entries should be left alone. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

See WT:RFV. Our policy for unattested forms is to put them in Reconstruction: namespace. If these are unattested in OHG, they should be at Reconstruction:Old High German/Ostara, Reconstruction:Old High German/Ostra, and Reconstruction:Old High German/Ostora. Or rather, they should be at only one of those names, with the other two being redirects there. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't there a rule that reconstructions need a descendant? (I haven't found that at WT:Reconstructed terms though.) Else one could, for example, make up Germanic terms by applying sound laws to PIE terms which are only attested in Indian languages. A descendant of *Ostara probably is first attested in NHG as Ostara (which could also be a derivation of the OHG name for Easter (feast)). - 08:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be a borrowing? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
It would be non-inherited, but IMHO also not properly borrowed, but derived from an OHG term. If there are only terms like Irminsul or Irminsäule, and scholars notice that the second part means Säule and conjecture that Irmin might be a god or hero, would NHG Irmin be a borrowing? - 04:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

lipstick on a pig[edit]

"References" apparently intended to be citations. DCDuring (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


The quotation for sense 7 is really messy and needs to be reformatted. —Globins 23:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Cleaned up the quote - though perhaps someone should look at the senses here as well? -- 17:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Cleaned up some more. – Jberkel 08:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


No idea whether this is supposed to be English, Spanish or Cebuano. DTLHS (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


Added by an IP today. "Where's a philosopher when you need one?" said no-one ever. Equinox 16:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018[edit]


Based on some feedback we got via OTRS, I ran a report on the 4/20 dump to find headers (L3+) which occur twenty times or fewer in NS:0. If you would like to help clean up the many typos, feel free to knock some off of the list. Mostly the pages link to the section with the offending header, but sometimes things get weird. Just delete sections if you clear them all out so others don't try and duplicate the effort. I will run this again for each of the next several dumps with higher thresholds until things seem relatively clean. If you have any feedback on ways to make this easier to use, let me know. - TheDaveRoss 17:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This is useful; thanks for putting it together. - -sche (discuss) 19:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll be subdividing it in a more reasonable way next time! - TheDaveRoss 19:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Gosh, amatuer lexicographers totally suck at spelling. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Could be better if anybody could edit it. After diff and diff, I thought of removing "Declension (Early)" and "Declension (Late)", but that didn't work. If the edit would be unwanted, it could easily be undone; but if wanted, it might be helpful... - 22:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
All are welcome to edit, is there something in particular you found you were unable to do? - TheDaveRoss 12:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)



[[super-#English|super-]] + [[calibre#English|cali-]] + [[fragile#English|fragilistic-]] + [[expiate#English|expiali-]] + [[docile#English|doc]] + [[-ious#English|-ious]]

That are very misleading links. Much better:

[[super-#English|super-]] + [[calibre#English|cali(bre)]] + [[fragile#English|fragil(e)]] + [[-istic#English|-istic]] + [[expiate#English|expia(te)]] + -li- + [[docile#English|doc(ile)]] + [[-ious#English|-ious]]

- 03:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That etymology looks entirely speculative to me. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The entry states "Likely formed from". Maybe "Maybe formed from" is better, as maybe is weaker than likely. - 05:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


The definition "point" appears in two etymology sections with the same passage of the same work (but with two different genitives) cited to support each one. I am sceptical that two strings which have homographic lemma forms and are so perfectly synonymous that they are used interchangeably can really have two different etymologies. - -sche (discuss) 01:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Etymology is similar but is different as is the inflection:
  • 2nd declension punctus (gen. -i): late alternative form of punctum (gen. -i), substantivisation of the PPP punctus of verb pungō. The PPP could be analysed as pungō + -tus (etymology 1, forming PPP) with changement of g to c (cp. usage notes in -tus).
  • 4th declension punctus (gen. -us): verb pungō +‎ suffix -tus (etymology 2).
As for the Pliny quote: The younger one doesn't reveal to which word it belongs (cp. Citations:puncto). The older as source for the sense point of punctus (-us) -- backed-up by L&S for the translation/meaning --, is older, so may be less reliable, less correct. Anyhow, Georges and L&S give other sources for both punctus (-i) and punctus (-us), that is even without Pliny both words should be attested, even though the sense point of punctus (-us) might not.
- 19:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Is this discussion still active? The Pliny quote for the first etymology seems to have been removed. Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


This (and, I suspect, possibly other entries which use the same template) is labelled as an acronym of заграни́чный па́спорт. But it's not an acronym in the usual sense (sense 1), or IMO even in sense 2 (since it uses the first two syllables, not the first syllable). I suggest the wording should be changed to "short form" or maybe "abbreviation". - -sche (discuss) 17:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

In discussions of Russian language, these are traditionally referred to as acronyms (I've never heard them called anything else). Most of the parts are single syllables, but multiple syllables are not uncommon. Russian-style acronyms are made up of (1) one or more initial syllables plus initial syllables (замза́в (zamzáv), детдо́м (detdóm)); (2) one or more initial syllables plus a whole word (Главка́бель (Glavkábelʹ)); (3) one or more initial syllables plus a letter abbreviation (ГорОНО́ (GorONÓ)). An acronym can use even more than two syllables of a word: Беломоркана́л (Belomorkanál) (Беломорско-Балтийский канал). Russian acronyms may be long: Росглавтекстильснабсбытсырьё (Rosglavtekstilʹsnabsbytsyrʹjó) (Рос-глав-текстиль-снаб-сбыт-сырьё, meaning "Main Department for Supply and Marketing of Raw Materials of the Textile Industry of the Ministry of Textile Industry of the RSFSR").
Maybe the definition of acronym could be edited to include Russian acronyms. Since the English word acronym is used for these Russian terms, it is actually part of the meaning of the English word acronym. —Stephen (Talk) 02:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


Sense 2, "To occur unexpectedly, by chance or with a low probability." The usex "Do you happen to have an umbrella?" doesn't fit in here; it doesn't mean "Do you occur to have an umbrella?". I'm not sure how best to phrase the definition (which is why I'm asking here), but I have a feeling that happen is modal here, as the sentence really just means "Do you by any chance have an umbrella?". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Using the verb "chance" might work; it is at least substitutable ("do you chance to have an umbrella"). Otherwise, the definition could be made non-gloss, along the lines you mention; like {{n-g|Functions like a modal verb indicating chance.}} or something. One other dictionary uses "have the fortune of". - -sche (discuss) 14:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


Pronunciations don't entirely align with etymologies. Also, several unrelated etymologies have been stuck together within Etymology 4. Dylanvt (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


Bad etymology; doesn't have an Interjection section; mildly strange definitions (wording?), and the common reading of banzai isn't presented first. —Suzukaze-c 08:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


RFC-sense: Used after 咋, 咋就. so; that. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: It should be fixed now. Dokurrat (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Could you add an example? There are too many senses for so and that, so it's hard to understand what it really means without an example. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Sorry that I can't. It's not of my lexicon. 汉语方言大词典 recorded this sense is found in various dialects. I speak none of them. Dokurrat (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC) (modified)
@Dokurrat: I see. Is it referring to sense 7 (那麼;那樣)? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Yes, I was referring to sense 7 (那麼;那樣). Dokurrat (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


Tagged by an IP, not listed. Suggests clean up of etymology. —Stephen (Talk) 22:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


Needs formatting. DTLHS (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Middle Japanese[edit]

Since nothing has been done, I am putting these here: かめ, かへる, かへす, かはる, かはす, かふ. DTLHS (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


This had only a single, rather narrow sense from its original creation back in 2005. I've split it into two senses, but I'm not completely happy with the results, and I'm not sure what to do with the translations. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

kick ass[edit]

Two out of the three definitions and their usexes were based on confusion between this, which is intransitive, and kick someone's ass, which is transitive. I think I fixed the definitions, but I have no clue what to do with the translations. Perhaps they might be moved to the other term if someone would be so kind as to create it. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Italiot Greek[edit]

  • avvlì, ammài, ...: "{{lb|el|Italiot Dialect}}"
    With Italiot Greek being treated as a separate lang with own code grk-ita, "el" is wrong and label "Italiot Dialect" unnecessary. In this case the label could simply be removed.
  • σόνο/sono: el term as synonym
  • άντρα/andra: "{{Italiot dialect form of|άνδρας}}" with link to an el entry
    That's an unusual link - is it correct?
    Does άντρα/andra have all the meanings of άνδρας or only some?

- 18:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018[edit]


Proto-Austronesian lemmas needs help to use Wolff 2010 system in place of Blust 1999. The conversion is easy as stated on Wikipedia. IPA also needs to be updated a little though. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


Tagged not listed some time ago, Italian citation needs checking, translating and cleanup. - TheDaveRoss 21:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Modern words "borrowed" from proto-languages[edit]

I just listed this as a WT:TODO task because I expect it'll keep being an issue even after we fix the existing cases, but: numerous entries in "Terms borrowed from Proto-Foo" categories (like Category:Terms borrowed from Proto-Slavic) were not actually "borrowed" by the L2 language in the way we use the word; see e.g. here. (Surprisingly, one English word apparently was borrowed from Proto-Indo-European, ghrelin.) - -sche (discuss) 08:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


An explicitly Japanese-only creation, which another user insists should nonetheless have a Translingual section. Previously RFCed by User:Eirikr for that reason. - -sche (discuss) 16:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Zcreator alt -- Please see Talk:硴. If this character is actually used in any other language than Japanese, I'm happy to have a ==Translingual== section included. However, if this character is only used in Japanese, its usage is by definition not translingual. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
They're plenty of Chinese-only characters (e.g. Mainland-coined simplified characters), but nevertheless they all have a Translingual section. It provides radical, strokes and IDS data can not be found elsewhere.--Zcreator alt (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
^this. —Suzukaze-c 20:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Why not put that information in the Japanese section, though? - -sche (discuss) 21:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The data there is pretty "translingual" most of the time. —Suzukaze-c 23:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Does the indicated Cangjie input for this character actually work in a Chinese IME? That could be viewed as evidence of translinguality. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Bavarian Old High German given names[edit]

Many of the Bavarian names in Category:Old High German given names need to have gender specified. - -sche (discuss) 21:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought Bavarian Old High German was the default Old High German? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/rīks & Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/þeudō & Dietrich & Theodoric[edit]

-Geckoupper (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018[edit]


Notably, the entry lists itself as a descendant. @Victar argues that it’s normal on the talk page. In any case it doesn’t provide the script for some reason. Guldrelokk (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


A clueless Wikipedia editor just merged a truckload of Wikipedia-formatted translations from the Wikipedia article into our translation table. Yikes! Chuck Entz (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


A horrendous mess. I wouldn't know where to start. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


Are proper names of dictionaries, e.g. "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache" or "Wörterbuch der bairischen Mundarten in Österreich" [WBÖ], entry-worthly (as for WT:CFI)? -08:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:English merisms[edit]

I apologize for creating and authoring the descriptive text for this category. Merism suggests that the term is polysemous in a way makes it a poor category name. I don't see what characteristics the members of the category have in common apart from being coordinate expressions. At least the category membership needs to be cleaned out. DCDuring (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]


How is this a particle, and how is it used? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


Too many senses, with some significant overlap. Equinox 12:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


Overlong etymology, includes paragraph length encyclopedic content. Delete encyclopedic content or show-hide it and convert inline references to footnotes, etc. DCDuring (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

category:English words following the I before E except after C rule[edit]

Has tonnes and tonnes of false positives. wt:Grease pit may be a better spot to say this as the mistake here is more automatic than manual, but in any case it needs to be said that this category is a mess. (Although I also wonder about its necessity.) — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 09:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious: if the category is mechanically populated, how are there false positives? Could you give an example? — SGconlaw (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
See agamospecies It has ---ecie--- and is in the Category:English words not following the I before E except after C rule category because of that first "e". SemperBlotto (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, so there is a problem with how the logic to identify such terms is coded. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I would also take exception to the part of the rules stated at Category:English words not following the I before E except after C rule: IMO, words with "cie" shouldn't be included, since "I before E except after C" allows "cie", but doesn't require it.
There's also a more complex version of the rule, which I was taught: "I before E except after C, and when pronounced 'ay' as in neighbor and weigh"- not that I'm recommending incorporating that into the category rules. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

KYPark and Category:Korean citations[edit]

The few pages in this category have mostly been touched by the madness of our old "friend" KYPark, and I don't know who feels up to looking though them and deleting extraneous/weird material. @TAKASUGI Shinji, Wyang, Atitarev? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Spanish and Portuguese Ordinal Abbreviations[edit]

I started to fix this, then realized I'm not up to the job at the moment. There doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency in the following areas:

  • In many cases, there is an entry for Portuguese but not for Spanish;
  • Sometimes plurals are included in the superscript, sometimes not (e.g. plural forms at 2.º vs. vs. actual entries, like 2.ªs);
  • The headers usually display plural/feminine inflections (), but sometimes not (3o);
  • Sometimes "Ordinal Number" or "Abbreviation" is used as the header instead of "Adjective";
  • is apparently nonstandard (according to the entry), with 1.ª being the main form, but elsewhere, no indication is given on whether one is more correct than the other;
  • The "abbreviation of" information is sometimes in the definition line, sometimes in the etymology.

Good luck! Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018[edit]



Langenscheidt reads that unja is the wife of an uncle/ujak. teta shows another definition. Does anyone know the real meaning? --Rasmusklump (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Langenscheidt has: "Tante f Frau des Onkels mütterlicherseits", i.e. "[one's father's or mother's sister] [gender] [wife of the uncle on one's mother's side]", so for a person there are: person's mother -- person's mother's brother = person's uncle -- person's mother's brother's wife = person's unja -20:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
tȅtka is the sister of one’s mother or father (aunt by blood). tȅta is a hypocoristic form of tȅtka. ȕjāk is the brother of one’s mother (maternal uncle by blood). ȗjna is the wife of an ȕjāk, i.e. a mother’s brother’s wife (maternal aunt, not by blood). strȋna is a father’s brother’s wife (paternal aunt, not by blood). The entry at tȅta is wrong; it lumps together both strȋnas and ȗjnas as ȗjnas. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 04:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

German placename suffixes[edit]

German placename suffixes like -broich, -beck, -büren/-bühren, -trop are rather parts of borrowed words than proper suffixes. So at the very least they should be moved from Category:German suffixes into a category like Category:German placename suffixes. - 13:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

They're not productive, but I don't think that makes them no longer suffixes, so the current categorisation is fine. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


The "substantive" adjective definitions that are defined like nouns are supposed to be under a ===Noun=== header, yes? - -sche (discuss) 19:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


A user recently added a messy block of text relating to slang uses of Ralph in relation to vomit. We already have a verb ralph, but the text suggests there’s also an idiom calling Ralph which we don’t yet have, and that Ralph can potentially be used as a noun (and, attributively, as an adjective). Not having heard the word used in any of these ways myself, I’m not clear on how, exactly, it’s used, nor how to search for good attestations (as the name Ralph swamps these slang uses). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 04:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

calling Ralph is akin to the existing entry talk to Ralph on the big white telephone. Equinox 18:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

October 2018[edit]

Category:Azerbaijani words by suffix[edit]

Azerbaijani has vowel harmony, so each suffix can have multiple allomorphs. The practice for various languages, including the closely related Turkish, is to choose one of the allomorphs as the main lemma, and use that in the names of affix categories. So the categories for these allomorphs should be combined, as they are for Turkish. —Rua (mew) 11:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. For series of suffixes with 4 variants, I propose the one with i, that is, -iş should represent -ış, -uş and -üş as well. For series of 2 suffixes, I propose the one with ə, that is -lə should represent -la as well. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Why not add a note at the top of each category of words explaining that these words' suffix has such and such allomorphs? --ARBN19 (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Ya rəbbim, he's talking!!! Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Surely someone who knows even the basics of Azerbaijani knows that anyway? We don't have such notices for other languages with vowel harmony, such as Turkish, Hungarian or Finnish. However, there is a link to the suffix at the top of the category, and any information regarding allomorphy should be described there. —Rua (mew) 15:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Rua, Allahverdi Verdizade: Hopefully what I say will be useful... I think we all agree here that -iş and, for example, -uş are allomorphs with regard to their ability to form verbal nouns from verbs. But why do you want to say that a word suffixed with -uş should be categorized as having been suffixed with -iş (at least as is)? I think it shouldn't have been done for the languages you mention.
Read for yourselves Miriam Webster's definition of an allomorph:
“one of a set of forms that a morpheme may take in different contexts
// the -s of cats, the -en of oxen, and the zero suffix of sheep are allomorphs of the English plural morpheme[4].
Then, why isn't oxen categorized among the "Category:English words suffixed with -s"??...
--ARBN19 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
That definition is simply wrong, shame on Merriam Webster for including it. I would consider it allomorphy if the form that should be used can be predicted based on some property of the word. An actual case of allomorphy is the variation between -s and -es in the plurals of English nouns, and in verb forms. This example is predictable: it's based on the final sound of the word. The example that Merriam Webster gives is not predictable, so I would not call that allomorphy. —Rua (mew) 17:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
> with regard to their ability to form verbal nouns from verbs
...and verbs from verbs. By the way, why do you think these two functions of the morpheme have different etymologies?
@Rua, Allahverdi Verdizade: I don't know if they have different etymologies. But "As early as 1912"[5], the suffix with the second function was compared to a Mongolian suffix by Ramstedt; I could write about it in the second etmological section when the page is unblocked, maybe something along the lines of: "Was compared as early as 1912 with a Mongolian suffix by Ramstedt[6]".
> But why do you want to say that a word suffixed with -uş should be categorized as having been suffixed with -iş (at least as is)? I think it shouldn't have been done for the languages you mention.
I think you should ask yourself why we even bother categorizing words by morphological properties in first place. Well, the answer is, if someone would like to have a look at all instances of words suffixed by a certain morpheme, it is much more useful to see exactly that, all instances of this morpheme, not only instances of this morpheme in a certain phonological environment, which is completely predictable. When it comes to English -en plurals, they are exceptions, fossilized remains of an older system, so it could be pretty interesting for someone to find out, what are the other words like this, and how many are they? I can't imagine why anyone would have interest of only inspecting -uş or -üş prefixed words, and if they want, they can easily do so by CTRL+F:ing the common category. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
If I were writing a poem, and looking for an Azerbaijani word which I knew ended with a certain suffix, but unfortunately this suffix happened to have plenty of allomorphs for the same function, the derivatives of which having been crammed into the same category on the Wiktionary, the said category now containing a total of so many words suffixed with these allomorphs, shouldn't I lose my time reading all the words ending with a suffix I wasn't looking for in order to find the word I needed? --ARBN19 (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
That would be a very interesting way of writing poetry, indeed. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
We have Wiktionary:Rhymes for that purpose. Please add Azerbaijani to it, the more the better! —Rua (mew) 22:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Rua The cleanup is more or less complete. Now, there are a lot of empty categories. Maybe your could delete them. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I've deleted all the empty categories. —Rua (mew) 19:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Eratosthenes and Eratosthenian[edit]

I'm not sure how to pronounce these terms. Дрейгорич (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Universal Credit[edit]

Glad we have an entry for this. However, the definition is dated now - "expected to cover the whole country by the end of 2017". Also, nowadays there are about the same number of hits for lowercase universal credit - I was gonna make that as just an alt-form, but it looked more nouny than proper nouny. --XY3999 (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2018[edit]


The entry title is lowercase, but the entry says it is a proper noun. —Suzukaze-c 05:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


Non-standard "Sources" header; they're not all exactly references either. The most recent edits seem to have introduced an additional source which is presumably the origin of the quote given, so it should be converted as such. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 17:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018[edit]


Definition given is "called" - needs standard formatting etc. --Mustliza (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:en:Star Wars[edit]

Category:English terms derived from Star Wars[edit]

Is it necessary to have both these categories? Can one of them be eliminated? (Note that we also have Category:en:Star Trek and Category:English terms derived from Star Trek. I haven't nominated those yet, pending the outcome of the current discussion.) — SGconlaw (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

They are subtly different, though overlapping. For example, Hand Solo is derived from a SW character's name but does not relate to SW itself (and so should be in the latter category but not the former); Machete Order was coined by a blog but relates directly to the films (and so should be in the former category but not the latter). In this fine distinction worth keeping? Ideally, yes, but it could be more trouble than it's worth. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Eeek. I don't think anyone will realize this subtle difference unless it is pointed out somewhere, and I doubt if the effort to try and maintain the distinction is worth it. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Noël (interjection)[edit]

Def: "cry of celebration in the Middle Ages"
Middle Ages end 1500, Middle French ends ~1600, i.e. after the Middle Ages.
That doesn't make sense, needs a clarification.
If the interjection was used in the Middle Ages, it's not New French (fr) but Middle French (frm) [though there could also be a New French interjection Noël, for example used in novels for historic effect but not used in the Middle Ages]; and if the interjection is New French, it wasn't used in the Middle Ages [though there could also be a Middle French interjection Noël which was used back than]. - 11:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


I don't speak Korean, so I can't fix this myself, but there are obvious problems here, such as odd use of italics and POV usexes translated into broken English. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019[edit]


Needs an Italian speaker to identify which of the entries this user created are SoP & RFD(/speedy?) them, because there appear to be a lot. See Talk:infilare il fondo della camicia nei pantaloni. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Related:, possibly the same contributor. — surjection?⟩ 13:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

give someone an inch and someone will take a mile[edit]

searching "give someone an inch" or "give them an inch" returns results for three pages, including this one; however, this page does not link to any of the similar alternatives, and this particular wording seems to be a deviation from the much more common use of 'they'. In this context I think that this page should be deleted.

"Someone" is not meant to be actually part of a saying, but rather a standard template per Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Idiomatic phrases intended to be replaced with the appropriate pronoun in context. But I agree that repeating "someone" sounds a little weird; we should tidy up that policy to spell out what should happen in that case. There are three options I can think of: 1) keeping "someone"; 2) using singular "they"; or 3) using "he or she". -- King of ♠ 07:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. In theory there might be a distinction between "X someone and they Y" (same person) and "X someone and someone Y" (two different people). Probably not in practice. Equinox 07:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the distinction is between "X someone and they Y" and "X someone and someone else Y", with "X someone and someone Y" lying unsatisfactorily in between and thus sounding a bit strange.— Pingkudimmi 10:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know which form is preferred, but either this needs to be redirected to give them an inch and they'll take a mile, or the other way around (or choose a different form). "He or she" is too clunky, and in modern usage they (and its other forms) have come to represent an indefinite gendered single person. -Mike (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

waterfall bong[edit]

Anyone want to rewrite this definition? - TheDaveRoss 13:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019[edit]


The "correct" historical spelling is 用ゐる. See Talk:用ひる. —Suzukaze-c 04:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The entry has been substantially reworked. Sources indicate that this amounts to an historically attestable misspelling. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

הן (Mozarabic)[edit]

Messy entry created by @Romandalusí (whose entries in general may require some cleaning-up by someone who has knowledge of Mozarabic and Wiktionary formatting conventions). Not sure what to do with this; tried cleaning it up a bit. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

al dan niet[edit]

Dutch. The current definitions for this adverb are "does or does not – in some cases does, in other cases does not" and "did or did not – in some cases did, in other cases did not". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019[edit]


The etymology 1 section needs some work. - TheDaveRoss 13:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019[edit]

Burzyńska and probably many others[edit]

@Benwing2 Something tells me that this is not the intended way to use the dot= parameter... —Rua (mew) 18:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rua I updated the entry so that it mirrors the masculine version. -Mike (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, that's one entry. But there are sure to be lots more that misuse dot= on this template alone, and even more that misuse it on other entries. Also, @Moverton there's no such thing as "feminine personal". —Rua (mew) 22:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rua Good to know. I had never seen that before. -Mike (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
To make it easy to find misuses of the |dot= parameter, I made an updated list of form-of templates with |dot= , using the list of form-of templates that Benwing2 gave me. Most of them have a single punctuation mark in |dot=. (Here are instances for which that isn't true.) But with the recent changes in template names, probably the list is incomplete.... — Eru·tuon 00:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Erutuon But the template here is {{surname}}, not a form-of template. —Rua (mew) 10:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rua: Whoops. Not sure what I was thinking. Here's the list of all |dot= in {{surname}}, and these are the cases with a lengthier |dot= parameter (not empty and not just a single punctuation mark). There are quite a few Polish surnames in there. — Eru·tuon 19:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured there would be more. Should we start moving {{surname}} away from the dot= parameter? —Rua (mew) 19:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:English words suffixed with -ed[edit]

This currently contains both terms derived from past participles, and terms derived with the -ed suffix meaning "having". Terms derived from past participles are not "words suffixed with -ed", though, because the suffixation happened with the creation of the participle, not in the derivation of another word from the participle. And since we do not categorise non-lemmas by morphology (thankfully! imagine how many plurals suffixed with -s we'd have!), the participles should not be in this category. —Rua (mew) 22:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

And if, for whatever reason I can't fathom, we want to keep the participles categorised, then we still need to separate them into Category:English words suffixed with -ed (past participle) and Category:English words suffixed with -ed (having) (compare Category:English words suffixed with -er). So the category needs cleaning up either way. However, I'll state in advance that I oppose that solution, since the participles don't even belong in any suffix category.

A side question, for a word like affectioned, should it really have multiple etymologies (one for the verb and one for the adjective) because the different parts of speech use the suffix -ed from different etymologies? -Mike (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
That's not a side question. It's a good question about the merits of the proposal, relating to the conceptual basis for its implementation. DCDuring (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I've edited affectioned to bring it into the state I think it should be in. Lemmas should always be separated from nonlemmas in terms of etymology, lemmas always come first. I've added the usual {{nonlemma}} to the etymology section of the verb forms. —Rua (mew) 12:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it is a bad idea to add etymologies for inflected forms with -ed, or any other common inflectional suffix. There are way too many such terms and either there will be a huge amount of work involved or not all of them will be categorized. — Eru·tuon 21:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Erutuon: I think the idea is to have separate etymology sections that have no actual etymology information or at most "See [lemma of verb]". DCDuring (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


What's the real passive perfect participle for sedeo, sessum or sessus? The conjugation box on sedeō gives sessum as the passive perfect participle, as does the entry for sessum. However, if you take a glance at the sessus entry, it reads: Perfect passive participle of sedeō (“sit”).

What even is going on here? I find a few more things unusual. For example, sessus is a fourth declension noun, in addition to a participle. Am I missing something? I thought only supines like dictū can be fourth declension! According to my Latin textbook, Ecce Romani, sedeō doesn't even have a passive perfect participle, due to it being an intransitive verb. Sedeō is defined as: "to sit". You can't sit something, can you? I have a feeling that I'm missing out on something, perhaps somebody can clear things up - and possibly clean up the linked entries if necessary? Johnny Shiz (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz The actual participle is sessus, no questions asked. Past participles in Latin are always 1/2 declension adjectives. I can't say anything about the claim that there are no masculine or feminine forms, but it needs investigating. There is also a 4th declension suffix -tus, whose nominative singular form happens to be the same as the participle's. Lots of nouns are formed from verbs with that suffix so there's nothing unusual about that. —Rua (mew) 17:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Hawaiian adverbs[edit]

According to Category talk:Hawaiian adjectives, there are no adverbs in Hawaiian. I'd clean these up myself but I don't know what they are supposed to be, so I'll leave it to someone who knows what they're doing. —Rua (mew) 17:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019[edit]


Ouch, what a mess... —Rua (mew) 19:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup will not help at present as at least one IP is still making dozens of edits to the entry per day. Equinox 18:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Why not protect the page? I'm tired of seeing all these minute changes when I patrol annons. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if the "request for cleanup" might be removed at this point. The entry seems to fairly clearly portray the (quite varied) possible meanings for an adjective which has no directly equivalent translation in English, grouped into categories of sense and without rendering a lot of extraneous commentary. I hope that it is found to be acceptable. If there are any suggestions regarding this, please provide them here.

I hope that Rua, Robbie or Equinox will encounter this, as I would like feedback on the current status of this page. I do not have a Wiktionary account at present, and might consider creating one in the future, but do not want to do so at present. Specifically, I would like verification that the page conforms to Wiktionary's entry layout formatting requirements, and also would appreciate your thoughts about the presentation in general. I have endeavored to separate what I view as the more fundamental meanings of "insignis" from those derived and extended from that fundamental sense (indeed, my original motive for investigating this word derived from my realization that three of the most common translations presented for this term: "remarkable", "distinguished", and "marked" all seem to have entirely different senses from one another, and from my efforts to understand their relationship to one another). Please let me know what you think of the current presentation, and if the current "request for cleanup" might be removed. I am loath to take the initiative to remove Rua's request without such feedback (read: "permission"). Thanks much.

By the way, I encountered with some delight Rua's partial translation into Proto-germanic of Beowulf on his talk page...fantastic!

her, not his. Back on topic though, the definition lines still have what I think is superfluous at the beginning, and I don't think every definition line needs 10-12 different near synonyms. — surjection?⟩ 14:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

My goodness, Rua...sorry for that! (I'll just have to chalk that one up to my innate male bias.) Thank you, Surjection. Do I understand correctly that your reference to "near synonyms" refers to the Latin synonyms, or otherwise to an excess of possible translations in English as well?

I'm talking about the English translations for the words. — surjection?⟩ 13:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can apprehend the desirability of such sparseness when viewed from the lexicographic perspective. I certainly am no lexicographer (indeed, I am out of my league when dealing with those who can translate Beowulf into Proto-Germanic), and so can have difficulty in keeping such considerations in mind. I included so many possible definitions because of the fact that insignis has no direct equivalent in English, and all possible English translations must be viewed as mere approximations of its meaning. I will attend to paring down the first definition line (the "fundamental" sense), which is that most cumbersome, without delay. If there are any further suggestions, pray tell them.

coniugatio and conjugatio[edit]

Coniugatio is listed as an alternative form of conjugatio. Shouldn't it be the other way around? (At least that's how it is on other Latin lemmas with the letter "j", correct me if I'm missing something.) Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


Needs a conjugation template for its inflected forms. Request posted in the entry:

Please create a template for Vilamovian weak verbs ending in -a like maha, I don't know how to design them. These verbs are regular and follow a common pattern, here the pattern is design around the root -mah-

Eru·tuon 02:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Hunsrik lemmas or Hunsrik[edit]

If Hunsrik isn't Hunsrückisch but only Brazilian Hunsrückisch as Hunsrik and en.wikipedia claim, then the whole category needs a clean-up. For example, eich is Hunsrückisch but not (necessarily) Brazilian Hunsrückisch. Otherwise, if Hunsrik and Hunsrückisch is the same, namely a German dialect spoken in Hunsrück and Brazil, then the entry Hunsrik and en.wp need a clean-up. Daloda (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no WT:About Hunsrik, so I can't give a definitive answer. @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV should be able to shed some light. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Daloda Our language header Hunsrik (hrx) is South American Hunsrückisch. The reference given at eich does attest its use in Brazil, though being a self-published online PDF, it is questionable whether it should count for our attestation criteria.
As for the English entry Hunsrik, its definition(s) does not need to correspond to the name we use for hrx. If the term also refers to the lect of Hunsrück, you can add a definition (or to the definition). — Ungoliant (falai) 14:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: The reference you mention is only for eich (you (objective, pl.)) and not for eich (I). (Is the reference durably archived? If not, it's not sufficient as per WT:CFI.) P. J. Rottmann who was the source for eich (I) is Central Franconian as he was from Germany and has: datt (the (neuter definite art.), that (relative pron.; conj.)) and watt (what). --2003:DE:3727:FF66:943C:E458:552C:9B20 03:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean now. You are right about that.
The reference is not durably archived. It is an enthusiast’s labour of love that he published on a blog from what I can tell, although this word is attested else (the 2nd person, not the 1st). — Ungoliant (falai) 15:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

decision stream[edit]

The current definition and the one that an IP just tried to add are solid blocks of technical-sounding jargon describing what seem to be a type of computer application and a rather specific organizational method. The Google Books hits I see, on the other hand, talk about an element in the analysis of processes- basically, a concept. This smells like someone trying to promote stuff that just happens to be available on their website(s).

At any rate, there seems to be real usage, so it would be great if someone who knows more than I do could make a real entry out of it, phrased so that ordinary human beings can understand it. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


Perhaps some senses can be merged or converted to subsenses. Jberkel 16:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019[edit]


This entry seems to consist of type errors AFAICT.

  1. Kappa is asserted to be a symbol; but it is the name of a symbol.
  2. The Etymology section concerns the origin of the symbol, not its name.
  3. Some of the citations are of the name, others of the purported symbol.
  4. The purported symbol is an image of a smirking person. I don't think that, say, a photograph of a church is a "symbol" of Christianity in our use of symbol as a PoS header.

I had never heard of "twitchspeak", so I don't think I should clean it up myself. DCDuring (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Also the citations seem to be variously of the purported symbol, of its name (ie, a noun), and a verb ("kappa-ing"). DCDuring (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
hi @DCDuring, i'll try to add some context to help understand:
  • when using the symbol, most people do not click on a special button or drag and drop like emojis (though that is possible to set up) -- they just type the word "Kappa" in the middle of a sentence which is then rendered as the face by Twitch and various other apps/sites like chatty.
  • due to this, i think the word "Kappa" and the symbol [7] are actually the same thing -- they are completely interchangeable in all cases, though the symbol should be considered the primary representation. in part because wiktionary forces us to use a unicode title, it makes sense to use the latin-script name for the page title to define both the image [8] and the word that refers to it. maybe this is similar to a word rendered in two different fonts? as you could imagine people using the "A" symbol interchangeably with the "peace sign" that it represents in Wingdings, even in a non-Wingdings font -- sort of like that.
as for the etymology, i agree that both the name and image etymology should be explained, so i added both to that section with a reference. the name is taken from the name of the Kappa creature in Japanese folklore, which lured children into lakes by "tricking" them hence the current usage.
as for whether or not it classifies as a symbol, i think it does despite looking semi-photo-realistic. many of the more recently-added emojis are surprisingly detailed and would certainly classify as symbols under wiktionary rules. similarly the church emoji has a page on wiktionary to represent churches, and an eggplant picture 🍆 has a page on wiktionary that describes it as being used to mean a phallus even though it is not the "obvious" meaning of that image.
what do you think? i am interested in helping to improve wiktionary to be more readable for symbol coverage, and i think adding frequently-used Twitch emotes is a good step in that direction -- according to stream elements Kappa has been used nearly 500 million times on twitch alone since 2016, probably over a billion times total, so i think it is actually one of the most used words that hasn't made it to wiktionary yet. --Habst (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why Wiktionary should ignore the meaning of symbol by conflating a symbol and its name, just to memorialize some artifact of Twitch.tv. Two (noun) is the same of a symbol 2; Aries is the name of the symbol . Thus Kappa may prove to attestably be the name of a symbol, an image of which you seek to upload here, though we'd rather prefer uploading via Commons because they are set up to handle the licensing issues. The use of a symbol on proprietary software like Twitch is not really compelling as an argument here. Also we don't have entries for ~~~~ and other wikitext elements that are decoded by wiki software and for computer instructions generally. If Kappa is not used as a noun, but only as an instruction to Twitch.tv software I don't think we would include it.
If you want to 'improve' Wiktionary's symbol coverage, it would help if you recognized the difference between a symbol and its name. You might also examine how we present symbols now. DCDuring (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I have moved the purported citations to CItations:Kappa so that their suitability for attestation can be conveniently commented on. DCDuring (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
hi @DCDuring, thank you for your response. i think Kappa can serve as the name of the symbol (for which it would need a separate noun entry like at two) but it can also serve as a one-to-one replacement for the symbol itself. more often, it is used as the symbol rather than as the name of the symbol. i understand this is a unique case, which is why i think it is important to discuss.
also, twitch is not proprietary software because it is a website. the website is actually just a javascript front-end to millions of IRC channels, which can be accessed with any free software IRC client or a twitch-specific free software client like chatty to render the emotes like Kappa, which i do. i do resent that there is nonfree javascript on the official website, but such nonfree software is optional to read and participate in chats.
also, i wanted to clarify that it is impossible to upload the kappa image to commons because non-free images are not allowed on commons at all, even under fair use. that's why it needs to be uploaded to wiktionary, i am not just trying to upload it to wiktionary because it's allowed, i'm doing it because it is unfortunately the only option.
most of my edits have been focused on swahili words with some other symbol edits, but i think it is important to add some symbols from these corners of the internet as well because i think they are underrepresented on wiktionary.
thank you, --Habst (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • We may as well get started on the RfV, while we are at it. DCDuring (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Kappa functions as a command interpreted by site-specific software to substitute Twitch.tv's proprietary image for Kappa. We do not include commands. See WT:RFVE#Kappa. DCDuring (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
thanks, i responded on your rfv. i disagree that Kappa is a command though, and either way i disagree that commands are not allowed on wiktionary per examples like cat#Etymology_3. i responded with my reasoning on the rfv. --Habst (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is a real mess. Habst, I had corrected the part of speech and you screwed it up again...? Maybe I'm more inclined to argue for deletion if this entry is going to be a mess. Equinox 18:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
hi @Equinox, thanks for your response. you're one of the most experienced editors i know here, i greatly respect the work you've done here and you've helped a lot with the article and i (honestly) appreciate that a lot. i'm confused about the tone of this message though, why the harsh word to describe the effect of my edits? i'm trying my best to improve the article, and i'm well-acquainted with the symbol part-of-speech usage of this term (which i know to be more well-attested than the interjection part of speech as shown on Citations:Kappa).
you removed the noun sense and the greek-letter sense because it only had a "used to refer to X" meaning, and i agreed with your reasoning so i left those removed. the only sense i re-added was the symbol sense, which i had a reason for that i explained in the edit summary. if this is the only point of contention, let's try to resolve it through discussion here. as there is no identical precedent on wiktionary for symbols like this, i think it is not a black-and-white issue.
if you think that Kappa is not the appropriate page title for the symbol part of speech, where do you think it should go instead? i am open to new ideas, but without any alternative lined up i did not want to remove the symbol part-of-speech from Kappa because there would be no clear place to move it. "Kappa" is what you type to render the emote on most platforms where it is used -- i view it as similar to typing "a" to render the "a" glyph. because Kappa does not have a Unicode endpoint, we can't just make the page title the Kappa symbol itself on wiktionary due to technical reasons. so i think "Kappa" is the best that we can do. --Habst (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The image should be in WikiCommons as there is no Unicode or multi-character representation, like the original emojis. There it would join a large number of other symbols. The symbol named Kappa has the edge on many of this in that it actually has a name. If the image called Kappa is in fact the unique (and copyrighted) image used on Twitch.tv, then its name, Kappa, is a proper noun. DCDuring (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
hi @DCDuring, the image cannot be on Wikimedia Commons because Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use images. therefore, we have to upload the image to wiktionary directly, a process which i initiated on june 11th here: Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2019/June#request_for_fair_use_non-free_image_upload_for_Kappa
given that the symbol part-of-speech is well-attested and certainly meets CFI (with over 1 million archived uses), where do you think it should be placed? i think that until we can answer that question adequately, the appropriate answer should be at the Kappa page, which is the encoding for the symbol.
keep in mind that, at least in theory, we do have to decide this before uploading the Kappa image to wiktionary, because fair use images must be in use on an article and can't stay unused in the file namespace for long.
i see your reasoning for adding a proper noun sense, and i think i agree. because images do not have implied text-based names for humans, i think the case is different than that of, for example, saying supercalifragilisticexpialidocious to refer to the word without using it as a word. so if you add that sense i would agree with it. but i'm most concerned about the symbol part-of-speech right now.
i think it is reasonable to keep the symbol part-of-speech on the Kappa page until someone can propose an alternative place to put it. --Habst (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


I have not studied law where English is spoken to know what this word means, but I doubt that this word is interchangeable with “owner”, at least in the main sense as currently used – in any case the definition “owner” is hardly enough not to leave doubts about its application; and the second and third definitions are redundant to each other; probably also the third and second to the first if the first is correctly defined, and possibly even the fourth is just subcase.

The translation tables contain “Inhaber” for German. Indeed, how I see the word used in corpora, it translates well so. So there are trademark proprietors, and those are Markenrechtsinhaber in German. But “owner” is not Inhaber, it is Eigentümer, which means the complete might about a corporeal object and it cannot be applied to trademarks or other intellectual property rights. A Besitzer means the de facto control about a thing (borne by the will to possess; it is possessor), a word hardly pertinent to proprietor.

Is it just “someone to whom a right is assigned” at the end? Fay Freak (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019[edit]

Category:English collective nouns[edit]

Applying {{lb|en|collectively}} and {{lb|en|collective}} causes entries to be placed in this category. These labels have been applied to miscellany of terms, including to Entente Cordiale and Welsh. I would think we would not want to include demonyms or, indeed, any proper nouns in this category. Further, nouns like academia seem to not fit ordinary use of the term.

I am not sure how many problems are here, but some possibilities are:

  1. the label is misapplied
  2. the label needs to be reworded
  3. the label should not categorize
  4. our definition of collective noun is not specific enough
    1. In general as used in linguistics
    2. As should applied to determining category membership

I think this needs discussion before action, but I don't think it rises to BP. If there is a lot of disagreement, we should take it to BP once the problem(s) is/are sorted. DCDuring (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Century 1911 has: "In gram., a noun in the singular number signifying an aggregate or assemblage, as multitude, crowd, troop, herd, people, society, clergy, meeting, etc."
I would exclude multitude, crowd, people, society, clergy and include troop, herd, meeting, though I can't now specify the basis for the differences I find between the two groups. DCDuring (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


  • synonyms indicates Hakka, yet there is only Hokkien pronunciation
  • missing context label

@GeographyinitiativeSuzukaze-c 10:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't what the Hakka form would be (can't speak Hakka) and I also don't know how to add 暗安 to zh-dial|晚安 as a Hokkien word. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


It is isn't clear if this abbreviation should be lowercase or uppercase, singular or plural. --Pious Eterino (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019[edit]


Messy etymology; see the entry for explanation. — Eru·tuon 17:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:ceb:Municipalities of the Philippines[edit]

Category:ceb:Barangays of the Philippines[edit]

Lots of subcategorisation here. Didn't we previously delete similar stuff about Bangladesh before? If we decide these should exist, then at least they should be added to the category data so that they can be used in multiple languages. —Rua (mew) 16:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


This French IP just added a whole bunch of Greek phonetic transcriptions of English given names with the definition "A male given name, equivalent to English [] " provided by the {{given name}} template. This is rather misleading, especially for names where the English forms are descended from Ancient Greek and the native Greek descendants of the Ancient Greek forms are far more common. These names seem to be attested, but I'm not sure whether they're really Greek or transcriptions of English. Can someone who knows some Greek, like @Sarri.greek, Rossyxan, Saltmarsh, Erutuon, Canonicalization advise on how to deal with these? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sarri.greek, Rossyxan, Chuck Entz, Erutuon, Canonicalization For ease of access I assume that Μαρκ, Μάικ, Μάικλ, Μπράιαν, Ουίλλιαμ, Ρόμπερτ, Ρίτσαρντ, Τζέιμς, Τζον, Ντέιβιντ are the names we are talking about. I looked at Pierre, Odysseus to see how we handled names which I know of personally in the UK of English people; Odysseus has a Greek mother. (I would rather term us all European, but we won't go into that!) The treatment of these two seems fair to me, English people having an extra Category:English male given names from French. The English are generous about given names - anything goes - I don't know how a Greek would define a Greek name, my initial trawl of Βικιπαίδεια didn't find any native examples of these names but that doesn't mean much Μαρκ may be rare but Μαρκός isn't. We need Greek input :) — Saltmarsh. 05:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Saltmarsh, Chuck Entz, yes I can see Odysseus from the ancient name, but is anyone called Othysseas (Οδυσσέας -audio transcription of informal name-)? These are correct audio-transcriptions of the English names, unadapted, without declension: I am not sure of how these infinite code-switchings are handled. I do not know if you wish them to appear in Translations. I see the English Alexandros (transliteration of greek Αλέξανδρος/Ἀλέξανδρος) instead of Alexander. Or Alixandr, Aleksandr (of Александр). Perhaps, for Μάικλ something like...
  • Transcription of the English male given name Michael in Greek script. Equivalent of the Greek Μιχαήλ (Mikhaḗl) (older, formal form) or Μιχάλης (Michális).
Same could be done for the French Michel & Michèle Μισέλ.
But are they used as Greek? No, they are used as English while speaking Greek. Would you add them at Category:Greek given names, or at Transliterations? Category:el:Transliteration of personal names
Example: I know a person called Γιάννης, passport with formal Ιωάννης or Ἰωάννης but his family call him Τζον (John). Is this a greek name? No. It is English. In Eng. we have Iannis, Yiannis, Ioannis (various transliterations of old and modern greek forms).
The reverse procedure IS indeed a normal greek lemma: A foreign name may be hellenized: Robert (transcription & transliteration: Ρόμπερτ) became Ροβέρτος, with full declension, which IS used (rarely) as a greek given name. sarri.greek (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Sarri.greek Do we have 3 options (the first is non-commital)?
1. A male given name from the English Robert, equivalent to the Greek Ροβέρτος (Rovértos).
2. Transliteration of English Robert. A male given name equivalent to the Greek Ροβέρτος (Rovértos).
3. Template:transcription. A male given name equivalent to the Greek Ροβέρτος (Rovértos).
The trouble with using {{given name}} is assignment as a Greek name, which might not be what we want. One option would be to use the first and leave the rest to the Etymology section. — Saltmarsh. 06:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

the the (not The The)[edit]

So apparently there are lots of sloppy editors here who accidentally type the same word twice. "the the" is a classic. There are dozens of cases that could be corrected by some users if anyone feels bored (I did some but then got even more bored). --Mélange a trois (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019[edit]


Incomprehensible to people who don't know anything about Sanskrit lexicography. Julia 02:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Plus it's a letter-for-letter copy of the Monier-Williams (1899) entry, with the transliterations converted to devanagari and maybe a few other adjustments here and there. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
It's beautiful! Lol, and probably should be a verb...--Mélange a trois (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

give someone an inch and someone will take a mile[edit]

This entry needs a cleanup. It could be a proverb. --TNMPChannel (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


Needs formatting, templating, separation from lowercase to uppercase, and some good old-fashioned TLC --Vealhurl (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019[edit]

кабак#Etymology_1, Kabacke#Descendants[edit]

The sections are contradicting as Low German (nds) and High German (de) are different languages. --2003:F8:13C7:59D1:2952:6150:4D4:3CAC 13:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

They aren’t, and Low German (nds) and High German (de) aren’t different languages. The word has been used just north and south the Benrath line. Comparing High Prussian and Low Prussian, they aren’t different languages but dialects. “German” is the Dachsprache. Fay Freak (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


(Some of) those entries need a cleanup:

  1. Some entries lack the page number, e.g. Eichhore, Nuss which are not even in the Wörterverzeichnis (p. 110ff.).
    • Nuss: The source has "nʊss Nuß" (p. 59). Properly it's not ʊ, but u neither. The source explains the characters on p. 7f.: "ı ı̄ [ı with macron] und ʊ ʊ̄ sind sehr offene Laute; [...] i und ī [i with macron] sind deutlich geschlossen; [...] Der mit u, ū bezeichnete Laut ist ein sehr geschlossenes u mit ganz leichter Palatalisierung". Thus apparently it's not "Nuss" and if the occurence on p. 59 is the source for the entry, the entry not only needs the page number but also a note or another cleanup.
  2. Some entries need a note and possible other cleanups, e.g. Tuure, Määri.
    • Tuure: The source has "tʊ̄rə m. Turm, mhd. turn" (p. 19), "tʊ̄rə m. Turm, speziell der ‚Langobardenturm‘ in Hospental" (p. 34f.) and doesn't have "Tuure" on p. 34.
    • Määri: The source has "mǣrı n. Märchen, zu ahd. mâra" (p. 23, in § 26), "mǣrı n. Märchen" (p. 45, in § 51), and "Mä̂ri n. 26" (p. 112, inside the Wörterverzeichnis), and does not have "Määri" on p. 23. As for the Wörterverzeichnis, it begins with this note: "[...] Durch Aufhebung von Entrundung, Verdumpfung und Diphthongierung sowie der sekundären Dehnung und Kürzung ist der Lautstand soweit als möglich dem gemeinalemannischen Status angenähert worden. [...]". That is, the form in the Wörterverzeichnis is artificial, not really Urseren.

--Tybete (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


Refers to a citation that does not exist Pugchump (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


I've skimmed through some of Theo's most recent contributions and found many dubious edits and some obvious errors. I'm not a Latin, Thai or Chinese expert, but I think those edits should be checked too considering that he has a tendency of reverting edits by knowledgeable users. I also issued a 1 week block so we can go through his edits and maybe let him cool down. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


Can this be reworded? Tharthan (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


Japanese: etymology 3 has too many readings. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, names.
We don't really have any cohesive approach to the enormous variability of Japanese name (especially given-name) spellings and readings. I suppose, ideally, we'd treat each reading fully, but given the wide wide wide WIIIIIIDE range of spellings, I suspect we'd have to lemmatize at the kana renderings.
@Justinrleung, TAKASUGI Shinji, Suzukaze-c, Atitarev, Dine2016, KevinUp + anyone else I'm undoubtedly omitting in my present tiredness: what thoughts on this? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see given names lemmatized at kana only and surnames lemmatized at kanji or kana. I think listing these readings at {{ja-readings|nanori=}} would suffice. By the way, can we capitalize the rōmaji for the nanori readings? KevinUp (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@KevinUp: Listing only as nanori doesn't tell us whether it's a name in itself (not used in conjunction with other characters) and it doesn't tell us whether it's a male given name, female given name or surname. Thus, the romaji for the nanori readings should not be capitalized. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The idea is to have this information (male/female given name) at kana entries because there are multiple ways of writing the same name using different kanji (See ただし#Proper noun for example). I think nanori readings can be capitalized because they are proper nouns. KevinUp (talk) 06:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@KevinUp: Then they shouldn't just be listed as readings under the Kanji header, but also have a soft redirect. Nanori readings may not necessarily be proper nouns in themselves if they're only used in conjunction with other characters to form a proper noun. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr Any thoughts on this? Creating soft redirects is a good idea but may consume more memory and the page is already exhausted. KevinUp (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Ping also @Poketalker for comment. Are there any nanori readings that are only used in conjunction with other characters, and shall these entries be designated as affix instead? KevinUp (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The page has dubious given names such as まさつぐ, しんじ, and ますみ, and dubious surnames such as さねさき, まがさき, しんさき, しんざき, and まやなぎ. They should be deleted, or at least RFVed. I prefer having only nanori readings in a kanji page and attested surnames. Given names are really free when it comes to kanji. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with @Shinji on this. And @KevinUp, re: capitalizing nanori, pretty much all nanori that I can think of at the moment can be used as parts of longer names, and as such, should probably be left as lower-case in the {{ja-readings}} list. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Thanks for the explanation. I managed to clean up the compounds section and reduced the Lua memory from 50 MB to 35 MB. What are your thoughts on creating soft redirects for given names? KevinUp (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@KevinUp: If you mean soft redirects to the lemma entry located at the kana spelling, sure. If you mean something else, please clarify.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. Are we going to lemmatize given names at kanji, kana spelling or both? KevinUp (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019[edit]


Middle High German L2

Citations follow a non-standard format. DCDuring (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@DCDuring I have removed the textual variants because these serve no purpose on Wiktionary and removed the nesting. Does that fulfill the request in your view? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
It does.
@Lingo Bingo Dingo The citation beginning Wolfdietrich lacks a date. I couldn't tell whether the date shown was for the specific work or for an anthology-type republication. Can you tell? DCDuring (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@DCDuring It is a type of anthology that apparently includes various versions of the Wolfdietrich. The manuscript used for the quote is Hagens Handschrift, but I do not know what version that is though it is likely not version A. Also, the amount of variants of the work is a bit of a mess, so I have no idea what date to use. The surviving manuscripts themselves seem to be mostly 15th/16th century according to Wikipedia. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Getting the right centur(y|ies) would be an improvement over no date at all. DCDuring (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo I dated it at 1230, but I could also see why one would date it at the date of the manuscript on which the anthology publication was based. Do whatever you think is right. DCDuring (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@DCDuring It is apparently version B and the manuscript has the siglum MS H, which the Wikipedia article dates to the 2nd half of the 15th century. Version B is generally dated to the 13th century. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I suppose that, strictly speaking, one would want to date the citation at the date of the earliest manuscript that included the headword, but what would one do if the surrounding text differed in a way that influenced one's ascription of meaning? I suppose that it would be a rare user here that would be concerned. It makes me appreciate that most printed works are not subject to as much variation, except by well-defined editions, errata sheets, etc. DCDuring (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


make of car.

Apparently, all the citation dates are based on whatever edition the contributor found in their own library or on Google Books. I found 3 errors in the 3 that I checked, including Willa Cather's My Antonia dated 2006, rather than 1918, Elmore Leonard's Killshot dated 2003, rather than 1989. There are 10 others to be checked. DCDuring (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


Created by a well known problem editor who insists on editing out of their depth in a number of languages (not to mention treating dead and reconstructed languages as modern ones, but that's not relevant here). This seems to be attested, or I would have deleted it already- but it's missing the bare minimum of information that the templates require, and thus has a module error. I also wouldn't trust their judgment on any aspect of the content.

Can any of our Russian editors make a real entry out of this snippet? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


Too many SOP derived terms. Ultimateria (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


  1. should be an adjective instead?
  2. meets WT:CFI?

Suzukaze-c 00:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


numbers. lots of them —Suzukaze-c 00:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Appendix:List of portmanteaux[edit]

Many folk etymologies, uses of prefixes/suffixes and just complete hogwash entries here. I tried my best to clean some of the worst offenders. — surjection?⟩ 09:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

a little bird told me[edit]

The etymology trots out paragraphs of ancient references to people literally being told things by birds, and mentions carrier pigeons. Is this really necessary? Chuck Entz (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)









Estonian has first-syllable stress on most native words, like Finnish. Rhymes:Estonian doesn't say anything about rhyming rules, but if they are anything like English, a lot of these words do not actually rhyme because they are not stressed on the first syllable of the rhyme. —Rua (mew) 15:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The article Riim on the Estonian Wikipedia does not give a precise definition, but defines the rule loosely as “the same sound” (helide kordust) “in the last stressed syllables of the word” (sõna viimastes rõhutatud silpides). The examples given (all polysyllabic) are all consistent with the hypothesis that the rules are like those for English rhyming poetry.  --Lambiam 15:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

December 2019[edit]


Suzukaze-c 04:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

may the Force be with you[edit]

I'm tempted to rfv the entire translation table, since almost all of the translations look like simple calques of the English, and the phrase was only coined a few decades ago (Old Church Slavic... really?). Someone has obviously made it their mission to translate this into every language that ever existed and is posting the results on a web page somewhere.

Perhaps we need some kind of message on the page telling people not to add translations if they aren't aware of actual usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if these books and/or movies have been translated into Church Slavonic (maybe they have after all); but wherever I met that phrase in any language it was as a literal translation of the English, and what's surprising about that? Star Wars is rating near the top of the box office all over the world, not only in English-speaking countries (and even non-native English-speakers watching it in the English original would then use a literal translation to their friends in their own language). Tonymec (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
[9]surjection??⟩ 15:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Appendix:Wu Chinese surnames[edit]

Looks really messy right now. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes working on it right now. Could use some help aligning all the columns. Merry Christmas!--Prisencolin (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020[edit]


I removed a lengthy, footnoted, POV defense of marijuana that was hanging like a goiter from the definition after the offending part had been excised, but the definition itself has been changed from the admittedly dated and awful Webster 1913 one to a sort of half-mutated form that doesn't make sense by old or modern standards. It talks about hemp, the taxonomic equivalent of Cannabis indica, hashish and "narcotic" properties all together, which strikes me as possibly wrong, and it's not completely clear to me how one would refer nowadays to whatever was meant by this obsolete chemical term. Someone better versed in the history of marijuana needs to make some sense out of this. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Cannabin seems to be archaic in the sense given. According to a document titled "How Tobacco and Cannabis Smoking Effects Human Physiology": "Cannabis, produced from the hemp plant, is employed in 3 forms: herbal cannabis, the dried leaves and flowering first-rate, additionally referred to as ‘cannabis,’ ganja,’ or ‘weed,’ among others; cannabin, the ironed secretions of the plant, referred to as ‘hashish’ or ‘charash;’ and cannabis oil, a mix ensuing from distillation or extraction of active ingredients of the plant." (There are a lot of hits for cannabin oids, attempting to exclude them causes google to scold me: "Showing results for cannabis -oil -kids".) There are more potentially useful papers behind paywalls. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


Some of the things listed as homophones (e.g. dâng) do not appear to be pronounced the same, based on our pronunciation sections. Pinging two recently-active Vietnamese speakers @Corsicanwarrah, PhanAnh123, can one of you please take a look and either remove anything in the list of homophones which is not a homophone, or expand the pronunciation sections? - -sche (discuss) 22:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


"There is no PoS here, the verb form does not exist". Should the entry even exist? DTLHS (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Having Greek πρέπει suffices IMO.  --Lambiam 08:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@DTLHS, Lambiam, some Modern.Greek dictionaries have a lemma «πρέπω» as well as 3rd-person «πρέπει» (as DSMG ({{R:DSMG}}), others ({{R:Babiniotis 2002}}) have only the 3rd person. The 3rd.person means: must. The modern πρέπω means: I am worthy of but it is not used in 1st person except in a surrealistic phrase where 'disgrace' would speak and say: I am not suited for him: «Δεν του πρέπω» which does not occur. Since a page exists for the verb, i thought I would add a comment, as I usually follow the DSMG style. Of course, you may erase it. sarri.greek (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Usually, when no lemma form is attested (like e.g. for Ancient Greek χρή (khrḗ)), we do not create an entry for a reconstructed lemma form (such as *χρῶ), however plausible. However, this is not a hard rule; we do list Turkish imek, although this (infinitive) form is absent in modern Turkish.  --Lambiam 17:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Latin entries in wrong categories[edit]

--Sasha Gray Wolf (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This is partly a module problem (@Benwing2) and partly a question of whether the plural should really be treated as a separate plural-only word (or at least have a separate headword). Chuck Entz (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of that question, it's not a first declension neuter noun. If both forms make up one word, it's a heteroclitic and heterogenerous noun, second declension neuter (in sg., alternative pl.) and first declension feminine (in pl.).
The following Latin entries also need a cleanup: Codex Argenteus ("with a second-declension noun"), albus an ater sit. --Sasha Gray Wolf (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Sasha Gray Wolf Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I fixed Codex Argenteus so it says "adjective". I still need to fix the module so it doesn't categorize adjectives that cooccur with nouns. Benwing2 (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Sasha Gray Wolf I fixed the issue with nouns with modifying adjectives being categorized as adjectives, as in Aequum Tuticum, Alba Longa, Alexander Magnus. I remember encountering the issue with epulum awhile ago, and fixing it is a bit tricky, but I'll see what I can do. Benwing2 (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

{{construed with}}[edit]

The template {{construed with}} should be a subcategory of {{label}}, not {{form of}}. See, for example, synonymous, and plenty of other pages on the Wiktionary. Chuck Entz keeps reverting my edits, now look at the result: se lier d'amitié. 15:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2, Rua since you were discussing this template last year. 15:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Logically, {{construed with}} should maybe function as a label, I agree with that, but you can't just change the template the way you've done it. It functions syntactically in a particular fashion, and changing it to use {{lb}} breaks that. In order to change this, you need to (1) investigate the best way to make the relevant syntactic changes to all the pages that use it, (2) get consensus in WT:BP. Benwing2 (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I reverted you because such changes should be discussed before implementing. I have no opinion on whether it's a good idea- it just needs to be discussed with someone who knows the differences in behavior between the modules that support the two versions. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


Definitions are a bit ugly. One is a encyclopedic and poorly researched ("or perhaps applies in the US only"). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


One definition encompasses a lot, and should probably moved to subsenses! A village; hamlet; castle; dwelling; street; creek; bay; harbour; a place of work, jurisdiction, or exercise of authority. --Yesyesandmaybe (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Q.E.D., ‪QED‬[edit]

  • Q.E.D.: The "1809, Diedrich Knickerbocker [pseudonym; Washington Irving]" quote needs a cleanup, see the entry
  • ‪QED‬: Too many quotes are misquoted, Q. E. D (with spaces) isn't Q.E.D. (without spaces) and Q E D (as in the 1684 quote) isn't QED.

And of course, the spacing makes a difference:

  • USA / U.S.A. / U. S. A. are three different spellings
  • In some languages, the spaced/non-spaced version is prescribed/proscribed. For example in German in case of abbreviations with dots, the unspaced version is proscribed while the spaced version is prescribed, so it's z. B. (prescribed) and z.B. (proscribed) (Duden: z. B.).

And even if WT would state, that it ignores spacing (which it can't state, if it is descriptive and not prescriptive), then it could only do so for the lemmas/entries and not the quotes, as altering quotes makes them wrong. We also don't changes the spelling in quotes of Shakespeare to the spellings used today. --Trothmuse (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The 1809 quotation has been fixed (there was a typo in the template).
I have started a discussion on this issue at "Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Are spaces in abbreviations significant?". We should see if there is consensus on the matter one way or another before proceeding. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


Part of speech. DTLHS (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


Part of speech, definition. DTLHS (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


For some reason an IP has worked on this entry a lot, adding references in definitions and a bunch of entries in other languages (all under translations) that they probably don't know enough to actually add entries correctly in. — surjection?⟩ 06:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


I reverted the deletion of one of the senses with the edit comment "Removed wrong meaning". The fact that someone did so shows that either this is indeed wrong, or at the very least it needs tweaking of the definition and/or a label/usage note to deal with the sensitivity of the issues involved. I haven't rfved it because it seems to hinge on matters of fact and interpretation as much as usage. This needs the attention of someone who knows more about this than I do. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020[edit]


An IP added a length marker to the consonant. Do we do that for Norwegian? If so, this is fine; if not, revert the edit... - -sche (discuss) 19:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

ja (Swedish)[edit]

Multiple competing etymologies and pronunciations and it's not clear what refers to what. DTLHS (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

babayeng ikogan[edit]

The etymology, second def, and a quick Google Images search lead me to think the first def is meant to say a trans woman, to a trans man. The second def is not entirely fluent, but seems like it seems redundant to the first def (assuming the first def means what I just said), since it seems to be saying "a woman who is not trans but is mistaken for a trans woman is also called this". (Then again, at what point does calling someone something insultingly become a separate sense? Calling every "lame" thing "gay" is a separate sense of gay. But are bullies who shout "lesbian!!" at a straight girl who has a mannish/butch haircut/clothes using a different sense?) - -sche (discuss) 10:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020[edit]


A recent (apparently plausible) edit to the etymology, which I copyedited, made me notice that this entry has a big manual declensin table complete with "albanian" being mis-capitalized until a moment ago, and each cell having its own font specified. - -sche (discuss) 17:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Ditto Afërdita, Afërdit, Afërditi. - -sche (discuss) 17:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


The first three senses seem very similar. Though they are technically distinct definitions, the minute differences between them seem to have little practical importance or effect on meaning. Maybe they could be merged into one definition? Imetsia (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. The singing sense is probably much older than the saying sense. Upforhim (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


Citation format is nonstandard and has been since 2012. Dates or estimated dates are missing. English translations are missing for some. DCDuring (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


Exceedingly stubby. —Suzukaze-c 19:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


Suzukaze-c 23:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I mass-deleted them just to be safe. There were too many in ranges marked as proposed, or with module errors, or with definitions saying they were only used in a given notation without saying what they were used for. I'm sure I deleted a few valid entries, but the wasted volunteer time to sort through all the bot-style mass-created pseudo-content was too much. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: I thought they were salvageable, and already started. —Suzukaze-c 08:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c Undeleted. Sorry for misunderstanding. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
It's totally fine. —Suzukaze-c 07:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Done-ish, except for 䶶#Vietnamese. —Suzukaze-c 07:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


When it comes to 6-legged teeny wingless crawling things, we live in interesting times. This entry is a poster child for the problems that come from our reliance on public-domain sources for rapidly-changing technical topics. I apologize for throwing around a lot of taxonomic names, but you can't really understand what's wrong with this entry- let alone fix it- without at least a very basic knowledge of the taxonomy.

The original definition:

  1. Any of various small active insects of the order Thysanura, that have two or three bristles at the end of their abdomen and that do not have wings.

This definition is correct as of a century ago, but is now seriously wrong. Here are the groups that I'll be referring to:

All of these have 6 legs, and are currently grouped together as Hexapoda. The "bristles" are appendages called cerci sticking out of the last segment on the tail end, along with a terminal filament sticking out in the middle. The proturans have none of these, while the diplurans have only the two cerci. The springtails have the terminal filament folded against and fused with the body, and the cerci modified into a structure called the furcula. The furcula acts like a spring: it's kept against the body, but when released catapults the springtail into the air. The most primitive insects have all three structures, others just cerci (they're the pinchers in the earwigs), and the more advanced have nothing.

Linnaeus classed all the arthropods as insects, and grouped them at the broadest level according to their wings. His Aptera included crabs and lobsters, spiders, scorpions, mites, ticks, lice and fleas, as well as the groups above.

By the end of the 19th century, the crustaceans and arachnids were split into their own groups and fleas and lice were recognized as winged insects without wings. All the 6-legged arthropods were classified as insects. These were divided into the winged insects, Pterygota, and Thysanura (all the rest). The proturans were only discovered in the first decade of the 20th century, so weren't included. Springtails were recognized as quite distinctive, so the Thysanura were referred to in those days as springtails and bristletails.

Our original definition is based on Thysanura as it was known then: all the hexapods that weren't winged insects, springtails, or proturans. The fact that it mentions "two or three bristles" proves that diplurans were included (nothing else has 2 tails).

By the latter part of the mid-20th century, the entognath orders were split off from the insects and no longer included in Thysanura, leaving just the archaeognaths and zygentomans. Toward the end of the 20th century, the archaeognaphs were recognized as different from all the rest of the insects, so Thysanura was broken up:

Even this is probably going to change. The trend seems to be toward treating insects as closest to, if not part of, the crustaceans, and not as close to the other hexapods- which would make the Hexapoda obsolete. The exact relationships of the different hexapod groups to the crustaceans or other arthropod groups and to each other is still not settled, however.

Recently @DCDuring changed Thysanura to Zygentoma in the definition. It's true that the only species that are widely familiar to non-entomologists are in this order, but that leaves out the the diplurans and the archaeognaths. He also changed the translation table to say Zygentoma instead of Thysanura, which means that all of the translations could potentially be for the wrong definition. The translations that I can figure out seem to be mostly for specific species in Zygentoma (silverfish, mostly), but it's hard to say whether they can also refer to Zygentoma (or anything else) as a group. I don't know know the languages well enough to fix these.

I've now split the definition into a primary one referring to "small, active six-legged arthropods" rather than using a taxonomic name, with subsenses for each of the orders. Given the magnitude of the taxonomic changes, I figured it was better to avoid details that would be invalid for at least some historical stages of the taxonomy.

The easiest sense to find in Google Books (since everything from that period is in the public domain) is the older one covering all the hexapods except for proturans, springtails and winged insects. The sources for this usually refer to "bristletails and springtails". I suspect that one exists for archaeognaths as opposed to zygentomans, since the zygentomans are better known as silverfish. The diplurans are usually referred to as "two-pronged bristletails" and the archaeognathans as "jumping bristletails", but there are a uses of just "bristletails" for each. I'm not sure if our definitions should try to reflect those differences.

Another issue is that older works tend to hyphenate the name, while modern references tend to be written solid. It's hard to say whether the lemma should be at the hyphenated or the solid form.

Sorry for the length. I needed to lay everything out to make sense of it all. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The original definition was probably from MW 1913 or Century 1911. I have made no substantive edits to this entry other than the one you mention.
I suppose that, since we sometimes claim to be a historical dictionary, it might be desirable to show the definitions that applied at different times, but I don't know that we can find citations that would well support any refined set of historical definitions. A gallery of photos might suggest why the vernacular term has been applied to so many relatively distinct taxonomic groupings. Since taxonomists often don't use vernacular names in their writings, it may be a hopeless task to follow the twists and turns of possible referents of such a vernacular term. I think the most important thing is to have the most common definition applicable for non-specialist literature.
If some of the groups are usually vernacularly referred to by a name like X bristletail, then coverage in derived terms might be enough, especially if we actually have entries for those terms. OneLook references have three such derived terms: jumping bristletail, true bristletail, and two-pronged bristletail.
I would use Google NGrams to provide some guidance about which term should be the lemma. Otherwise, a lot of work for the value gained.
In short, I don't think that we can achieve taxonomic precision in a vernacular name entry and shouldn't expend too much of our effort in that direction, as frustrating as it may be to leave such vagueness behind. DCDuring (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Kana Supplement block[edit]

The entirety of Category:Kana Supplement block, except for 𛀀 and 𛀁, has defective formatting.

Frankly I would like to see them deleted. They can be easily regenerated by a bot if someone truly cares enough. —Suzukaze-c 07:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


(Latin) The quote needs to be formatted. J3133 (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

sensu stricto[edit]

Is this Translingual? Is this how citations of translingual terms should look? DCDuring (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@DCDuring: I moved the list of abbreviations to synonyms and marked off the non-gloss portion of the definition, not sure what else to do with it. —Nizolan (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Me neither. DCDuring (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Putting this here since there's a recent discussion about the word. I have never seen this sense: "Added after a taxon to mean the taxon is being used in the sense of the original author". In my experience it only means in a less inclusive sense when there is a more inclusive sense to contrast with. The original author may have meant either or neither sense. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Entries by Leornendeealdenglisc[edit]

  • Vuldar: Volume? Year? (Vol. 1 from 1856?) What's "1338"? (col., and not e.g. p. or num.?) It's not "Dr. Förstemann Ernst" but "Dr. Ernst Förstemann" (Ernst is the forename, Förstemann the surename).
  • Wothen: Wrong title (as the title page shows it's "praecipui, ex" and not "praecipui : ex"). Year? (It's 1596.) Page? (476.)
  • Aldger: Year? (1867?) What's "2."? (The page and not for e.g. vol., col. or ed.?) Also: Why is "Aldgēr" given as sense/translation, isn't it rather the head: ({{head|osx|proper noun|head=Aldgēr}})?
  • Adalmar: "Dr. Heyne, Mortiz". The person's name is Moritz. This occurs in many other entries as well; in some (e.g. Alburg) it was fixed already.
  • Irmina: It's not "Forstemann" but "Förstemann". This occurs in other entries as well.
  • Irmindrud: This should be checked, probably it's not "Diocesis" but "Dioecesis" as in this google snippet.
  • Haostarpald: Title is wrong; it's "Grammatik der deutschen Mundarten. Zweiter Theil. Das bairische Gebiet. – Bairische Grammatik." And as usual for Leornendeealdenglisc: Year, and what's "74"?
  • Angandio: Edition/Translator? What's "1716"? (Page and not year as Grimm lived after that?) Possibly the Volume is lacking as well.

--Sally Buns (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

See also Aginesheim. J3133 (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

April 2020[edit]


Why it is not a doublet of suspicion in French? Both of them has the same meaning and are ultimately derived from Latin suspectio. --Soumyabrata (talksubpages) 05:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Soumya-8974: Per TLFi French soupçon is from Latin suspectio (in Late Latin, "suspicion"), and French suspicion is from Latin suspicio (noun; in Late Latin, "opinion"). Of course the Latin terms do both come from suspicio (verb). @PUC added the statement so maybe they can shed more light. —Nizolan (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Soumya-8974, Nizolan: As you say, French suspicion doesn't come from Latin suspectio but from Latin suspicio (the noun). Hence it's not a doublet of soupçon. For words to be doublets, they have to descend from the exact same etymon. There's a bit of leeway to account for some irregular morphological or phonological changes that can happen sometimes in one of the descendants, but that's not what's at stake here. You can have a look at Appendix:French doublets or Appendix:Russian doublets, you'll see what I mean. PUC – 10:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


The "masculine plural transmiss" seems wrong. The "verb form: participle" and "participle" sections seem redundant. Beyond just fixing the entry, someone might want to look into whether other entries with the same kind of error exist. - -sche (discuss) 22:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this is generated by the code in Template:fr-past participle. Currently, that template requires the manual addition of the past participle form for masculine plural forms that aren't formed by the addition of s to the singular form. So this example can be fixed by adding the parameter "mplural=transmis". I think it would be better maybe to add more logic to the code, since it is regular for masculine singular forms ending in -s to not take an additional s. (If this isn't done, though, I don't think it's infeasible though to add all of these manually, since past participles ending in "s" in the masculine singular constitute a small and fairly closed category in French.)--Urszag (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020[edit]


This user seems to label every single word as a noun. Some of them are defined as verbs. DTLHS (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


Do we...normally list UK rhotic pronunciations? Do we want to? This entry does, on their own line, not even using the parenthetical r format. - -sche (discuss) 01:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't normally, but there's no particular reason we shouldn't. That said, I do wish people would stop using "UK" and "US" as accent labels and use something more specific. Is the "UK rhotic" accent being shown that of the West Country? Scotland? Northern Ireland? All three? —Mahāgaja · talk 07:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Dievoort, Dievoet[edit]

Reported to me by User:J3133. Generally messy. — Eru·tuon 07:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020[edit]

sit out, sit-out, sitout[edit]

Another three-way tangle, where each entry gives the others as alternative forms. Should be centralised on one form as far as possible (at least for the noun; I don't think sit-out or sitout can be verbs, only sit out). Equinox 20:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


In simplified Chinese, bad formatting, definition needs to be worked on. RcAlex36 (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Formatting: fixed.
Definition: ??
Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2A02:587:4100:0:0:0:0:0/40- Again[edit]

For many years this self-important person located somewhere in Greece has been trying to force their amateurish attempts at philosophy and theoretical physics into our English entries. They think up definitions that make sense to them- but no one would ever use in real life- and try to sneak them into the entries. When stopped, they rail about the ignorance, stupidity and bias of anyone who disagrees with them- using their own made-up and incomprehensible "English". They're very persistent and take advantage of the fact that we can't permanently block most of an entire country's IP addresses to keep coming back with more of the same.

Some of us have been reverting and deleting their edits all the while, but it gets tiring and there's lots we've missed. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

v s l m[edit]

The quotations are formatted incorrectly, with some text having changed opacity. J3133 (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

That was on purpose: the OP was trying to be fancy. My guess is that the transparent parts are supposed to represent lacunae in the original inscriptions. I'm not so sure inline css formatting is a good idea in a wiki, where someone could move things around and ruin the effect. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is on purpose but it is hard to read. J3133 (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Are the Leiden Conventions applicable? —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I was the one who did the formatting. I had tried several ways of representing lacunae (including the LC, brackets, smaller type and just dots) and this was by far the clearest way. As for the concern of things breaking when things move around, I have tried to address that by positioning everything relative to the local text position. I'm not sure if ‘hard to read’ refers to the opacity or the ligatures. I suppose we could up the opacity a little; the use of ligatures in the time period was the way it was and we should just accept that. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 19:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC).
Should be changed to use [brackets] like other entries. - -sche (discuss) 08:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

July 2020[edit]


Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. the new information needs to follow the format for single-kanji words and be moved accordingly (doesn't have to be deleted, though). —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Agamemenon (talkcontribs) at 11:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC).


I'm positive that Module:ja-see is not functioning properly because the hyphen has been unescaped in a regex """Lua pattern""" search for the text シス-トランスいせいたい within the entry text of シス-トランス異性体. I'm not sure where it takes place. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Similar issue with 一日の計は朝にあり、一年の計は元旦にあり Shen233 (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Talk:シス-トランスいせい. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


The verb section would require some clean-up: the senses repeat and overlap each other and some examples seem to be under a wrong sense. Also, some "obsolete" senses are defined with almost same wording as the "current" ones. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Latin/Romance edits by Special:Contributions/2601:601:0:6A70:803B:66B9:E03B:12F3/64[edit]

Somebody in Washington state in the US has been working lately with Latin and various Ibero-Romance languages. They're not wildly wrong, but their edits are unformatted, not matching our standards, and a bit amateurish. Since they seem to have a different IP address every day, I'm not sure how to communicate with them. Pinging @Ultimateria to make sure they're aware of this. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

bear bait, bearbait[edit]

Both entries have their own senses, and both are alt forms of each other. Can we centralise please? Equinox 13:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Redirect Template:Documentation and Template:Documentation subpage[edit]

I can’t redirect those two pages to the uncapitalized versions because they are protected. Can an admin do it please? They are frequently capitalized in templates copied from Wikipedia. DemonDays64 (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

You'll find that there are lots of people here that consider lack of compatibility with Wikipedia templates a definite plus. Wiktionary isn't- and doesn't want to be- just like Wikipedia. This is not simply a technical problem- you should first ask whether the community here wants the templates you're importing. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Isn't DemonDays64 just suggesting that the templates mentioned be made into redirects, so if someone does use the incorrect capitalized version it will not show up as a red link? Or is there some advantage for the latter to happen – so that the editor will be prompted to use the correct uncapitalized template name? — SGconlaw (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz @Sgconlaw I mean that I'd like for someone to redirect them to Template:documentation and Template:documentation subpage, two existent templates. DemonDays64 (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I've created the redirects, as there's no harm in having them, but the point was that they ease the import of templates from Wikipedia, which is something that you're doing and which we generally don't want. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Icelandic pronoun entries[edit]

I haven't even bothered signing them with the tag, as there are far too many of them to adequately sign. These entries (for example hon or ek are very messy, including the template that they use. The modern Icelandic personal pronouns include only those seen in this template (apart from inflected forms of course). The rest are obsolete spellings, only referenced in ancient sagas (is it even Icelandic or Old Icelandic? Or Old Norse?), yet they have enormous entries with little additional information. Furthermore, the pronouns that aren't obsolete are in such shape that I frankly cannot expect any user to actually read them. See diff to see to what lengths I had to go to make the entry on það somewhat acceptable to the eye. Please help. Thadh (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, on second thought, perhaps an overstatement, but they are messy. Thadh (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020[edit]

Cracker Jack, Cracker Jacks[edit]

The singular and plural definitions reference each other. Victionarier (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the redundant sense 2 at the plural. The distinction at the singular seems to be the universal grinder. Equinox 09:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

stimulus delta[edit]

The definition starts with "A stimulus delta can be defined as" and goes downhill from there. Incomprehensible. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Edited in attempt to simplify the definition, may need revision Rauisuchian (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


Also compare Talk:i#LUA error. --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2020[edit]


Name of an ancient place. 1. Added as noun, should be proper noun; 2. Should be at capital-B Bracata, not small-B bracata; 3. Possibly the full correct name is Gallia Bracata. Equinox 20:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


Fix quotes.

  • Author?
  • Page?
  • Maybe volume as that appear to be book-series.
  • Maybe even work-title as of a work inside of a book-series.
  • Correct year? google often bundles different volumes and only gives the year of the latest volume

Clarify definition, possible split quotes by senses, cp. the multiple etymologies and senses at claviform.

--10:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC) —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:3723:2f58:f492:61db:e97b:9a7f (talk).


Two issues:

  • w:Strč prst skrz krk claims this term is an artificial occasionalism. Is this the case? If so, the entry should have usage notes explaining how it is used.
  • The external links lead to non-existant dictionary entries.

Ungoliant (falai) 15:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


As mentioned in the RFC notice in the entry, there are various problems.

  1. The obsolete form of i is distinct from modern usage to represent yi. These two use cases should be split into separate etyms.
  2. There are various other issues as cataloged at User_talk:LittleWhole#Problems_at_𛀆_(yi).

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


I added the Latin definition "Habsburgus." Anonymous "" added a request for sense cleanup tag. Anonymous failed to create a request for sense cleanup post here. There doesn't appear be anything that needs "cleaned up" sense wise. Aearthrise (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

1. There is also a comment in the entry: "Which sense of Habsburg is meant?" The definition in Habsburgus is only "Habsburg", and English Habsburg has four senses:
  • proper noun: castle
  • proper noun: family
  • noun: family member
  • adjective: relating to the family
Even when only considering the proper nouns, there are still two different senses.
2. There is another comment: "For the quote of Johann Amos Comenius - he died in the 17th century. So: Editor?" Comenius couldn't release his works in 1974 as he was already dead then. Additionally, the author of the quoted parts could be the editor and not Comenius himself.
--2003:DE:371B:BD17:8D1F:B921:4BBD:BA9E 10:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

October 2020[edit]

RQ templates on e.g. of[edit]

Various RQ templates don't play nice with manually-provided chapter etc data, as seen on of, where the data is broken off onto its own line. Probably the templates should not force a new line(?). @Sgconlaw. - -sche (discuss) 21:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

There needs to be a carriage return, otherwise I think the passage quoted won’t appear on the next line. I’d say just fixed these manually if spotted. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


Descendants' section. فين أخاي (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I've done my best. I have my doubts about the placement of Kipchak and the removal of the additional information from Yakut though. Thadh (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

workers of the world, unite[edit]

A year ago, a long list of translations for this phrase was deleted from the Wikipedia article on the grounds that it was unreferenced. Now @Crash48 has added them all to our translation table with the edit summary "rescue from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Workers_of_the_world,_unite!&oldid=915760372". I have no clue which, if any of them, has problems, but that's the point: at the moment, no one has a clue.

Rather than spend my time changing all the {{t}}s to {{t-check}}s, I thought I would bring it up here so that those who have expertise in the languages added or changed can have a look. Pinging @Atitarev, who probably knows more of the languages in question than anyone else here. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I vouch for the following: (1) German (2) Romanian (3) Spanish (4) French (5) Russian (6) Dutch (7) Italian (8) Greek. - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 05:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Gee, that's a lot of translations. I will check many over time but I won't be able to check all. I actually dislike when people add {{t-check}}s without a good reason or on a slight suspicion. The translation have been added over time for a single, unambiguous gloss. I will only add {{t-check}}s to translations, which look wrong to me but not to languages I have no idea about. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@Atitarev If it helps any, I was just referring to the ones introduced in the one edit. The rest don't need any more attention than usual. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: it is simply not true that the list of translations for this phrase "was deleted from the Wikipedia article on the grounds that it was unreferenced." The edit summary for the deletion was "wikipedia is not a dictionary". Even if it were referenced, it has no place on Wikipedia. --Crash48 (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Not simply not true- the truth is more complicated. I made the mistake of looking at the edit history without checking the diff you linked to. Apparently it was initially deleted on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the "Non-English usage: rm section tagged as unreferenced since 2015" edit summary was just an additional reason given while reinstating the version that had been undone by an IP. It was the second to last revision on the page and I didn't notice that the last revision on the page was an undo, or I would have clicked through to the next page of revisions and seen the original removal.
At any rate, we don't consider any wiki a valid source- we've banned several contributors for repeatedly adding large blocks of translations in languages they don't know that they sourced from other wikis. In this case you did it in good faith and it was just once, so you're okay. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I have checked some, fixed Thai translit and removed some, which angered User:Crash48. I didn't consider some phrases in languages of the USSR in Roman script as valid. @Crash48 has provided some evidence on my talk page but it also involves language policies and CFI, so, I suggested to open up a new broader discussion. I don't want to decide on it myself and be later reverted. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/AleksiB 1945[edit]

Anyone who knows Hindi or any of the scripts belonging to that language family, please check AleksiB 1945's contributions! They're all over the place – incorrect language templates for languages that don't currently exist and the entries are also badly worded. He has been blocked for 24 hours, but if it's needed, I'll prolong it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian quotations[edit]

search for Marko Marulić, Judita. As diff and diff show, it's misquoted and hr.wikisource has an totally incorrect text. Similary, other older Serbo-Croatian quotations could be totally incorrect too, just like 1611 KJV quotes (e.g. diff) and 1545 Luther quotes (e.g. diff) often are. --2003:DE:3729:1715:6DB5:A34:D973:FB86 14:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

IP, you are making mountains out of molehills. hr.wikisource has not incorrect texts, but normalized ones. Pre-1918 Russian works are also conventionally used in reformed spellings; the Qurʾān is not quoted in rasm, the list goes on. It is desirable however to have both spellings. But it is not pressing to replace the normalized texts with the originals ones, because what we quote is the term itself, no matter how it is spelled. Which means an entry can have a quote with a differently spelled highlighted word (that also stands for the lexeme). Abstract from the spelling! Fay Freak (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Yep, I started fixing the Judita quotes sometime last year but ran out of steam after a few entries. Such quotes shouldn’t be deleted, however, but restored to their original orthography, perhaps ideally with a modern/normalized spelling provided underneath (given that un-normalized quotes like the first one at lačan or some of them at slovinski can otherwise be incomprehensible to modern speakers). As @Fay Freak notes, normalized spelling isn’t generally a big deal. However, for Serbo-Croatian in particular it pays to be careful, as modern editions of texts often make normalization choices that are deliberately slanted to support one national agenda or another (for example, rendering as (i)je or i by authors who want to claim a text as “Croatian” or as e by those who want to claim it as “Serbian”, or otherwise trying to cleanse text of elements that could be seen as characteristic of other nationalities). Normalization always involves interpretation, and unfortunately sometimes causes the introduction of cultural elements or usage characteristics that would be alien to the writers of the actual texts, distorting the character of a term’s historical usage. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 15:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


There are two etym sections, both indicating the same derivation. From what I can glean, it appears that these two are actually the same thing, and the two sections should be combined. If my impression is in error, then the etymology sections need to be expanded to further distinguish how these are different. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


Created by what is probably the IP of a permanently banned user (it might be a good idea to check their other entries, as well), this is a rant thinly disguised as a dictionary entry. I really don't know if there's anything salvageable. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: I think this should be moved to requests for verification (RFV). I can only find two quotes: "The balines projectiles would only be used in cases of imminent risk of death to a police officer or civilian, the same conditions required for the use of service weapons" [10], which seems to be a quotation translated from Spanish, and is also used in the entry. The second is "It is hard to tell how the real fighting started, whether from the stones launched from the peasants' slingshots or from the police balines (rubber bullets meant only to graze the skin)." [11]. I think the term will likely fail RFV. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I made it a synonym of rubber bullet (which is not pure rubber) but it's really a Spanish word, not English. The use in Peru's Education Reform is in italics to indicate a foreign word. Do we need the courtesy of an RFV for a POV-pushing definition by a permabanned user? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
It's a vast improvement. I went ahead and removed two of the "usexes", which were really bullet points in an accusation: "dozens of gunshot victims were being treated, including a close friend, shot three times in the head and once in the leg". As far as I know, dictionaries don't have "close friends" that they tell stories about. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Vox Sciurorum: It depends on how legalistically we want to handle the entry. Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English says that it is for entries with listing reasons "other than that the term cannot be attested", meaning it should be sent to RFV. Otherwise, I'll stand aside to let it be straight forwardly deleted. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Since conversation has stalled here, I've gone ahead with the rule-mandated route and listed the term at Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English#balines. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

November 2020[edit]


This was added by an IP notorious for obsession with magic and deities, combined with epic cluelessness and a total lack of awareness of how wrong they are most of the time (don't get me started about their Crimes against Japanese, or "single malt brandy").

After I removed the typical genealogical cruft (who really cares if the subject of the entry was "the son of Chloris/Flora and Zephyrus/Favonius, and the grandson of Eos/Aurora and Astraeus, and Oceanus and Tethys"), I checked Wikipedia. Lo, and behold, the subject of the Wikipedia article bears very little resemblance to the subject of the dictionary definition.

I'm not sure what needs to be done to fix it and I don't really want to spend my time on it, so I'll leave this to someone more interested in this sort of thing. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


Language "Kaxabu". DTLHS (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we treat this as a dialect of Kulon-Pazeh (uun). I just checked the Blust Austronesian Comparative Dictionary, where they have it listed as Kahabu, which they say is a dialect of Pazeh. I had a little edit war with the same IP at udan, where they created an entry with no headword template under a "Kaxabu" header, I converted it to a Kulon-Pazeh entry, and they tried to add back their original entry. They geolocate to Taipei, so they ^may even belong to that ethnic group. At angaw, it's a bit muddier, since it's hard to tell whether they intended it as Kaxabu or Kavalan, and whether they wanted the definition as "fly (insect)" or "male name" (They were reverted in the middle of changes a couple of times). Chuck Entz (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


"Tamazight", uses several different language codes. DTLHS (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


I just blocked an IP who is almost certainly Fête (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks) and tried to restore this entry to the way it was before his changes. The only problem is that the way it was before wasn't all that great either. It could use some attention. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Hunsrik lemmas[edit]

With the other name "Riograndenser Hunsrückisch" (at Category:Hunsrik language) and the code hrx, the category is for a South-American variety. However, there are several entries with 1874, Peter Joseph Rottmann, Gedichte in Hunsrücker Mundart as source (e.g. Schlang, unn) which is not South-American Hunsrückisch but German Hunsrückisch. Hence the category needs to be purged and German Hunsrückisch be moved to something else. --Schläsinger X (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


Headings need to be fixed. Oosbam1812 (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Two Chinese words with "uncertain meaning"[edit]


If it helps, I have found a quotation. So this probably isn't a ghost word or anything.



I know this is of almost no help, but Google Translate says "Suspicion is 𡿠word 譌𡿛force crime, Qiyin Lei Shan also Wu Yun𡿜li water cut sound barrier𡿜㠑mountain appearance𡿣Shishan cut sound is also steep and dangerous 𡿢Qiu Kuiqiyin glimpses the hills and the public also 㠨weng law cut sound Yushan smoke appearance".

That's not a quotation because it's from 字彙補. The character is not attested outside of 字彙補, so it is basically a ghost word. RcAlex36 (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

What's more is that it's also defined in the Kangxi Dictionary, according to here (https://zidian.qianp.com/zi/%F0%A1%BF%A4), even though the page itself says that it's not! It is defined as "《搜眞玉鏡》音閒。" there.

@Oosbam1812: That's not a definition. It just says in《搜眞玉鏡》it has the pronunciation 閒. RcAlex36 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


OK, this one's pretty obvious. It's in the Kangxi Dictionary, for crying out loud! I don't know how to read the Kangxi Dictionary, but the Shuowen Jiezi says "目围也。" as the definition.

Apparently also synonymous with ! Here, have a look: https://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=gb&char=%F0%A5%86%9E&remap=gb

Thanks, and have a nice day! Oosbam1812 (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About Swedish[edit]

This page is very unorganized and unsorted. The header "Creating Swedish entries" is a mess, with too many subheaders, seemingly placed in a random order.

Mårtensås (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I rewrote the "Basic article" section. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020[edit]


I suggest that the contents of this category be transferred to "Category:Female people", and the category be deleted. It seems redundant to "female people", and there is no corresponding "Category:Men" as a subcategory of "Category:Male people" (and I'm not suggesting that such a subcategory be created). — SGconlaw (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @MJL as the creator of the category. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

See WT:RFDO#Category:Female_people and WT:RFM#Category:pl:Female_people. I would be much more inclined to delete "Female people" and merge to "Women", as the more natural term; the feeling seems to have been that "women" is only for adults, but I think this is largely mistaken (girls can be young women, and vice versa, something our entries on both girl and woman attempt to cover). - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I think "Female people" is less ambiguous; as you say, in common usage minor female people are often not called "women" (and minor male people not called "men"). In any case, there is no warrant for having both "Female people" and "Women"; it's confusing and redundant. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I also prefer merging to "Female people", not only because it's more inclusive, but also because of the parallelism: CAT:Female family members is a subcategory of CAT:Female people, just as CAT:Family members is a subcategory of CAT:People. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
My only thoughts on this matter are pretty much directly aligned with what -sche said. –MJLTalk 19:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Societies and thus language do not usually distinguish the sexes before sexual maturity by reason that the sex, in major respects that would motivate different treatment, is not there yet. Hence there are few examples in the categories Women and Men that aren’t targetted towards at least pubescent humans. However for the cases when there are differences, one has also enough terms to warrant categorization of female and male children, as the example of Category:pl:Male children shows, and this can be assumed a priori, too, because humans spend a not inconsiderable share of their times with childrearing, also in so far as brings about verbal communication. So we should have Male people resp. Female people and as subcategories Men resp. Women and Male children resp. Female children, which also dovetails with the fact that we have terms for Male family members‎ resp. Female family members‎ which are terms independent of age. The categorization is distinct based on the question whether a term has a sexual background, a parenting background, or a family relationship background, with other terms left over for a category upwards in Male people respectively Female people. @Hergilei categorized very reasonably. Fay Freak (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I think subcategories named “Women” and “Men” would be insufficiently clear and would lead to the current problem we are facing. If it is thought that there should be subcategories for adults, they should be named “Female adults” and “Male adults”. At this time I am not seeing enough evidence that such subcategories (and “Female children” and “Male children”) would be useful in English as they are in other languages like Polish. My proposal would thus be as follows:
  1. Transfer the contents of “Women” to “Female people”, and delete “Women”.
  2. If there are entries that justify the creation of “Female adults”, “Female children”, “Male adults”, and “Male children”, then have a separate discussion about that at a later stage.
SGconlaw (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


Anyone want to clean up the definitions of etymology 3, added in September? - -sche (discuss) 01:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I improved the definition based on what I read in a few books. There is more work to be done and I don't know the etymology. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

from me born[edit]

1. The language of the cites in the Jamaican Creole section are English and not Jamaican. 2. The 1975 cite of V. Rubin and L. Comitas (Jamaican Creole section) and the 1976 quote by the the same (English section) have a similar title ("Ganja in Jamaica") and similar strucutre, hence it's obviously the same language. --17:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC) —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Hi, IP editor. I apologise for not listening to you in the past. You've taught me a few things as well, including what brackets=on is about. What do you think would be the ideal way to deal with the "from me born" situation? — Dentonius 14:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


فين أخاي (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


Suboptimal formatting. Pinging @LoutK, if you are interested. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021[edit]


The etymology needs some clean up. — فين أخاي (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 07:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

loan rendering[edit]

Equinox 06:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Equinox: I think it’s well enough. You are just scared or to lazy to read, but for that case there is a definition already at the semicolon. Otherwise there isn’t a reason why a definition wouldn’t contain a whole botanical description, and I am a bit huffed that you are challenged exactly from my venture to remove all obscurity from the definition and uncover all obscurities and vaguenesses that lie in the concept itself. The longer the clearer, is that not so? In case one still does not understand what a loan rendering is, the page contains a second definition (which must also be there to distinguish from loan creation. As my gloss shows, the word is a not necessarily clearly defined interspace between a loan-creation and a calque to wit. There are even examples on the side. There are also graph trees, but if someone makes one would need to account for usage differences of some of the terms I created back then, like loan formation.
What do you and @Chuck Entz, DCDuring think of pages like Allium macropetalum and Allium vineale? I gave a whole botanical sketch and an agronomical contextualization, in the former more the former and in the latter more the latter, to make the denoted thing unmistakable from the definition in Wiktionary alone hopefully – should we aspire towards such or resign and own that Wiktionary won’t even be roughest identification book? We can’t just drop synonyms but have to define, and if the fines are many then the definition is long—even without one writing an encyclopaedia, for I have no propension to write any encyclopedia, it’s all only about what the word denotes and in which environments it is likely met. Fay Freak (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the definition could be clearer. Currently it is hard to understand, and a lot of what is stated could be moved into a usage note if it is thought valuable to retain. (Incidentally, the current contents of the etymology section seems plainly wrong.) I make no definitive comment at this time on whether the term loan rendering itself is sum of parts or not, though I am leaning towards “not”. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
You should assume that the average reader doesn't speak German, and doesn't have advanced knowledge on the subject. What's more, they're likely to get lost in all the meanderings and asides.
Writing a clear and concise definition is very difficult, and involves judgment on what to leave out as much as what to leave in. What you wrote is more of an informal and lengthy explanation than a definition. Ungrammatical phases such as "but is a loan" don't help- it's possible to figure out what you mean, but that effort would be better spent understanding the concept.
As for "You are just scared or to lazy to read": that's exactly the wrong attitude. I would say that you're "scared or to[o] lazy to" write a definition that gets to the point and doesn't waste the reader's time. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
With acknowledgment that pictures don't work well for the visually impaired with current technology, I think the value of a picture exceeds the value of any reasonable verbal description. I usually prefer drawings to pictures.
Our definitions of most organisms are too brief, but IMO what they need is some discussion of why the organism might be interesting or important to the reader or to humanity (food, pathogen, decoration, source of chemicals, structural materials, unusual feature, cultural symbol, etc.) and perhaps where the organism might be found (for translation requests etc.). Hypernyms give the current beliefs about the evolutionary position of the organism. The purpose of an extensive set of links to other databases is to enable readers to go further. It is notable that few databases have verbal descriptions.
What is most distinctive about our treatment of organisms is coverage of etymology and vernacular names. DCDuring (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Fay Freak, I'm not too "scared or to[sic] lazy to read". Rather you seem too keen to write! I have no idea why Wiktionary attracts these people who want to spit a lot of mediaeval Anglish instead of explaining things in normal English that will help users to understand. As long as it feels good I guess. But you are harming the project. Equinox 13:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@Equinox: Shouldn’t we be keen to write? You are insulting me. I enriched it, including with this article. And some described things are just complicated – there was no argument yet that the term is not that vague. I can’t understand all definitions of this dictionary. But more often it is because the definitions are too vague and not because the described thing necessitated obscurity or open questions. Nor because my subjective knowledge of English would not suffice for the definitions, as I am in a dictionary too look up all anyway and as you basically admit that I am even uber-English by doing Anglish – although this has the form of a libel, I have never taken part in Anglish, nor do we have “medieval” English in this entry, nor do I ever gloss only in outdated terms. However I take care to give multiple definitions for a single sense to make sure there is no ambiguity. You see I find the gloss to be one definition. As I said after the semicolon there starts a new one; then again a new one; then there is also a definiton thereafter if one omits the German words, which are only optional, so I did not assume the average reader “speaking German” but additional benefit for the superordinary reader. Can you tell me your view of the clipped solo definitions?
 1. An approximate translation of a formally foreign term
 2. a partial calque but not in the formal sense of a loanblend but in a qualitative sense of vaguely corresponding to foreign elements
 3. a loan resulting in the formation of a new lexeme but is a loan only in the sense of having a foreign inspiration, but not in the sense of having a direct correspondence (which would make a loan translation), or at least more of the former than the latter if one reckons that there is no clear line, but with discernible enough a connection to a foreign lexeme not to be a loan creation which last does not correspond to formally foreign elements at all but is a direct invention to render a concept.
The passage “or at least more of the former than the latter if one reckons that there is no clear line” is also optional, but it would lead to doubtful black-white distinction. Fay Freak (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

-ల and Telugu plural genitives[edit]

I think this is the right place to discuss this issue... if it isn't, I apologize in advance. When -ల was created, it was erroneously marked as the suffix for the accusative form of plural nouns, rather than the genitive/possessive. I recently fixed it and a couple other pages, but I think this error may have been duplicated on a large scale. Is there any way to bot that can fix all words with this suffix mistakenly marked as accusative? (Side note: the Telugu noun declension template probably also needs some reworking and increased usage.) MSG17 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


It looks like the etymology was "borrowed" from Wikipedia- reference templates and all- with an academic-style footnote added citing Wikipedia as a reference, and the usual Wiktionary etymology templates. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


Sense 1 is unclear. An onomatopoeia for what? Languageseeker (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking at two dictionaries (1 2), I think it's supposed to be of an animal, especially of a bird. --ItMarki (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


  1. (East German dialects) woodland, forest

Is this regional ==German== in which case the label is wrong, or really dialectal German in which case it would be ==East Central German==? --幽霊四 (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


IMO too many cognates, presented in bad English. Beware of the oversensitive author. --Akletos (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

What is “too many cognates”? If we don’t have an ancestor page to reconstruct then on one page there must be a cognate list. Myself I am known as someone who in general rather deletes “too many cognates” when they are avoidable without loss of explanation. In this particular case it is particularly relevant where or how far related words are spread. This basis paves the way for a conclusion about a possible ultimate origin of this etymologically difficult word family for which the cited author needs about ten book pages – a conclusion which is on this Wiktionary page also drawn, briefly summarizing the scholarship, which already took me several hours to read and recapitulate, so the claim in the RFC template that it is but a list of cognates that “leads nowhere” is false, and not only contradictory conduct – in the nominator’s original deletion of everything but the cognates – but also apparently ignorant about how an etymology about a difficult etymology can look like. This word history is like that. Fay Freak (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Look, Fairy Boy, I'm sorry if I should have hurt your feelings, but often when you write something English in the namespace it gets really embarrassing for the project and everyone trying to contribute something useful to it.
  • Your biggest problem is not that you don't know enough to contribute, but that you overestimate your knowledge and your language skills. Your English is just not good enough to write simple definitions, not to speak of longer passages on etymology. But because you think you're perfect you treat everyone that tries to correct your mistakes as an idiot that's not able to grasp your genius.
  • Etymological sections like on talpă sound like a from nineteenth century schoolmaster dabbling in historical linguistics in his sparetime. It's kind of cute and there's some merit in your industrious effort to find cognates but you lack the linguistic training to get the picture, to consider alternative explanations, and to see where you should refrain from a definite conclusion on a problem.
FWIW I would recommend that you at least contact a native speaker of English before you enter something in the namespace to check if it's ok, but I know that I would be preaching to deaf ears. Have a nice day. --Akletos (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


Conflation caused by shinjitai. 余<餘 (あまる、ヨ) ≠ 余<余 (われ、ヨ). —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021[edit]

Stuttgarter, Berner, Memeler, Düsseldorfer[edit]

There's no predicative form, so it should be -. --幽霊四 (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


From RFD. — surjection??⟩ 10:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


From RFD. — surjection??⟩ 10:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


We have three Translingual etymologies (paper size, ratings/quality, and railways), and then the paper size sense is replicated under Norwegian Bokmal (!). It needs to be decided what is truly translingual (clearly the paper size is) and what is English (maybe the top-quality sense?). This, that and the other (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I tried cleaning it up a bit. The mess seems to have started from this edit. I kept the UIC entry under English, since the other entries in that vain also seem to be. — surjection??⟩ 11:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
What do you think of summarily deleting the Norwegian Bokmal bit? The only interesting information there is the pronunciation, which is predictable (A + en) and is presumably so in all languages. Other than that it duplicates the Translingual. The picture could be moved up. This, that and the other (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
It seems there are Norwegian Bokmål entries for most of the paper sizes. If they feel they are redundant, perhaps they should all be RFD'd at once. — surjection??⟩ 16:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


The definition provided for sociopath implies that people who act sociopathically usually do so because of environmental influences. This seems questionable based on the current state of our knowledge. On the other hand, it may have been intended to mean that people assume this when they use the term, which again is questionable. This could be clarified in the definition, e.g., “, especially when this is attributed to environment.”

Also, is this word defined by the APA in its DSM?

If this term is not accepted by the APA, this might be important in some contexts, if it is accepted, that may also be important, since they control meaning of these terms in scientific contexts. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Ross.hangartner (talkcontribs) at 05:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC).

Reporting the latest "scientific" or clinical causal hypotheses is not a good function for a dictionary. We could have professional and popular definitions, though. There is probably more scope for folk beliefs about causality, because they have been so durable. DCDuring (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


Sense "(cricket, of a shot) Played with a horizontal bat to hit the ball backward of point." Tagged, but not listed. — surjection??⟩ 10:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

widdershins; withershins[edit]

Either widdershins or withershins needs to be made the lemma, duplicated content from the other entry relocated to the lemma, and the other entry converted to an alternative form entry. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Google Ngrams suggests that widdershins should be the main entry. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


Any good thing explainers around for this topic? – Jberkel 10:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021[edit]


German, tagged by Bakunla (talkcontribs), but never listed. – Jberkel 18:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


Middle Chinese is wrong? 23:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain what is currently wrong on the page? It seems fine to me. Sure, the Middle Chinese reconstruction seems off, but that does not necessarily make it wrong. ॥ সূর্যমান ॥ 14:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@BrightSunMan The modern Chinese forms do not reflect the Middle Chinese. Could they be two separate etymologies? Do we need to split them? 15:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
In that page there is a reference of the Kangxi Dictionary. It says 集韻:涓熒切音扃, which means that the pronunciation of 扃 existed back when the Jiyun was written. At the very least the pronunciation of 扃 should be included alongside 莫狄切.--ItMarki (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
(for context: currently /mek̚/) It seems to be equivalent to ( (MC mek̚)). Entry on Yundianwang; Guangyun scan. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c That's right. It appears the two characters have been mixed up. One is ostensibly a variant of the other, but do we have any reliable sources confirming this, and which way does it go? 19:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021[edit]


Tagged by @Suzukaze-c. @Languageseeker, are you sure this is not supposed to be 明白? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It is. So sorry for this. Please delete. Languageseeker (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Sundanese romanizations[edit]

Per discussion here, I'd say all Latin entries be removed from this category. 19:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


This page requires severe cleanup and maintenance. The definitions are everywhere, and a lot of them don't make any sense. What sets "ray of light" and "particular ray of light" apart? What does "the the of the yoke of a plough" mean? And why are there twelve separate lines for names? TheTheRemover (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

A lot of our Sanskrit entries, such as this one, have been copied directly and basically unedited from the Monier-Williams Dictionary, which reveals that "the the of the yoke of a plough" is supposed to be "the tie of the yoke of a plough", which I've now corrected. But I agree that this, like at least 75% of our Sanskrit entries, needs to be cleaned up to look like a Wikionary entry instead of a Monier-Williams entry. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Language Category Edits by 2601:C8:281:8BB0:813C:EDD9:F7E4:118, etc.[edit]

I have lots of category pages on my watch list, so I wasn't surprised to see Category:Portuguese language there. When I checked, though, this IP had added Luxembourg and Switzerland to the list of countries where Portuguese is spoken. My surname is Swiss, so I'm fairly familiar with the languages spoken there. It's relatively complex, with Alemannic German, French, German Italian and Romansch all being important in one part or another- but not Portuguese.

It turns out that they've been adding and removing countries from the lists at a number of language-category pages. In some cases their edits made sense, in others they didn't, with no clear pattern. In some cases, such as Category:English language, both the before and after seem to have problems. I don't know if this is a vandal or a well-meaning person using some criteria I don't understand for what languages are spoken in which countries, and I don't really have the time or energy to sort all of this out.

Could someone who knows more than I do about the distribution of these languages check the edits in question? Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)