Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2012/Unresolved requests

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


January 2012[edit]

All Dutch edits by User:Verbo[edit]

This user was blocked three years ago (thank goodness!) but there are still a lot of very dubious Dutch edits. They seemed to enjoy reinventing the wheel instead of using established formatting conventions. A lot of the etymologies this user added are confusing and overly verbose, and some are downright wrong, not to mention that none of them use any etymology templates at all. For example see diff (after I fixed it). The same applies to form-of entries as well, none of them have any templates, they're all just plain text. I am slowly working through their edits to check them but it's a lot and I'd like to ask others to help out. —CodeCat 22:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Oh, and they also made several edits that include a plural and diminutive on words that have none, like diff. And in any case, even if that word had a diminutive, only one of the two forms given would have been valid! —CodeCat 22:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This should really say 'all pages edited by User:Verbo', no reason to stick to only Dutch. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Note that User:Fastifex was a second incarnation of this user (also blocked, for adding "erotic" sentences about spanking to almost everything he edited). Equinox 13:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


Encyclopedic psychological definition. I would just delete, but perhaps something can be salvaged. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go. Hopefully not far off the mark. — Pingkudimmi 01:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


We have eight senses, compared to MWOnline's four. None of ours are fully attested. I am reasonably confident that some senses are badly worded, wrong, and/or overlapping. DCDuring TALK 16:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, in the Christian sense (and probably other religions too) you can be receive a blessing from a vicar, priest, minister, etc. It seems to me we have nothing to cover that sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


Two adjective sections, in one headword is defined as noun, encyclopedically. DCDuring TALK 15:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is an adjective. I mean, how would you use it in a sentence? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Are temperature scales nouns or adjectives? There seems to be inconsistency here. Fahrenheit says adjective, but centigrade says noun. What part of speech is Celsius in "Celsius temperature scale"? At least "A metric scale of temperature, originally defined as having the freezing point of water as 0° and its boiling point as 100°, at standard atmospheric pressure" should be removed. This is actually incorrect, it is the definition of centigrade, which is not quite synonymous as claimed by the entry. The centigrade page has the same error. SpinningSpark 22:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


Our definition of warmer is "comparative form of warm: more warm". But warm means "Having a temperature slightly higher than usual, but still pleasant; a mild temperature". In my experience, warmer does not mean "Having a temperature even higher than usual, but still more pleasant; a more mild temperature" (or anything of the sort): in my experience, warmer means precisely the same as hotter: "more hot". Am I alone in this? If not, i.e. if there really is a "more hot" sense, then are there two senses of warmer, including the one we have, or is there only the "more hot" sense? And what does our current sense mean, anyway?​—msh210 (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm, on the other hand, warmer in my experience does mean "more warm" in the sense of warm that we have as "Caring or charming, of relations to another person" or other senses. Perhaps that's what our "more warm" sense of warmer is meant to convey, and we need merely to add another sense. I await confirmation that the "more hot" sense I'm thinking of is familiar to others before adding it. The question remains whether to qualify the "more warm" sense, restricting it to certain senses of warm.​—msh210 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
My impression is that, with respect to measured or perceived temperature, warmer is not interchangeable with hotter. I think it is usually used to mean something like "having a higher temperature, but not one usually considered hot". But I'm not sure whether one would say that -35C is warmer than -40C. It would be an empirical question. DCDuring TALK 22:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
You agree though that if one thing is hot and another merely warm, the second isn't called warmer than the first? Then warmer does essentially mean "hotter": but maybe, as you note, qualified that it's only used when the thing that's warmer isn't hot also. A definition would then be "hotter without being hot" or something. In any event, it doesn't seem to mean "more warm" (in the temperature sense), does it?​—msh210 (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I searched for "warmer" "not hotter" and could not find the distinction that you object to. There might be other searches that would find the sense.
While searching, I found this quote, which illustrates the point I was making:
  • 1897, Charles Thomas Davis, The manufacture of leather, page 394:
    When they are ready for scouring, some curriers object to warm water, but it is very necessary for these goods, as it not only aids in cleansing, but it opens or rather mellows the fibres so that the leather may be fully extended and laid flat; they should then be placed in a tub or vat, with sufficient warm water to cover them without pressure, and be firmly slicked out on the flesh and well brushed over and put back into rather warmer water than before, but not hotter than the hand can be held in, as heat in this state of leather that will not injure the flesh of the operator will not injure the article operated on.
    —This unsigned comment was added by User:DCDuring (talkcontribs).
How many other instances are there of groups of adjectives (or adverbs) whose absolute forms can be viewed along the same underlying scale but are at different points, not synonymous. Obviously cold and cool (frigid?). Are red and pink like this? Are there other scales besides temperature (and possibly color)? windy/breezy? Do human emotions have this, eg, angry/annoyed? This seems like a larger problem, potentially than this entry. It also seem more like a usage note or linked appendix concern than a definitional one. I have removed the RfC, but feel free to revert if you think this can be addressed at the level of this entry. DCDuring TALK 13:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

February 2012[edit]


The entry suffers from a proliferation of senses, mostly without citations, with usage examples that mostly don't support the senses given. Is anyone familiar with East African English. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

food literacy[edit]

Doesn't quite feel like a dictionary entry yet, and should the two senses be merged somehow? Equinox 23:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: the creator has tweaked this many times since I posted it here, and it's looking a lot better now. Equinox 00:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


Sole adjective definition: "More than one of something." Sounds wrong or rather poorly worded to me. Also it doesn't cover the most usual English usage such as 'plural form', you can't say that 'houses in the more than one of something form of house'. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  • That bit's OK. However, the tags "(grammar, without plural)" and "(grammar, with plural)" when defining "plural" seems ridiculous...--WF on Holiday (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


"(arts|slang) A genre of art; referring to any piece which is fueled, at its core, by a moebius of self-referential meta." What's a moebius? What is meta (noun)? What does this mean? Can someone define it in English? Equinox 21:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, it's a transwiki. Quite easy to spot a transwiki because they're very often unattestable, sum of parts or incomprehensible. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I am seeing what looks like three good hits on books.google.com, but I can't work out the meaning from them. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I added a sense reflecting the predominate usage: exploitative art films. I haven't seen anything to support the original sense, which I take to mean art which is preoccupied with itself or the artist's self ("moebius" seems to refer to the Möbius strip, a shape that twists back on itself in an infinite loop). I think we should rfv the first sense, which may very well be a protologism (in that sense only). Chuck Entz (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


See talk page. There are incorrect forms in the conjugation template. This also applies to other entries such as schießen, scheißen or reißen (all verbs whose stems end on an /s/ sound?). Longtrend (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have commented on the talk page. The German Wiktionary's conjugation page has the same forms (and problems) as we have. - -sche (discuss) 08:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012[edit]


I genuinely do not understand the definition. Equinox 01:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I get it, but I had to read it slowly, and more than once. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I gather it's what Penny Arcade more crudely terms John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


A bit long and rambling. Shaky grammar. Equinox 14:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Fine. Someone modified SB's defn. --WF on Holiday (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


Shouldn't un montón and del montón be created separately? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I created del montón, which was pretty obviously idiomatic. I'm not quite sure what un montón is. There are variants like muchas montones and un montón grande that make it look more like SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


Needs help from someone with more background than I in literary history. Contexts and applicability of term seem confounded in first three senses. Implications for translations? DCDuring TALK 13:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Translingual plurals[edit]

Does Translingual language have a grammar? The first two entries were created as English and then changed to Translingual, so I think they should be deleted or changed back into English. 12° has a Translingual header but categories and templates are for English. Maro 19:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, though an argument could be made for a kind of grammar for binomial taxonomic names. But that is a looser definition of grammar than I think we mean. I think delete. DCDuring TALK 19:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
12° seems Translingual, like the other paper sizes, and I have made it so.
§§ seems plural to me, even as a Translingual, though they could be.
For all of these and for all the paper and book size entries, some attestation would be useful. The families that are from Latin or are purely graphic or typographic, like §§, may well be used in many languages. It would not be fun to attest them. Probably the most effective way would be to find whether reference works in various languages contain them. DCDuring TALK 20:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The -s forms look to me like a mixture of translingual and English, much like you see with kanji and hiragana in Japanese. The test would be whether such forms ever appear in any language that forms plurals differently. As for §§, I think we would be better treating it as a translingual representing a plural rather than the pural of a translingual. How do we treat Chinese characters that are different depending on the gender of the referent (spoken Chinese has no grammatical gender)? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I found the example I was thinking of: the 3rd person singular is a version of that's used to refer to females, as in English "she". Spoken Chinese has no grammatical gender, so the distinction is strictly translingual- they're both in pinyin and are spoken the same. We mention in the etymology section of , but we don't treat it as the feminine form of . More evidence that we shouldn't treat translinguals as inflected forms. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Also see spp. and pp. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have doubts about the translinguality of 12°. In fact I'm under the impression that most countries in the World use ISO 216 standard in which 12° does not belong. On the other hand, if it is translingual, twelvemo is hardly its translingual synonym, probably duodecimo neither. Might be safest to change it back from Translingual to English. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever they use now, the older standard (and a current standard among used booksellers) includes all the forms that are in the table that involve only Latin or Italian derivation. The singulars for many of these can be found in a few European languages. There may be some individual items that are not attestable, even in English. I can find the plurals for many in English, but not in other languages, not even French. I think we could start by making all the plurals English and, of course, eliminating any instances of {{en-noun}} from the inflection line for the Translingual entries. If we would like to make all of the paper/book sizes English, subject to attestation in other languages, that would be fine with me. I am personally much more confident in the English, I never have high expectations about attestation effort in languages other than English, and, after all, this is English Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 23:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Some were fixed, others redirected. Nothing more to see here, chaps --WF on Holiday (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


Six senses, perhaps as little as three distinct senses. The thick end of something, seems ok, the bully sense is at rfv, the other four senses seem to be all overlapping, I think they're either two senses or one. They are:

  1. (US, colloquial) An incompetent or unsuccessful person; a loser.
  2. (pejorative) an unintelligent person; a blockhead.
  3. a gullible person; a sucker; someone easily taken advantage of; the target of a scam.
  4. someone lacking good sense - especially considered so for being scrupulous or unselfish.

Surely unintelligent, gullible and lacking good sense are all the same sense. The top definition is actually mine though I'm not happy about it. I think 'chump' is a catch-all pejorative term a bit like 'dickhead' but can also imply stupidity. Can anyone suggest a good way of defining this in either one or two definitions. If I could do it, I would have done it by now. Translation tables would also need revising. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

An unsuccessful person could merely be unlucky. Repeated lack of success is evidence of incompetence. "Incompetent person; loser" seems legitimate.
I think "a gullible person" is a central sense and is much more specific than "a stupid person".
  • 2008, Geoffrey Moehl, Storm Castle, page 106:
    I will not be the chump who takes the fall. I've ignored common sense long enough, and, as usual, trying to be agreeable with Lindsey only succeeds in causing major damage
Foolishly unselfish or scrupulous, if attestable, is also distinct.
Frankly, they all seem distinct. I don't know that they are all attestable, but the "overscrupulous person" sense seems the most questionable. DCDuring TALK 00:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I suspect the gullibility sense is off the mark: a chump is someone who's been taken advantage of (or is intended to be), not just someone who's gullible enough to potentially be taken advantage of. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of cites like: "You're just the kind of chump they'll get to do the dirty work." The characteristic seems prior to and distinct from the exploitation of the characteristic. DCDuring TALK 23:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I did some more cleaning and combining (prior to reading this discussion, in fact). - -sche (discuss) 02:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks liek good cleaning and combining...--WF on Holiday (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


slug#Verb 2 senses:

  1. "To down a shot." Is this transitive or intransitive?
  2. "casual carpooling; forming ad hoc, informal carpools for purposes of commuting, essentially a variation of ride-share commuting and hitchhiking." This is a definition for a noun. How is this used as a verb? How should it be worded. Where is it used? DCDuring TALK 16:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks to me like "casual carpooling;" is context rather than definition. The real definition starts with "forming". Chuck Entz (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe something like "To form ad hoc, informal carpools, in what is essentially a combination of ride-share commuting and hitchhiking" Chuck Entz (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't quite fit the two citations I found, which are not yet sufficient for attestation. There are probably more to be found on Usenet. DCDuring TALK 23:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it's the verb formed from the last sence in the list of noun forms, above it on the same page. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

carriage return[edit]

This is incredibly verbose and technical. I don't believe it is helpful to anyone trying to understand the word. Equinox 01:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I simplified it. It may require some further tweaking, but at least it's readable. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


A huge mess. Not even all the entries listed on the en.wikipedia disambiguation page are covered by our meanings. -- Liliana 17:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


Another entry from our known-suspect magic-obsessed IP user. This term appears to be cromulent, showing up in a Buddhist terminology list among other places. However, the entry is a complete mess, and I suspect that many of the synonyms and see alsos are bogus. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 15:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

One possible method of cleaning entries like these is to replace the extraneous content and questionable defs with {{rfdef}} and track down and add the valid information at leisure. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)



More fun, same user, same obsessive messiness. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 16:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


Would somebody mind dealing with this? Thank you --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I will be adding cognizor when I get to it. (I'm doing Webster in more or less random order.) Equinox 21:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - I feel so amateur with all these ultra-committed editors around... :) --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


See: tilhøre or forlate for example.

  1. This template should be named no-conj-verb or something like that. It is conjugation template but is used in the place for headword-line template (under L3 header).
  2. Something is wrong with the imperative.
  3. What is inflection 1 and inflection 2? They look the same.
  4. It is used under == Norwegian Bokmål == but the conjugation is for NB and NN. Maro 16:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


I made this entry after a vandal started it (with sexual nonsense, as usual), but I don't actually speak Old English. Can somebody check that I didn't massacre it (I vaguely remember that ang declines, so maybe it needs a declension table, etc)? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I gave it a go. The template seems to want a plural, but other than that I believe it's pretty much accurate now, albeit not complete. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

signal transduction[edit]

Recent addition by new user User:Scienceexplorer (Talk, Contribs). The definition in its current form is quite dense, and I'm left feeling like I know less about signal transduction than I did before I read the entry. Could someone who knows about this field rework the definition for greater clarity? -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 18:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, biology is a major side interest of mine, but some concepts assume so much knowledge that they can be hard to define understandably for laypeople. How is it now? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
That looks much better, thank you! -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 19:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


If someone can explain to me why an apparently ASL entry, which is incomprehensible to me in any case, is on a page with a title in Hangeul, I will be much obliged. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It was created that way. If you look closely, you'll notice that the ASL part is just an empty framework. My guess is that the IP who created the entry copied it from somewhere to serve as a template, then forgot to take down the scaffolding after it was built. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Right, it's fairly common that people will creative 'new entries' with no content other than the preloaded scaffolding the new entry creators provide. I've deleted it as not being usable content. The Korean entry still exists, though, 'cause I presume it's OK. - -sche (discuss) 05:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it's just a transliteration of the English word stocking, but that seems citable. However, perhaps the author/vandal meant w:Star King (TV series). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
My favorite quickie reality check is to go to the Wikipedia article for a word and click on the interwiki link for the article in the appropriate language. Korean Wikipedia indeed has an entry for stockings under w:ko:스타킹. I might add that transliteration would only be used to describe converting the spelling of a non-Korean word into hangul. This is the spelling of a Korean word borrowed from English- I'm sure it accurately represents the pronunciation of the word as it's used in ordinary Korean speech. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The original question was about ASL (which has been cleaned up), not Korean. The Korean is correct. --Anatoli (обсудить) 04:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


Can someone please fix the collapsible table at the bottom and also make sure that I did the whole entry right (having never added a Korean word before)? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

All edits by user[edit]

I think this is the same person as our previous magic-obsessed Japanophile IP user posting under addresses in the 2.2xx range, and possibly the same as the user with addresses in the 90.xxx range. I gave them a 3-hour block earlier today to prompt them to read a number of WT reference pages and to give me time to go through their edits.

Of 11 total edits that they've made so far, yesterday and today, every single one had issues:

  • Created the page steely-eyed, now up for RFV at Wiktionary:RFV#steely-eyed.
  • Added links on several other pages to steely-eyed. (I've left these alone pending RFV.)
  • Added a non-synonym to the entry. (Removed.)
  • Added translations to the Selene entry that required reworking. (Done.)
  • Created 5 other new term pages, all for Japanese, all requiring substantial reworking. (Done.)
    • Included links to JA WP pages that don't exist.
    • Included links to other languages' WT for pages that don't exist.
    • Added content more suited to WP.
    • Added wholly-bogus content scrounged up from who knows where, or maybe made up on the spot.
    • Misused categorization templates, and misattributed source languages.

This user appears to be a huge time sink just waiting to happen. I sincerely hope they clean up their act, but if they are the same user as before, my hopes are not high. Please be on the lookout for edits from this user. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 00:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This user is so consistent in their bad editing, and it is such a drain on our time, that a longer (or even indefinate) block could be appropriate. - -sche (discuss) 08:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
In the interest of giving someone a fair shake, I'll give them another chance -- so far I've only written to their talk page just the once. But if they come back with another slew of problematic edits, I think I will block them for a much longer span. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 19:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

squeeze in[edit]

I'm reasonably certain that the last sense should be moved first and reduced to {{&lit}}, but what about the others? And should we have an entry for squeeze into? One can squeeze a dinner into a tight schedule, after all, or squeeze into tight jeans, just as well as one can squeeze an appointment in or say "it was a small car, so we all had to squeeze in". - -sche (discuss) 08:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

April 2012[edit]


Weird. Not very clear. Sense 3 is not a definition. Equinox 16:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

See also being-for-itself by the same editor. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
And being-in-itself. DCDuring TALK 18:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Reference suggests contributor is just reading Hegel. Do we have the sense Hegel uses of being? DCDuring TALK 18:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

in line[edit]

An adjective sense needs to be merged with the adverb sense (I think). SemperBlotto (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


This is categorizing in Category:Latin script characters even when not in the main namespace. The code is so complicated I can't find the problem. -Mglovesfun (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed it... diffCodeCat 22:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


Categorizing in the wrong namespaces again. Sigh! Mglovesfun (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

skin up[edit]

Tagged but not listed. I can't be bothered right now, sorry. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


cut 2[edit]

All adjective senses. Which of these are a true adjective sense with a meaning distinct from that of a corresponding verb sense? Are we missing some verb senses? DCDuring TALK 17:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


The only definition given is the crayon color, but that only dates to 1993 and there are cites given dating back as far as 1947. I'm not sure how to word the non-crayon definition, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


I'd like to add some translations but I don't think senses and translations match, also don't see a common sense - revision (of the studied material). --Anatoli (обсудить) 02:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  • That problem's been solved. But I still don't like the huge number of TTBCs. Anyway, the general cleanup is done.--WF on Holiday (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

May 2012[edit]


Derived terms. How many of these are actually derived using this suffix rather than -ation or -ion? I'd certainly like something more than a set of bald assertions in the form of a list. DCDuring TALK 02:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Most likely none... this probably doesn't exist. Not as a suffix anyway, only as a string of letters. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


I'm having a lot of trouble understanding this entry, both Translingual and Mandarin sections. Could somebody please clarify and elaborate? Thanks --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the worst problem with the translingual section, but that exposed another: the definitions are verbatim from here]. The contributor obviously just copied-and-pasted them- even forgetting to separate two of them after removing the letters marking each one. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
From the history, it seems it was created by a bot using the Unihan database, which is where the error comes from. It still seems like the definitions ultimately came from the source I linked to above, though they may have come from a common third source. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The ZH WT entry at zh:迧 gives as an alt form, but I do not know if this counts as a simplified, traditional, or simply alternate character form. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


The synonyms need to be split up by sense. — Paul G (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


This explains it: more Wonderfoolery. How did I not guess? In any case, this is a jolly mess he's left for us. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In fairness, this is what {{rfdef}} is for. If there were no citation to go with it, I'd delete it happily, but since there is, let's keep it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm struggling to find any uses of the term outside this one particular dispute (the Scottish football club Rangers is in financial trouble, and its owners want to wind it up and then start a new company - the newco - which would continue the Rangers name), but there is a Wikipedia page about this word, and the fact that no newspaper articles about the dispute define newco makes me think that it must have been used before. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, cited, and I've added a second sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • NewCo, Newco, and newco all occur in business discussions, especially in the discussion of corporate restructurings (mergers, etc). The capitalized forms are proper nouns whose specific reference is defined in the context of a specific proposed business restructuring transaction. I don't think that anything significant can be associated with the capitalized forms, but we can inflate our entry count by having them. It should be possible to cite the common noun by searching for "a newco" and "newcos". I don't really think two senses are necessary. DCDuring TALK 11:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I have added citations for newco in the headword's capitalization. DCDuring TALK 11:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The citation given for the second sense does not seem to support the definition. To me, it seems to discuss "newco" in the sense of the first definition. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Looks great now, and the original user was blocked, so we're unlikely to hear from them again. --WF on Holiday (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

common purse[edit]

Confusing definitions:

  1. A shared or community fund.
  2. The people's purse.

1. is obviously ok, is the second one just the same thing as the first? I assume purse doesn't refer to the physical object so if distinct from sense #1 it needs some clarity. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  • You could've merged them, Gloves. Oh well, 5 years later, as always, it's muggins here cleanin' up. --WF on Holiday (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


The adjective definitions aren't of much help, IMHO. --Maria.Sion (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

read my lips[edit]

Definition uses an invalid header, a standard non-POS level 3 header, either idiom or phrase, should be probably used instead. Fedso (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


Since the creation of the entry by an anon in 2005, this entry has content now in Usage notes and External links that looks misplaced and probably excessive. Someone familiar with w:Dichotomic search might be able to salvage something and finish cleaning this up. DCDuring TALK 15:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I was bold and just removed all the links (except those in the definitions) and usage notes. They were all encyclopedic material. Still needs a decent pronunciation. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 04:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012[edit]


The entry includes the definition of two expressions: hacer juegos and juego de manos. These should have their own entries, but I’m not familiar with either (hacer juegos also needs to be clarified, and might be SOP). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 02:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


There is a dispute with another user that auscultate only refers to touching a stethoscope to a patient in order to listen for their lung sounds but it is clearly also used to refer to the ausculation of heart sounds, this is evidenced by the articles on wikipedia for stethoscope and heart sounds, and any medical book. This other user stubbornly blocked me for reentering factual information and the definition is currently inaccurate, any thoughts?Lucifer (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that you are that "other user"? See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/auscultate?diff=16869694. —RuakhTALK 19:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This time, Lucifer is right. I have fixed the definition and removed the tag. Technically speaking, the defintion was already correct, because it refers the reader to auscultation, but it's clearer now. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, he's wrong: he would only be correct if either (1) only lung sounds could be auscultated, as he initially claimed, or (2) only lung sounds and heart sounds could be auscultated, as he now implies. But neither of those is true, because in fact, plenty of other things can be auscultated as well; for example, examination of the abdomen includes auscultation to listen for bowel sounds. The best fix is simply to remove this encyclopedic information that is not relevant to the term auscultate. —RuakhTALK 22:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I've never heard of bowel auscultation, but auscultation supports that idea of everything, so I'll change it. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The real problem is that this isn't really a full-fledged lemma in its own right. The proper place for this stuff is auscultation, which already has a definition that covers the extra information. By the way, the "see also" section has ausculate, which doesn't seem to exist. Perhaps LW was thinking of osculate, which is only similar in that heavy breathing is often involved... Chuck Entz (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
It's one of his more common spelling errors, I'll fix it. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I have common spelling errorz?Lucifer (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, even when you're not imitating a lolcat. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


Adjective defined as noun, so essentially no definition. Another transwiki not cleaned up before being moved into the main namespace. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I spent some time on it, but it's still not perfect. If you look at autotelism (which has lesser problems of its own), it seems that the adjective was copied whole from the noun, with only a very rudimentary attempt at adapting the definitions. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
After looking at the edit history, and the first WT edit, it seems I wasn't as wrong as I thought I was at first: the headword was originally autotelism, but it seems to have been moved to Autotelic, then autotelic, with an autotelism entry created and populated from the original entry, then the original entry was jury-rigged into the current autotelic article. The result was almost as bad as the process. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

riddled [edit]

Added to entry by DCDuring, but no entry here. No idea what need to be cleaned up. -- ALGRIF talk 12:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I'll ask @DCDuring. I doubt he will remember tho. --WF on Holiday (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    I am satisfied by Ruakh's 2012 changes. The Rfc tag apparently wasn't removed when the rfc section was archived. DCDuring (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


Good grief, all the derived terms and see alsos in the Volapük section are longer than the rest of the page put together. Most derived terms seem to be sum of parts (Pakistani dinosaur?), and some of the see alsos are beyond bizarre (scientist? category? the?!?). Unfortunately, I don't know enough of the language to properly cut this down to size. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I spent a couple minutes straight laughing, and then I deleted the entire See also section, filled with unrealted and semirelated terms that didn't belong there. I also deleted all the terms in Derived terms that were obviously SOPs, but the rest are mostly borderline SOPs; Volapük has the same problem German has with single word pseudo-SOPs. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
You have a weird sense of humor, MK. But the net result is a successful cleanup. --WF on Holiday (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


Long, encyclopedic category-theory (mathematics) definition that abuses our formatting conventions. Can a good definition be salvaged? DCDuring TALK 16:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has the full formal definition, we just need an outline. Done. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed with no edit summary in 2009, looks like a candidate for immediate untagging. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The definition was somewhat confusing in 2009, but it’s good now. I vote to untag it. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 22:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I had to look up freehold first, then I had to look up fee simple which is used in freehold. A few citations might make it easier to understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


Definition "The way to do something." I find this way too general and/or ambiguous. For example, if I see someone holding a cricket bat wrong, I can't sau "you're using the wrong route" or "your route is wrong". Mglovesfun (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


RFC-sense "A part of Unitarian Universalism." I'm not sure what this is getting at, so I don't know word it better. - -sche (discuss) 20:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


Etym 2. crab means crab apple and "crab apple tree". This could be right (I suppose some people somewhere possible use "crab" to mean "crab apple", but the entry at crab apple says etymol crab+apple. So what does "crab" mean? Possibly means "bitter", or "wild". I don't really know. If someone does know, could they add that definition. Then there remains the problem of all those supposed derived terms (with crab grass noticeably missing). What a mess! -- ALGRIF talk 13:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've seen crab used to mean crabapple in the context of horticulture (as in, "this cultivar is one of the best of the flowering crabs"). Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me like crab apple is a redirect to crabapple, which has no etymology section, and I don't see anything in the history of either to indicate a recent change. What's more, there's an etymology under Etymology 2 that notes a Swedish dialectal cognate. Where are you getting all this from?
At any rate: I was under the impression that crab apple is the main term, and that crab is just short for it (which means nothing until someone checks the actual history of the word). If so, the etymology should go to crabapple, and be replaced by "From crabapple". Either way, crabapple/[[crab apple] is the term most are familiar with, so it should have an etymology, if only "From crab (apple)" Chuck Entz (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm getting it from crab#Etymology 2 -- ALGRIF talk 16:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to "but the entry at crab apple says etymol crab+apple." Check for yourself- it doesn't. Perhaps you were getting crabgrass mixed up with crabapple? Chuck Entz (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

mobile reporting[edit]

Equinox 00:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


"Used in building." Sorry what, does this mean that a hammer is structural? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

RFV it? It might be redundant to sense 1. Equinox 18:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

orgastic potency[edit]

Doesn't make any sense, and full of links that might be spammy. Please cut it down to actual definitions that make sense to human beings. Equinox 21:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm really unfamiliar with how to write wiktionary entries, but of use may be three definitions on the related Wikipedia article, all by Wilhelm Reich:
  • "[the] capacity to attain gratification by discharging an amount of libido equivalent to the built-up sexual tension in the organism" (1927, Further Remarks on the Therapeutic Significance of Genital Libido).
  • "the capacity to surrender to the flow of biological energy, free of any inhibitions; the capacity to discharge completely the dammed-up sexual excitation through involuntary, pleasurable convulsions of the body" (1940, The Discovery of the Orgone, Volume 1: The Function of the Orgasm.)
  • "the capacity for complete surrender to the involuntary convulsion of the organism and complete discharge of the excitation at the acme of the genital embrace" (date unclear, Selected Writings).
All the other definitions are either distortions or derivatives.--Gulpen (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
They're not of much use, if any, to me. If other people understand them, great, good for them. I take it Equinox you've checked that this can get three citations, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that these are terms very specific to Reich's arcane and long-discredited theories, and mean nothing to those who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not see why the validity of Reich's work should be of any concern for an accurate definition. (It is also simply false to claim that all of Reich's work is discredited. His 'Character Analysis' was used as a standard textbook in psychology for many years, for example.) At any rate, there is such an incredible amount of disinformation and distortion about Reich's work that it justifies keeping close to Reich's OWN definitions, which is why I supplied them. Fact is that 1) Reich coined the term and 2) he adjusted the definition several times.
If it is necessary to fully understand the terms, there is a related Wikipedia article (including many references) that are available for study.
By the way, of interest to fixing this entry may also be the term 'orgastic impotence' as the opposite of orgastic potency.--Gulpen (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think our current definitions lack lexical potency in the sense that they fail to clarify the term. I'm not an expert in Reichology, but to me his definitions look like complicated ways of saying "capacity to reach an orgasm". --Hekaheka (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the two are fundamentally different. For example, though virtually all men have 'ejaculative potency', during an orgasm many experience disgust, unpleasure, phantasies, partial release, various forms of anxiety (conscious or subconscious), mechanic movements, etc. etc. However, none of these can occur with orgastic potency (not to mention that almost no people experience the involuntary, rhythmic convulsion of the whole body - merely some local response). This is all written down on the related Wikipedia page. Every single word in Reich's definitions are crucial as they function to exclude all the pathological phenomenon associated with orgastic impotence.--Gulpen (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Again, I'm not arguing whether any of this is valid. I'm just trying to help clarify the conceptual difference.--Gulpen (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


The computing sense consists of five sentences. The music sense also seems a bit encyclopedic and PoV. The cricket sense is encyclopedic, belonging in a rulebook, not a dictionary. DCDuring TALK 11:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Trimmed computing sense. That leaves cricket and music senses. Equinox 13:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I've had a go at the cricket sense. The music sense seems to be a bit obscure, and misses the main music meaning as in session musician or session band. SpinningSpark 12:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I wish I knew what the contributor was getting at with the Gaelic bit. It seems encyclopedic. Does a WP article shed any light? Put it in the talk page? DCDuring TALK 12:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The gaming sense seems like a specific use of sense #1, could be rfd-redundant but in all honesty to me it's uncontroversial enough just to remove it. The cricket one probably is distinct from the other senses, I know what it means, I will reword it at some point (expecting visitors here, can't guarantee I can do it now). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the gaming sense, added a usex to the first sense to show music use, RfV'ed the existing music sense, and removed the rfc tag. DCDuring TALK 12:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


are these right or is there some formulaic def for these female versions of púbico?Lucifer (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


The etymology consists of: "Originally, is written by mistake, which the sound is "gluk"". Is there any useful information in this? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Etym apparently added by Lo Ximiendo in this edit. However, the surprisingly ungrammatical nature of the added sentence makes me worry that Lo Ximiendo's account has been hijacked; her writing is usually better than this.
FWIW, this character does not appear in any of the Japanese references I have to hand, and web searches for Japanese pages show usage only in reference to Chinese place names. The ZH WT entry lists this character as an alternate for , potentially consistent with Lo Ximiendo's addition. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
All Lo Ximiendo did was move the etymology to its canonical position. The poorly written etymology itself was added by an anon here. —Angr 06:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Angr, I'm clearly not at my most observant.
Hearkening back to Chuck's original question then, I suspect the anon IP meant to convey that the character originally derived from a corrupted form of . James, or any of our other Chinese-speaking editors, can you shed any light on this? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


rfc-senses: poker slang 'a card that appears to help no one' and 'a low card'. Neither of these are quite right in my opinion. Rags as a plural is often used in poker slang to mean 'poor cards'. I've never heard of it as a community card as a opposed to hole cards, but I'd like to try and find out if it does exist. So in summary, I'd like to merge these into one, more accurate definition which better fits actual human usage. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The card that appears to help no one sense is real; I added one citation to Citations:rag and I've just found a second one. I don't feel like I need to add three citations as I was the one questioning it in the first place. Still... the two senses are really the same, it just so happens that low cards (ones with low numerical values) are unlikely to help anyone as player usually play high cards. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


Needs some kind of fi-verb or part of speech etc. or it won't be categorised. Equinox 16:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've categorized it, we still need a native/competent speaker to look at it. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
This is very common in spoken language. I added pronunciation, alternative forms and a usex. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


Chatty; encyclopaedic. Equinox 01:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this needs citing before cleaning up, we can't define it until we know how it's used. I couldn't turn up anything on a quick search - perhaps it should be deleted altogether. SpinningSpark 10:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I took a run at it. I used a bit of it to enhance [[behind the curve]]. DCDuring TALK 11:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


Tagged a few weeks ago by Hamaryns (talkcontribs), but not yet listed. An IP tried a sort of piecemeal fix, which Razorflame (talkcontribs) reverted. I'm sure it was a good-faith edit, but this needs a more systematic reworking : right now it reads like it can't make up its mind whether it's a dictionary entry or bullet-points from a lecture, and I'm sure there's a good bit of overlap in the senses- it says a bunch of things without really adding up to much of anything. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are too many definitions. I have added a bunch of translations, which are all about the same sense, mistress and slave-girl translations should be added separately. I'm having trouble writing the definition properly, though, so it's not defined as simply "mistress", "lover" or (female) slave, etc. Perhaps the status of both should be mentioned? We hardly use concubine in the modern world, since there is no nobility any more. --Anatoli (обсудить) 04:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


"Eager for prey or gratification." Is this meant to be praise or gratification? In any event, given the citation, is this correct anyway? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


The description in the entry seems a little off and it also mentions and which I believe is meant as English rather than Norwegian (because in Norwegian it means 'duck' I think). The synonyms are also suspicious. —CodeCat 00:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the anon who added it actually forgot which language they were writing. A quick look at a Norwegian dictionary leads me to guess that the following were actually meant (except in the definition line, of course):
and=og, plus=pluss. As for the substance of the usage note, that will take someone who actually speaks Norwegian to fix it. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

head of steam[edit]

Def doesn't quite match quotation. (It's low in "substitutability".) —RuakhTALK 02:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This started out as "work up a head of steam", created by WF, in typical WF fashion, in order to make use of the quote. It got moved to head of steam, but the POS-reassignment surgery to the definitions was botched. It's probably best to throw everything out and start fresh. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Substitutability problem was mainly a mismatch between countable definiendum and uncountable definiens. I have RfVed the second sense and added an etymology. Do with it what you will. DCDuring TALK 12:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


"Having a magical protective power". Not really sure what this means. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Could it be in the sense of these quotes;
  • The talismanic power of the victorious athlete is quite similar to the consecrating power associated with a purified murderer...[1]
  • Was it something after this manner that Ficino himself composed images, in which the basic magical or, talismanic power was softened by expansion into Renaissance classical forms?[2]
  • Nevertheless, there exist a number of prayers the purpose of which is to provide talismanic protection to the reader or wearer or, in some cases, to others less directly associated with them.[3]
  • The talismanic charm of that missive will never be textually known, Madame Hanska's letters, one and all, having been destroyed.[4]
SpinningSpark 15:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

July 2012[edit]


Sundanese. PoS issues. PoS given is adverb. Wording of definitions suggests verb or noun. DCDuring TALK 01:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It really depends how Sundanese works. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I have fixed it up, but only be going on my (limited) knowledge of the grammar of related languages and the original wording in the reference (an out-of-print dictionary). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


Should not this be a proper Noun ? There is also etymologic Information awkwardly placed in the Definition. --Æ&Œ (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

local variable[edit]

global variable[edit]

These two are listed as antonyms but have the same definition. -- Liliana 08:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  • And guess what? One is a variable that has local scope, the other a variable that has global scope. Just delete them both. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Beer parlour#User:Sae1962. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I've improved the definitions. —CodeCat 11:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Not like you could've made them worse! Mglovesfun (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I do think these should probably be deleted, though, and the relevant senses added to local and global. There are many other possible kinds of variable scopes, like static, thread-local, and those terms don't have to apply only to variables. —CodeCat 12:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


Example sentences are in with the definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


This page is aggressively bad. Until I expanded it, the only sense was "A judicial court of chancery, which in England and in the United States is distinctively a court with equity jurisdiction.", which I have kept for now but cannot make any sense of (the court itself is not a chancellor, surely?) Most of the facts in the usage note I have been unable to verify, and most of the derived terms look like clear SOP, probably imported from 1913 Webster by mistake. Can anyone work out what the original sense means, and tidy it up a bit more? Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

square peg into a round hole[edit]

This is defined in the way square peg in a round hole is and should be defined. I can't think of how to define this without reference to one of the several verbs commonly used with this (at COCA: fit (2), force (2), ram, pound, drive). It could be finessed by defining it as an alternative form, though that is not the narrow definition of alternative form. (We do use a broad definition of alternative form for proverbs.) Is this derived from a proverb? DCDuring TALK 17:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Winkler bottle[edit]

The term seems real, but I don't know what it means and our current definition certainly doesn't help.​—msh210 (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go at this and added an etymology. SpinningSpark 21:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


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

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

fire in anger[edit]

Tagged but not listed. I kinda see where the entry is going, though is it only used with 'to fire'? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think 'fire' is the only verb that can be used with this. You can also raise your voice in anger, growl in anger and so on. —CodeCat 20:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
In football (soccer) I've heard of 'kick a ball in anger' (kick a ball during a match, as opposed to in training). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Why not just RfD this verb + adjunct expression? If someone can produce citations that show it to be something other than fire#Verb + in anger, good. I also rather doubt that in anger is inclusion-worthy. There is a use of in anger meaning something like "for real" (as opposed to "for school", "for play", and especially, "for practice"). Perhaps this entry should be moved to [[in anger]] and cleaned up there. DCDuring TALK 21:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
It looks to me like "in anger" has a specific military definition that anger wouldn't cover. The definition should be at in anger, rather than here, because it may take other verbs. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I've change my mind and agree, but, as MG pointed out, it's a bit broader than military, certainly including competitive sports. I could even imagine it being used in business. DCDuring TALK 21:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
You can also do something 'in' other emotions... in fear, in frustration... —CodeCat 21:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
But the point is, as the usage note says, that "fire in anger" doesn't actually necessarily imply the emotion of anger; "in anger" seems to be a military technical term meaning "with intent to kill, cause damage, etc." regardless of the emotional state of the person firing. —Angr 22:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that almost always the meaning of in anger is recoverable from its components. To me the use that the contributor of this entry and MG have in mind is a bit different. Anger does not mean "seriousness" or "a state of intensive motivation". At MWOnline, usually quite inclusive of senses, only two definitions appear: "a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism" and "rage". Our definition at [[anger#Noun]] does not include this either. As User:Angr points out, an individual soldier need not be angry to fire a shot in anger. Perhaps the definition of anger could be stretched by personifying the forces at war and imputing anger to the personifications. I also don't think that anger has this sense with other prepositions (not from, because of, or out of, for example) nor as subject or object of a verb. The periphrasis "in a state of anger" also does not yield this sense. DCDuring TALK 22:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


Swedish; rambles on a bit, usage notes duplicate the definition, IPA uses a non-IPA character. Actually if it weren't for that, I could clean it up myself. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean the grave accent? That is an IPA character. It also had an apostrophe instead of a stress marker and a regular colon instead of a triangular colon, which I fixed. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Seems okay now. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


Not exactly sure what to do with this etymological addition - can somebody rewrite it or something? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. It's probably valid but copied verbatim from a copyrighted source, it even links to this source to confirm that it's a copyright violation. So first job is to revert it and mask the edit, then add back whatever information is useful with an original wording. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Is it a copyright violation when it's quoted and attributed? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know, but I don't know that this one was 'attributed' so much as it had the URL at the end. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
@Μετάknowledge: I think you're confusing "copyright violation" (a legal problem) with "plagiarism" (an ethical problem). Attribution is not generally a factor in copyright violation. (With some exceptions. Example exception 1: certain copyrighted works, such as Wiktionary entries, are publically licensed with an attribution requirement (via CC-BY-SA or GFDL or whatnot), so of course it's a copyright-violation to violate that license by using them without attribution. Example exception 2: certain kinds of fair use only make sense if it's clear what the original source is. It's hard to claim "it was just a book review!" if the "review" doesn't mention the book.) —RuakhTALK 12:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Haha, thanks. I try to avoid the two, and I also try to avoid legal discussions, so there you go. I would always rather refer situations like these to RFC and do manual cleanup myself. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


Lycomedes (talkcontribs) created entries over a 4-day period in February, mostly Latin and English scientific terminology. The bulk of it is no doubt reasonably accurate, but there are a few entries where the definitions are obviously wrong: epipterygius is defined as "yellow-stemmed", which is obviously a guess based on the common name of a fungus with epipterygia as the specific epithet (the Greek components to the word have nothing to to with "yellow" or "stem"), caryophyllus is defined as "fleshy-leaved", when it really comes from the Ancient Greek name for cloves, and autotoxicus is defined as "autoimmune",when it should be "autotoxic" or "self-poisoning" (it seems to only occur in the phrase "horror autotoxicus"). Many of the Latin entries have usage notes to the effect that they're only used in taxonomic names, which means they probably should be treated as multilingual rather than Latin.

Unfortunately, the obvious bad guesses call into question the credibility of the whole lot, and the fact that the entries are well-formatted, and that there don't seem to be any obvious errors in use of Latin and Greek templates, actually makes things harder- there's no easy way to tell which ones are nonsense. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

DCDuring (talkcontribs) has a policy of treating taxonomic Latin as Latin rather than Translingual. The rest of us aren't so sure what to do with them. Latin is supposed to be attestable, like any other language, in running Latin text, and I question whether some of our species epithet Latin words are. I think for DCDuring, something like Gorilla gorilla would count as a two-word attestation for Latin, even if imbedded in another language's text. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
A fair summary. If we decide otherwise, or to drop taxonomic names in whole or in part, I wouldn't mind.
We don't seem to have convenient access to the botanical descriptions in botanical journals which presumably use some or all the these terms, sometimes in accord with rules of Latin grammar, often with extension of sense, new vocabulary, and curious inventions. I don't have very good resources for terms that are not in widespread use or closely connected to classical Latin.
I seek protection for such terms in the ultimate refuges here: "All words in all languages" and "Someone might come across them and want to know what they mean.
As to the user's contributions, they do need cleaning up. I will do my best, but the first thing is to tag the most suspect ones with individual tags. That's certainly what I will do with those I can't improve. The extent of what I can do is often limited to what I did at epipterygius, which really needs checking by someone with better Latin and better botanical references than mine. DCDuring TALK 04:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


Rubbish definitions:

  1. A sound made by a snake, cat, escaping steam, etc.
  2. An expression of disapproval made to sound like the noise of a snake.

#1 gives no indication of what it sounds like, #2 might be the same definition, just an example of what a hiss could mean. For example this hiss of a cat is an expression of disapproval, but it's in #1 not #2. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


Maybe should be converted to a Wikisaurus page? —RuakhTALK 01:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

O che sciagura d'essere senza coglioni! More like converted to an appendix. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Or covered by WS:coglione with coglione remaining as an entry. Wikisaurus already used in Portuguese without anyone disputing it, so Italian should be fine too. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


The translation-table glosses don't match the defs . . . and the former actually seem better to me than the latter. It makes me wonder if some past vandal removed some good definitions? —RuakhTALK 02:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a guess, but it looks like it might have been some overly bold edits, rather than vandalism. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

August 2012[edit]


Verbo entry: "An insignificant critter 'writhing in the dust', notably a mortal versus divinity". I really don't know what this means. "An insignificant critter" makes sense, though 'critter' seems to me to be not the best choice of word, after that I really don't know. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. It seems like if you call someone a 'worm' or a 'maggot' but I really can't say I've heard the word being used very often in that sense, if at all. —CodeCat 10:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It looks like a metaphorical combination of earth, in the sense of earthly, and worm in its pejorative sense, calqued into Dutch. I suppose it might show up in poetry or some over-the-top religious tract (using what I've heard described as "worm theology": "without God's Grace we are all just worms writhing in the dust of mortal existence"). Seems a bit of a stretch, but, then, bad writing can be found in any language... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
But "earthly worm" in Dutch translates into aardse worm, which would specifically indicate a worm from Earth (compare buitenaards (alien, extraterrestrial)). aardworm is earth-worm, nothing more. —CodeCat 14:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I have used the word creature in stead. --DrJos (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


Old-style quotations to be put in accorded form. H. (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

degrees of comparison[edit]

In his Revision of 03:45, January 25, 2004, Polyglot said "definition needs work". We should finally respond to his suggestion. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added some citations and modified the definition. I'm not completely comfortable with the plural being the lemma, but I've gone with it. Ngram indicates the plural is consistently more common. "See also" could perhaps usefully be "Hyponyms." — Pingkudimmi 11:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


This is marked as a numeral, but the definition looks like a noun. Huh? —CodeCat 11:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It was vandalised, the previous definition said 'twenty'. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


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


Most of the translations for the first sense have uppercase first letters. I'll bet that's an error from a user who doesn't know our case system isn't the same as Wikipedia's. Also I removed 'Servian' Servitut with the code sv (reserved for Swedish). Feel free to add it back as Serbo-Croatian servitut if it exists. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sort of. They were all added in one edit back in April with the edit comment "Taken from Wikipedia". My guess is that they followed all the interwiki links from the WP article. Oddly enough, servitut is the title of the article on Swedish wikipedia, so they probably were just guessing the language name from the language code- not a good sign for the quality of the rest of the translations. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012[edit]

ten to[edit]

Listed as a noun. Um, you're kidding right? google books:"a ten to", google books:"ten tos". Also the translations for for ten to two, why? In most if not all cases you can lift out the 'two' bit. In cases where a certain case is needed, use {{qualifier|+ accusative}} or whatever. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it can be use as object of prepositions like at, after, until, before, by, since, toward so it is a nominal. What other PoS would you recommend? Also, consider:
"Ten to is when we are leaving." (subject)
"The ten-to train left two minutes late." (attributive use of ?)
"It was nearing ten to, when we were supposed to board the train." (object of verb)
It seems to simply beg a meaningful question to declare them "Phrases" and let the user figure of that they aren't verbals or adjuncts or whatever. DCDuring TALK 02:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


Current def doesn't fit the cites, which are not unrepresentative of other usage in news etc. DCDuring TALK 03:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


Most of the abbreviations this user has created seem to be attested, though not all. However, many have the two formatting issues I noted on the user's talk page. - -sche (discuss) 19:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of them are too specialized or geographically limited, but we can't delete entries based on that. One other problem I noted was creating entries (which I deleted) in all-caps and with an initialism header for abbreviations that weren't initialisms- MCOMMERCE being the worst example. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

White Legend[edit]

How have we overlooked inflammatory words like insidious and a generally overheated rhetorical tone in a mainspace entry for seven years? I'm not at all familiar with what it's talking about, but this entry needs to be toned down and made more impartial. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe nobody "[ran] across it and want[ed] to know what it means". DCDuring TALK 20:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

u-#Zulu and bona#Zulu[edit]

I created these entries but I realise that the formatting and layout isn't ideal. When I first created the right-floating tables, I didn't think that some entries might have had 3 of them. I'm also not sure about the definitions, they are rather short and simple, but it looks strange seeing the same definition twice. The actual difference is in the noun class, which is given in the headword line, but that may not be obvious. So can someone look over these entries and suggest ways to improve them (or just fix them if you like)? Feedback would be welcome. —CodeCat 11:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


Def: "A gadget or unspecified device as used in various industries."

See Dictionary.com for six definitions. Also see go-devil at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 21:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


Says "From the Luganda language. Used about the way things are done by the Baganda." Is this etymology in the defn line? Meaning not clear, format needs updating too -- 11:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Kiganda, Luganda and Baganda seem to all be the same word, but with different noun-class prefixes (Bantu languages use prefixes a lot like European languages use endings). That suggests that this may be a Luganda entry posing as English. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


Dodgy quotes


Dodgy quotes


Someone called Holland added a quote. Which Holland? -- 21:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

quelque chose[edit]

You'd think we could make a decent fist of this sort of really important entry, but no, we can't. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I've simplified it, and added a couple of random quotes from a translation of Dracula (not properly sourced). SemperBlotto (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    Maybe the quelque chose d'important (etc.) bit should be usage notes, I don't think it's a separate definition per se. It's just that in English we don't say something of important, we say something important. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    Ok, could've done it myself, not had enough caffeine yet today. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


Etymology 1, noun section. Definitions don't match translation tables. Usage notes formatted as usage examples and possibly not just about the usage of the word. Would take a bit of time and multilingual knowledge. DCDuring TALK 14:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The changes introduced by "GatorGirl" need to be examined carefully. Some seem good, some OK, some poor. In any event, the relationship to the translation table needs to be checked. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


Could somebody please clean this up? More information you'll find on the template's talk page

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it, a good first step would be to blank it and start again. It's not used anyway so such a blanking wouldn't do any harm. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The main problem I'm having is for some reason the Egyptian is being shown in Italics, which is really bad for Egyptian fonts. I can't see what's causing that. Can you please add back the inflected endings, as I couldn't understand them, so I left them out. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks to be using actual hieroglyphs rather than transliteration, which is not, in my view, the best way to present inflection information - Aside from the fact that there are a very large number of variant writings of both dual and plural forms, the hieroglyph font used there doesn't stack characters, so the end result looks nothing like the actual writings. Furius (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


Some weird formatting in all the quotes -- 09:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed both. When you put an empty line between items in a list, everything resets. I also removed a quote in Latin from lecanomancy, since it was in an English entry and it used lecanomantia. The cites in both entries aren't all that good, either- they're definitions, not actual uses. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


This template generates gratuitously large output; see e.g. 한국어#Pronunciation. —RuakhTALK 18:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Obsolete now. Just don't use it...--WF on Holiday (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


Synonyms to sort by meaning, Portuguese TTBCs, definitions to split, definitions to improve, etymology seems far too simple, pronunciation format non-standard

(Done: Portuguese TTBCs, splitting defs, sorting synonyms by meaning). Some synonyms seem not to be equivalent enough to be listed as synonyms. Pronunciation format is OK, but the first stress marker doesn’t look right. Etymology is unlikely to be more complex than that. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I took a run at the etymology. DCDuring TALK 01:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


This looks ridiculous. There's got to be a better, more concise way to show that information, right? What do other German entries do? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

See [[neuen#Adjective]] for a much pithier approach. —Angr 09:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
It would be better if {{inflected form of}} could take a lang parameter, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I find myself agreeing with Metaknowledge. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Me too. The alternative pointed to by Angr could use improvement, but it's still better than a page of dry grammatical terms. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
And I agree that {{inflected form of}} needs to be edited to take a lang parameter, and then a bot needs to go through all its instantiations and add the lang parameter as appropriate. —Angr 23:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

sny / snye[edit]

Going about in circles. Sny, etym 4, says it is an alternative spelling of snye which, in turn, is given as: Eighteenth-century spelling of sny (abound, swarm, teem, be infested) ... from etym 2 of sny. I believe that both snye and sny, etym 4, should be: a small channel of water (see the quotes given). --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


Under the English header, there's a paragraph in the etymology explaining what it means in Spanish. The English section as a whole has problems with blurring boundaries between English and Spanish. It's true that it's partly a reflection of the nebulous character of Spanglish itself, but it's still a mess. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

death 3. Tarot card.[edit]

Hey wiktionary staff how are you all doing?

I must say that the tarot cards are absolutly nothing to do with death, spiritually or phsyically. This website is supposed to conceptualize truth. The real truth is tarot cards are absolutly nothing to do with death, they were created for the purpose of the teachings of mysticism, for recieving divine or other worldly messages, or prophecies ect. This has nothing to do with death. Some super orthodox christians think that tarot cards are demonic and therefore we all know that in christian mythology anything demonic leads to hell or death. But the real truth is I myself have experienced many beautiful forms of positive, divine enlightenment through tarot cards, i've experienced beautiful prophecies through them and almost all of them have come true and I myself am christian. So i see this as an extream injustice to catigorize such a beautiful practice in such a negitive way. If wiktionary really represents the definition of truth, you will remove "tarot card" as a definition of death, bacause this may discourage others from such a beautiful practice that causes no harm, and absolutly not death!

Thank you for your time :)

It meant that "Death" (the reaper) is one particular tarot card. But I've removed it because it's not a sense of the word "death" and should be at capital "Death" if anywhere. Equinox 13:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


Anyone know how an entry like this should be formatted, or if it is OK as-is? There are several entries like it in Category:Entries with non-standard headers. - -sche (discuss) 21:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012[edit]


An encyclopedia article, IMO. DCDuring TALK 02:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article would be more concise. This is an article, the notes section and the bibliography from the back of the book, all dumped on the same page. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I have moved the Latin material to [[repraesentamen]], which leaves the excessively long definition, which is solely based on the usage by Charles Sanders Peirce. We could use other citations, which seem abundant enough in the literature of semiotics to warrant Collins having a definition. I personally don't speak or read semiotics. DCDuring TALK 13:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


Really bad definitions. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


The usage note describes a different orthography than the one the entry actually uses. Should the entry be moved, or should the usage note be changed? - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

ʻǁnāhu a̰a, ǃqhàa gǀqhùã a̰a, kxʻāo a̰a, ǁkxʻân a̰a, !ʻûĩ ǂnṵn and several other entries have the same issue. - -sche (discuss) 00:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the usage note is describing "ǃɢā̰n-ǃɢá̰n", and that they weren't sure whether they could/should represent both diacritics on the same vowel. So the answer is: c) neither. Just change the display form and remove the usage note. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The usage note says grave accent, not acute accent, on the second a. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, then it's "ǃɢā̰n-ǃɢà̰n". Good catch. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
But why only change the display form, why not move the entry? ǃqhàa gǀqhùã a̰a has accents over its letters, so if they aren't part of the language, they should be stripped from that entry, whereas if they are, they should be added to ǃɢa̰n-ǃɢa̰n. - -sche (discuss) 17:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

fleet landing[edit]

I cleaned up the formatting, but someone may want to look over the senses and add, subtract or merge some. - -sche (discuss) 08:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Binh Thai Nguyen[edit]

These aren't 'terrible' per se, and KassadBot should fix some of the formatting issues, I'm more wondering about sum of parts issues, such as bad patch as you can have other kinds of patches, good patch for example. Would like another editor or editors to review please. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Ruakh deleted/reverted all of his/her edits for copyright violation. May we know which copyright is being violated? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure; all I know is that Googling one of the phrases turned up a copy of our example sentence from a pre-existing Web-site, and when I tried some others, I found that they, too, were identical to examples elsewhere on the Web. For example, his/her example for [[bad books]] appears in a 1992 book, in a blog post from last November, and so on, the only difference being that they spelled "tomorrow" correctly. —RuakhTALK 00:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


Hi All,
I've got two definitions of a verb with multiple defintions, which require a particle to take a certain meaning, and I am unsure how to format that.
Sense 4 of mḥ (verb: etymology 1) is "seize" - It uses the structure mḥ n X, where n is the particle meaning in/at/with/to, and X is the thing seized. How do I include that in the definition?
Similar questions apply to sense 5 & 6 of etymology 2.
Sorry for the bother - I'm still learning the ropes Furius (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You can add ‘always/sometimes/usually followed by foo, bar or whatnot’ to the context tag. — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


Unless I'm mistaken, this is another manifestation of the same repeatedy-blocked IP user who's contributed a ton of bad edits centered on the themes of Japanese language, magic and mythology. I notice that many of their edits are still unpatrolled, since they tend toward esoteric subjects and the editors who know Japanese seem to be busy elsewhere, so I would propose that those who know something about the subjects in question take a closer look at these edits. If this is who I think it is, and they're doing the same bad edits, action should be taken to prevent a lot of work later on. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

last sixteen[edit]

Moved from RFV:

In order to give our users accurate information, we need to know which sports use this nomenclature. The existing context sport is inaccurate AFAICT. It applies outside sports, eg, chess, and doesn't apply to all sports, eg, US football or basketball. DCDuring TALK 08:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, you're not disputing existence are you? This sort of thing should be dealt with on WT:RFC or Talk:last sixteen. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a matter of meaning, which warrants more effort at attestation than goes into RfC. Obviously RfD didn't lead to improving the quality of the entry. As with any term that is not covered in other dictionaries, we need to attest to its meaning. These are the entries that differentiate and justify Wiktionary relative to its competitors. They should be among our best. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I would have thought that a list of all sports which use the term is becoming encyclopaedic. On the matter of the (sports) context template, that could be replaced with Template:competition, but that's a redlink. Not also that last eight and last four both use the same template. SpinningSpark 16:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
@DCDuring yes it is an RFC issue per your own comment. No rule against adding citations to a term listed at RFC. This looks to me like a backdoor way to get it deleted, by hoping nobody bothers to add citations for 30 days then this can get illegitimately deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Per the preceding discussion, I have moved said discussion here from WT:RFV. - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


This one should be easy, mostly shift-down and delete, but there might be something worth saving. DAVilla 20:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


Middle English. It looks like it was once an English section that was converted into Middle English. But it wasn't quite fixed, there are still some things like the pronunciation and usage examples that look more like modern English to me. —CodeCat 17:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


The translations use indents, specifically ** or *: for usage qualifiers instead of by language or by script such as *: Mandarin and *: Cyrillic (both of these two examples are standard). Also, we do just want the word for 'cousin' in these translations, languages which have specific words for maternal cousin and paternal cousin but also just have a word for cousin, that sort of extra information should go in the language's entry itself. The reason is usability. Yes, we sometimes act like our users aren't human beings, but they are! Adding tonnes of qualifiers and extra information makes translation tables much harder to use, which is why I sometimes remove such information and put it in the language itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the nesting issue. We could move some info to entries like paternal cousin, maternal cousin (and link to those entries via trans-see), but many of the translations and glosses (e.g. Ewe's) are best presented the way they currently are presented, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 02:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


Does Nostradamus' use of the term deserve its own sense? Given his style, is there even any chance the definition is anything but speculation? Also, reference to "us" should be avoided. - -sche (discuss) 02:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

All Chinese entries created by User:LlywelynII[edit]

Multiple formatting issues in all of them. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

November 2012[edit]


In the sense "having existed or lived for the specified time", the translation format is absolutely awful. Aside from the highly invalid red links, the amount of information and how it's presented makes it hard to read. I know it's a bit of a toughie to translate, but surely we can do better than this. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is a separate sense from the main sense. How is "three years old" different from "three feet tall" or "three gallons full"? --WikiTiki89 10:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The format is nonstandard, yes, but works pretty well for the languages I know, at least. I'll leave the RFC tag for now. --WF on Holiday (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Agree with the nominator that the definition is dodgy. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 08:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Changed def from "The action of the verb to like", which doesn't fit either citation, to "a like", which does. See also disliking (noun). Equinox 19:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Taking out rfc. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

lime#Etymology 3 (Translations)[edit]

This can be very confusing, since there are two trees with the same name (but very different etymologies) in English: the flowering tree in the genus Tilia, which is also known as linden, and the fruit tree in the genus Citrus. As an IP noted, Serbo-Croatian lipa can be found in both the Tilia and the Citrus (tree) translation tables, and the Citrus (tree) table also includes Polish lipa and Icelandic lind. Following the link back to the Polish and Serbo-Croatian entries (both Cyrillic and Roman), they have separate senses for "linden tree" and "lime tree". I don't speak Polish or Serbo-Croatian, but I sincerely doubt that they both have the same accidental pairing of the inherited Tilia name and the introduced Citrus name that English has.

It looks to me like we need to check not just the translations in the table, but also the non-English entries themselves. We should change all definitions in every language we know that consist of the single word lime or the two-word phrase lime tree to either linden/linden tree or something like lime (citrus)/lime tree (citrus) (assuming they're not using one of the other senses of lime.

I'm not sure how we can keep this error from creeping back, because I'm sure there are lots of bilingual dictionaries out there that don't distinguish between the Tilia and Citrus senses of lime in their definitions.

Thanks, Chuck Entz (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

For some languages, we can see what the corresponding language's Wikipedia says. w:pl:Lipa, w:hr:Lipa (biljka), and w:sr:Липа are all about Tilia, and w:is:Linditré is about Tilia cordata. —Angr 19:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I saw that, but if there were a minor secondary sense, it might not show up in an article devoted to the primary sense. It really needs reference to a very good bilingual dictionary or to a monolingual one to be sure- something that's fairly comprehensive with secondary senses. Or the knowledge of someone familiar with the usage would be good, as well. I have little doubt that lipa refers only to Tilia, but I don't want to mess with a language I don't know unless I'm 100-percent sure. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
If there are minor secondary senses, they can still be added by someone who knows the language. Better to have accurate but incomplete information than inaccurate or misleading information. —Angr 23:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia could be a good starting source. --WikiTiki89 07:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


The following is from WT:RFV#art:

The current configuration of main definitions, on which the translation tables are built, has been there since 2005. But I find the definitions variously hard to understand, tendentious, or duplicative, especially in the absence of usage examples of citations. I'm also not sure about completeness. This would be a candidate for some kind of advanced cleanup. DCDuring TALK 14:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes we do surprisingly badly on very common English words, probably for this reason, definition written back in 2005 or even before in some cases, and never reviewed, as we seem to focus too much in my opinion on adding new words, not improving the one's we have. We have ten definitions, some long wrong, silly or meaningless like "Activity intended to make something special". #2 looks good to me (might need a very slight reword) but I'd favor removing everything else and starting from scratch. It would cause chaos with the translations, and the rfv-sense should remain until (or if) it fails. Would do it myself were it not for the translations. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The appearance is fine now - lots of TTBC's, but that's not a Cleanup issue. --WF on Holiday (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


This template has a somewhat amateurish appearance, at least in FF with Monobook with my browser-option large text size. There is a line on the bottom of what appears and the menu button runs onto the white space. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The template doesn't work on anacrusi. It doesn't work on the documentation when displayed at Template:Audio, but works on Template:audio/doc. Hyacinth (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviving this dinosaur. Could this template also add to categories Category:Terms with audio links by language. That would mean that all audiolinks for each language would have language specified - a big cleanup task. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 09:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Mayberry Machiavelli[edit]

Tagged, not listed. Equinox 23:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

dogmeat and dog meat[edit]

Ideally, one entry should cover both definitions and also include all the translations already in both entries. One should also be a soft redirect of the other. I would do it myself but I'm a bit preoccupied at the moment - can anyone help? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

paleo- / palaeo-[edit]

Paleo- / palaeo- words are a bit of a mess. Many words have definitions under one spelling and alternative forms under the other (and vice versa); some have ===Alternative forms=== sections but many have not; some have definitions under both spellings; many have etymology sections that specify the prefix, but not all. It would be great if someone was bold, decided which should be the main entry and which the alternative form - then implemented this across all affected words, creating the missing forms as appropriate (you need to look at "All pages with prefix" to find them all). Perhaps a quick look on Google should be used to decide which is the form to use (but it really needs to be consistent across all of them). Good luck. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


Should this be moved to [[the Dragon]] or given a note saying "used with the"? Or can you say "I try to follow God, but Dragon tempts me"? Likewise for Adversary and several of the other synonyms listed in the problematic entry [[Satan]]. - -sche (discuss) 19:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


The definition is moronic because it implies that atheism is a faith. Does this pisshead learn from The Way of the Master? --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, not moronic. It might be the best possible wording in fact. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Many argue that atheism is a faith, in contrast to agnosticism, which is more of a conditional disbelief.
In any event, we are a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. The word is clearly used in the sense given. DCDuring TALK 12:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, yes, anybody who isn’t dense can identify what this website is, you don’t need to insult my intelligence like everyone else does.
Whilst some atheisms could be based on faith, it does not follow that all of them are. Are all disbeliefs based on a lack of evidence based ultimately on faith? --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Never heard that one before. In my local atheist group's meetings, we generally like to say people “deconvert” to atheism.
Anyhow, Æ, do try to assume good faith. You could've politely pointed out the problem without baselessly calling a fellow editor a drunkard. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
He already admitted that he was being a drunken idiot at one point.
And then you oblige me to follow a fake rule. Pathetic. --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
@Robin: I would expect that this would be used by those view atheism as a kind of faith as a kind of a mild put-down. Thus the last I would expect to use it to be atheists. DCDuring TALK 17:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
@Æ&Œ: Your objection to a rather well-worded entry suggests that you must have some standard other than the lexicographic one of conformity of the definition to usage. The wording of your objection to this term did not reflect any awareness of the implications of this being a dictionary. Your dismissiveness further confirms it.
Finally, your gratuitous insult is simply uncalled for. There is hardly a long-term contributor here who hasn't had some behavioral lapse. Your current behavior seems to indicate that you are no exception. DCDuring TALK 17:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Everybody on Wiktionary is allowed to be a prick except for Æ&Œ. History confirms this. And if you are going to scorn me instead of addressing my point, then I’m sorry that I wasted time making this topic. --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and I am not a ‘long‐term contributor,’ nor shall I ever be. --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see what is or was wrong with it. Is long-term contributor Pilcrow objecting to "convert to atheism"? That doesn't imply that atheism is a religion, only a belief. You could convert someone to nihilism, or utilitarianism. (P.S. I'm an atheist!) Equinox 20:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Why are you calling me ‘Pilcrow’ and why are you calling me a ‘long‐term contributor?’ Is it revenge for my insulting you? Did you not care to read the entry for convert that says ‘To induce (someone) to adopt a particular religion, faith, or belief[,]’ the latter noun which also has religious implications?
(P.S. I'm an atheist!)
I don’t care. --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to see you try to define atheism without using religion, faith, or belief. --WikiTiki89 21:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
How about ‘The absence of a mental acceptance in any deities?’ --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I would call that agnosticism. --WikiTiki89 22:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Sigh…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_atheism --Æ&Œ (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Alright call it whatever you like. The terminology is arbitrary and common usage is random so the definition should be pretty general. --WikiTiki89 22:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I changed the definition of convert to “To induce (someone) to adopt a particular religion, faith, ideology or belief.” — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I've been a drunken idiot on many occasions. So what? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Are you actually saying that being an idiot is acceptable? --Æ&Œ (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto. Terence. I think even persistently argumentative behavior needs to be tolerated to a certain extent. Bad contributor behavior can have consequences adverse to the contributor's continued participation, as various contributors have experienced, but some quite outrageous behavior has been tolerated with few adverse consequences. We take the bad with the good of the contributor.
Is there anything more to be said about [[atheize]]? DCDuring TALK 00:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
No, goodness, no. Please let the topic die. It was badly executed to begin with, that is certain. --Æ&Œ (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It's fine, already. And Equinox shouldn't be slated for his pissheadery. It's an illness like any other. --WF on Holiday (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)--WF on Holiday (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

December 2012[edit]

s'il vous plait[edit]

I find it quite difficult to believe that an alternative form would suddenly be considered a misspelling in such a phrase. --Æ&Œ (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

  • plait was an alternate spelling introduced in the 1990 spelling reforms, which were not exactly popular in all quartres. Nevertheless, they remain at least officially prescribed - so, as you say, s'il vous plait isn't a misspelling. Furius (talk) 08:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Done, I consider this uncontroversial. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


I can't read the citations as fitting with the PoS header "Adjective". DCDuring TALK 13:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the Spenser one is the verb to sheene (that is, to shine). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Probably. I'll leave it to someone with convenient access to the OED or similar. DCDuring TALK 17:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


Some of these seem really dubious. Does anyone really use *fish for starfish, for example? Or is this a 'hypothetical word'? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I use *fish for fish when it is the first word in a footnote. --WikiTiki89 08:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
This really opens up a can of worms. Texting is unlikely to show up much in durably-archived sources except as mentions, and has its own spelling- a good bit of it made up on the fly. What's more, it uses lots of characters that are ignored by search engines- how can the CFI deal with this? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
What's even more, is how often do people text about starfish? --WikiTiki89 14:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
That was really my point. Should probably just RFV the whole lot (apart from blatantly valid ones) and subject them to the same criteria as any other term at RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


"In Australia, a railway enthusiast. Originally derogatory, referring to overly enthusiastic or foolish rail fans. Now refers to railway enthusiasts in general, and the term is often used with pride." Also etymology. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

measuring the drapes[edit]

Is mostly etymology. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably a verb, 'to measure the drapes', unless only 'measuring the drapes' is attested. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


  • The uncountable tag only applies to the first definition’s first five words;
  • the rest looks like it could be merged with the second;
  • there are what may or may not be usage examples in it;
  • not very understandable. I suggest that the marriage sense and the “alliance between nations” sense be split;
  • the second definition’s usage examples, and the third definition, have some inexplicable names;
  • fourth definition: “A treaty between nations for their mutual advantage”. Sounds more like a pact or treaty. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact wasn’t an alliance, was it? I can’t think of how to put it correctly. And can alliances between nations be non-military?

Ungoliant (Falai) 23:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote and regrouped the definitions to some degree and sorted the synonyms. As a native speaker, I would say that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was in fact an alliance. I'm sure more can be done to the entry, but I hope I've addressed the most serious issues. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You have, MK, and will go to heaven as a result. --WF on Holiday (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


The etymology section is basically an entire encyclopedia article. --WikiTiki89 11:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I was able to find the referenced publication, which contains the word, but it seems to be totally unrelated. The choice would be either to delete the earlier usage from the entry altogether, or to create a third etymology for it. The mere appearance of the term in a list of ghosts and spirits is a rather weak mention, but seems to point to actual usage in some local dialect. I'm not so sure it's enough. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

end of the world[edit]

There are currently 4 definitions here, but I don't consider that there should be so many. --Wikt Twitterer (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

How is this not SOP? --WikiTiki89 09:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Meh, not the end of the world seems like an idiom, end of the world as far as I can see refers to the actual end of the actual world. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It could refer to the end of the world in the sense of an edge in space, rather than time. The "fall off the end of the world" kind. —CodeCat 18:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
And both of those senses would be SOP. --WikiTiki89 19:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Only through context though. Without prior knowledge, you wouldn't know which sense of "end" was being used in "end of the world". —CodeCat 21:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
And neither would a dictionary. --WikiTiki89 17:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
It would not be the end of the world if this dictionary had neither this nor [[not the end of the world]]. But I would make [[not the end of the world]] a redirect to this as the "not" does not have a fixed position (as in my opening sentence or form (could appear as part of a contraction) in the naturally occurring construction. In addition, one could say: "It's always the end of the world if he thinks he might have to stay late."
A simple non-SoP definition is something like "a very bad outcome". DCDuring TALK 21:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The fourth definition is the only one that would not be included in {{&lit}}, IMO. This is just hyperbole, but it is basically a set phrase, though variations on it in the figurative sense are numerous: "the end of the world as we know it", "the end of the civilized world" etc. DCDuring TALK 21:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Fair point. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


Hello, does anyone know more details about that German prefix? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it a prefix? isn't it just zurück used as the first part of a compound? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
At least it's what the entry tells me. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's one of the separable prefixes. I'm sorely tempted to delete both as "No usable content given", but I suppose we should make real entries out of them so as not to disrespect a fellow admin... Chuck Entz (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  1. Does that admin still agree with himself? I certainly find my opinions of matters lexical can change over 3 years.
  2. He is a big boy and can take care of himself. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Am I missing something? No admin had touched the page until Lo Ximiendo came by to clean it up on the 22nd (yesterday). If you want to be polite, you can RFD it, as I have done. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd forgotten that he'd turned down the invites. DCDuring TALK 20:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
You're right, I mistakenly gave Dan Polansky (talkcontribs) a promotion. He's the one who created both entries with the "definition" of "A prefix". He's a regular here, but not an admin. I'm still a bit surprised at the lapse on his part, though some of my reaction last night was just grumpiness. As for the rfd, I had already indicated that I had changed my mind about the issue, though not said so explicitly. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


The same goes for zurück-. Thank you. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added meanings and pronunciations for both. —Angr 10:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:French idioms[edit]

This needs splitting into its subcategories [[Category:French expressions]] and [[Category:French similes]]. But I'm not entirely sure how. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted (necroed from here due to this). - -sche (discuss) 02:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
IT's looking fine for me --WF on Holiday (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)