Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2006

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive page that has been kept for historical purposes. The conversations on this page are no longer live.

All 2006

windup, wind-up and wind up

Something needs to be done with these three - but I'm not sure what. We also need the adjectival sense - "operated by a spring that is wound by hand". There is also a British phrase "to get the wind up" (wind as in breeze) meaning "to be afraid". SemperBlotto 08:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

They seem OK now. --Connel MacKenzie 19:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Some stuff for someone (no idea myself)

dontcha check it out, serdar! — Vildricianus 18:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Books of the Bible

Someone added this category and sprinkled it with a few entries. If anyone feels up to it, it needs all the books. Many need to be split uppercase/lowercase into two separate entries. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My job — Vildricianus 17:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, since you never did it, I just made my first pass on it. I'll continue in a little bit. --Connel MacKenzie 21:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
For no apparent reason, the Old Testament is fairly consistent, but the New Testament seems to attract a very high amount of nonsense edits. This may take a while. --Connel MacKenzie 21:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
When someone feels like adding the missing ones (e.g. 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel) then this can be renominated for cleanup. I think it will suffice for now; it is at least a little bit consistent now. --Connel MacKenzie 14:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
As a category it will be complete when the names of all the "books" have been added. I hope that the intro is sufficently neutral. It now directs people to the Appendix:Books of the Bible which hopefully is complete. I have removed the rfcc. I don't think that it need renominating for cleanup. —SaltmarshTalk 11:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Invalid definitions added, Middle English plural. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Could someone write a concise definition? — Vildricianus 08:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. SemperBlotto 14:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the entire Category:Mineralogy could do with some proper definitions. — Vildricianus 09:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


A "helpful" Wikipedian with a penchant for bypassing the Transwiki process. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

へ/compare に

I guess this belongs in an appendix? Do we have sinogram particle grammar sections? --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I created that page because its content is needed on both and . Is there a better place for content common to multiple entries but not common enough to warrant an entry in the template namespace? Rodasmith 23:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I think this does belong in the template namespace. I guess? --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree about putting such content in the template namespace. I thought the template namespace was intended for content to include in many pages (i.e. content not strongly tied to a single entry). For content relevant to just one or two entries, the main namespace (via simple duplication or {{:entry/shared content}}) seems like better organization. Rod (A. Smith) 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the explanation belongs on, and should be moved to, the page and the page, slightly modified for each page. The same sort of thing exists between many words in most if not all languages, and .../compare ... is not the best way to handle these explanations. In English, we have to and in, and any comparisons of one of them to the other belong on the to and in pages, not on a to/compare in page. —Stephen 07:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Stephen's response underscores exactly the confusion I had initially, and what I was talking about. Without the "Template:" prefix, it is not clear AT ALL, that the entry is not a normal entry, but rather is transcluded onto two separate pages.
  • Furthermore, I agree with Stephen's conclusion; the sections themselves should be slightly different for each, therefore not commingled. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Subst'ed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 21:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Amrita Nadi

Sanskrit noun(s). Anyone? — Vildricianus 11:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would send it to AfD. It's reference is a Wikipedia list that has been created seemingly by followers, so that's very circular. I'm not sure the concept could stand on it's own. The meanings for the individual words Amrita and Nadi are reasonable correct, but need some cleanup too. - Taxman 19:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Has been cleaned up by someone. SemperBlotto 08:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


Sure someone can improve on this template. For starters, can we get it so that after this is put in, it does not automatcially start a new line ?--Richardb 10:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Image thumbnails, in general, must have a caption, or the Mediawiki software will consistently place them incorrectly. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up, or should I say out? DAVilla 14:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

tidal wave/Quotations

Connel has rfc'd this asking whether it should be instead on tidal wave/Citations.

There's a bit of a story. At the time there was some arguing over whether it was POV or prescriptionist to say that tidal wave was wrong and tusnami was right. Another user and I had similar but different ideas in investigating the history of usage and development of the senses of these terms. I wanted to list just citations in historical order so they could be examined by article editors for them to decide what different senses were being used.

The other user wanted to analyze the citations they found and organize them into different senses. At the time I suggested that if people wanted to analyse them that it might go under tidal wave/Analysis as a 2nd but separate step after simply collecting the citations. The user instead came up with the current article title, moving it from a previous location. But whereas there are now a growing list of unanalysed Citations pages, this is as far as I know the only Analysis/Quotations page ever made.

It's an interesting page and I wouldn't like to see it deleted, but it's not the same as a Citations page, which are intended not to judge or classify their citations, so the articles should not be merged. What to do with this article I do not know however. — Hippietrail 17:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What really needs to be cleaned up is this whole subpage mess. What purpose do citations have if they are never to be attributed to any sense of the word? Davilla 19:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Nowhere do I say the citations are never to attributed to any sense of the word. Each editor who chooses to place one on the main page must attribute it to a sense. But such do not belong on the citation pages. Indeed not every usage of a term is even unambiguous. One example is Joyce's use of cankle. The citations pages are not and should not be prescriptive. They are a resource of usages of a term over history with grammatical categories just as absent as they were in the contexts of their original publication. — Hippietrail 00:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Right. So why aren't they on the page itself? That's what I mean about the subpage mess. What's the purpose of subpages? Example can be altered, and definitions can be split, merged, and shifted around, but I don't know why anyone would delete a perfectly good quotation. So why aren't they on the page itself? Davilla 19:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Because there are so many of them. Only illustrative examples or early examples are generally wanted to th page itself. See how much raw material there is for Tidal wave/Citations, pyramid/Citations, and tsunami/Citations. That amount of citations is useful for editors but very distracting for people looking up words. — Hippietrail 21:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I disagree. It is important that citations are matched with senses, especially for words with lots of them. In cases where differences are slight – a transitive use compared to an intransitive for example – it is much easier to get a feel for how these are being used when they are organised into sections. Sure, not every use is unambiguous, but that can be acknowledged when necessary. The reason citations are so important is that, when reading the definition of a word, a user thinks ‘I never knew it could be used like that before – I'd like to see some example sentences.’ They shouldn't have to scan through hundreds of quotes looking for the ones they're interested in. Yes, the resource as a whole presents the term's usage over history, but it is our job to sort through that primary evidence and present it in a form which has some structure. I'd also note that this is the method followed by the OED and other ‘citation’ dictionaries. Widsith 08:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Only editors who are capable of deciding which sense/POS is used etc each raw cite should really be selecting them for the article page. Once on the article page they mast be classified. If somebody wrongly classifies them on the cite page that will mislead people not used to grammar, people used to English grammar can make up their own mind. Users don't need to scan through hundreds of cites. Editors looking for one or two good cites to put on the article page are merely given a helping hand. — Hippietrail 21:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we have to assume editors here are capable (working together in the usual wiki way) of such discrimination, otherwise what are we all doing here? Widsith 07:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I had no idea I was opening a can of worms. It just seemed like a better place for them, particularly since the /Citations sub-pages seem to be getting a degree of community support these days.
  • I view these sub-pages as a neat mechanism for automated content addition - such as from Project Gutenberg, or the likes. There are numerous reasons why people here object to automatically adding such content directly to an entry.
  • If Widsith or someone else wishes to further organize them - hey, knock yourselves out. When Wiktionary is in a fairly "complete" state, that may seem like a more productive endeavor than it does now. At this point in time, it does not seem to be worth the effort of wading through the citations unless the term is particularly interesting, or if there is a specific need for a specific sense.
  • --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the conclusion of this. Quotations go on the entry itself in the ===Quotations=== section, while citations go on the /Citations sub-page, right? --Connel MacKenzie 16:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyone involved in creating the original mess care to step forward and clean it up? --Connel MacKenzie 22:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Can someone please put in what this category is about ?

It seems to be an organizing category for (all?) templates in use on Wiktionary. It does seem to have all the Latin templates. --EncycloPetey 08:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Move to WT:RFD? --Connel MacKenzie 16:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems well organized on the whole, and useful. Struck. DAVilla 14:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Someone added a lot of information, but did not wikify any of it. --EncycloPetey 02:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Interesting word. Widsith 06:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
And again. DAVilla 14:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Definition needs work. Rod (A. Smith) 06:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave it a go, but it is still in need of help. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
added plural and alternative spelling - cannot see that anything else needs doing :. removed rfc. —SaltmarshTalk 12:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Moved to RFV. --Connel MacKenzie 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Verb needs to be split out. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved to WT:RFV#upharsination. --Connel MacKenzie 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Strange entry blanking for an alternate spelling? --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Stephen got it. DAVilla 14:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


"Slang Terms" section has non-standard heading, non-standard format, and possible protologisms. Rod (A. Smith) 05:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

All sorts of dubious nonsense on this entry. None of these seem to be US terms - could somone verify if they are used elsewhere, (or is the entire entry vandalism?) --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

RFV-senses. DAVilla 14:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


When I stopped vomiting, I noticed that the reason "have" is pink is due to its use of {{red}}. A few other entries ("mosquito", "mosquitos", and "grunt") also use that template. The template seems to signal inflections not in common use. I don't see any prior discussion on standardizing the display of such inflections, but there must be a better way than {{red}}. Rod (A. Smith) 01:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed all instances of that horrible creature. —Vildricianus 11:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Could someone please give me direction on whether to use have#Interrogative auxiliary verb or hasn't one? etc., simliarly am or aren't I? etc. for the relevant tags? The last discussion in RfD was driven by EC but resulted in no recommendation. Davilla 06:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don’t understand your question. Have means one thing, hasn't one? means another; am is a standard verb form, while aren't I? is an informal and conversational phrase. What do you mean by relevant tags? —Stephen 17:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Edited link above. Do the tags for forming these questions go on the page for the auxiliary verb, or do they deserve their own pages (and quite a number of them)?


--Connel MacKenzie T C 21:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Any usable content? Move to RFD? --Connel MacKenzie 22:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Article made no sense at all. Just deleted SemperBlotto 08:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie T C 19:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Article made no real sense. Wrong script. Deleted Feel free to recreate with proper content. SemperBlotto 08:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


Noun or verb? --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


The synonyms section seems to be attracting some weirdness. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Davilla 15:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've heard most of them --Enginear 10:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved all the red links. Now it's Wikisaurus:vomit (regurgitate) (and many others) to clean. DAVilla 15:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

But you left them redlinked? That's pretty useless. --Connel MacKenzie 15:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


This entry is a sloppy variation on the entry vigor. If someone insists on having these unnecessary spelling variant entries, the least they can do is keep them synchronised.--Richardb 05:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Natural selection takes time! Someone obviously thought this important enough to enter, but if nobody nurtures it, it will eventually die. (It intrigues me though that this word, which is very suited to US spelling - to the point where vigourous is hardly used - is not succeeding. It is words like honor that grate with me, being so far removed from the French feel of the original (but perhaps I was just too into the Three Musketeers and the Scarlet Pimpernel when I was young; maybe I am unusual in thinking that honour was "originally" a French concept).
Seriously though, even Wiktionary:Spelling variants in entry names accepts this will happen. Do we not have an automatic way to share content? --Enginear 15:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Translation sharing is the proposal, not entire content. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Still high on my todo list. A little patience please. (Or someone else take a start with it?) — Vildricianus 16:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Checked vigour also, and I can't find the tag or anything untidy, so struck. DAVilla 15:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Previously tagged. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. DAVilla 15:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Lexicon:English terms of Persian origin

Bad pseudo-namespace name. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Can someone who knows a thing or two about etymolgy do some work on this, please? At the moment it looks like it was written by a primary-school pupil as an English project (apologies to whoever did write it, but it is somewhat lacking in content and quality) and doesn't help at all explain how etymologies should be researched and entered into Wiktionary.

Particularly bad is "Coined expressions: Some expressions have been coined by somebody." Aside from the fact that all terms were coined by someone (they don't spring fully formed out of thin air), saying "This term was coined by X." is not an etymology. It is part of the word history. Etymologies indicate how a word was constructed, not who thought them up.

At the moment this page is almost completely useless. Please can we work on making it useful.

Rant over. — Paul G 10:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh, interesting. I've always confused them as well. Where should we include word histories, e.g. the origin of Tarzan? ∂ανίΠα 19:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten this page more or less from scratch. It's still not perfect, but hopefully somewhat better. Dav - word histories can go in Etymology, Paul's point (I think) is that where possible we should show the apparent reasoning behind such coinages. Not possible with Tarzan, but see for example chortle or orgone. Widsith 22:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Also updated recently to show correct format and to make it fairly self-explanatory when words are italicised too. Added section Etymology language templates and usage.--Williamsayers79 15:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This page been tidied up somewhat since it was nominated. removed rfc --Williamsayers79 13:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


We have a format for alternates. But is this worth salvaging? --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Cleaned up - for what it's worth. SemperBlotto 09:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


Italian entry needs help... --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Cleaned up and moved to lowercase. SemperBlotto 09:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


Encyclopedic. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I took a run at a minimal definition with non-tendentious quotations from neo-Luddite authors. I haven't gotten quotes from those who use it pejoratively. Would that be necessary? DCDuring 23:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks OK now. SemperBlotto 09:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


Part of speech? --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Transwiki gone awry. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie T C 02:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Cleaned up, linked to -pedia. SemperBlotto 09:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie T C 00:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Purportedly, Norwegian. "roadfence" made of steal. DCDuring 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Format is wrong; pronunciations do not specify region; no translation tables; etc. — Paul G 20:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks OK, except for checking translations. RfC had been removed. DCDuring 23:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

additive operation

The definition given needs some help. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

enemy combatant

Recent additions push a personal & disputed political view.

specifically: Sense 2: (US) a captured soldier or fighter whose rights (e.g. as a prisoner of war) are denied by the capturing force

and Usage Notes: The phrase "enemy combatant" became common during the war in Afghanistan, when the U.S. government applied it to captured Taliban soldiers instead of classifying them as prisoners of war. Some within the U.S. government use the phrase "enemy combatant" (which has no definition in international law) in an attempt to justify denying rights guaranteed by the Geneva Convention. - Versageek 19:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What specifically do you interpret to be non-neutral? I agree the term is disputed which is why I tried to make it more neutral. Some people argue "enemy combatants" are justifiably denied rights, while others argue the opposite. But please note either way their rights have been denied and the definition should reflect that fact. The definition you subsequently added "illegal fighter" seems to me to be a non-neutral judgement call and should be removed or caveated as in "an illegal fighter as labeled by the capturing force"? Hollow are the Ori 02:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
You removed all reference to the the possibility that these individuals don't qualify as prisoners of war, thus have no rights. I wikified the a lot of terms in the definition after your last change - please don't change the term or remove the links - the term illegal combatant is appropriate and already defined here on Wiktionary. - Versageek 02:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Qualifying as a prisoner of war (e.g. under the Geneva convention) is separate from whether their rights have been denied. The freedom of movement is a separate issue from international law interpretation/status. It should be obvious that their rights have been denied, in my interpretation the debate/constroversy is actually over whether that is justified or not. Do you agree? I am open to adding more info about how it is alleged they don't qualify as prisoners of war and getting into some of the nitty gritty of international law, how about that?
Also, definitions really should not contain wikilinks because they excessively emphasize the literalness and conclusiveness of words and phrases which decreases abstract comprehension about a subject. Hollow are the Ori 02:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It should be sufficient to leave your entry (sense two) which suggest rights have been denied, and my entry (sense three) which points to the noun phase illegal combatant. I disagree with your change in terms on the third sense, but it's acceptable as long as the link to illegal combatant is also present. Let the reader decide which definition they prefer to use.
Wikifying definitions is an acceptable & encouraged practice here on Wiktionary. If you prefer to remove the wiki-links from sense two, feel free. - Versageek 03:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I know excessive wikilinking is a generally accepted and encouraged practice but the more I think about it the more I consider it wrong, especially within a definition (because of the subtle yet profound and potentially misleading emphasis inherent in html linking for one thing). If there are no other items in dispute will you remove the rfc header template? We can continue any discussion on the enemy combatant discussion page. Hollow are the Ori 04:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone is pushing a POV, and you suggest hiding the discussion? --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Please state specifically what and how a non neutral point of view is being pushed with the recent changes to enemy combatant? Excessive wikilinking adds emphasis and that is unnecessary POV in my interpretation. Hollow are the Ori 04:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "denying rights" is always POV. It implies that there ARE certain rights that both parties are obligated to honor, and it implies that one side is illegally denying these rights. In the conflict in question, one side is not a signatory of the Geneva Convention and makes no effort whatsoever to honor these or ANY rights, and the U.S. side can hardly be expected to honor these privileges unilaterally.
This is a non-sequitur. Two wrongs don't make a right, and most people believe the US should behave better than terrorists. Enginear 02:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But whether some expect a one-sided compliance with a convention that the other side does not recognize or not, "denynig rights" is POV and the definition is clearly written by an America-basher. The phrase enemy combatant means what the speaker or writer means by it, not what hecklers and protestors interpret it to mean ... and the inflammatory and POV definition given is not what anyone who uses the word means by it. —Stephen 10:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean it is your POV (and not, for example, mine) that the [previous] definition was not "what anyone who uses the word means by it". I do however commend your new definition and usage note as items I cannot find significant fault with. (However, I would be unhappy if the two WP links were not available to explain the usage/abusage in greater detail, and I think that in a year or two we should add back a note re when the term gained prominence.) --Enginear 02:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems OK. RfC tag had been removed. DCDuring 23:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


Translations need sorting. Jeffqyzt 01:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Has been sorted. --Keene 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fushimi Castle

--Connel MacKenzie 10:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Copied to relevant WT:RFV discussion. DAVilla 07:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Do we want this? Significant enough for an English entry? I'd just toss it. Entries for (e.g) Fushimijō seem reasonable, it is important in Japanese. Robert Ullmann 13:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It has particular translations in different languages, such as Hebrew טירת פושימי (tirat Fushimi), and Chinese 伏见城 (Fújiàn chéng). Keep. —Stephen 14:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, formatted as a proper entry. RfC tag removed. Robert Ullmann 18:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I don't think so - this is an encyclopedic entry. Wikipedia will have translations. Pardon my use of the thin-edge-of-the-wedge argument, but allowing this opens the way for allowing the name of every man-made structure in the world. Adding rfv tag. — Paul G 15:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think there are encyclopedic words, only encyclopedic definitions. Any translations that Wikipedia will have will lack transliterations, gender and other information, and in general the sort of etymological info that we often provide. I occasionally hear of the thin-edge/slippery-slope argument, but I’ve never seen any real evidence that it actually occurs. Many of the entries on Wiktionary also have entries on Wikipedia. Rather than a reason for exclusion, I would consider its existence on Wikipedia as reason for inclusion. In any case, I don’t believe our Fushimi Castle will be interpreted by anyone as an invitation to list his grandpa’s barn, nor even any alarming overload of structure names. —Stephen 01:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Which part defines the cloud type, and which part is just added description? DAVilla 07:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The cumulo- (cumulus) part is the descriptor, and means exhibiting great vertical development. The nimbus part is the basic cloud type. —Stephen 19:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Has been cleaned up by Stephen and Conrad --Keene 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 09:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is real Παρατηρητής

That's not the question. Is it attested in print? Obviously it is not part of the English language; this RFV is an opportunity for redeeming print citations to be added. --Connel MacKenzie 18:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
To rfc. Andrew massyn 05:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Erm, back to RFV. --Connel MacKenzie 22:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

bitch slap

Definition given is sketchy, but not reflective of how term is used. --Connel MacKenzie 19:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I expanded the deinition (corrected it if you will) and removed the tag. --Evrik 16:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Tag restored. I dispute the definition you've given. But thank you for improving the entry. Despite the UD listing, I don't see how that meaning meets WT:CFI. --Connel MacKenzie 16:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • It's in the OED. --Evrik 18:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
NB: WT:RFD#pimp slap --Connel MacKenzie 05:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Has gone through RFD, and stayed and cleaned up --Keene 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2006


Previously tagged. --Connel MacKenzie 18:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Previously tagged. --Connel MacKenzie 18:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Large numbers redlinks. --Connel MacKenzie 01:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

mod man

modman - I've cleaned it up a bit, but somebody may want to refine the definition. Beobach972 20:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the redlink, I'd say someone else beat me to the appropriate cleanup of it. --Connel MacKenzie 07:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Restored, moved to mod man, and cleaned up. Also appears on RFV. DAVilla 08:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


Tagged over a year ago with the comment weird translation formatting with tables separated from POSs. --Connel MacKenzie 20:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Given a tidy up.--Williamsayers79 17:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


Tagged rfc a year and a half ago with the comment: if the ja trans is for the noun it should be 1 level deeper; the unchecked trans shouldn't be until they're checked and put in the right place at one level deeper. --Connel MacKenzie 20:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese is for the noun. Moved one level deeper. —Stephen 13:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Needs to be split plural/singular. --Connel MacKenzie 20:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


Needs a real definition, not a joke. --Connel MacKenzie 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)



New sense of "Jose" as a common name in Kerala is missing some detail. Rod (A. Smith) 16:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:RQ:Chaucer Troilus

EC: There is a mass of these RQ templates. This one is used in only one place. Were they an experiment and now need cleaning up ? If they are to be left in place, in the Template namespace, can you please do something to document the use of them (either within the template using noinclude or comments, or in the discussion page, or in the WT:I2T page). Or, if they really only for private use, they should be moved to your own user space, not in the shared template name space.--Richardb 06:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

They can be used by everybody. Documentation is still needed, but see Wiktionary:Quotations/Templates. Would be nice if they were on WT:I2T, indeed. But then: maybe we want people to use {{quote-book}}? H. (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ancien Régime

Needs to be de-Wikipedia-ified, split into two separate entries, etc. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Doremítzwr 13:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) (Author of entry)
Okay, but from the etymology it appears to be a borrowed word in English as well. 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is, but I thought the English meaning was less specific, just being a pejorative reference to a previous ruling body, eg the previous management of a business which has since been taken over (and thus able to be used in the plural, though I forget the plural form) rather than just referring to the French aristocracy, as in the present def. But I could be wrong. --Enginear 16:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC) (This comment applies more properly to ancien régime.) --Enginear 01:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that there is a distinction between Ancien Régime and ancien régime. The lower-case version is regularly used for the specific pre-Revolutionary sense (in both languages). Widsith 16:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This entry seems wiktified. Last comment doesn't indicate that this entry is in any way wrong, AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 18:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


I've started deleting some of these. They seem to all be bad-faith edits. But there is a lot (and they all look almost reasonable at first glance.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that these don't need cleanup, but perhaps these are not in bad faith. This anon's entries are apparently nearly all taken more or less verbatim from the 1811 Dictionary of Vulgar Tongue, and would be reasonable except for the use of the vulgarities categorization; at the least, however, most of these should be categorized as archaic. Jeffqyzt 17:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Where in the Appendix does this go? --Connel MacKenzie 07:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Does belong in the main namespace, it is a single cuneiform sign. Needs some serious formatting though. (Translingulal/Akkadian/Hittite/Sumerian language sections.) Robert Ullmann 08:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it belongs in the main namespace, just like letters of the alphabet and Japanese kana syllables. Instead of ==Translingual==, I prefer ==Cuneiform script==, with Akkadian, Hittite, and Sumerian sections. —Stephen 12:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Level 2 headers are all languages, or "Translingual". "Cuneiform sign" belongs at level 3 (in Translingual). The language sections following do belong at level 2, in alphabetical order. The references should be at L4, under the L3 Cuneform sign heading. All this is the same way we do everywhere else. Robert Ullmann 12:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Alphabets and scripts are different from words. We spent a lot of time thinking about this before doing the Cyrillic and Arabic alphabets and came to the conclusion that names of scripts and alphabets where letters are concerned were the equivalent of names of languages where words are concerned. As for "translingual", I wouldn’t consider anything to be translingual unless it was used by most major languages. Periods, commas, and numerals are translingual (used not only by all languages that use the Roman alphabet, but also the languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet and some languages that use the Arabic script, and to a large extent in languages that use Chinese ideograms and in most languages that use various syllabaries), but cuneiform glyphs, while used by several ancient languages, are not, in my opinion, translingual and are not used by any language except those few that use cuneiform. Cuneiform certainly is not equivalent to modern periods, commas and numerals. —Stephen 13:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather have a consistent way of dealing with all symbols, by placing them in ==Translingual== so we know where they can be found. "Cuniform script" is a little too specific to only one alphabet. Do we need a ==Miscellaneous== language heading? I don't want to see 7,000 separate alphabets, listing only the alphabet of a rare script and nothing else. --Connel MacKenzie 17:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Symbols and letters are different. Symbols such as !@#$%^&* are translingual. Alphabets may be used by many languages (Roman), some languages (Arabic), a few languages (Cyrillic), or only one or two languages (Greek, hiragana, hangul, Tamil, Oriya, Khmer, Thai, Lao, and many, many others). It is very consistent to treat symbols as translingual (when they are, since some are not), and scripts according as done for the Cyrillic and Arabic scripts. —Stephen 17:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I followed that. Wouldn't that imply that there would be a language heading for each language that uses that character? Or should alphabets simply be kept in the Index: or Appendix: namespace, with no trace left in the main namespace? I know this has been discussed before, but I do not recall where, nor what the outcome was. --Connel MacKenzie 20:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
No, each language that uses the letter in question would be in alphabet order following a #: ==Cyrillic alphabet==, ===Letter===, Г, г, # Fourth letter of the Bulgarian Cyrillic alphabet, representing the sound ...; # Fourth letter of the Russian Cyrillic alphabet, representing the sound ...; # Fourth letter of the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, representing the sound ...; # Fourth letter of the Ukrainian alphabet, representing the sound ...; etc. Then if, besides being a letter of the alphabet, it is also a word or abbreviation, it gets the usual language headers: ---- ==Russian== ===Abbreviation===, etc. —Stephen 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Since all level two headings are considered "languages," that approach will really hose up the statistics I currently generate. I'm sorry, but I don't see the compelling reason to make the exception to the "Translingual" language heading. That already is our one place to put stuff like that. --Connel MacKenzie 18:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Where is your place to put all the letters and syllabary syllables that are used by only a single language, such as most of the Asian scripts (both alphabets and syllabaries) as well as some African and American scripts (such as the Cherokee syllabary). Headings like ==Cuneiform script== and ==Cyrillic alphabet== seems much more useful and practical to me than statistics. —Stephen 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that they go under ==Translingual== because even in English, we refer to those symbols as "An alphabet character of the xxx script." --Connel MacKenzie 23:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
My understanding of translingual is that, like !@#$%^&*(), it can be used in numerous languages. Many scripts and alphabets are used by only one language, and most other scripts contain several or many glyphs that are used by only one language. A letter such as the Ӳ ӳ of Chuvash. While it is a Cyrillic letter, it is not translingual since no other language uses that Cyrillic letter. Actually, I think the symbol should be listed as Cyrillic rather than translingual, because it is only used by languages such as Russian that use the Cyrillic alphabet, due to the fact that these languages have no N on their keyboards. Languages that use the Roman alphabet, such as English, do not use that symbol, but write No. instead (or , etc., depending on the language). —Stephen 06:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That still seems unsatisfactory (inconsistent) to me. What other approaches haven't we tried yet, or mistakenly rejected in the past, that would work better? --Connel MacKenzie 21:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like we rather simply have to think about another word for ‘Translingual’, such that letters also fit under it, since I really think they belong there. What difference does it make whether a symbol is used in only one language or more than one? We want an entry for it, and we want that entry to explain what kind of symbol it is and how it is used in which languages. It is generally agreed that this should not be put under the header for the languages in question, so a general header is needed. This is Translingual, but due to the ‘trans’ some people are not happy with it. How about just Symbol? (And have those that are now ==Translingual== ===Symbol=== be ==Symbol== ===More specific type of symbol=== (i.e. punctuation or IPA or ...)) Re: ‘We spent a lot of time thinking about this before doing the Cyrillic and Arabic alphabets’: who is we here? I already planned to ‘clean up’ those entries after I finished the Greek alphabet (in the far future, that is ;-)) H. (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't yet perfect (still needs some cuneiform script, but has been tagged with a script request), but has been greatly improved. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Letters of the alphabet

a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z

A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z

  1. Shouldn't these all have {{see| }} at the top?
    Yes. Go for it.
  2. Shouldn't these all be listed as ==English==?
    Yes. Go for it.
  3. Under what circumstances should they also be listed as ==Translingual==?
    Well, they are used in most European languages as well.
  4. Shouldn't these all be listed as ===Letter===? Or are we using ===Symbol===? (Why are they split about 50/50?)
    They should ALL be letter. But many are used as symbols as well, so should also have a symbol section. The split is probably due to different people having different ideas.
  5. Shouldn't these all have audio and IPA pronunciations?
  6. Shouldn't the vowels have long and short pronunciations?

--Connel MacKenzie T C 18:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Added some thoughts (I don't understand pronunciation though). SemperBlotto 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • My opinion is that the primary heading for these should be ==Roman alphabet==, not ==Translingual==. Then the secondary header should be ===Letter===. This is the way I d the Cyrillic alphabet (ж), and have begun the Arabic (Template:ARchar). —Stephen 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should move this to the Tea room? The idea of nominating it for cleanup is to have standard language headings for each of these alphabets; an alphabet itself is not a language. Using =Translingual= seems much better, to me. That's why I've been changing so many alphabet entry definitions. But I don't wish to go through these all (again?) if there isn't agreement on what they should look like. (Roman alphabet being only one of very many.) As it is right now, without the =Translingual= heading, many of the foreign language alphabet entries find their way back on to my various automated cleanup lists.
  • Pronunciation: currently, [z] has the audio files listing the "ABCs" sound, not the sound the letter makes. My question is: is it too silly to ask for all 52 entries to have both soundfiles (how it sounds and how the letter is spoken individually in the "ABCs.") The vowels, of course, have long and short sounds. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Daniel. and others have done lots of excellent work on the letters of the alphabet. I think I can strike this --Volants 15:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Session Bean

Wikipedia doesn't seem to be able to decide whether this is capitalised or not (see the section "Stateful Session Beans", for example). Could someone who is familiar with the terminology check and modify the Wiktionary entry as need be, please. — Paul G 09:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sent to WT:RFD


  • Adjective - Alternative spelling of chubby.
  • a type of rug
  • Urban word for bitch
  • Noun - pet name for a mouse originating in Australia.
  • Boy's name
  • place in Zambia

a brief google search didn't turn up anything matching these meanings --Versageek 04:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As a spelling of chubby, it’s illiterate. For the mouse, I suppose it means that the term originates in Australia, not the mouse. It cannot be an Asian name because it doesn’t give the language, and almost all Asian languages are written in scripts other than Roman. Can’t be a place in Zambia, because that requires capitalization. Too many serious problems, too little of any value, delete. —Stephen 08:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Is a place in Zambia (non-capitalization was a mistake): Place in Zambia:

http://www.fallingrain.com/world/ZA/4/Chubi.html http://www.tageo.com/index-e-ir-v-16-d-m4290266.htm http://www.multimap.com/wi/293837.htm


http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1066950/ (an actor's name)

Urban word for bitch:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chubi —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

The entry certainly needs to be cleaned at this point, it didn't have all of these meanings when I initially rfv'd it. I think there is enough to support a proper noun entry for Chubi (Upper case), for the two name senses & possibly the rug as a derivitave of the place name. The urban dictionary entry is tosh, and I'm still not sure about the original two.. --Versageek 13:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

To rfc. Perhaps to come back later. Andrew massyn 07:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

RFV failed --Volants 13:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


Most should be removed or moved to English abbreviations? --Connel MacKenzie 16:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been separated, into Translingual and English --Volants 13:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)