Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2011/Unresolved requests

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


January 2011[edit]

cathode and anode[edit]

On both pages a number of definitions are given that are actually all synonyms of one another. Cathode comes from κατα and ὄδος: the path down and anode from ἀνα and ὁδος the path up. This refers to the conductive path that leads electrons down into or up out of the electrolyte (or vacuum). The 'definitions' are simply different examples of these processes. Jcwf 02:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have done some work on these articles. Apologies for not coming here first, I started on anode and only noticed the cleanup notice at cathode when nearly complete. I have merged defs 2 and 3 ("the positive terminal... etc) which I agree are both aspects of the same concept. In fact, these definitions were incorrect as stated: anode and cathode are not defined in terms of negative and positive poles but in terms of direction of current flow. Def 1 (oxidation/reduction electrode) I have left as is; although this might be scientifically demonstrable to be equivalent to (the new) def 2 it is not linguistically equivalent and remains an alternative meaning. At the risk of causing further confusion, I have added a new definition at def 3, this is often said to be incorrect usage, but is widely used with respect to semiconductor devices and definitely amounts to a different definition. The definition (def 4) at cathode concerning vacuum tubes could conceivably be merged with def 2 but that would make it an even more clunky definition than it already is so I have left it as it is and created a corresponding entry at anode. A further difficulty with trying to merge the vacuum tube usage in with the electrochemical cell usage is that vacuum tubes often have more than two electrodes, which can all be carrying a current, not all of which are referred to as anodes and cathodes. SpinningSpark 14:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No idea where a competent user would put this comment, but as someone who understand electronics to a reasonable degree and valves to a better degree than most who're under 60 years of age, I should point out that under valve technology the ideal (which was very nearly acheived in most instances) would have been for no valve electrodes to carry current *except* the cathode and the anode. Valves worked by the attractive/repulsive effect of the /static/(stationary) charges on the grid(s) upon the transmission of electrons from cathode to anode. With correct biasing almost no electrons would impinge upon the grid and therefore /no/ current would flow. Remember the interior of a valve is a vaccuum except for the emitted electrons and that electrons will not be attracted to a positively charged grid. Where /my/ theory falls down is I don't understand how the electrons 'know' that the (relatively) charged grid is thusly charged. I assume that this is connected to the infinitesimal, as in ~1e-6A, 'leakage'(for want of better word) current.

The answer to where this comment should be put is nowhere on Wiktionary since it is an encyclopaedic comment and Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia. By the way, you are in error about the grid being "positively charged" - the grid is biased negatively or to zero volts.
Having looked at this again, I think we can merge definitions 4 and 2 and hopefully this item can now be closed. SpinningSpark 16:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


The two subsenses of the main sense are almost completely unintelligible IMO. DCDuring TALK 15:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

See also #top, here for the same reasons. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


The order of the senses and those of the translation tables do not match, which makes the page very confusing. -- Prince Kassad 09:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

black hat[edit]

RFC-sense for the "A malicious hacker who commits illegal acts" sense. See the entry's talk-page. Was previously tagged, everyone seemed to agree that the definition was problematic . . . and somehow it got de-tagged without any changes being made to the def. (It did get reshuffled etymologically, but actually that just added more problems, in that our entry now implies, on top of everything else, that malicious lawbreaking hackers are "villains" who have traditionally worn black Stetsons.) —RuakhTALK 21:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


Slovak section need its inflections inside a template. Etymology can be copied from dub#Serbo-Croatian. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


Done though I haven't copied the "primary among" definition (as in arch-nemesis) as I'm unsure about it. Is it a prefix? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Is this the proper lemma? Surely there should be at the very least one in Japanese characters. -- Prince Kassad 18:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The entry isn't wrong 'per se', it would just benefit from having Japanese scripts as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
But does Japanaese romaji really capitalize proper nouns? I thought it didn't. -- Prince Kassad 22:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Proper nouns in English are capitalized, and romaji renderings in Japan follow suit -- sometimes excessively so, like Sony's insistence on spelling the name SONY all the time. But names in Japan, when rendered in romaji, definitely use initial caps. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 02:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Many of the related terms listed here are blatantly SoP. Someone needs to check all of them and look for idiomaticity. -- Prince Kassad 17:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I propose to split them up into three groups: those that contain proper names, like "Alaskan time", in one group, nouns, and the rest (adjectives etc.). To shorten the list, alternative forms should be moved to the main derived term and removed from the list. Sae1962 (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Warship translation for Romanian (+ some more)[edit]


I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I'll give it a shot.

I've been monitoring translations made by a Romanian contributor and noticed a couple of translations looking like this:

E.g. (Warship =) Romanian: navă militară f.

This just doens't look good to me, taking into consideration that in French, Italian, Portuguese etc. the entire term is linked.

I've tried fixing contributions that look like this, but he keeps undoing my edits.

I just want to know what conventions are to be followed and if this contributor should receive guidelines if his style of editing isn't up-to-date.

Best Regards,

--Robbie SWE 12:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


rfc-sense for sole adjective sense: "Involving a large quantity, or a large number". I am fairly confident that this merits and adjective PoS section, partially based on OneLook coverage, partially on semantic differences. MWOnline has 3 senses. Can any good senses appear in predicate position? DCDuring TALK 19:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


Style is too informal. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


The English surname Alek? Does it mean the given name Alec(k)? Category:zh-cn:English surnames seems to have several given names categorized as surnames, beginning from the letter 亚.--Makaokalani 12:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed (like 400 others). Mglovesfun (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011[edit]


Tagged but not listed. Synonyms section seemingly lists synonyms of definitons that do not even exist. -- Prince Kassad 15:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The small Korean dictionaries I have only have that glyph in words or phrases (it is hard to tell if they are words or phrases), but the general meaning is "side" or "by". The entry was created by a creator of problematic Korean entries, KYPark. - -sche 18:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji, Eirikr, can you take a look at this? In particular, as the original poster notes, the synonyms section lists words like "armpit" that correspond to definitions that aren't listed (if they are valid at all). - -sche (discuss) 22:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I have deleted several words: [1]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


Just doesn't make enough sense. Noun definitions seem to be proper nouns. Adjective definitions refer to nouns. Etymology is listed as a definition. If I cleaned it up myself I would be 'guessing' as I'd either have to move the noun definitions into the noun section, or reword them to be adjectives. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

commission de bene esse[edit]

Tagged but not listed. A total mess. -- Prince Kassad 19:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

à la[edit]

Current French entry is useless but I'm not sure what to do with it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


Even if the French and Dutch are includable, shouldn't it be Touring? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


Tatar. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


Seems that all the uncategorized Scottish Gaelic entries are by this user. Some of them seem to include the definite articles, and some of the capitalized ones are listed as common nouns. Also many of these could do with {{gd-noun}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


Head is 'Scottish Gaelic' and category is 'Welsh nouns'. Since I speak neither, and they're of the same language family, I can't fix it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


Needs context and other templates and removal of tendentious material in usage notes. DCDuring TALK 11:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look. —RuakhTALK 13:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way, a tag such as {{context|perhaps|_|nonstandard}} (perhaps nonstandard) may be warranted. I don't consider it nonstandard, but obviously some editors do. —RuakhTALK 13:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It looks good to me. I just didn't have the courage or acuity today. Should it be "informal" and "poetic"? DCDuring TALK 14:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The funny thing is, that if you ask its users what they mean by it, they (I strongly suspect) won't say that they mean "Alternative spelling of till: until" (which is what the entry currently reads): they'll say they mean "Abbreviation of until.". So, while the former is correct from a where-it-comes-from point of view, the latter is correct from a how-it's-used point of view. We currently relegate the information about abbreviating until to the etymology section. Should we switch to the "Abbreviation of until." definition, relegating information about till to the etymology section, as descriptive? Or, better, put all the etymological information in the etymology section, and define it merely as "until" (with appropriate {{context}} tags)?​—msh210 (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I had only focused on the tendentiousness of the usage notes, but the same spirit is in the etymology. I think users would mostly encounter it in poetry. I find it hard to understand the validity of the "true" etymology given. Why would the front apostrope indicate the loss of the second "l"? The supposed false popular etymology has face validity - as all good folk etymologies do - but also fits the convention for use of apostrophes. Til, without apostrophe, might be an abbreviation or alternative spelling of till. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't totally understand your comment, DCDuring, but as the person who wrote that etymology, let me clarify what I meant: the words till/'til and until are both survivals of much older forms, with the etymon of until being derived from the etymon of till/'til. (In other words: roughly speaking, till/'til is the original form, and until is derived from it.) The spelling 'til results from reanalysis: some people came to view till as a clipped form of until, and some of these people started to respell it accordingly. (This is rather like how the form mike(microphone) got respelled as mic, the latter now being the more common spelling. In that case, of course, no reanalysis was necessary, as mike was short for microphone. But the respelling followed the same idea.)
Regarding msh210's point: I think "abbreviation of until" would be wrong, but I would be fine with a definition along the lines of "Till, until".
RuakhTALK 17:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Now the scales drop from my eyes. Unbeknownst to me, all my life I've been saying till when I thought I was saying 'til (to whatever modest extent I have ever thought about it at all). Because I don't think I have ever written "till" as either conjunction or preposition. Nor have I written "'til". I actually wouldn't have believed that I had ever even read "till", but the COCA statistics suggest that I must have read "till" nearly one-fifth as often as "until" for the preposition and 3% as often for the conjunction.
What would you suggest for 'till? It gets 108 hits at COCA, vs 738 for 'til. Just a misspelling? DCDuring TALK 22:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I used to spell it 'til thinking that the spelling till was a mistake, confusion with noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
@Mglovesfun: Yeah, I think that's pretty a common belief. Some sort of usage note at [[till]] is likely warranted, though I don't know quite what it should say ("in recent use, sometimes considered an error for 'til"?). —RuakhTALK 01:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
@DCDuring, re: 'till: I don't know. I only remember ever seeing one instance of it, and I took it to be an error — a sort of "spelling blend" of till and 'til — but I don't know how to judge. I find this hit intriguing: the book mostly has till, and never 'til, but in a few places it has 'till, even sometimes just one line after till. —RuakhTALK 01:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not terribly common if we consider it a misspelling, especially compared to the number of occurrences of until. It is about 2-3% of till (as prep and conj). But about 100 instances at COCA. DCDuring TALK 02:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
@msh210: Having thought about this further, I don't think I agree with your rationale in arguing against "alternative spelling of ____". In general, I doubt that most people ever think of any spelling that they use as an "alternative spelling" of some other spelling for the same word. If we took the view that a spelling is only an "alternative spelling" if its users see it as such, then we could probably just dispense with {{alternative spelling of}} altogether. It would get so little use. I suppose you're distinguishing between users of 'til, who see it as a shortening of until, and users of till, who see it as a word in its own right; but this is a rather tenuous distinction. I'd bet that most users of till do see it as an informal variant of until, but spell it till for the same reason that most people spell perk(perquisite) and tummy(stomach) and Nick(Nicholas) and Mike(Michael) and Shelly(Michelle) in ways that don't match their associated more-formal variants. —RuakhTALK 21:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


Min nan "transliteration for ba or bar". That's just silly. You can't transliterate the Latin alphabet into the Latin alphabet. --Mglovesfun (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


And taughten. Connel MacKenzie "helpfully" changed the header to Middle English, for no apparent reason. Again, deleting/replacing the entire content seems the best option. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


Would like to speedy delete the Middle English. Only English definition I am sure of is #1. #2 seems like utter tosh, #3 I have never heard of; what context is it used in, a legal context or what? Mglovesfun (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the Middle English infinitive of witen (which we lack) so when we have it, if I'm right of course, this should be turned into a verb form. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep, Chaucer "As who seitk, nay ; for no man travaileth for to witen thinges that he wot."[2]. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

static random access memory[edit]

Encyclopedic definition. -- Prince Kassad 10:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


Defined as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 00:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK now? -- Prince Kassad 12:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The example sentence doesn't sound very natural to me, but I can't quite put my finger on why. The def itself seems O.K. to me. We can speak of the "attestation" of a phonetic or phonological feature (say, the lowering of a vowel), which doesn't quite mean that the sound itself appeared in records, but it's close enough. —RuakhTALK 14:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the usex to something that hopefully doesn't sound quite so forced — see what you think. — Pingkudimmi 06:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

abstract verb[edit]

Reads like an encyclopedic article. -- Prince Kassad 08:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

More like a primer, IMHO. Is it worth clean up, rather than RfD? DCDuring TALK 16:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Dunno. en.wikipedia doesn't have it, so maybe it should be transwikied. -- Prince Kassad 16:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
But is it correct? My "Harrap's English Grammar" makes no mention of them. SemperBlotto 16:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
That might be an RfV question. There is usage of the collocation among linguists, but it is hard to say how consistent among uses and with our sense. DCDuring TALK 17:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Could this be a tail wagging its dog? Is it a misleading calque of something meaningful in Russian? DCDuring TALK 17:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems it would need a context of something like "(in Russian grammar)". Much other usage doesn't seem to correspond to this sense, AFAICT, but I definitely could be wrong. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Languages with more than one grammatical gender[edit]

Tagged but not listed. An old one, it seems. I'll add my two cents and say the name is very misleading. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's not very clear when exactly a word is considered a lemma. With cases this is usually clear (me is the object form of I). But how does it work with gender? Is German sie a form of the lemma er? And does that mean the former shouldn't get its own entry? What about English she and he? —CodeCat 14:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Do we want to keep this at all? I mean, it should say in the title with respect to translations or something: from the title I would assume it's simply about languages with one than one grammatical gender, which is a lot of them. But it's not. If anything it reads like a Beer Parlour subpage. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


Definition: (philosophy, Sartre) Having its being or essential nature not reducible to its being perceived.

I can't understand this, let alone determine its correctness in the absence of citations or authority. What are the standards for a philosophical definition, especially one only defined in connection with a single author? DCDuring TALK 18:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


Sense: A period or condition when food is rare and hence expensive; famine.

I no longer understand which forum is appropriate to challenge what seem to me to be erroneously worded senses, especially in cases where evidence might be produced contradicting my claim of error. So, I try this one.

I don't think that "period or" belongs in the definition. Others may differ. Authority or citations would help settle the matter. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

google books:"during a dearth" has quite a few hits that use "dearth" where I would have used "period of dearth". See e.g. this one. —RuakhTALK 15:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, regarding which forum to use: one approach would be to split it into two senses, one for "period" and one for "condition", and then list the former at RFV to see if periods of famine are ever referred to as "dearths". (I think the "period" sense would easily pass; and surprisingly, based on the cites I've seen, the "period" and "condition" really seem to be a single sense that spans both viewpoints — not what I had initially expected — so after it passed RFV I would probably re-merge them and add some more "condition"-y cites so as not to give the wrong impression.) —RuakhTALK 21:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Based on earlier discussion, should I try to get empirical work done on RfC and RfD? Based on observation I had concluded that RfV caused some actual empirical effort, whereas RfD caused occasional resort to authority, but mostly chin-flapping and voting; RfC caused formating, sometimes sense revision that mysteriously bypassed RfD and RfV, and sometimes RfD and RfV. RfT leads to no specific action, and so seems best for matters that are unlikely to lead to one of the others.
So, would flood#Noun, war#Noun, mining#Noun and all such non-point-event (durative?) nouns (and -ing forms?) need a similar rewording? DCDuring TALK 22:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your observations about forums other than RFV. RFV is the only forum that consistently combines attention-to-reality with actually-accomplishing-things. Where we differ is in the conclusion we draw: you conclude that when reality is relevant, we should use RFV; but I conclude that, since reality is always relevant, the other forums simply fail at life, and we need to be better at them. It would be nice if more people would chime in with their thoughts on the subject(s) . . . anyone? Anyone at all? —RuakhTALK 23:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I think RFV and RFD both have quite specific jobs to do, which they do more or less well depending on who's involved. For general wording issues and definition tweaking I would use the Tea Room, personally, though in cases like this it could be seen as an RFV issue. Ƿidsiþ 07:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I would have sent the entire sense to RFV, expecting proof of the "condition" part to be found. If proof of the meaning "period" hadn't also been found, I would have rewritten the definition to remove that part. - -sche (discuss) 00:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't want to waste time on citing the whole sense, when only the one element seemed questionable to me (and to other dictionaries, I might add). To me that seems to be an RfV matter. Whether one is going after a headword's language section, a PoS, a sense, or a portion of a sense, RfV seems appropriate. OTOH, generalizing senses, rewording for substitutability, cleaning up countability/comparability/inflection, rewording as the correct PoS, reducing wordiness/encyclopedicness (?), and similar more "technical" matters don't seem to warrant RfV. If I see my way clear to how to make and defend such changes, I often do them myself, otherwise I RfC them.
But I got my knuckles rapped for abusing RfV on matters of challenging proper noun definitions that seemed OTT encyclopedic, hence my questions about venue. Is it only proper nouns that are immune to RfV challenge at below the sense level? DCDuring TALK 00:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


English definitions are quite messy. -- Prince Kassad 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


Originally tagged with {{attention|nl}}, I moved it here. First definition should be in English, 'good' is way too ambiguous for the second one (which I translated from goed). --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Appendix:Slovak declension pattern dub[edit]

Tagged but not listed; all the appendices could do with a tabulated format. Even better would be to use {{sk-decl-noun}} to create individual declension templates for noun declension patterns. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011[edit]


Definition not written in English. I wonder if this is classed as a 'noun' in Korean. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

이젠 (ijen) is a contraction of 이제 (ijeneun). The suffix marks it as the subject of the sentence. It’s a noun: 이젠 안녕 (ijen annyeong, goodbye for now). —Stephen (Talk) 07:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


Created numerous entries in the mainspace, most notably Mandarin and Vietnamese ones, with badly formatted pages, which lacked either headers, important templates like {{vi-etym-sino}} or {{vi-noun}}, etymologies, pronunciations, various parts of speech and a few categories for them. In fact, probably the only useful thing worth keeping is the definition added, and judging from a quick glance at them, I believe a few may be a little vague in meaning or otherwise inaccurate. In short, needs heavy fixing/editing. TeleComNasSprVen 10:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

third person[edit]

Third definition is just plain wrong, but the other two definitions only cover verbs. Verbs and pronouns can have first/second/third person forms, perhaps in other languages, other parts of speech. A fear a lot of ttbcs after the reorganization is done, but it's better that than inaccurate, misleading definitions, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What’s wrong with the third definition? A third-person pronoun is he, she, it, they, one. The rest of what you wrote is unintelligible to me. —Stephen (Talk) 17:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes they are third person pronouns, the entry says. They are are not third persons. It needs to be removed but when we do, there won't be any definition to cover pronouns as opposed to verbs. If you want to find citations for "she is a third person" as opposed to "third person pronoun", feel free. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, is wasn't a definition but rather a list; it would be like defining animal with "lion, tiger, turtle, frog, mouse" and then not even naming all of them, which is what the definition did. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011[edit]


This entry was tagged but not listed here. —CodeCat 18:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've followed Wikipedia and turned this into an English proper noun. The Inuktitut seems to be NunatuKavut, but I'm not gonna start making Inuit entries. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The original entry I wrote is perhaps clearer than what's there now, so we should restore it to that state and recover any pertinent info from subsequent edits. Mindmatrix 18:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the biggest problem with it was the etymology. It made no sense to say that the word comes from itself. Nuna means land, -vut means our. I am uncertain about the middle part, tuka, because my experience is with Yup'ik, which is a little different. Tuka might be related to tukangcar-, meaning to raise or rear a child. If you don’t know the etymology, it would be better to leave that section out than to say it comes from itself. —Stephen (Talk) 19:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)



How should these be formatted? --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Any anything else that Benlisquare (talkcontribs) comes up with. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

wrong template for japanese compounds[edit]


Just an FYI, the entry 異国 has the wrong template. It is showing up as an English compound. Ishwar 06:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

same for tyskertøs. Ishwar 06:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

They lack lang= whatever the language is. There are a few thousands of these to find. Good luck! Mglovesfun (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


The etymology for this word requires a small bit of clean-up with regard to the references; the etymology is perhaps rather bloated as well. Caladon 09:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The etymology is extremely detailed, but it is also a relevant and interesting discussion of how definition two came about. 03:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've put the additional details in a box. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


definition: "inclined to avoid notice". Not the best. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

the one[edit]

I don't see the distinction between the one#Noun and the one#Pronoun and I don't think this is either. It seems to be a determiner fused-head NP or nominal#Noun. I suppose that would make it a phrase. DCDuring TALK 00:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The plural seems a tad counter-intuitive. Does it actually exist? — Pingkudimmi 01:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It you are looking for examples of our best work, entries like these are not the ones you should consider. DCDuring TALK 03:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... That doesn't sound quite like the plural of something unique, or even merely special. I was hoping for something along the lines of a young lady's exes being collectively referred to as her the ones. In any case, the sense is already at one, as of this edit. This is exactly where it should be, IMO. Recommend delete. — Pingkudimmi 06:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I have RfVed the plural to see if there is any use of other than as fused head, unless I misunderstand the RfD and the definition. Is the definition just an attempt to put words to the fused-head use? DCDuring TALK 10:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I found this, which is just about right, except for the quotation marks. — Pingkudimmi 12:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
If we only find it in quotes and with "One" capitalized, that suggests to me that it is not normal English. DCDuring TALK 13:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought so too - it seems like the writer recognises it's a stretch. On the other hand, some such construction might be expected to highlight that it is the two-word unit that is being pluralised. (It is after all an unusual plural.) I found a citation that uses just single quotes and lower case, which I've put in the entry. Even allowing that, I'm not very confident we'll reach quorum. — Pingkudimmi 14:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Have you found any uses of "the one" in this sense used in any way other than as a predicate? I find it amusing too, that we don't have an entry for the One or One in religious or philosophical senses. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


The first definition line has several sentences instead of a definition. Furthermore, it has wikilinks to Wikipedia. Marked for rfc by me in this revision. The sentences were added in diff. --Dan Polansky 08:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It now looks satisfactory to me. David R. Ingham (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


Inconsistent presentation. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011[edit]


Somewhat encyclopedic. Needs syns or alt forms. Not my cup of tea. DCDuring TALK 03:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there are any alt forms. It's called VFAT for as far as I know. I modified the definition slightly. It really can't be shortened any more without forgoing essential information. Also added link to wp. JamesjiaoTC 01:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
It initially had virtual FAT in the definition, I have no idea if that's real or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I guess you could break it apart like that. Will need a new entry for it. JamesjiaoTC 03:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

August 2011[edit]


A lot of stuff that ought to be under English initialism is under Translingual symbol, and so forth. It's all a big mish-mash. I noticed this because I was planning to add "(UK|politics|in election results) Conservative", and couldn't work out where. For extra brownie points, add that while you're cleaning up. Thanks! Equinox 23:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


Answers on a postcard, please. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


The PoS and definition don't look right and entry needs proper formatting, etymology, Latin. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


Lots of encyclopedic content. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


Wrong PoS? Is agg and alternative dialectal form of egg#Verb? DCDuring TALK 01:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


mineralology. A five-clause, three sentence definition. DCDuring TALK 07:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

geography fair[edit]

Tagged (by Wonderfool, admittedly); not listed. Equinox 00:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


rfc-sense: something that relieves. Relieve has 12 definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


Lots of encyclopedic content. What should a model mineral entry look like? DCDuring TALK 18:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, terseness is always a virtue, lest we become Wikipedia, and I don't think people will (or should) come to us for a table of Moh's hardnesses and fracture types. I've tried to shorten it but keep a decent number of identifying details and the real-worldy bit about decorative usage. Is it okay? Equinox 22:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Master of the Universe[edit]

This is pretty terrible. Senses 1, 3, 4 seem to be SoP, rather like "ruler of the world", and miscapitalised, while sense 2 (the media franchise) is only Masters of the Universe (plural) and does not belong under this headword. Equinox 20:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


Three separate senses which I expect could be condensed and merged. Perhaps it's just "an objectionable person"...? Equinox 22:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

All the contributions of User:[edit]

Mandarin entries that are not always properly formatted, and often don't make a lot of sense (to me). SemperBlotto 15:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit summaries are very strange too... it looks like it should mean something but it's in some kind of code I don't understand. —CodeCat 15:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Reminiscent of a permanently blocked user, as it happens. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Yup, it's Sven. Why he hasn't been blocked on sight, I don't know. -- Prince Kassad 18:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I have deleted or rolled back all of that IP's contributions, except for this one, and blocked it for a week. Anyone want to fix up [[类别]]? —RuakhTALK 02:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

All contributions by User:Dakhart[edit]

This user has been creating Low German entries that don't conform to the standard layout. Most of them have missing headword lines, use nonstandard headers and have language parameters missing in templates. —CodeCat 15:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

He (or she) seems to have good potential as an editor, we just need to 'nudge' him or her a bit more in the right direction. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, the "related terms" header was frequently used where "see also" would have been better, but that's because we use "related" in a way more specific that many people expect. - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

securities lending[edit]

I don't see how this can be an adjective. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


Multi-sentence encyclopedic definition that probably contains two definitions and non-dictionary material. DCDuring TALK 12:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

periodic table[edit]

The table takes up a lot of space where it is now, but I don't really know where else to put it. —CodeCat 15:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It would go well in a linked appendix, replaced by a more compact image, possibly of the basic table with the "rare earths" telescoped beneath. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
An Appendix:Chemical elements aleady exists. --EncycloPetey 21:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


The definitions given below are rather old-fashioned, and would greatly benefit from example sentences, quotations too:

  1. A communication, or what is communicated; any concept or information conveyed.
  2. An underlying theme or conclusion to be drawn from something.

thanks--Dilated pupils 12:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


"Describing a set or group with six components." Not got any idea what this is supposed to mean. If it were up to me, we could move the other sense to the noun section. Six is just a noun, it has a plural and can be used countably in the singular (a six). Mglovesfun (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Other numbers have that sense too, cf. four or three. -- Liliana 00:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Counter-argument to my argument; in "there are six chairs" six isn't being used as a noun, so it needs a part of speech other than noun. Perhaps that's what this sense refers to. Comments? --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I think what we really ought to do is have a Tea Room discussion where we work out what senses cardinals have and agree on how we should define them. Then we implement this project wide all at once instead of doing it piece-meal. --EncycloPetey 21:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Mathématically speaking, it is enough to define it as five plus one. Any positive integer other than 1 can be defined so. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


This is a bit of a mess. The "alternative" forms reggaetón and reguetón are Spanish, according to Wikipedia, so I have commented them out. The "see also reggaetón" link redirects to "reggaeton". The anagram is actually the alternative form, if it is actually correct and not just a misspelling. — Paul G 10:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


The entry for this UK (?) colloquial term apparently has many senses. Which ones are transitive? Which intransitive? Which both? Can the wording be made to reflect those facts? Usage examples would help. Some of the senses seem generalizable/mergeable. DCDuring TALK 14:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree, there's a lot of overlap. I would merge some of these. I think it's always transitive. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[edit]

All edits by user Several people have tried to get him/her to use standard formatting, but this user persists in duplicating definitions, adding long "See also" lists, adding tanslations to "See also" lists, adding non-synonyms, using parenthetical (s), (es) to indicate plaurals in lists of synonyms and see also terms, and many more problems besides. --EncycloPetey 21:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This user seems sincere, but is a bit of a bull in a china shop -- I confirm all of EncycloPetey's descriptions above, and will add that this user will arbitrarily remove RFC tags, so keep your eyes peeled. They don't seem to read their Talk page; I've tried posting there, but to no avail. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


doesn't conform to ELE -- Liliana 18:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

User seems to be working for a Swedish etymological dictionary, and doesn't have a good enough level of English to communicate his or her ideas. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
What is wrong now? I think the article is OK now. I'm not working for this dictionary. What is ELE? -- 19:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I meant from not for (mea culpa). I just meant I don't understand the English in this entry. If others do, great! Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


This Turkish term is translated as a "misket", which does not appear to be an English word. --EncycloPetey 21:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


Quite a mess here. Equinox 18:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


Second definition is unclear --Newfriendforyou 12:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


Definitions too wordy, too limited in scope. "Heading" implies motion, I think, but "o'clock" can refer to position relative to static object, albeit one with a front and a back. "Heading" is also itself a bit too jargony. The sense for "beer o'clock" (and similar) is missing. DCDuring TALK 14:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Better now? Still wordy, but hopefully more precise, and the missing sense is there. Is it really an adverb? — Pingkudimmi 17:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but I wouldn't take the tag off yet. Good job on the "beer o'clock"-type sense. The w:Clock position says that the direction clock can be either horizontal with 12 o'clock straight ahead or vertical with 12 o'clock straight up ("high"?).
As it is a contraction of a prepositional phrase, it could conceivably be used to modify either a verb (or adjective, adverb, or clause) or a noun, but I can't think of any instances of modification of a verb. "Twelve" in "twelve o'clock" seems to be a noun modified postpositively. So adjective would be better than adverb. We could also call it a contraction. I don't think we can call it a preposition phrase because it doesn't look enough like one. DCDuring TALK 19:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


Tagged, but not listed. Perhaps already sorted. -- Gauss 12:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a problem in the Swedish section, where the tag is? DCDuring TALK 13:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
RfC inserted at entry bottom September 2008 in this edit. A lot of water under the bridge since then. DCDuring TALK 13:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


Tagged, not listed. Looks like an RFV might be in order. Equinox 10:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

sensu stricto[edit]

Translingual and Latin section, but the only category is Category:en:Biology! Mglovesfun (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The category tag was simply missing a language parameter. I've corrected it to {{context|taxonomy|lang=mul}}. --EncycloPetey 18:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

lingua franca[edit]

The Italian uses {{infl|la|noun}} ({{la}} being for Latin, not Italian). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It occurs in both languages: [3] --EncycloPetey 21:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The error was introduced by a User editing words in both languages. Fixed. SemperBlotto 21:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


Needs to be split by etymology along lines indicated in current Etymology section. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


Use of templates in the etymology, make the alternative into alternative forms, or move that information elsewhere. Also it has 'Slavic' in the descendants section, though it's not a language. Definition is also imperfect, and it uses {{ru-decl-noun}} although it isn't Russian. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[edit]

All contributions by User Most lack language or POS headers, although most seem to be real words with useable content. --EncycloPetey 06:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles generated by User:Celloplayer115[edit]

No headword. Definitions lacking an initial #. SemperBlotto 17:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Many of these seem to be the result of badly formatted plural forms. I've left a note and model on his user page in the hopes of staving off more sour notes. --EncycloPetey 21:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


Sense: "Exposing to loss or evil." Had old {{attention}} tag. DCDuring TALK 18:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


rfc-def: The quality or state of being oneself. No cites to confirm meaning, improve definition. I can't relate this to the two senses MWOnline has: selfishness; selfhood. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

hats off[edit]

Wording objected to. DCDuring TALK 21:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it a verb or a phrase? It seems to be worded like a verb, with the header 'phrase'. Also, is it an imperative? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me to be an ellipsis for a phrase with a verb in it, which missing verb is a natural part of the definition. It doesn't inflect like a verb. It seems to be used just like an imperative form of a verb. There are others of this structure, like eyes right. DCDuring TALK 11:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
...and one side which is, oddly, listed under a "Noun" header.​—msh210 (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't one argue it's most commonly an interjection? —This comment was unsigned.

Interjection?! Yes, you could and many do. I'd prefer that we follow a definition of interjection that was limited to expressions of emotion, whose meaning is not covered by other parts of speech or the phrase pseudo-PoS. Many words can be used interjectively (?) such as "interjection" at the start of this. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

zincirleme ad tamlaması[edit]

The usage notes here are way too long and encyclopedic. ---> Tooironic 13:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

And the example sentence is awfully, um, provocative. —Angr 14:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


Noun section has 4 encyclopedic-style definitions that look to me like instances of the verb form. IMO, they aren't even worth adding as senses to monitor#Verb, but others may disagree. DCDuring TALK 11:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

text file[edit]

The second of the senses seems to be a bit encyclopedic, overly detailed and narrow, and, to the extent it is not, to duplicate the first sense. DCDuring TALK 18:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

See [[talk:text file]]. The distinction between the two senses is roughly that 2 is all files except binary files, so including HTML, CSS, Javascript, CSV, RTF, and many other files excluded by 1, which is just plain text meant to be read by humans and not machines. (This comment is meant to address your last concern, duplication, only.)​—msh210 (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


Native American demonym and glossonym to be sorted. Is it a family? DCDuring TALK 00:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The family would be Salishan I think. -- Liliana 05:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[edit]

All translation edits made by User: This user has been putting Japanese translations in {{l}} instead of {{t}}, among other problems. --EncycloPetey 00:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(See previous discussion above, on this same user). --EncycloPetey 00:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


The noun definitions are totally unformatted, and I'm not positive we need all of them. -- Liliana 05:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The wording could be improved, especially sense 9, the business title sense. DCDuring TALK 11:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

burn in hell[edit]

if it's a verb prefixed "to" then it isn't a "statement of anger" Equinox 17:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; also seems worthy of deletion as SOP. ~ Robin 14:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


1980s slang. Needs lots of work, including prep for RfV for the several PoSes and senses. DCDuring TALK 22:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


If this is just a variant spelling, why are the definitions reproduced here? We should just be cross-referencing "vermilion". In fact, the definitions are already inconsistent with those at "vermilion".

I would also posit that it is a common misspelling rather than a variant spelling. The OED lists it as such. 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)



  1. Excited by desire in the pursuit of any object; ardent to pursue, perform, or obtain; keenly desirous; hotly longing; earnest; zealous; impetuous; vehement; as, the hounds were eager in the chase.


Definitions appear to be wrong, c.f. the JA WP article linked to from right in the entry. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 06:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Romanizations of Mandarin entries[edit]

Special:Contributions/ This user has added a number of romanizations of Mandarin terms. What is to be done with them? DCDuring TALK 01:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't block 123abc as he/she seems to be able to generate an unlimited number of IP addresses to work from. I think we should simply stick with noun, verb, (etc.) as headers, the same we do with Japanese. For example, in a Serbo-Croatian or Azeri entry, I wouldn't expect to see ===Cyrillic spelling=== or ===Latin spelling=== as a header. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
If you do that, an entry ends up looking like this. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Yet, the reading given for the lemma yèli seems to have a missing tone -- this clearly shows a low tone, not a neutral tone, on the final syllable. Unless the word is often pronounced with a neutral final syllable, I'd classify this entry as flawed and either 1) move it to yèlǐ, or 2) delete it as garbage.
Frankly, I tend towards wanting to remove such pinyin-only entries, unless there's clear evidence of use as pinyin -- as has been pointed out ad nauseum elsewhere, Wiktionary's search box works just fine when entering pinyin to find Chinese hanzi entries, so there's absolutely zero need for pinyin lemmata.
As a side note, is there any way of telling if this IP user is in fact User:Engirst or User:123abc? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
A Checkuser could tell what IP addresses a registered user used, but there is a lot of smoking-gun evidence that the edits for these entries is User:Engirst. See Special:Uncategorizedpages for the growing list of such entries. DCDuring TALK 11:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Given the circumstances (uncategorized, incorrect tone in some cases), just use Special:Nuke. I've done a lot of them but probably some remain. Will have to wait for the up-to-date last next time the server refreshes the list. If only 123abc would actually talk to other users... Mglovesfun (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, thank you both. About Special:Nuke though, I can't seem to see anything there, since I'm not an admin. (Which is fine with me, that's just meant by way of explanation.) -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
There are a few more at Special:Contributions/ DCDuring TALK 21:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

squatter camp[edit]

"Settlements with shacks made of wood, cardboard, tin and other scrap material" followed by a lot of usage notes that aren't part of the definition itself. Tone also seems to me to be too informal. Furthermore, surely the definition isn't "Settlements with shacks made of wood, cardboard, tin and other scrap material", it's essentially some sort of camp, the fact that the shacks are made of wood, cardboard (etc.) is just incidental; if the shacks were made of plastic sheeting, it wouldn't disqualify it from being a squatter camp, would it? I also wonder if it's merely a camp full of squatters, if so it would be rfd material. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

English is usually ambiguous about the exact case/prepositional relationship between the head noun and attributive noun in N-N compound nouns. A squatter camp is easy as it is a "camp" with/for/by/of "squatters". No OneLook references other than a couple of wikis have this either. It seems quote NISoP to me.
OTOH, it seems to be a part of South African English or possibly colonial English or UK English to call it a "squatter camp". In the US it is more likely called a "squatters' camp". DCDuring TALK 18:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


This includes a somewhat encyclopedic definition and one or more definitions that seem to be of proper nouns. The term seems to be used in various ways including as a single mountain range, a group of mountain ranges, and a group of mountain ranges in a certain type of location relative to a continent. Sometimes the plural is used for the latter two, I think. Cordillera may not exist except as a deixis or anaphora referring to a particular cordillera, which might account for the second sense. DCDuring TALK 15:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


More messy not-quite-vandalism from enthusiastic-but-not-very-clueful IP users. The list of compounds is nearing encyclopedic proportions; I'm reasonably sure that some of the items are not Japanese, the formatting's a mess, and putting these into a table wouldn't go amiss. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011[edit]


Yet another. See alsos again. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 01:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


There are a few 4-year-old related entries that need variously to be cleaned up, coordinated, considered for RfV. DCDuring TALK 12:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


A bit confused, this one. There's an RFE for Japanese in the Translingual section, and the Japanese marks the character as a kokuji or "Japanese-only", making it very unlikely that there should even be a Translingual section in the first place. Can anyone can find non-Japanese use of this character? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Heading levels[edit]

I just saw today that KassadBot had flagged a couple entries I created last night as follows:

Noun at L4+ not in L3 Ety section

The entries ウェイトレス, ウェートレス, and ウエイトレス were all flagged, and all have the basic heading structure:

  1. Japanese
  2. Etymology
  3. Noun

Many words in Japanese have multiple etymologies, with the POS entries particular to certain etyls; see かみ for one such example. Given this, and what I've seen in other entries, the POS heading belongs under the Etymology heading, as above -- which makes the Noun heading here L4. So what is the bot flagging this for? I'm confused. Did it parse the wiki markup incorrectly? Am I misunderstanding its message? Somebody please clue me in. -- 05:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Gah, that was me, but apparently my session expired before I hit "Save page". -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 05:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I also noticed over at 特製 that KassadBot made the Compounds header L4, under the Noun sense. This strikes me as incongruous for Japanese, as compounds are formed from the kanji, irrelevant of whichever part of speech -- so compounds should be L3, as best I can tell. There are cases where a kanji term in Japanese might have multiple parts of speech, such as 特別 which could be either adjective or adverb; compounds created from this term could be using it in either sense, so L3 for the "Compounds" header would be more appropriate. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 05:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know whether "Compounds" is a valid header. Wouldn't "Derived terms" be adequate for what is included under the heading?
KassadBot does not usually mark the heading that is the actual problem. WT:ELE specifies that Alternative forms appears above any Etymology at level 3 if it applies to all the following Etymologies. If it does not apply to all etymology section it can appear below each applicable Etymology section at level 4 if the forms are only applicable to some of the etymologies (or, possibly, in the normal location with a qualifier tag specifying the etymologies for which applicable).
WT:ELE also specifies that PoS appear one level below Etymology if there are multiple etymologies, but at the same level if there is only one.
I simply don't know about any language-specific rules that apply to these entries, but generally cross-language consistency in formatting is desirable. You might want to pose your questions also at WT:AJA for language-specific counsel. DCDuring TALK 14:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Derived terms/Compounds could appear at the bottom of the applicable Etymology section or at the bottom of the entire Language section, but above References etc. DCDuring TALK 14:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, DCDuring. As you probably saw over at WT:AJA, it seems the policy is to use "Derived terms" for inflected forms and "Compounds" for kanji-only forms. This makes sense to me, FWIW, since in talking about Japanese in English, strings of just kanji have generally been called "kanji compounds". -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 04:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


Apparently this is a Hassānīya prefix. Looking at Category:Hassānīya language, it doesn't indicate a script, but it's an Arabic language. Should this be moved to the Arabic script for? Or moved to ould-? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, enWP says it uses Arabic script, and Ethnologue says it uses Latin.​—msh210 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I see, said the blind man[edit]

The alternative forms seem rather silly: some are not attestable and some are long jokes rather than short dictionary phrases. Also there's a guy who keeps coming and adding them when they are removed. Equinox 16:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Too many: remove all red not-very-common ones IMO. This is an example, though, of why alternative forms should be beneath definitions.​—msh210 (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I've removed them all. They can always be put back as needed. That aside, I wonder about the definition ("Said to express confusion"). I thought this was used the same way as I see (i.e. to express understanding), and to express confusion only when used euphemistically (or sarcastically perhaps). Anyone know?​—msh210 (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Greek terms in English categories.[edit]

There are a couple of categories that have Greek words (not borrowings). Here is the first and here is the second. I am too scared to remove them myself. --Pilcrow 23:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. —Angr 09:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
They use {{US}} and {{UK}} instead of of {{qualifier|US}} (or UK). Mglovesfun (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of the entries of User:Gtroy[edit]

Missing language, missing definition line, crazy formatting. I haven't got the time. SemperBlotto 21:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What else did you have planned? Equinox 21:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
A half-hours read in bed, then a good night's sleep! SemperBlotto 07:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Anything else I should be worried about or fix or learn?


According to the Oxford Dictionary "administration" is a mass noun, and shouldn't have a plural form. Administration needs attention by an expert, and administrations should possibly be deleted.—This comment was unsigned.

Our definition 2 is certainly countable: the administrations of the various schools.​—msh210 (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
A comparison between the Bush and Obama administrations. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the OED has a couple of cites of the plural, including one from Macaulay. There are many words that are usually mass nouns but occasionally have a plural sense. Dbfirs 14:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


The English definitions are, I strongly suspect, incorrectly split by etymology.​—msh210 (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


Surely if zindelijkheid‎ is the noun, this is the adjective. So it needs a definition to match, also categorization - zindelijkheid‎ needs {{nl-noun}}. NB I'm seeing Google Book hits, so deletion ought to be avoided. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned the two entries up now. —CodeCat 13:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


Not a well-formed entry. (Egyptian Arabic). DCDuring TALK 23:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it had an Egyptian Arabic header, but Pashto language codes. Wikipedia only has it as a Persian letter (and other references have that Persian letter), so that's what I made it. - -sche (discuss) 20:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

few and far between[edit]

Keene (talkcontribs)'s definition "rare and scarce" is crappy. --Rockpilot 18:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Why? 20:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps because rare and scarce are synonyms in the applicable sense, whereas the expression implies something beyond mere rarity or scarcity, perhaps being "hard to find". DCDuring TALK 21:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


Another frankly gawdawful mess of an entry, mostly by IP user Special:Contributions/ with some "help" from the equally-clueless Special:Contributions/ I've cleaned up the JA entry and removed the RFC from there, but the Cantonese and Mandarin entries need some serious help, including proper hanzi templates. I'd add them myself but I have no idea which ones are appropriate. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of the entries touched by Special:Contributions/[edit]

This IP user is becoming increasingly disruptive, adding rubbish content and then reverting editor attempts at fixing the rubbish. Please be on the lookout for anything by this user. They are quite interested in magic, the occult, and anything Japanese, but they have minimal Japanese ability. They are also demonstrably ignorant of WT:CFI, WT:AJA, and WT:ELE. I strongly suspect this is the same user as User_talk: and User_talk:; see entry above at WT:RFC#魔法 for a bit more detail.

A short-term block would not go amiss, as it would give Haplogy, myself, and any other Japanese-reading editor a chance to catch up with the cruft. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2011[edit]


One of many examples of putridly outdated and moldy archaic-sounding definitions and citations.--Rockpilot 00:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does read like a copy of an outdated dictionary, but I think "scoff" is still a synonym. Dbfirs 14:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

heart attack[edit]

Sense one should read smoothly in one sentence; sense two needs to be better defined and its example sentence should be separated from the definition. ---> Tooironic 23:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Good now? (I've detagged, as I think it's fine. Feel free to re-tag it if you disagree.)​—msh210 (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Beautiful. Thanks. ---> Tooironic 01:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


The Mandarin section seems a bit confused -- it has both ===Romanization=== and ===Pinyin=== subheadings, with some redundancy between the two. The ===Pinyin=== section also doesn't seem to clearly indicate traditional and simplified spellings. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand it either. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I have cleaned up some. --Anatoli 22:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


It seems not all the noun senses here are necessary. If they are, they're really badly worded. 4, for example, links to a verb form. -- Liliana 04:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what #4 means, but everything else seems more or less ok. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


Webster entry. Definitions need formatting. Synonyms and Antonyms need to be associated with definitions rather than numbers. -- Liliana 12:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


The pages スケール and エチュード are in Category:en:Music but they're not English words. Celloplayer115 03:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The lang=ja tag must be missing. We have several thousand, possibly tens of thousands of entries needing language tags. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


Are the example sentences given violating copyright? ---> Tooironic 20:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't see why they would. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio is a possibility, as specific Bible editions can be copyrighted, if my understanding is correct. At any rate, the formatting is a mess (CJK languages generally should never be italicised due to severe legibility problems; the relevant words are not bolded), transitivity isn't clear, reflexivity isn't clear, nothing is linked, the usexes given don't clarify anything, etc. Looks par for the course for 123abc's work, unless I miss my guess. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 20:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how long a citation has to be before it's a possible copyright violation. Furthermore, I searched the entry to find where the page name is used in the citations, and it isn't. Why is that? Is it a conjugation issue? I can't read Korean so I can't bold the right bit. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure either about length. However, I can at least elucidate a bit about the verb -- the -다 (-da) on the end is the verb ending that changes through conjugation, but the 낮추- (natchu-?) stem should remain the same in at least a few conjugated forms. C.f. the conjugation table for 말다(malda) ("to roll up", not sure if this is trans or intrans), where we find the stem 말- (mal-) in some forms but not all (changes due to phonemic environment). -- HTH, Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 23:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


The entry is really a huge mess and needs lots of cleanup. -- Liliana 20:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go quite that far, but the citations should go with the sense the exemplify, and not under a ===References=== header at the bottom. Again, looks like a Wikipedian style where a Wiktionary style would be better. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


There is a category tag ([[Category:English suffixes|]]) misplaced in the entry. --Pilcrow 18:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


Doesn't meet ELE in the slightest. -- Liliana 13:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

better now? --Rockpilot 13:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


Sense: A means of joining two pieces of wood together so that they interlock.

As worded this sense excludes a butt joint. DCDuring TALK 17:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2011[edit]

segons que[edit]

Catalan conjunction meaning "according to"? DCDuring TALK 00:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The definition is not right, I think what's meant is just segons. segons que also exists but is used as a subordinating conjunction, so its definition needs to change. I don't know what it is though. —CodeCat 14:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


Tendentious definitions, missing senses/subsenses. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


Suspiciously like the AHD sense. I can't think of a nicer way to define this though. —Internoob 00:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this onomatopoeic? That might be one piece of information to include by way of differentiating from the AHD entry. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 05:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that might work. I also found another one: solipsism, also a WOTD nom. —Internoob 00:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Probably Yahoo just changed one word in the OED definition "Esp. of an infant: to cry feebly, to whimper; to make a whining noise.". The OED claim the obvious onomatopoeia, via Middle French "miauleur" and "miaul" --> "meawl". Dbfirs 14:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


Is the pronunciation applicable to both etys? Is alt forms also limited to ety 1? DCDuring TALK 00:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Word of the day/Archive/Alphabetic[edit]

Needs updating for the last five or so months. There are also probably holes in the dates. Bot maybe? —Internoob 05:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed, needs to be formatted with traditional, simplified and pinyin forms. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


Per my request on the entry page. I am not familiar with most of the definitions, so can someone who is more familiar with the word wikify and categorise the definitions? JamesjiaoTC 22:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

more Catholic than the Pope[edit]

Written as a verb, but it isn't one. In fact I'm not sure what it is, adjective I guess. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it's an adj.Lucifer
Sense 1 could use {{&lit}} despite the claim in its context tag. The usage note identifies a third sense we don't have listed as such.​—msh210 (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This looks to me like an entry for which the "Phrase" PoS is made. The headword does not behave very much like a true adjective. It is hardly ever used attributively and does not form a comparative. Instead it fits in the natural sequence "more X than Y", "as X as Y", and "less X than Y". DCDuring TALK 15:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
To save time, I'll agree with everything msh210 said. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Ever?  :-) ​—msh210 (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Above my previous comment! Mglovesfun (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


Does it really have ten different meanings? I don't know any Polish, but I find it hard to imagine. Are they not all one meaning (albeit usable in any person and any number and any gender and any, er, whatever the thing is called that distinguishes current sense 10 from current sense 9)?​—msh210 (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The definition is similar to these you can find in Polish-English dictionaries (url). I split the definitions because I think we can add a different example sentence for each one. Do you think it will be better to merge them on one line?
Się is a very specific word in Polish and it's not usually translated for "myself", "yourself"... etc. In a sentence it always occurs with a verb. It's like "up", "down", "for" or "on" in English phrasal verbs. It's a part of a verb and it has actually no exact English equivalent. Maro 22:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
What does it do, then? Perhaps a better definition than the ten we have would be "{{non-gloss definition|Marks a verb as reflexive}}" or "{{non-gloss definition|Used to form verb phrases: indicates volition}}" or "{{non-gloss definition|Appended to verbs to indicate occurrence by accident}}" or something. Compare to our adverb definitions for over.​—msh210 (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


The translations need checking and cleaning up, can someone help with that please? —CodeCat 17:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've also signalled on Talk:wave that definition #8 makes no sense, to me, anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)



  1. A real or mythical person of great bravery who carries out extraordinary deeds.
  2. A champion.

The second is at best ambiguous, a champion of what? A competition, like boxing or soccer or whatever, or someone who promotes something, or the Medieval sense?

For the first, it doesn't seem to cover actual usage. Do you have to 'carry out extraordinary deeds' to be a hero? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

straight A[edit]

Noun doesn't match headword. (Does the singular even exist?) Equinox 23:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well the adjective form has to be "straight A", but I don't think the singular exists for the noun form. I don't know what the policy is in cases like this. Leonxlin 23:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Attributive use of 'Straight A's'? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the adjective form of this compound ought to hyphenated as "straight-A" as it's a standard adjective-noun composition; and the pluralisation of the noun form commonly wouldn't include an apostrophe as there's no disambiguation required with "straight As" (assuming the "s" is uncapitalised, which it ought to be).


Basic formatting needed, but also can someone please check that it isn't a copyvio? Equinox 21:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at improving the entry, but please improve further. Dbfirs 23:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


Needs ety, Devanagari script. Reference or verification? DCDuring TALK 23:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Does it have to be from a Devanagari script language? Other than that it's ok. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I have cleaned up and will reference this entry. It will still need scripts, which I will leave the rfscript on that page to get that covered. I will remove the rf template.Speednat (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)