Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2007

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


reason [edit]

Do we really need an obtuse paragraph for each definition? Perhaps someone could pare this down to something more reasonable? --Connel MacKenzie 04:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing something similar; a list of 850 (later 1000) words with an exact concept in spanish and italian. The "weight of the word" (so to speak) is based also on if it has or not a direct translation in 1 word. The uses are different (to manage a basic vocabulary on N languages); but it may help. I'm basing first on the "simple english" dictionary, with some deletions and additions and later on a vocabulary based on frequency that I found (in ~5 languages).
At least it's a way to study languages, but I may give input on this category. This dictionary is on my userpage--Esteban.barahona 19:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The definition looks fine now - at least to me - can we strike this discussion or is there yet work to be done? L☺g☺maniac chat? 17:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


Is this really our entire template help page? Gah! --EncycloPetey 03:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Should it be a redirect to WT:I2T? --Connel MacKenzie 20:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. I wind we had a stated policy on what exactly was supposed to go in which namespace. I would expect policy on template use to be in Wiktionary:Templates, a list of templates to be in Index:Templates or Category:Templates, and help in using them in Help:Templates, but having that much division of the information could itself be detrimental (or just plain mental). --EncycloPetey 05:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for nothing[edit]

My definition is not that good - could someone provide a better one, please? — Paul G 10:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Patricknoddy's Contibutions [edit]

Patricknoddy is a new user and has been adding place names in Alaska. All well and good, except he's been giving them plurals and what have you. I've cleaned up a few (such as Valdez) and let him know what he is doing wrong, but there are quite a few more. — Paul G 14:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. --Jackofclubs 10:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

-ae [edit]

-- Beobach972 21:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted; not a suffix but an inflectional ending. --EncycloPetey 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
But what was the entry? It’s a plural suffix in English.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The entry was only for the Latin language, and I had created the entry long ago. If you think an English entry under that name is desirable, then you can create the entry without worrying about edit history (since it was only as Latin). --EncycloPetey 13:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Aah, OK. Still, don’t you reckon it’d be useful to have the Latin entry, too? We needn’t call it a suffix, if you deem that inaccurate (though I’m at a loss to decide what we should call it instead); the English etymology for many of these suffixes will just be “From Latin [inflexional ending].”, and the lack of a Latin-language referent would make that problematic. I’d quite like to have all these case and other endings treated on here in isolation from their usual paradigmata (like bellum for neuter nouns of the second declension, amō for much of the first conjugation, &c.); being a learner of Latin myself, I’d find that very useful — especially if our entries could elucidate the origins and historical development of the various endings. Since you “created the entry long ago”, you must have thought that to be appropriate at some point; what made you change your mind?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, if neither of us has a proposal for how to label them, then that makes the issue of keeping the entry moot, doesn't it? It's really difficult to keep such an entry if it has no header name.
Which English suffixes are you talking about? I don't know of any English suffixes that derive from Latin inflectional endings. They all seem to come from Latin suffixes. In any event, the origins and historical development of most of those endings (and even Latin suffixes) is not known or very obscure.
What made me change my mind was a better understanding of the difference between a suffix and inflectional ending. A suffix (as we use the term here) is used to form a new word, while an inflectional ending is used within a word. A word that has an inflection table will already have all the necessary forms listed. Not so for various suffixes. --EncycloPetey 13:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it's worthwhile to have entries for nonzero inflectional morphemes, where possible. (Sometimes it might not be — the inflectional morphemes in "mice" and "gave" are hard to pin down — but oftentimes it is.) —RuakhTALK 13:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


Why is there a section Mandarin there? AFAIK, that is not written in roman alphabet. If it is Pinyin, then it should be marked as such. Also, the pronunciation contains a double ˥, which seems nonsense to me, but I have no experience with tonal languages. H. (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Should be first tone first tone or first and neutral, but I don't know exactly how to mark that. And is it actually informal? Just because there's a more formal way to say it doesn't make this informal. DAVilla 18:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Surely this could be more concise? --EncycloPetey 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I think...? it may still need some work. :) At least it's better. L☺g☺maniac chat? 20:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


Marked Roman spelling unknown/invalid header. There are many of these, but I have seen no suggestions for a different solution. A few languages such as Serbian are currently written in either the Roman or the Cyrillic alphabet at the writer’s whim, so every Serbian word has a Cyrillic spelling and an equally valid Roman spelling. (Russian, by contrast, is only written in Cyrillic, and any romanizations are due to equipment or software limitations or as an aid to people who are simply at sea with the Cyrillic alphabet.) Before these headers can be changed, another solution must first be decided on. —Stephen 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

But romanizations, whether used (e.g. romaji, pinyin, etc.) or just transliterations, are always given right on the inflection line. And then linked if they are used, and have their own entries.
Things like "Devanagari spelling" are a bit different, they clearly should be Alternative spellings (whether tagged as Devanagari or just treated as obvious ;-). Robert Ullmann 18:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
What I meant was that with Serbian, the Roman spelling is not a romanization, it is an alternative spelling. Serbian written in Roman or Cyrillic is like Urdu written in Arabic or Devanagari. Many people write Serbian exclusively in Cyrillic, and many others write it in the Roman alphabet instead. —Stephen 13:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
What about a level 3 version of the "Alternative spellings" header, which is already in use? --EncycloPetey 07:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I am all for a new method of listing these terms. But, I'm not in favor of using "Alternative spellings" header. Alternative spellings suggests that the word is pronunciated the same way (or very similarly) as another, but it is written just a bit differently. That is the case in English and how the header is used here. In this case, it is written in a different script. That deserves a completely different section. Making it a level 3 does not change anything and might even cause others to "fix" it. --Dijan 18:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Well they are alternative spellings so they would not be misnamed. Fewer kinds of headings is good - we don't really need specially named ones for each language which has been written in more than one script. We shouldn't worry about what the brief wording in headings or any other part of the user interface "suggests" because we can document them fully. This is already the case with the alternative spellings heading which has been contentious for years for "suggesting" it means something other than what it is. We can't put lengthy sentences in headings and labels and category names so we put the best concise term we can and then we explain it in lengthy sentences in the documentation. I don't see any problem with putting a (Cyrillic), (Urdu spelling) or somesuch for these under the one-size-fits-all "alternative spellings" heading. We already attach notes to many alt spelling entries to explain what countries it's used in, dates the spelling was standard, etc. — Hippietrail 00:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Latin spelling now on inflection line. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


Unformatted quotations, a bunch of funny Cf.'s, derived terms defined on page. DAVilla 18:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


Robert’s AutoFormat bot added this, however I think the L4 header ‘Names in other languages’ is appropriate here. ‘Translations’ is not appropriate, since there is no source language. Maybe it should handle Translingual entries with special care? H. (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If we agree on the header, is there a way to set a mark for the bot to ignore certain things? H. (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The header handling is all controlled by User:AutoFormat/Headers (like the documentation says ;-). It is listed as "non-standard" so it is recognized and not tagged. (for now, then we can decide what to do) There are other headers it is discovering along the way; this one was new (not in my previous reports on L3/4 headers). Robert Ullmann 17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
While I very much appreciate all the work you're doing on the Greek letters, this has rather larger ramifications, I think. I propose that a BP discussion be started on the formatting for letters. There are a number of issues regarding grapheme entries which need to be addressed (for example, see the previous entry and some of the other cuneiform entries and the back and forth which has gone on between Stephen and Connel). These need to be settled properly. Also, I think it would be a good idea to set out a sort of standard format for letter entries, so that they don't all become so hodge-podge. Atelaes 11:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
A thought: wouldn't this "Names in other languages" be better as the Translations table at gamma. Wouldn't they be duplicates? I think this entry might just refer there? Robert Ullmann 11:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Translations moved to gamma. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Impersonal verbs[edit]

This category has articles from more than one language. Needs tidying up.--Williamsayers79 09:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


needs the works. Andrew massyn 20:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


Redundant senses, ambiguous translation section. --Connel MacKenzie 12:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


This entry is labelled "Scottish". Is it Scottish Gaelic, Scots, or Scottish English? --EncycloPetey 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is in the OED so must be English. They give its etymology as "Sc." - I think that means Scots. (And it was my mistake in the first place) SemperBlotto 08:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


the heat is now off. Time to clean up and unprotect

Hopefully our visiting autocratic anarchist has done his dash and moved on to other parts. So time to clean up this horribly compromised entry. I've added my small suggestion at the end of the discussion page. --Richardb 14:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected. —Stephen 20:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Is this a noun? Should it be capitalized, then? --Connel MacKenzie 16:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It’s a pronoun. Cleaned up. —Stephen 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


The quotations need some work. H. (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done ; ) L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

what the Sam Hill[edit]

Etymology is a mess. --Connel MacKenzie 15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now edited this quite a bit, but I left the clean-up tag since the exact quotation is still needed. -- WikiPedant 14:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
An American Glossary - Page 762
by Richard Hopwood Thornton - 1912
1868 1839 What in sam hill is that feller ballin' about ? ... He had bought him
a little bobtailed mouse-colored mule, and was training him like Sam Hill. ...
Also, I didn't find "Sam Hill" in TKAM, but it does seem to be present in the "Play" adaptation for Broadway. But searching "Sam Hill" on b.g.c. shows that it is much older than that etymology suggested. (Thank you for cleaning that up, BTW.) --Connel MacKenzie 08:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

artificial grammar [edit]

The definition makes no sense to me. Needs attention from somebody familiar with this concept. -- WikiPedant 02:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


The etymology is spread all over the article, should be brought together. H. (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, we had quite a run with the "whale penis" vandalism. I think it was Paul that verified it as completely untrue (just a 4chan vandalism effort or something.) --Connel MacKenzie 21:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I mean the ‘door key child’ thing, which should be split in its own etymology. H. (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
That seems to me to be an RfV-sense candidate. DCDuring TALK 12:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Put in rfv. H. (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

click wheel[edit]

--Connel MacKenzie 21:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's O.K. now, at least cleanliness-wise. Properly speaking, the term should probably be capitalized ("Click wheel" or "Click Wheel", I'm not sure which), but plenty of b.g.c. hits don't capitalize it; this might be a matter for RFV. The bigger problem as I see it is that we currently give only the iPod sense of the term, which while currently the primary sense (if Google is any indication), is presumably not going to last as long as the traditional sense. —RuakhTALK 23:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree the definition could be rewritten. An iPod is merely an example, but probably shouldn't even be mentioned. --Connel MacKenzie 15:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged, but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

abandono [edit]

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary comment: "rfc novial : shouldn't the stuff in Derivation be in a standard Etymology section?" User:Hippietrail. --Connel MacKenzie 22:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Done DCDuring TALK 17:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No POS entered. --Connel MacKenzie 22:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Attention Cantonese added. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

-ible [edit]

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Done IMHO. DCDuring TALK 17:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

fiscal conservative[edit]

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

email split [edit]

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

unilateral contract[edit]

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

carrying violation[edit]

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

two's company, three's a crowd [edit]

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC) done. DCDuring TALK 02:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


If this is a Provençal given name, then it should not be under an English language header. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It’s English with a Provençal etymology. —Stephen 16:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

humor [edit]

Should the translations all just be marked with "TTBC"? --Connel MacKenzie 08:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Two are, but no point in adding 20 ttbcs. DCDuring TALK 17:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

milk it[edit]

Move to "milk"? Rod (A. Smith) 20:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --EncycloPetey 21:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Moving to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#milk it. Mglovesfun 11:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

tamil [edit]

This needs controlling by native (better) speakers of Spanish and Swedish, copied over from Tamil. H. (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the Spanish section. --EncycloPetey 08:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The Swedish section is ok. Striking this. \Mike 10:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Address of record[edit]

Could someone decrypt this into English please? :-) I have no idea what it means to say. Dmcdevit·t 03:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The link to here uses PAGENAME, not FULLPAGENAME, so I've masked the "Transwiki:" portion.
RFC 3251 is about telephone-over-ip "Session Initiation Protocol". Their definition is:

Address-of-Record: An address-of-record (AOR) is a SIP or SIPS URI that points to a domain with a location service that can map the URI to another URI where the user might be available. Typically, the location service is populated through registrations. An AOR is frequently thought of as the "public address" of the user.

and although similar to the definition given in the transwiki, doesn't convey that that it is the reported address you'd connect to, to establish connection with someone over a bridge or through a NAT firewall, etc. --Connel MacKenzie 04:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:vomit (regurgitate)[edit]

Completely wrong syntax for Wikisaurus title. --Connel MacKenzie 16:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Moved, not by me. I don't think the title has a "completely wrong syntax", though. --Dan Polansky 21:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


Wrong language, copied from another wikt. Robert Ullmann 08:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Right language, wrong spelling. Fixed while patrolling Category:ca:Languages and moved to correct spelling, feroès, finding this RFC when I checked for broken links after the move. — Carolina wren discussió 00:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Appendix:European Computer Science Dictionary [edit]

--Connel MacKenzie 04:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

English, Polish, German, Spanish. Placed in Category:Glossaries. Still some redlinks in all languages, even English. DCDuring TALK 20:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 02:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Should this redirect? --Connel MacKenzie 04:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, striking. Mglovesfun 10:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


It's not clear to me whether the abbreviation section refers to the abbreviation ll or the abbreviation li. Rod (A. Smith) 17:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is the lowercase of "LL". The doubling of the l indicates the plural in the same way that pp = pages, or LL.D. = Doctor of Laws. —Stephen 11:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


Someone decided to mark the parts of speech by using template calls to n, Template:v, Template:adv, Template:prep, etc. These all need to be removed/replaced since these templates either do not exist (and shouldn't) or else they are used for something else. --EncycloPetey 13:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that page even supposed to have definitions? —RuakhTALK 15:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
In the long run, no. However, it may have started as an import to be carved up into entries. --EncycloPetey 03:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


If it passes rfv. H. (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


I thought the header was supposed to be ===Related terms===, not ===Relative terms===. —Stephen 14:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. --EncycloPetey 01:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Done by EncycloPetey, striking. Mglovesfun 11:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


pōnō, like many Latin verbs, has its lemma entry (the first person singular present indicative) and pōnere (the infinitive) swapped. Is there an easy way to tag them all? Rod (A. Smith) 02:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Interjections [edit]

I think there are a number of terms that do not belong here.

The fact that an exclamation mark is used to end a sentence or phrase does not, in itself, make that sentence or phrase an interjection.

"Go to the dickens!" is a complete sentence (a verbal phrase in the imperative) so I don't quite see how this can be considered to be an interjection just because it ends in an exclamation mark. Similarly, although "Every man for himself!" is not a complete sentence, I wouldn't say it is an interjection. "Does a bear shit in the woods?" is another complete sentence, and is definitely does not belong in this category.

Ideally, I would like to see the part of speech "interjection" reserved for words that express an emotion and have no grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence (interjections in the purest sense), such as "oh!" and "phew!". It is not possible (or even practical) for us to be this strict, however, because there are some phrases that function like interjections, like "good riddance" and "for heaven's sake". Strictly, we would classify these as pro-sentences, but this is not a part of speech.

Certainly, however, some of the terms listed in Category:Interjections (and the corresponding category for other languages would more accurately be described as pro-sentences, verbal phrases or complete sentences.

See the Wikipedia article for more discussion. — Paul G 05:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Category talk:English interjections. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


méh second noun section, Hungarian. Definiton is: MEHHHH also known as "Shmeh" a migration of "Meh" the "meh" face also a hit. sasjb

RJFJR 14:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism to me, so I removed it. If it's just terribly formatted, terribly worded, and full of typos, then someone can replace it.—msh210 18:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


Something is broken in template invocation but I can't fix it. RJFJR 21:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorted out and moved to Hiryū and hiryū. 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


What part of speech is "conjugation"? This is not a conjugation. —Stephen 21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The Participle → Conjugation thing was a brief error in one of the pages that AutoFormat reads for configuration. The error has since been fixed, but that didn't undo existing damage. When you find such pages, you don't need to bring them here; you can just fix them. —RuakhTALK 22:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


This looks like a stray would-be Spanish language entry. DCDuring 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is already listed on RfV, so it doens't need to be duplicated here. --EncycloPetey 16:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Is that the rule? Only one Rf per entry? Each Rf seems to have a different function. DCDuring 16:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Improperly entered without language line. Said to be Norwegian. Sense: "roadfence" made of steal. DCDuring 23:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It means cornice. Fixed. —Stephen 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Everything included under the second etymology looks suspect. I don't know whether there is any salvageable material, either for homer or Homer. It would help if you know your Homeric Greek. DCDuring 19:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Crap removed. Striking. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Allopathy / Allopathic[edit]

See Talk:allopathic for some sources. 20:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

breadstick [edit]

These photos can't be reused on commons:, right? They are royalty-free, but copyright protected. Is there any point in keeping the link, or is it just (inadvertent) spam? --Connel MacKenzie 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, Connel. Ideally I would like to add my own photos on commons, but for now I just thought enquirers might like to see the variety of breadsticks. Please delete the link if you think it is inappropriate.
Dbfirs 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the Wiktionary policy on links to photos elsewhere on the web? (I know it is quite likely to lead to a broken link sometime in the future.)
Dbfirs 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Linking to the image or embedding it into the Wiktionary page? I don't know Wiktionary policy, but the latter is very bad Netiquette, as it uses the server housing the picture.—msh210 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Mooted by inserting wikicommons images and category link. DCDuring TALK 20:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki:List of German words and phrases[edit]

This was transwikied a while ago, and quite a few of its definitions seem to be red links. It would be nice to have some editors go through and copy-and-paste those into formatted articles where appropriate. Dmcdevit·t 09:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Native Korean words[edit]

Is this genuine and useful, or part of User:KYPark's effort to link English and Korean? The differentiation of "native Korean" words from "Euro-Korean" makes me suspicious. — Beobach972 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is part of KYPark’s delusion about Korean being genetically related to the Indo-European languages. Besides his steadfast refusal to use our approved Korean transcription system, he insists that he has the right to use Wiktionary to promote his unpopular linguistic theories. —Stephen 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright then, let's move this discussion to WT:RFDO. — Beobach972 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

ǽwiscnes [edit]

Rather long list of synonyms. Even if valid (unlike Wikisaurus type synonyms), the formatting is quite messed up. --Connel MacKenzie 11:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Made considerably less æwisc. Ƿidsiþ 14:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

fleche [edit]

We really need a better way of tagging words that are sometimes spelled with diacritics, but normally not, like this. --Connel MacKenzie 20:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been improved. Currently it looks like a highly regular page --Volants 13:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


Has Wikipedia-esque links. --Gobbler 09:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned it up bvut can someone check this def: conspiracy- the ability to have the material means and a motive to commit an act against the law.

probably said by some official, in purpose to give anyone with a real wiev of the goverment a hard hitting name.

Cleaned up --Volants 13:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


Computer science entry needs to be trimmed and formatted. — Paul G 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone has cleaned up --Volants 13:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


Some of the definitions don't seem to make sense:

  1. comic good times marked by special events
  2. a parade group masquerading, especially when overstepping the bounds of decorum

Paul G 12:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitions to RFD --Volants 13:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


There are no less than five distinct words (that is, five different etymologies) in the entry sol, all with only one floating pronuciation section at the top. I've added the pronunciation which applies to the musical term, but does anybody else care to figure out to which of the senses that floating pronunciation applies? -- Beobach972 22:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would add a request for clarification on capitalization. Is the period of time capitalized (as here) or not (as on wp)? May the name of the star (our star) be written in either capitalization? \Mike 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Pronunciations have been added --Volants 15:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


Is the 'virginity' sense a noun or a verb? It is given the Verb POS header, but defined as 'The act of [...]'. -- Beobach972 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup has been done --Volants 15:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


if anything, this page should be a Template: page, not a Wiktionary: page, if necessary at all? --Richardb 07:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think ideally it should be a help page or style guideline for concordances. But concordances are still a very underdeveloped area of Wiktionary at the moment. Dmcdevit·t 08:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Striked. This is not the page to discuss underdeveloped areas of Wiktionary. The page itself is OK --Volants 13:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Verb: still needs a rewrite. --Connel MacKenzie 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

done. Someone has added citations, clear definitions --Volants 11:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:picture. --Connel MacKenzie 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This look better now. Issues have been adressed --Volants 11:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

power inverter[edit]

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Has been cleaned up --Volants 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Has been cleaned up --Volants 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

sugartime [edit]

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Has been cleaned up --Volants 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Has been cleaned up --Volants 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

sutra [edit]

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

OK now --Volants 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Angr has cleaned it up


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up by User:A-cai and anonymous editors --Volants 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up by User:EncycloPetey --Volants 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Has been cleaned up --Volants 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good now --Volants 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up by User:Logomaniac --Volants 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently OK now --Volants 16:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

looks ok now --Volants 16:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

discourse marker[edit]

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the entry seems to be how to handle the vast number of examples: on second thought, anyway, but seriously folks, .... Shouldn't this be a category or a grammatical marker for senses or even a PoS heading? The words and phrases that are used as discourse markers appear under PoS headers of idiom, phrase, interjection, adverb, and possibly others. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This page itself looks OK now --Volants 16:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

刻舟求剑 [edit]

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User:A-cai has cleaned up --Volants 16:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

polar cone[edit]

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up.RuakhTALK 18:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

modal scale[edit]

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is upset by me listing these 113 previously tagged, but unlisted entries, I'll be happy to move them as a list to my userpage-space, and continue adding them here only intermittently. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up --Volants 16:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


This is a Greek placename — albeit Romanised — not an English one, and should therefore not be under an English language header. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It’s English, just as Athens and Beijing are English. —Stephen 16:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Antirio [edit]

As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sent to WT:RFV --Volants 16:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Entries like these are kept (all words in all languages includes proper nouns) --Volants 16:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 08:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Template:ARchar. —Stephen 16:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 08:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks as good as other Wiktionary pages. A lot of work has been done --Volants 16:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


Change to {{rfd-sense}}? --Connel MacKenzie 08:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


The indentation levels are incorrect and sort out which meanings belong to which etymology. Also clean up cites (dates and markup). H. (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up structure, but not cites. DCDuring TALK 11:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Good now --Volants 16:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


What a mess. Tagged, but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 19:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikified, translation tables. Waiting for a definition circumvolve --Volants 16:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

idea [edit]

The derived terms section includes terms derived from terms in the list (eg, "ideally" from "ideal") which should be moved out of this table; further, not all terms are derived from "idea": those beginning "ideo-" are certainly not; these may well be related, however.

Note that this table was mistitled "Related terms", so probably lumped all derived and related terms together. — Paul G 14:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Has been fixed --Volants 16:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

adalah [edit]

We have been trying to fit foreign languages into English patterns, sometimes disasterously. Maybe we should have a miscellaneous header, such as ===Other===, which could be followed with Predicative, or Predicate marker, or whatever the case may be. In adalah for example, the word is a predicate marker, and while it is in no wise a verb, it is often translated as one. Russian words such as нельзя are predicatives, words that act as a sort of verb but which are not verbs. Changing the headers to ===Other=== 'Predicative, etc., would be much better than mistakenly changing to ===Preposition=== or ===Verb===. —Stephen 16:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not use Particle? --EncycloPetey 22:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Particle is vague enough that it could be used for this one case, but it still has to mention that it’s a predicative marker because particle is too broad. But there are a number of other cases where different languages have parts of speech not found in English and where particle can’t be used. There are some words that could be labelled "impersonal verbs", but which cannot be called simply "verbs". Since they are not verbs and the header "impersonal verb" is too exotic, something else needs to be found (I think it would be a stretch to call them particles). There are other words that may be called predicatives, but they are neither verb nor adverb. German has something vaguely similar to some of these called modals, but modals are true verbs, and predicatives are not verbs. There might be some little-known term for some of these words that I don’t know about, but that offers no help. There are some Russian words that are occasionally called gerunds, but which are nothing like English gerunds and are not verbal nouns or any other kind of noun (some people call them gerunds because there are partial parallels with the Latin gerund). If they cannot be called what they are (adverbial participles), then we need a vague term like ===Other===. I don’t think anything like particle, noun, verb, or adverb will work for them. I can add the correct term for all these words, but the correct term is frequently different from standard English grammar and so someone has to clean them up by "Anglicizing" the headers. It seems to me that the safest thing to do would be to create a catch-all header like ===Other===. That way at least, predicative markers would not get changed to ===Preposition===, and Russian gerunds would not be changed to ===Noun===. —Stephen 23:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand the problem. I'm partial to using ===Participle=== in Latin because calling them "verb" or "adjective" isn't adequate. Personally, I would rather see a new positive descriptive header used to tell the user what an entry is, rather than use a vague ===Other=== which simply tells the user what the entry isn't. This might mean expanding the unofficial list at WT:POS, but then we are trying to include "all words in all languages", so there are bound to be some POS headers that look unfamiliar to English speakers. In this particular case, why not use Particle and add some Usage notes to explain the entry's function a bit? --EncycloPetey 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I would much prefer to call things what they are. Participles play major roles in Russian and Arabic, too. Russian participles are complex and "adjective" is not adequate for them. Arabic participles are sometimes used as adjectives, sometimes and nouns, but very often in place of finite verbs, and therefore they cannot be called adjectives. There are numerous other cases specific to certain languages. But there are complaints that calling things what they are has a deleterious effect on some statics and cause problems for bots. I haven’t seen these statistics and it’s difficult to imagine why they would be of more than passing importance, but I do understand the bot argument, more or less. What if we included an invisible code at the beginning of nonstandard headers, such as ==={{@}}Participle=== which would tell the bots to ignore it? I doubt that there is any reasonably good solution to this problem, especially because of the statistics concern. Right now it’s a mess, and people cleaning pages in languages they don’t understand are just messing them up. —Stephen 16:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
That's one of the key reasons I moved to get WT:POS started. The idea was to have a reference list for POS headers in use that bot users could compare against. If there was a need for a new header, there would be a place to list it and explain the rationale for including it. As one of the people cleaning up messy old headers, I can understand the concern. We have Pronoun, but also Personal Pronoun, Demonstrative Pronoun, Interrogative Pronoun, etc., and all of these can simply be Pronoun. At the same time I understand the issue that not all languages fit neatly into the classical mold of Latin grammarians. I suspect once most of the cruft is cleaned away and a bit more standardization is in place, there will be less concern for bot issues. In any event, having a list of headers (even if it's still unofficial) should solve much of the bot problem. Connel and Robert would be better able than I to speak on that issue. --EncycloPetey 01:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: If there are some POS headers you've been wanting to see added, a discussion on this topic has just begun in the Beer Parlour. --EncycloPetey 05:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I have striked this discussion. Moving to Talk:adalah --Volants 16:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


Is this French slang for drunk/stoned (lit?) --Connel MacKenzie 10:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it’s an Anglicism. I’ve never heard allumé used to mean drunk or stoned before. —Stephen 17:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard it, either; I think it might be heavily dated slang. The digitized Trésor de la Langue Française (TLFi) includes as a sub-sub-sub-sub-sense (sub-sense of the figurative sub-sense of the light-related sub-sense of the adjective sub-sense):
Arg. [Slang], pop. [native] ,,Échauffé par le vin.`` ["Heated by wine"] (LARCH. 1880 [i.e., the def was taken from an 1880 source])
and gives a cite from 1887.
RuakhTALK 19:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(Vietnamese) [edit]

The Vietnamese section probably needs a L3 ('POS') header, if not other cleanup. — Beobach972 02:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

L3 section added. --Volants 16:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


This entry needs cleaning up and formatting better, but I'm not certain how to go about it. Thryduulf 17:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Ruakh has cleaned up --Volants 16:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


The Portuguese translation translates the definition, not the headword. It needs to be replaced with a proper definition or, if none exists, trimmed into a brief gloss (the current one is far too wordy). — Paul G 13:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Was removed --Volants 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

net sales[edit]

I think this could maybe have a good entry some day, but right now has no content and should really be cleaned up and have a decent def and format put in. Neskaya 22:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Redefined --Volants 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

double negative[edit]


These two entries need cleaning up in conjunction with each other. They each imply that a double negation to imply a weak positive (e.g. "not bad" meaning "alright", "so so"; "not unhappy" meaning neither particularly happy nor unhappy) is the other. Thryduulf 15:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether this has been changed yet, but based on the current definitions, I disagree:
Firstly, neither of them necessarily mean a "weak positive"; Double Negatives can just be considered bad english, and Litotes quite often imply a strong positive.
Secondly, the overall opinion of the two differ widely; Litotes are used deliberately, and intended for emphasis, whereas Double Negatives are generally frowned upon, and considered a mistake.
P.S. This is my first comment; I hope I'm not out of place! Dave
—This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 09:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC).
We may disagree, but they are not out of place.
An entry is not supposed to be written as if we were a grammar, usage, or style guide. We have a "lexical" focus, about words as words. We usually hint at such matters, perhaps illustrating the phenomenon with examples, as we would other entries with a photo or drawing, and pass the user on to Wikipedia or an Appendix. DCDuring TALK 14:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, the "usage notes" don't really belong there, because they aren't describing how to use the phrase double negative. Equinox 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I have reworded the first sentence at double negative to make it more like a real usage note, while still hinting at the "correctness" matter. The other material is commented out or moved to an Examples box. Is the Examples box useful? DCDuring TALK 14:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I have moved the examples at litotes to an Examples box and added a double negative example.
Many linguistic and rhetorical entries exhibit inappropriate modality. The location that should be for usage examples of the word is instead used for illustrations of the phenomenon. Ruakh's recent {{Examples-right}} provides a format for such things that eliminates, I think, the modal confusion. Many similar linguistic and rhetorical entries need to be appropriately modified. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks better --Volants 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ardi Gasna[edit]

Lowercase? --Connel MacKenzie 22:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Seemingly like the names of most cheeses, the capitalisation of the name is not fixed (e.g. cheddar and Cheddar are used interchangeably to refer to the cheese, although the toponym is universally capitalised). In this instance, there are too few b.g.c hits in English to form a representative sample, but about 70-80% of the google web hits are capitalised.
According to the google web hits, "Ardi Gasana" is not a toponym, but is Basque for "sheep's cheese" (or "ewe's cheese"). My knowledge of capitalisation in Basque is non-existent, but the name of the cheese should get a Basque entry at whichever is correct (similarly also French and German and possibly other languages, based on the b.g.c hits). The individual words should also get Basque entries if they haven't already (I haven't checked). Thryduulf 22:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
User:DcDuring has rectified --Volants 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


Quotes need dates etc. One definition is a bit strange, native speaker needed. H. (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree about that definition, I've marked it for RFV. Thryduulf 11:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Has been rectified/moved to another cleanup page --Volants 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


I nedd help with formatting. I'm not sure how to set up etymology for the verb form. And the noun is a problem: the noun is actually mopy fish, which should actually have the odd capitalization MOPy fish, but I can see people trying to look up mopy if they saw the term mopy fish somewhere. (Sorry about the mess). RJFJR 13:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up by others --Volants 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


{{subst:notenglish}}: ik; wij; jij/u; jullie; hij/zij; zij. --Connel MacKenzie 19:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what cleanup you're asking for. The list you've given are the Dutch pronouns "I, we, you/you (formal), you (pl), etc." Each pronoun should proceed the corresponding verb inflection. I don't see anything to clean up. --EncycloPetey 23:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Connel's saying we should use the English labels "first person singular" and so on. I'm inclined to agree, actually, though I see both ways. —RuakhTALK 00:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That would make the table very messy. Instead of saying "jij/u", we would have to say "second person singular familiar preceded by pronoun and third person singular formal preceded or followed by pronoun". Dutch has two second person familiar verb forms that differ depending on which second person pronoun is used; one (jij) precedes the verb while the other (je) follows the verb when it appears in a question. --EncycloPetey 02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The table is already messy, but that aside: it is described in Dutch, not English. At least link the things to a special appendix, or do something to describe them in English. My preference, would be to see "I, we, you/you (formal), you (pl), etc." instead of the Dutch currently there. A less acceptable compromise would be "I (ik); we (wij); you (jij); you (formal; jiju); you (plural; jullie); etc." But listing only in Dutch belongs on nl.wikt, not here. --Connel MacKenzie 23:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Do not forget to also fix the derived templates {{nl-verb-refl}} and {{nl-verb-sep}}. H. (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


I'd clean it up myself but don't know whether it's accurate. Rod (A. Smith) 00:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Both sound unlikely. Move to RFV? --Connel MacKenzie 16:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The first sense has been used by Ellery Queen and Dashiel Hammett; it is in the Oxford Thesaurus. The second sense checks out too, but might a bit harder to find citations of use. Robert Ullmann 09:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Ruakh has done some research for this, looks better now --Volants 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


vi? --Connel MacKenzie 08:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam, like other countries in China's sphere of influence, used to use Classical Chinese for a lot of writing, and also to use Chinese characters for native writing. "Han tu" are characters that weren't used for native writing, but we probably still want to include them because different countries pronounced these characters differently, so Classical Chinese words have Vietnamese pronunciations, Japanese pronunciations, and so on. (These fall into a larger umbrella called "readings", and it can be quite complicated; in modern Japanese the same "kanji" — Chinese character for Japanese — will often have a "Chinese reading" and a "Japanese reading", with some expressions using the one and some using the other.) In the case of "han tu" I'm not sure if it makes more sense to list the character as Vietnamese, though, or to give its Vietnamese reading somewhere in one of the other language sections. —RuakhTALK 15:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems to have been cleaned up --Volants 14:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel qualified to start Wiktionary:About Aleut and set about gathering input from Aleut-speaking editors and formalizing policies as to what POS headers would be appropriate? (I don't think we have a language considerations page for any agglutinative language yet, so you'd be treading new territory. For one thing, these languages will definitely test how serious we are about including "all words in all languages". From what I understand, an entire English sentence can often be cast as a single, grammatical word in Aleut; will we therefore require that Aleut sentences be attested wholesale in order to merit inclusion?) Until we have a header for such things, listing these entries here seems pointless. —RuakhTALK 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I know a little about Aleut, but more about Yup’ik, which is a related language. I think these languages may be too exotic for Wiktionary at the present time. Yes, Aleut is polysynthetic, which means that suffixes can be piled on apparently without limit to build very complex words that mean an entire sentence or more in English. Still, there are some simple words, such as Aleut kartuufilax̂ (potato), kurix̂ (cigarette), suupax̂ (soup), paltux̂ (coat), braatax̂ (brother) (note the similarity with Russian картофель, курить, суп, пальто, and брат); or native Aleut ulax̂ (house]], angalix̂ (day). Aleut nouns are declined for three numbers, and the verb morphology is complex: asx̂alakax̂txidix (those two did not kill someone); ayugikux̂txichin (they went out in their boat); dux̂taasaĝilakatxichi (you don’t have a guest). Unfortunately, these languages require the use of some unusual grammatical terms such as postbases, relational case, aequalis, vialis, terminalis, and so on, and I am not able to make it palatable to a reader who knows little about grammar and cares less. I can’t even figure out how to do relatively easy languages such as Russian and Arabic, or even how to format the letters or syllables of scripts such as Cyrillic and Burmese. Right now I limit myself to easily described words such as nouns, basic adjectives and adverbs. Words that call for difficult or odd headers like "expression" or "impersonal verb" will have to wait for another time (and this includes Ojibwe, Aleut and Yup’ik and any other polysynthetic languages). —Stephen 16:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
That's disappointing, but I understand where you're coming from. The less a language is like English, grammar-wise, the harder it is to integrate into a system that we originally designed with English in mind. —RuakhTALK 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Cherokee often does this as well, which is one of the reasons that I have been very reluctant to add words, because there are words for such things as become an entire sentence in English. --Neskaya talk 18:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Very cute POV ranting, but the problem isn't the system; it is the desired end result. The target audience here is English readers, with familiarity of English. It is hard because it is very hard, not because of systemic restrictions (as you assert.) Fitting unexpected structures into a comprehensible scheme is very difficult. It seems obvious to me, that you are currently pushing in some ways, to undermine the little coherency and consistency we do have.
How many "sentence words" does Aleut actually use? Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words? If so, then our consideration for Aleut words cannot be "space delimited" as that would not apply. If it is instead, a small (or finite) collection of terms, they of course should have individual entries. Do you know which it is, or are you ranting for the sake of ranting?
--Connel MacKenzie 17:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Very cute personal attack, but my comment was brief, calm, and sincere; not a "rant" at all. It did reflect my own POV, obviously, but that's inevitable; obviously your comments reflect your POV. I am by no means criticizing the system, besides to state the obvious: it was originally designed with English in mind. Some things are easy to extend; the languages that I speak all fit nicely into this system, as do many others (granted, one editor has objected to Hebrew having a "Root" POS section with a "Forms" subsection, but that's not a consequence of the system itself). However, with polysynthetic languages it's more difficult, because they don't all have "words" in exactly the same way we do, and it's hard to figure out how to incorporate them into our system in a coherent, consistent way (which is something that both you and I prize).
Believe it or not, it actually seems like you and I mostly agree about this. (Our main disagreement seems to be that whereas you think it's more important to fit other languages into the mold of English so that English-speakers will feel like they understand whether or not they actually do, I think it's more important to try to extend the mold in coherent, consistent ways so that our entries are accurate while still being maximally useful.)
Regarding your specific questions:
  • Re: "How many 'sentence words' does Aleut actually use?": From what I understand, an unlimited number. That's the way the language is normally structured, with everything kind of being rolled into the verb. (Caveat lector: I don't actually speak Aleut, and my understanding may be wrong.)
  • Re: "Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words?": I didn't assert that. Please look up the word "often".
  • Re: "Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words? If so, then our consideration for Aleut words cannot be 'space delimited' as that would not apply. If it is instead, a small (or finite) collection of terms, they of course should have individual entries.": Aleut does have things that can be considered "words", but I don't think the boundaries are always well-defined. From what I understand, there are a lot (or perhaps arbitrarily many?) of what are called "portmanteau affixes" that blend different kinds of tense/mood/aspect and agreement information into single forms, that then interact with adjacent affixes in different ways … but I really don't know how it works, exactly: hence my suggestion that people who do speak the language start a Wiktionary:About Aleut and set about figuring out how to fit Aleut into our system -slash- extend our system in a coherent, consistent way so that we can cover Aleut.
  • Re: "Do you know which it is, or are you ranting for the sake of ranting?": Neither.
RuakhTALK 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry if I incorrectly attributed malice to your tone; other posts of yours at the time were directed at me and rather scathing. In that light, it is hard to see your comments as having been neutral. Yet, I still did not make a personal attack; I'm sorry you feel that way. But, perhaps we can move past all this, anyhow?
You seem to have missed the crux: the system isn't designed with English in mind causing these restrictions. We've had foreign language entries from very early on here on en.wiktionary.org. The system is designed to cater to English readers. Aleut having trouble fitting into a coherent mold is understandably difficult, but I don't think that implies (as you seem to imply) that the structure as designed can't accommodate Aleut. The en.wiktionary.org entries for Aleut terms may not end up taking the same approach as other English-to-Aleut and Aleut-to-English dictionaries. But then, en.wiktionary.org doesn't take the same approach for defining English words (and especially word forms) as other English dictionaries.
It doesn't mean that we can't have Aleut entries. It does mean we need to think about how we incorporate knowledge about Aleut words into Wiktionary. I would not be at all surprised to learn that we can't use any other Aleut-to-English dictionary's format. Unlike you, I don't think that is any great travesty. If anything, it will reduce (if not effectively eliminate) the possibility of copyright violations creeping in.
--Connel MacKenzie 03:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: "But, perhaps we can move past all this, anyhow?": I'd like that, yes. :-)
I completely agree with your last paragraph, except that part that implies I think that's a travesty. :-)   I'm not saying that we need to do things the way other Aleut dictionaries do; I'm just saying that we need the Aleut-speakers here to figure out a way to do it that presents Aleut accurately and jibes with our system here. It's my opinion that this will require bending the system a wee bit, but we'll never know until they try. ;-)
Re: "You seem to have missed the crux: the system isn't designed with English in mind causing these restrictions. We've had foreign language entries from very early on here on en.wiktionary.org.": I suppose so. It looks to me like most discussions here still take place with mostly English in mind, and we simply transfer these results into other languages, having specialized discussions when necessary. Heck, the "narrow community" clauses in CFI seem to exclude entire languages that are only spoken in narrow communities (not that such an interpretation would find any support).
RuakhTALK 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


This does appear to be a valid Sherpa word... It appears, however, that the Sherpa language can be written either in Tibetan or Devanagari script, not in Roman. Can someone more clueful than I please move this entry to its proper spelling in one of those scripts? -- Visviva 15:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don’t have a source for Sherpa. Apparently "kangmi" means snowman. Typing it phonetically, it would be ཀང་མི་ (kang-mi) or possibly ཁང་མི་ (khang-mi). —Stephen 17:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Now up for deletion --Volants 12:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


Junk in last translation section. --Connel MacKenzie 15:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

de-junked --Volants 14:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


Redundant senses. --Connel MacKenzie 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Logomaniac has cleaned up --Volants 14:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


Someone doesn’t seem to know what a Derived term is. These[1] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are correct: I do not understand how you can say that those are not derived from the headword. --Connel MacKenzie 05:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Apparently cleaned up --Volants 14:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


These[2] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Has been changed to "See also"


These[3] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly seem like it. "Related" is better? --Connel MacKenzie 17:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks ok --Volants 14:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


This is either spelled wrong or not Yiddish: Yiddish does not use the Latin alphabet.—msh210 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yiddish was removed --Volants 14:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


This is either spelled wrong or not Yiddish: Yiddish does not use the Latin alphabet.—msh210 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed --Volants 14:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


This is either spelled wrong or not Yiddish: Yiddish does not use the Latin alphabet.—msh210 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

yi removed


Possibly too many definitions? Most of them seem to give the same definition just in different words. Maybe they can be concentrated into a few? Jakeybean

Looks better now, using ## --Volants 14:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


Derivations seem misplaced. --Connel MacKenzie 06:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Would spontaneous generation and alternate generation merit their own entries extracted from the material already there ? DCDuring 18:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Taken care of, and Translations table split by senses. --EncycloPetey 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


A new user has entered a Middle English word using Wikipedia formatting conventions. He could probably use some gentle guidance. Widsith? --EncycloPetey 04:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry, missed this completely. Now done -- within a record time of 2 years. Ƿidsiþ 16:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


Possibly too many definitions? Most of them seem to give the same definition just in different words. Maybe they can be concentrated into a few? Jakeybean

Looks better now, using ## --Volants 14:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


Someone doesn’t seem to know what a Derived term is. These[4] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are correct: I do not understand how you can say that those are not derived from the headword. --Connel MacKenzie 05:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Apparently cleaned up --Volants 14:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


These[5] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Has been changed to "See also"


These[6] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly seem like it. "Related" is better? --Connel MacKenzie 17:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks ok --Volants 14:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary:English inflection [edit]

Should this be moved to Appendix:English inflection? Rod (A. Smith) 04:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably. DAVilla 06:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. moved to Appendix:English parts of speech instead --Volants 15:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


This is labelled "Scottish". Is it Scots or Scottish Gaelic? --EncycloPetey 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. tagged Scots. --Volants 15:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


This is labelled "Scottish". Is it Scots or Scottish Gaelic? --EncycloPetey 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. tagged Scots. --Volants 15:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


Formatting, sources consist of "See Wikipedia article" (which, granted, has plenty of them for whoever cleans this entry up). Globish 02:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. information moved to swiftboat --Volants 15:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume your objection is the second inflection line within the noun section. If we accept that each inflection line needs its own POS heading, the natural solution is to add a second ===Noun=== section. You objected to that solution, though, in Wiktionary talk:About Spanish#Reflexive verb formatting. Could you please clarify your objection? Navigation to non-English entries in general is limited to the language section. That is, in an entry with the structure ==Portuguese==/===Noun===/==Spanish==/===Noun===, adding another ===Noun=== section to the ==Spanish== section wouldn't affect MediaWiki navigation at all, so what is your objection? Rod (A. Smith) 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The separate POS sections are supposed to be listed under separate ===Etymology === sections. --Connel MacKenzie 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Cleaned up by me --Volants 15:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


A Finnish word meaning contest, but it isn't clear whther this is a noun or verb. --EncycloPetey 03:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It’s a noun. The verb would be kilpaa. —Stephen 07:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Jyril has controlled this --Volants 15:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


Only section is Spanish. Isn't the given name with an accent Máximo? --Bequw¢τ 22:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Moved. —Stephen 13:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Maximo as a redirect deleted --Volants 15:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


Presumably medical jargon, but it's encyclopedic and has no language header. --EncycloPetey 10:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


No language header, needs formatting. --EncycloPetey 10:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Stephen 13:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


Not sure if this represents a weakness in our translingual scheme, or just an error. This obviously isn't used in Spanish (alone) to indicate emphasis. Also, the e-mail separator is a protocol-level indication (that I'm not certain is valid) but does not apply to application-layer use (i.e. in your e-mail program of choice.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up language sections. Now there's Translingual and a couple a language-specific sections. --Bequw¢τ 18:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)