Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

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

Requests for verification/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

Requests for verification/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.

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

Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

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

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

Requests for deletion/English
add new English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

Requests for deletion/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.

Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction
add new reconstruction request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.

{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

This page is designed to discuss moves (renaming pages), mergers and splits. Its aim is to take the burden away from the Beer Parlour and Requests for Deletion where these issues were previously listed. Please note that uncontroversial page moves to correct typos, missing characters etc. should not be listed here, but moved directly using the move function.

  • Appropriate: Renaming categories, templates, Wiktionary pages, appendices, rhymes and occasionally entries. Merging or splitting temp categories, templates, Wiktionary pages, appendices, rhymes.
  • Out of scope: Merging entries which are alternative forms or spellings or synonyms such as color/colour or traveled/travelled. Unlike Wikipedia, we don’t redirect in these sort of situations. Each spelling gets its own page, often employing the templates {{alternative spelling of}} or {{alternative form of}}.
  • Tagging pages: To tag a page, you can use the general template {{rfm}}, as well as one of the more specific templates {{move}}, {{merge}} and {{split}}.

Note that discussions for splitting, merging, and renaming languages are often also held here, and should be archived to WT:LTD when closed.


Continuation of #Category:en:Names into Category:English names[edit]

Reviving the earlier discussion, I'm still bothered by the fact that we have two different categories for names. But the previous discussion also made it clear that it's not as easy as just merging them.

CodeCat 00:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, what I am going to say is somewhat off-topic and maybe I'm minority on that, but I would not mind using the naming system "Category:English xxxx" for all topical categories: Category:en:Chess -> English terms related to chess. (or any better name along those lines) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
"Category:en:Transliteration of personal names" could be renamed to "Category:English names transliterated from other languages", I suppose. What's the matter with the demonyms category? It contains demonyms, as expected. Would it be better titled "English demonyms", on the model of "English phrases"? - -sche (discuss) 06:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
"Category:en:Transliteration of personal names" would be better named "English transliterations of (foreigners') personal names". Notice the existence of e.g.Category:Latvian transliterations of English names. Names of non-English speakers are not English names. I agree with CodeCat that place names belong to topic categories.--Makaokalani (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Here's the old discussion if anyone wants to read it. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 15:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Category:en:Place names was deleted by Equinox in 2017-05 because it was empty. Category:Transliteration of personal names (and its language-specific subcategories) were moved to Category:Foreign personal names in 2021-09 with the help of WingerBot. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 16:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
@ExcarnateSojourner There being no opposition here, only support (albeit mostly old support), and no opposition or interest when I brought this up in the BP, let's revise whatever needs to be revised to put (at a minimum) all given names and surnames into subcategories of Category:Names by language, instead of some of them being in subcategories of Category:Names. The split is haphazard and arbitrary; I see the intention — put a name that was given within English in one top-level category and a name transliterating a foreign name in a different top-level category — but in practice that's not maintained, since e.g. Alexandra in the context of discussing ancient Greek is transliterating the Ancient Greek name, Sergei has been given to babies born in the Anglosphere (and to characters in English fiction), and we don't maintain such a split with place names. - -sche (discuss) 16:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
It making no sense to have Alexandra (in works about ancient Greece where it's romanizing a Greek name), Alexandra (in fiction about ancient Greece where it's a given name), Alexandra (as borne by British or American people today), Sonya, Vadim and Vladimir divided haphazardly into two different top-level categories, "Names" vs "Names by language", I'm now (attempting) editing the modules to consolidate them into "Names by language" subcategories. - -sche (discuss) 14:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
(Assistance solicited at Module talk:names#en:Russian_male_given_names,_etc.) - -sche (discuss) 14:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Recategorize Category:Demonyms and Category:Ethnonyms[edit]

Pinging some editors from the discussion above: @User:Rua, @User:Daniel Carrero

As I explained in the discussion about exonyms above, renaming the language-specific subcategories of cat:Demonyms properly will require removing it from the topic category tree and adding it to the set category tree. We should similarly recategorize cat:Ethnonyms, another child of cat:Names that did not yet exist when this discussion started. I propose recategorizing them into Category:Terms by semantic function subcategories by language, unless someone can find a better place, and renaming them cat:Demonyms by language and cat:Ethnonyms by language. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 06:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@ExcarnateSojourner @-sche I am going to take a stab at implementing this. Can you help with what the renames should be? I understand the separation between poscat categories and topic categories should be "lexical" vs. "semantic" but I sometimes have trouble putting this into practice. A tentative list based on what's already been proposed:
  1. 'DESTLANGCODE:SOURCELANG male given names' -> 'DESTLANG male given names transliterated from SOURCELANG'; same for 'female given names', 'surnames', etc. This doesn't work; these are not DESTLANG names but SOURCELANG names rendered into DESTLANG. So I propose 'DESTLANG renderings of SOURCELANG male given names' or similar. ("Transliteration" isn't quite right; sometimes these are transliterations, sometimes respellings, sometimes mere borrowings (cf. Italian Clinton).)
  2. 'LANGCODE:Foreign personal names' (a grouping category) -> 'LANG foreign personal names'
  3. 'LANGCODE:Demonyms' -> 'LANG demonyms'
  4. 'LANGCODE:Ethnonyms' -> 'LANG ethnonyms'
  5. 'LANGCODE:Exonyms' -> 'LANG exonyms'
  6. 'LANGCODE:Letter names' -> 'LANG letter names'
  7. 'LANGCODE:Couple nicknames' -> 'LANG couple nicknames'
  8. 'LANGCODE:Named roads' -> 'LANGCODE:Names of roads' and remove from 'LANGCODE:Names'
  9. 'LANGCODE:Named prayers' -> 'LANGCODE:Names of prayers' and remove from 'LANGCODE:Names'
What about the following:
  1. Subcategories of 'LANGCODE:Demonyms':
    1. 'LANGCODE:Armenian demonyms'?
    2. 'LANGCODE:Celestial inhabitants'?
      1. 'LANGCODE:Ufology' -> stays as a topic category.
    3. 'LANGCODE:Latvian demonyms'?
    4. 'LANGCODE:Nationalities'
    5. 'LANGCODE:Tribes'
      1. 'LANGCODE:Celtic tribes'
      2. 'LANGCODE:Germanic tribes'
      3. 'LANGCODE:Native American tribes'
      • See also 'LANGCODE:Mongolian tribes' under 'LANGCODE:Ethnonyms'.
  2. Subcategories of 'LANGCODE:Ethnonyms':
    1. 'LANGCODE:Mongolian tribes' -> Goes wherever 'LANGCODE:Celtic tribes', 'LANGCODE:Germanic tribes' and 'LANGCODE:Native American tribes' go.
  3. 'LANGCODE:Place names' -> Delete and reclassify the terms under them using {{place}} so they end up in 'Places in FOO'.
  4. 'LANGCODE:Places' -> Leave as a topic category but remove 'LANGCODE:Names' as a parent?
  5. Script-specific variants of 'LANGCODE:Letter names': 'LANGCODE:Arabic letter names', 'LANGCODE:Devanagari letter names', 'LANGCODE:Imperial Aramaic letter names', 'LANGCODE:Korean letter names', 'LANGCODE:Latin letter names'?
  6. Subcategories of 'LANGCODE:Nicknames':
    1. 'LANGCODE:Nicknames' itself? This is a grouping category.
    2. 'LANGCODE:Nicknames of individuals'?
    3. 'LANGCODE:City nicknames'?
    4. 'LANGCODE:Country nicknames'?
      1. 'LANGCODE:Racist names for countries' -> Terminate with extreme prejudice, see WT:BP.
    5. 'LANGCODE:Sports nicknames' -> either 'LANGCODE:Sports team nicknames', 'LANGCODE:Nicknames of sports teams', 'LANG sports team nicknames', 'LANG nicknames of sports teams'
      • See also 'LANGCODE:Couple nicknames' above.
  7. 'LANGCODE:Onomastics' -> stays as topic category but should not have 'LANGCODE:Names' as one of its parents.
  8. 'LANGCODE:Language families'? Regardless, it should not have 'LANGCODE:Names' as one of its parents.
  9. 'LANGCODE:Languages'? Regardless, it should not have 'LANGCODE:Names' as one of its parents.
  10. 'LANGCODE:Taxonomic names' and subcategories:
    1. 'LANGCODE:Taxonomic names' itself?
    2. 'Taxonomic eponyms by language': Already a pos category.
    3. 'Specific epithets' -> 'Translingual specific epithets'?
Other topic categories not directly reachable through 'LANGCODE:Names' but needing consideration:
  1. 'LANGCODE:Ships (fandom)' and numerous subcategories ('LANGCODE:F/F ships (fandom)', 'LANGCODE:M/M ships (fandom)', 'LANGCODE:Heterosexual ships (fandom)', 'LANGCODE:Homosexual ships (fandom)', 'LANGCODE:Polyamorous ships (fandom)', 'LANGCODE:RPF ships (fandom)'
  2. 'LANGCODE:Horse given names'
Benwing2 (talk) 07:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@-sche Wondering if you missed my ping. I know my post is long, so take your time in responding. Benwing2 (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, didn't mean to ignore your ping, but got distracted by life after seeing it. As far as the categories for "English renderings of Ukrainian names" (or whatever), I have no strong preference for any particular name at this time. My immediate concern was just with addressing the odd point of bifurcation where "native English placename like Warwick or Alberta; English rendering of an Armenian placename like Stepanakert; English rendering of a personal name someone gave a baby born in Ukraine like Volodymyr" are in one top-level category system ("LANGCODE:Names", named like 'set' categories), and "personal name someone gave a baby born in Canada" is in a different top-level category system ("LANGNAME names", treated like a quasi-part of speech). It's hard to decide where exactly to split the spectrum of categories we're dealing with here, if we're wanting to keep e.g. "John" in "Category:English male given names" at that (part-of-speech-esque) category name, but wanting to consider some things like Category:en:Native American tribes to be clearly a set/list category (a set/list of tribes); my immediate point was just that I don't see a sound basis for considering "John, Jane" a POS-type (LANGNAME) category but "Volodymyr, Sergei" a LANGCODE:-set-type category — surely they're both one or both the other, and the greater momentum seems to be towards considering "names" a POS-type/LANGNAME category. But maybe we should think about that more carefully and consider them all to be "sets"? (But then, "Category:English verbs" is also just a category containing the set of English verbs. Hmm... should we perhaps allow only things that are truly "parts of speech" to have "Category:LANGNAME foobars" names, and make all the "names" categories that contain John and Volodymyr into set categories? Should that be the direction in which we eliminate the bifurcation of the 'John' vs 'Volodymyr' categories?)
I do think even keeping names in two subcategories like "English given names" vs "English renderings of Ukrainian names"/"English renderings of Chinese names"/etc [whatever we call those categories] based on, in effect, whether they were born in Ukraine vs to a Ukrainian family in Canada (or in China vs to a Chinese family in America) may be less than ideal; e.g. what do we do if a transliterated Ukrainian or Chinese name is common in English-language fiction? What about if it's a German name; does the fact that those names are "natively" Latin script make the threshold for considering them to have become "English names" lower? Does it make a difference if the fiction is set in lightly-fictionalized Germany or Ukraine or China, vs in a space future or a generic medievalesque Middle Earth / Westeros? But I don't have time to think through and suggest any proposal for any better approach to that yet.
"LANG foreign personal names" (e.g. "English foreign personal names") sounds a bit odd; would "LANG renderings of foreign personal names" (aligning with your proposed "DESTLANG renderings of SOURCELANG male given names") be better, iff we're sticking with moving "Names" categories to LANGNAME names and not LANGCODE names?
I will try to respond more, and to the rest, later. - -sche (discuss) 17:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@-sche Thanks for your comments. I have no issue with "LANG renderings of foreign personal names". I see your point about the line between nativized foreign-origin names and renderings of actual foreign names being fuzzy, but there does feel to me like a distinction, esp. in languages like Latvian that tend to respell foreign names according to Latvian spelling conventions, and the distinction is fairly clearly made in reality between e.g. the large number of Russian names respelled according to Latvian conventions (and used e.g. by the large population of Russians in Latvia) vs. the smaller number of Russian-origin names that have become nativized for naming of ethnic Latvians. In a multi-ethnic society like the US or Canada where nationality and ethnicity aren't always clearly distinguished, things get a lot fuzzier, although it still feels like there's some sort of distinction between names like Volodymyr or Volha that are unlikely to be borne by anyone other than someone who is Ukrainian (resp. Belarusian) or whose parents or grandparents are Ukrainian (resp. Belarusian), vs. a name like Vladimir or Olga that might be given to someone with no particular connection to Russia. As for whether these should use LANGNAME-type or LANGCODE-type naming, I'm not sure although I gather the distinction is supposed to be lexical vs. semantic, if that helps at all. Benwing2 (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I guess we should stick with LANGNAME naming for given names / surnames, then, at least for now. (Switching gears for a moment to address a different aspect:) Regarding "horse given names", we also have (but apparently don't currently categorize) dog given names likes Scruffy, Fido, and Spot, and we have Polly as a name for a parrot, and Mittens, Kitty, Socks for cats (also e.g. Miming in Cebuano). Perhaps we should merge all the different animals into one category for "animal given names". To me, at least, it seems intuitive to then handle this category in whatever way we handle the human given name categories—so, if we're naming the category that contains 'John' "English male given names", then 'Fido' goes in "English animal given names", or if we're using language codes, then use codes for both. (Back to the first gear:) We also have names that belong to specific individual people (Confucius, Cicero) or animals (Laika, and mythically Cerberus, Garm); we seem to put these in LANGCODE-set categories; I suppose the rationale is that the category that contains "Confucius, Cicero" contains a set of individuals, whereas "John" and "Jane" are 'less restricted'... in practice, people have undoubtedly also named babies 'Confucius' and 'Cicero', but if we demonstrate that, then we add a {{given name}} sense, so I guess we're fine leaving the individuals in LANGCODE-set categories and the {{given name}}s in LANGNAME categories... I guess this also explains the difference between nicknames (LANGNAME nicknames) and relationship names (the category contains a set of specific ships)...? nevermind, "Category:Nicknames" doesn't contain what I would've expected ("Bob, Jim, Tom" for Robert, James, Thomas) - -sche (discuss) 18:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@-sche This all sounds good to me. I think I'll start on the renames in a couple of days depending on how the comments go. Benwing2 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Just checking, when your "list based on what's already been proposed" includes "'LANGCODE:Demonyms' -> 'LANG demonyms'" but then your follow-up proposal is for Subcategories of 'LANGCODE:Demonyms': like 'LANGCODE:Armenian demonyms'?, you're proposing to not actually rename "'LANGCODE:Demonyms' -> 'LANG demonyms'", right? I'm just checking that we're going to handle "Demonyms" and the subcategories like "Armenian demonyms" the same way, either all using LANGCODEs or all using LANGNAME. I could see handling the categories that actually have the word "demonyms" in their name either way, but since some of the other subcategories like "LANGCODE:Native American tribes" do seem more like set categories, maybe it's best to consider the whole batch to be set categories and stick with LANGCODE names like they have at present? (But maybe move them out of the "Names" category?)
"Couple nicknames" is an interesting case, because intuitively it seems like those and (relation)ship names should be handled the same way, since they seem like the exact same thing: "Lumity" is the portmanteau name for the two specific individuals Luz Noceda and Amity Blight, and Billary is the portmanteau name for the two specific individuals Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton... maybe LANGCODE:Couple nicknames should be renamed "LANGCODE:Couples" to be more clearly a set category? and moved out from under the "names" category, since we don't categorize ship names as "names"? - -sche (discuss) 02:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@-sche Thanks for pointing out that inconsistency. Rua's point awhile ago was that 'Native American tribes' is named correctly as a set category because the contents are "names of Native American tribes" but 'Armenian demonyms' isn't named correctly as the contents aren't "names of Armenian demonyms". Rua suggested renaming 'Demonyms' -> 'Peoples' although that seems a bit strange to me as the term 'demonym' is fairly well established, and furthermore a distinction could be made between nominal demonyms and adjectival demonyms (note, we have {{demonym-noun}} and {{demonym-adj}} for these two, respectively), which is clearly a lexical distinction. That suggests maybe they should all be considered lexical categories, esp. since I think something like Category:en:Exonyms doesn't make sense as a set category (being an exonym is completely a lexical property. If we are to make Category:en:Armenian demonyms a lexical category, IMO it should be Category:English demonyms for Armenians as Category:English Armenian demonyms doesn't make much sense. As for CAT:en:Couples, that seems ambiguous so maybe it should be CAT:en:Nicknames of couples or something (which would be keeping with future names like CAT:Types of stars and such). Benwing2 (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
"CAT:en:Nicknames of couples" works. Or should it even be "Nicknames of pairs", since it currently contains a few things like Bushbama {{subst:dash}} or should we remove those? (We don't categorize e.g. Republicrat as anything but "US politics".)
Good point about exonyms. "Demonyms", or at least the things currently in the "Demonyms" categories, seem to straddle the line between being a set category like "Occupations", vs being lexical like "Exonyms"... ugh, as you said earlier, it's hard to pin down and "put into practice" the difference, since so many of these categories exist in a grey area with characteristics of both. Like: it would not technically be wrong AFAICT to say "Category:English male given names and Category:English nouns are set categories containing the set of all English male given names or nouns respectively" (it would just be madness, heh). And in the other direction, isn't being a placename as much a lexical property as being a given name? But should they go into the same top-level "LANGNAME names" category, or is that madness?
Thinking aloud for a moment, I guess one difference is whether a term refers to one specific entity, or to an open-ended cast, which would rationalize why "John" and "Bob"—as names that can be given to an open-ended variety of people, new babies every day—are in (or belong in, in the case of "Volodymyr") "LANGNAME names" categories, whereas "Baghdad Bob" (individual's nickname), "Billary" and "Lumity" (real and fictional couples' nicknames) and e.g. "Saskatchewan" and "Yerevan" (placenames) refer to specific entities, and so are LANGCODE set categories...? So then, since demonyms like "Saskatchewanian" and "Yerevanian" also refer to an open-ended set of people (new babies born in Saskatchewan every day), and as you say, 'being a demonym' can be argued to be a lexical property like 'being an exonym', that justifies them being "LANGNAME demonyms" categories...? (Then the "type of"-set categories, like the category for "the set of all types of stars" or "the set of Native American tribes", are LANGCODE-set categories for a different reason.) - -sche (discuss) 19:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@-sche Yes, that seems to make a lot of sense. BTW I have written the script to move topic (langcode) categories to lexical (langname) categories and I'm probably going to run it on exonyms first. Benwing2 (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@-sche I have moved the exonyms and foreign-personal-names categories. Benwing2 (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • @Benwing2 Sorry for being absent here. I'm glad to see discussion happening and generally support your proposals. A few specific comments:
8. 'LANGCODE:Named roads': Why not 'LANGCODE:Roads' (and remove from 'LANGCODE:Names')?
9. 'LANGCODE:Named prayers': Why not 'LANGCODE:Prayers' (and remove from 'LANGCODE:Names')?
5. Regarding letter names, see also cat:Letters.
— excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 21:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@ExcarnateSojourner The main reason for including the word "named" is that otherwise it might not be clear whether the categories are set-type or related-to categories. Benwing2 (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Relevant to the discussion above about creating a general animal given names category, this discussion points out "Ralph" for a raven, as well as "Rover" as another dog name. Whenever the situation with human names is sorted out, I suggest moving "LANGCODE:Horse given names" ("is:Horse given names") to "LANGNAME animal given names" ("Icelandic animal given names"), unless anyone has objections... (or we could add a general "animal given names" category and retain subcategories for specific animals if one or more languages had a lot of names for them, as might be the case for dogs and horses...) - -sche (discuss) 17:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply



As can be seen at w:Nkore-Kiga language, Kiga [cgg] should definitely be merged into Nyankore [nyn]. Unfortunately, this might require a rename to something that is both hyphenated and considerably less common that just plain "Nyankore" (though that is, strictly speaking, merely the name of the main dialect). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure. WP suggests the merger was politically motivated, but many reference works do follow it. Ethnologue says there as "Lexical similarity [of] 78%–96% between Nyankore, Nyoro [nyo], and their dialects; 84%–94% with Chiga [cgg], [...and] 81% with Zinza [zin]" (Kiga, meanwhile, is said to be "77% [similar] with Nyoro [nyo]"), as if to suggest nyn is about as similar to cgg as to nyo, and indeed many early references treat Nkore-Nyoro like one language, where later references instead prefer to group Nkore with Kiga. Ethnologue mentions that some authorities merge all three into a "Standardized form of the western varieties (Nyankore-Chiga and Nyoro-Tooro) [...] called Runyakitara [...] taught at the University and used in internet browsing, but [it] is a hybrid language." (For comparison, Ethnologue says English has 60% lexical similarity to German.) - -sche (discuss) 00:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Itneg lects[edit]

See w:Itneg language. All the dialects have different codes, but we really should give them a single code and unify them. I came across this problem with the entry balaua, which means "spirit house" (but I can't tell in which specific dialect). It's also known as Tinggian (with various different spellings), and this may be a better name for it than Itneg. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Paraguayan Guaraní [gug][edit]

I just noticed that we have this for some reason. Guaraní is a dialect continuum that is quite extensive, both in inter-dialect differences and in geography, and certain varieties have been heavily influenced by Spanish or Portuguese. That said, our Guaraní [gn] content is, as far as I can tell, pretty much entirely on Paraguayan Guaraní, which for some reason has a different code, [gug]. My attention was brought to this by User:Guillermo2149 changing L2 headers (I have not reverted his edits, but they do cause header-code mismatch). We could try splitting up the Guaraní dialects, but it would hard to choose cutoffs and would definitely confuse potential editors, of which we have had more since Duolingo released a Guaraní course. I think the best choice is to merge [gug] into [gn] and mark words extensively for which dialects or countries they are used in. @-scheΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Support merging gn and gug. - -sche (discuss) 14:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Don't forget there's also [gui] and apparently also [tpj]. - -sche (discuss) 04:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply


Merger into Scandoromani[edit]

I propose that the Para-Romani lects Traveller Norwegian, Traveller Danish and Tavringer Swedish (rmg, rmd and rmu) be merged into Scandoromani. TN, TD and TS are almost identical, mostly differing in spelling (e.g. tjuro (Sweden) vs. kjuro (Norway) meaning 'knife', gräj vs. grei 'horse' etc.). WP treats them as variants of Scandoromani. My langcode proposal could be rom-sca, or maybe we could just use rmg, which already has a category. -- 20:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Im supporting it. Traveller Norwegian is sometimes referred to as Tavring, and, to be honest, Ive never herd nobody use the term Traveller Norwegian as a language. People are calling it rather Taterspråk or Fantemål, even when books states it as a derigatory therm. The other problem is that we've got in fact 2 differnet Norwegian Traveller languages (the Romani-based and the Månsing-based). So it look like a total mess rite now Tollef Salemann (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't think this makes sense if the orthographies are consistently different, which seems to be the case. Otherwise, we could use the same logic to merge quite a few of the Slavic languages, which obviously doesn't make sense. Theknightwho (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ok, but Traveller Norwegian is not quite right term, cuz the Romani-based TN has two or more branches, which are quite different from eachother, while the main one is allmost the same as the Swedish and had often the same name(s). Meenwhile, there is also a Germanic TN version, unrelated to the Romani-ish TN variations. I mean, we need at least two more L2 in this case, even if we gonna merge TN and Swedish Tavring.
PS there are also Swedish stuff like Knoparmoj and Loffarspråk and more, and they still have remnants in some rare Swedish/Norwegian sociolects. Maybe they also need their L2? Or can we treat them as sociolects? Tollef Salemann (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply


The Yenish "language" (which we call Yeniche) was given the ISO code yec, despite being clearly not a separate language from German. Instead, it is a jargon which Wikipedia compares to Cockney (which has never had a code) and Polari (which had a code that we deleted in a mostly off-topic discussion). The case of Gayle, which is similar, is still under deliberation at RFM as of now. Most tellingly, German Wiktionary considers this to be German, and once we delete the code, we should make a dialect label for it and add the contents of de:Kategorie:Jenisch to English Wiktionary. @-scheΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how that's most tellingly; I don't know about the German Wiktionary, but major language works frequently treat things as dialects of their language that outsiders consider separate languages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The (linked) English Wikipedia article even says "It is a jargon rather than an actual language; meaning, it consists of a significant number of unique specialized words, but does not have its own grammar or its own basic vocabulary." Despite the citation needed that follows, that sentence is about accurate, as such this should be deleted. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
(If kept, it should be renamed.)
There are those who argue that Yenish should have recognition (which it indeed gets, in Switzerland) as a separate language. And it can be quite divergent from Standard German, with forms that are as different as those of some of the regiolects we consider distinct. Many examples from Alemannic or Bavarian-speaking areas are better considered Alemannic or Bavarian than Standard German. But then, that's a sign that it is, as some put it, a cant overlaid onto the local grammar, rather than a language per se. Ehh... - -sche (discuss) 03:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

rake over the coals and rake someone over the coals[edit]

What's the difference? --Barytonesis (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Apparently (Google n-grams) the term could be used with or without an object. The definition should be somewhat different. An example of use without a direct object is "to rake over the coals of failure". I don't know how to word this in a substitutable way. It seems to mean something like "to belabor (something negative (result, process), obvious from context) as if in reprimand". DCDuring (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Move entries in CAT:Khitan lemmas to a Khitan script[edit]

The Khitan wrote using a Siniform script. Are these Chinese transcriptions of Khitan? —suzukaze (tc) 02:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm a little confused about what's going on here. Are you RFV-ing every entry in this category? Or are you just looking for evidence that Khitan was written using this script? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
The Khitans had their own script. These entries use the Chinese script. —suzukaze (tc) 17:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
I understand that, but I don't understand what your goal is with this discussion. If you want to RFV every entry in the category, then I'd like to add {{rfv}} tags to alert anyone watching the entries. If you want to discuss what writing systems Khitan used, maybe with the goal of moving all of these entries to different titles, then I'm not sure RFV is the right place for the discussion. (Likewise with the Buyeo section below.) —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Moved to RFM. - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply


This should be handled with {{liushu}}, since jiajie is one of the six categories (liushu). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can both of these templates be renamed to include a language code? —CodeCat 19:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
{{jiajie}} should be merged with {{liushu}}, which could be renamed as {{Han liushu}}, following {{Han compound}} and {{Han etym}}. It might not be a good idea to use a particular language code because these templates are intended for use in multiple languages now. They used to be used under Translingual, but we have decided to move the glyph origin to their respective languages. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
You can use script codes as prefixes too. We have Template:Latn-def, Module:Cans-translit and such. —CodeCat 20:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

it's a long story[edit]

Should perhaps be moved to long story? W3ird N3rd (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

In contrast to long story short, neither seems entryworthy to me. They are quite transparent. Checking long story”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., one notes that none of those references find it inclusionworthy, whereas long story short”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows some coverage. DCDuring (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply


sense: Noun: "(aviation) A large multi-engined aircraft. The term heavy normally follows the call-sign when used by air traffic controllers."

In the aviation usage AA21 heavy ("American Airline flight 21 heavy") the head of the NP is AA21, heavy being a qualifying adjective indicating a "wide-bodied", ergo "heavy", aircraft.

Move to noun with any adjustments required. DCDuring (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring You're proposing we move from noun to noun? Did you mean from noun to adjective? - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 05:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don't know what I meant 5 years ago, but that's what I mean now: move it to adjective. Though it would be good to confirm that there is not sufficient attestation of heavies and/or [DET] heavy. DCDuring (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I can find the plural in reference to large (sometimes restricted to widebody) commercial aircraft and heavy bombers (sometimes 2-engine, always at least 4-). Also "heavy" motor vehicles (eg. large trucks, esp semis). I'm not entirely sure what heavy refers to when used by the pilot of a Cessna. DCDuring (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Categories about country subdivisions to include the country name[edit]

This will include at least the following:

Categories for certain things that are located within these subdivisions will also be named, e.g. Category:Cities in Aomori (Prefecture)Category:Cities in Aomori Prefecture, Japan. —Rua (mew) 13:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Support. I oppose the existence of categories with language code like "en:" in the first place, but what is proposed here seems to be an improvement over the status quo. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
I would have opposed a lot of these, but I was too late on the scene. DonnanZ (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Support all except Category:Abkhazia, Georgia (for which I abstain as I do not properly understand the political situation explained by User:Palaestrator verborum). - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 03:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
US states were moved by MewBot (talkcontribs) in 2017. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 22:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The rename has been put on hold until there is a clear consensus either way. Please vote! —Rua (mew) 15:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Rua It looks sane to me if politics are let out. But why is Abkhazia in Georgia though it is an independent state, statehood only depending on factual prerequisites and not on diplomatic recognition which has nothing to do with it? Where does the Crimea belong to? (article Sevastopol is only in Category:en:Ukraine because it has not really been edited since 2014.) I can think of two solutions: First possibility: We focus on geographical and cultural constants. Second possibility: We focus on the actual political power. I disprefer the second slightly because it can mean much work in cases of war (i.e. how much the Islamic state holds etc., or say the current factions in Libya). But in neither case Abkhazia is in Georgia. But the first possibility does not even answer what the Crimea belongs to, i.e. I am not sure if it is historically correct to speak of the Crimea as Ukraine. And geographical terms are often fuzzy and subject to editorial decisions. All seems so easy if you start your concepts from the United States, which do not even have a name for the region they are situated in. And even for the USA your idea is questionable because the constituent states of the United States are states in their own right (Teilstaat, Gliedstaat in German), as is also the case for the Federal Republic of Germany and the Russian Federation partially (according to the Russian constitution only those of the 85 subjects are states which are called Republic, not the Oblasti etc.). Is Tatarstan Russia? Not even Russians can agree with such a sentence, as in Russia one sharply distinguishs русские and россияне, Россия and Российская федерация. Technically Ceuta and Melilla are in Morocco because Spain is not in Africa. Also, Kosovo je Srbija, and it would become just a coincidence if a place important in Serbian history is listed as X, Kosovo or X, Serbia. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 16:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Rua: Most of these categories like Category:en:Special wards in Tokyo are back on the {{delete}} list. I think these should be removed again for the time being. DonnanZ (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Starting with the above, I don't know how the Tokyo ward system works, but I imagine it's a subdivision of the city. In England wards are subdivisions in cities, boroughs, local government districts, and possibly counties. "Wards in" is the natural usage.
Municipalities similarly. For example in Norway there are hundreds of municipalities (kommuner) which are subdivisions within counties (fylker). Some of these can be large, especially in the north, but so are the counties in the north. To me "municipalities in" is the natural wording.
States and provinces in the USA and Canada: In nearly all cases it is unnecessary to add the country name as the names are unambiguous. The only exception I can think of is Georgia, USA. This could also apply to prefectures in Japan and states in India (is there a Punjab in Pakistan?). DonnanZ (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Yes, there is, like there is in India. Maybe categorisations should be abundant? Cities can belong to Punjab as well as to Punjab, India, and the Crimea is part of administration of both the Russian Federation and the Republic Ukraine at least for some purposes in the Republic Ukraine. We can make the least thing wrong by adding Sheikh Zuweid (presuming it exists) as well to the Islamic State as to the Arab Republic of Egypt, because we do not want to judge morally and formally states and terror organizations are indistinguishable. On the other hand of course we need sufficient data to relate towns to administrative divisions and ISIS presumably does not publish organigrams. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 19:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

2018 — March[edit]

Category:English words ending in "-gry"[edit]

This is extremely trivial, not to mention something that could be found even if it were not categorised. I think that it suits an appendix much better, so I propose that its contents be moved to Appendix:English words ending in -gry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

A benefit to having it as a category is that theoretically it ought to be addable by the headword templates examining the pagename (like "English terms spelled with Œ"), which, if implemented (...if it could be implemented without excessive memory costs), would allow it to be kept up to date automatically. - -sche (discuss) 17:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
That is true, but I don't really think we should be using headword templates to collate trivia. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Delete per proponent. --Per utramque cavernam 18:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Is there something like Category:English lemmas but sorted from the end, like anger, ranger, hunger, angry, hungry? --幽霊四 (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
At http://tools.wmflabs.org/dixtosa/ you can get a list of all entries in any category that end with any string you like. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Support the proposed move per nom. - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 05:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Meh. Mehhhhhh. On one hand, I still like the idea of a category which can be populated automatically any time a new relevant entry is added. OTOH, it's very trivial. Well, it would be simple for someone to copy the current contents of the category over to the appendix and then remove the category from the entries (maybe with AWB to speed things up). - -sche (discuss) 09:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

2018 — April[edit]

Entries for Japanese prefecture names that end in (ken, prefecture)[edit]

I would like to request the move of the content of entries like 茨城県 (Ibaraki-ken, literally Ibaraki prefecture) to simply 茨城 (Ibaraki, Ibaraki), cf. Daijisen. is not an essential part of the name.

(Notifying Eirikr, Wyang, TAKASUGI Shinji, Nibiko, Atitarev, Dine2016, Poketalker, Cnilep, Britannic124, Fumiko Take, Dine2016): Suzukaze-c 03:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

As a counterargument, Shogakukan's 国語大辞典 entry for 茨城 (Ibaraki) has one sense listed as 「いばらきけん(茨城県)」の略 ("Ibaraki-ken" no ryaku, "short for Ibaraki-ken"), and the 茨城 page on the JA Wikipedia is a disambig pointing to 茨城県 as one possible more-specific entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) It seems like a two-word phrase to me. I am not a native speaker, but I think that if someone asked "水戸市は何県?" ((in) What prefecture is Mito?) then "茨城です。" (It's Ibaraki) would be a correct answer. Entries such as 奈良 and 広島 should have both the city and the prefecture. (I see that 奈良 currently does.) Cnilep (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
茨城県です would also be correct and probably more common. At least 東京 and 東京都 are clearly distinguished. No one in Izu Ōshima would say he/she is from 東京. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes, 茨城県 is also correct. And if someone asked どこの出身? (Where are you from?) the answer would probably be 奈良県 rather than 奈良, or else expect a follow-up question. But I don't think that is necessarily a matter of word boundaries. Compare Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh, Kansas; the fact that it is usually necessary, and always acceptable to specify the latter doesn't mean that Pittsburgh on its own is not a proper noun. By same token, I think that 茨城 (et alia) is a word. That's the point I had in mind. I will say nothing about what is more common. I don't even have good intuitions about frequency in my native language. Cnilep (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I fully agree that 茨城 is a term worthy of inclusion. I also think that 茨城県 is a term worthy of inclusion. We have entries for both New York and New York City, and even New York State. Similarly, I think we should have entries for [PREFECTURE NAME], and also for [PREFECTURE NAME] and [PREFECTURE NAME] and [PREFECTURE NAME], etc., as appropriate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I believe New York is a special case because there is both the state and the city. We have Washington State, but we don't have City of Chicago or State of Oregon. —Suzukaze-c 18:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
A lot (maybe all?) of the prefecture names minus the (-ken) suffix are polysemous. Listing a few from the north to the south, limiting just to geographical senses, and just in the same regions at that:
  • 青森 (Aomori): a prefecture and a city
  • 岩手 (Iwate): a prefecture, a city, and a township
  • 秋田 (Akita): a prefecture and a city
  • 山形 (Yamagata): a prefecture, a city, and a village
  • 宮城 (Miyagi): a prefecture, a county, a township, a rural area (ancient Japan), a village, an island, and a mountain
  • 福島 (Fukushima): a prefecture, a city, and a township
  • 新潟 (Nīgata): a prefecture, a city, a park, and a village
  • 栃木 (Tochigi): a prefecture and a city
  • 茨城 (Ibaraki): a prefecture, a county, and a township
Jumping south a bit to touch on Anatoli's example further below:
  • 奈良 (Nara): a prefecture, a city, a township, and a village
I am consequently in support of including both the bare name, and the qualified name(s), much as we already do for similar situations with English terms. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
They are polysemic because most prefectures were named after their capital city during the abolition of the han system. Exceptions include 埼玉 and 沖縄, where cities are named after their prefecture. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Generally support. Less duplication is good, and it is not much different from Chinese etc. for which we generally delemmatise, if not completely hard-redirect, these forms. Wyang (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Support. For a dictionary, I think we don't need to keep entries with both prefecture name and prefecture, despite the usage but it's always helpful to provide usage notes (e.g. normally used with 県: ~県) and usage examples, e.g. 奈良県(ならけん) (Nara ken, Nara (prefecture)). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

2018 — July[edit]

Category:Bengali script and related[edit]

After some discussion on Category talk:Baybayin script (that went a bit off-topic), some of the Indian language editors (@Bhagadatta, Msasag and myself) have agreed that this category should be renamed to Category:Eastern Nagari script, the reasons being (1) several languages other than Bengali use this script, and (2) the Bengali alphabet is just a subset of this script and lacks some of the glyphs used by other Bengali-script languages (most prominently Assamese which has a separate r-glyph). I want to make sure that there are no objections to this by editors who were not in the discussion. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 02:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

google:assamese+site:unicode.orgSuzukaze-c 02:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Asm sultan, Dubomanab Kutchkutch (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Support -- Bhagadatta (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

2018 — August[edit]

Category:Nahuatl language[edit]

Nahuatl is sometimes treated as a language, and sometimes as a family of languages. Right now, Wiktionary is treating it as both simultaneously, which doesn't make sense. "Nahuatl" should be removed as a language. --Lvovmauro (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree the current arrangement doesn't make sense; it is a relic of very early days on Wiktionary, and has persisted mostly because it's not entirely clear how intelligible the varieties are and hence whether it's better to lump them all into nah, or retire nah and separate everything. But enough varieties are not intelligible that I agree with retiring nah (or perhaps finally converting it to a family code). - -sche (discuss) 20:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I think a family code for Nahuan languages is really needed since there are many cases where we don't know specifically which variety a word was borrowed from. --Lvovmauro (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Lvovmauro: OK, thanks to you and a few other editors, all words with ==Nahuatl== sections have been given more specific headers. However, as many as a thousand translations remain to be dealt with before the code can be made a family code and Category:Nahuatl language moved on over to Category:Nahuan languages. - -sche (discuss) 06:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
A disturbingly large number of these translations are neologisms with no actual usage. Some of them don't even obey the rules of Nahuatl word formation. --Lvovmauro (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Lvovmauro: Feel free to remove obvious errors / unattested neologisms. If a high proportion of the translations are bad, it might even be reasonable to start presuming they're bad and just removing them, since they already suffer from the problem of using an overbroad code. - -sche (discuss) 00:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Someone with more time on their hands than me at the moment will need to delete all the subcategories of Category:Nahuatl language, and then the category itself, in preparation for moving 'nah' from the language-code module to the family-code module so the categories won't be recreated by careless misuse of 'nah' in the labels etc of 'nci' entries. - -sche (discuss) 00:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Five years on, I've reviewed the situation here. There are no Nahuatl entries anymore, which is good progress. However, two pressing issues are stopping us from fully retiring this language code:
  • There are still about 450 "Nahuatl" (nah) translations in English entries. I suppose these need manual review. This should not be too difficult if one can find word lists for some of the best-attested Nahuatls.
  • Many languages have at least one word said to be derived from Nahuatl (presumably this is the word for "chocolate" in most cases). This could be solved by making Nahuatl an etymology-only language, or by changing these etymologies to refer generically to "a Nahuan language".
This, that and the other (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Mecayapan Nahuatl saltillos[edit]

A number of Mecayapan Nahuatl words are currently written with U+0027 APOSTROPHE, which is a punctuation mark and not a letter. And a couple are using U+02BC MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE, which is the wrong shape for this language. They should all be written with U+A78C LATIN SMALL LETTER SALTILLO instead.

--Lvovmauro (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Or perhaps they should just be moved to use the Modifier Letter Apostrophe, cf WT:RFM#Entries_in_CAT:Taos_lemmas_with_curly_apostrophes, to avoid over-proliferation of different apostrophe-ish letters. I think we should try to be consistent within the Nahuatl languages, at least, in which codepoint we use. - -sche (discuss) 20:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Most Nahuan languages don't use any sort of apostrophe. Mecayapan is unusual. --Lvovmauro (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

2018 — September[edit]

It’s not about goon but go-on. Most books on Japanese seem to use kan-on and go-on with a hyphen rather than the correctly Romanized kan’on and goon. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

2018 — October[edit]

Category:Korean determinersCategory:Korean adnominals[edit]

I propose to rename Category:Korean determiners to Category:Korean adnominals, just like Category:Japanese adnominals. Korean gwanhyeongsa are grammatically almost identical to Japanese rentaishi or adnominals, which may or may not be determiners. Gwanhyeongsa are generally divided into three classes: demonstrative gwanhyeongsa, numeral gwanhyeongsa, and qualifying gwanhyeongsa ([4]). The last ones are not determiners. (pinging @Atitarev, Eirikr, Garam, HappyMidnight, KoreanQuoter) — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Support. --Garam (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Tentatively Support. Let's check with User:Wyang who was also involved and had an opinion in a related discussion on the group of words ending in (, jeok). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
I feel determiner is the more common name for this in English; the different definitions of these terms across languages should not be a concern - e.g. we also use adjective differently for Korean. adnominal may be confused with the -eun, -neun, -eul, -deon forms of Korean verbs and adjectives. Wyang (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Wyang: The problem is that Category:Korean determiners contains words other than determiners. It will be all right to have both Category:Korean adnominals and Category:Korean determiners without renaming if you want, just like Category:Japanese adnominals and Category:Japanese determiners. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tibidibi, AG202Fish bowl (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

2018 — November[edit]

Language request: Old Cahita[edit]

Mayo and Yaqui are mutually intelligible and sometimes considered to be a single language called Cahita. But their speakers apparently consider them to be distinct languages, and they have distinct ISO codes (mfy and yaq) and are currently treated distinctly by Wiktionary.

I'm not requesting that they be merged, but separating them is a problem because an important early source, the Arte de la lengua cahita conforme à las reglas de muchos peritos en ella (published 1737 but written earlier) treats them as a single language, and also includes an extinct dialect called Tehueco. I'd like to add words from the Arte but I can't list them specifically as either Mayo or Yaqui.

One solution would be treat to the language of the Arte as a distinct historical language, "Old Cahita", which would then be the ancestor of Mayo and Yaqui. The downside is there only seems to be one linguist currently using this name. --Lvovmauro (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

On linguistic grounds, it seems like we should merge Yaqui and Mayo. Jacqueline Lindenfeld's 1974 Yaqui Syntax says "Yaqui and Mayo are sufficiently similar to be mutually intelligible", the Handbook of Middle American Indians says "the modern known representatives of Cahitan—Yaqui and Mayo—are mutually intelligible", and various more general references say "Yaqui and Mayo are mutually intelligible dialects of the Cahitan language", "The Yaqui and Mayo speak mutually intelligible dialects of Cahita". (There are political considerations behind the split, which a merger might upset, so adding Old Cahita would also work, but we have tended to be lumpers...) - -sche (discuss) 23:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't object to merging them. --Lvovmauro (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Merging Classical Mongolian into Mongolian[edit]

"Classical Mongolian" refers to the literary language of Mongolia used from 17th to 19th century created through a language reform associated with increased Buddhist cultural production (this started in the 16th century, but language standardization took place later). In the 20th century, (outer) Mongolia became independent from China and later adopted a Cyrillic orthography based on the spoken language, while Inner Mongolia kept her Uyghur script.

The literary language of Inner Mongolia continues Classical Mongolian in terms of its orthography as well as most of its grammar (to an extent that Janhunen (?) calls the situation bilingual). Modern varieties, in both Outer and Inner Mongolia, have greatly expanded their lexicons through borrowing of modern terms, but they also both consider all of Classical Mongolian lexicon to be a part of their language, and will put it in their dictionaries, even transcribed into Cyrillic.

The actual problem I have with this division is that when it comes to borrowings from (Classical) Mongolian, we sometimes cannot ascertain whether they precede the 20th century or not, or more common still, we know they precede the 19th century (and post-date the 16th), but they obviously come from a spoken variety and not "Classical Mongolian" as a literary language. Crom daba (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I find it also strange that Wiktionary distinguishes Ottoman Turkish from Turkish, it’s like distinguishing pre-1918 Russian from “Russian”, or like one reads about “Ottoman Turks” instead of “Turks”. Also Kazakh and the other Turkic language do not get extra codes for Arabic spelling, this situation is even more comparable, innit. Kazakhs in China write in Arabic script, Mongols in China in Mongolian script, but the languages are two and not four. Or also it sounds as with Pali. Am I correct to assume that Classical Mongolian texts get reedited in Cyrillic script? Then you could base all on Cyrillic and make Mongolian script soft redirects, because even words died out before the introduction of Cyrillic can be found in Cyrillic. Fay Freak (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak, the situation is similar to Turkish, but it creates less problems there since the Arabic script Turkish is obsolete and most relevant loans are pre-Republican.
In principle it could be possible to collapse all of Mongolian into Cyrillic, but this would be extremely politically incorrect.
Collapsing everything (potentially even Buryat, Daur and Middle Mongolian) into Uyghur script, like we do with Chinese, would perhaps make more sense, but 1) it's a pain to enter 2) Cyrillic is generally more accessible and useful to our users and (Outer) Mongolians 3) most of my materials are in Cyrillic 4) it corresponds poorly to the spoken forms 5) its Unicode encoding corresponds poorly to its actual form 6) the encoding doesn't correspond that well to the spoken form either. Crom daba (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
This is tricky, because as far as language headers and having entries for terms in the language, it seems like we could often resolve which language a word is in(?) by knowing the date of the texts it's attested in. It is, as you say, etymologies where it's hardest to ascertain dates. (Still, if we merged the lects, we could retain an "etymology only" code for borrowings that were clearly from Classical Mongolian, like is done for Classical Persian, etc.) I'm having a hard time finding any references on the mutual intelligibility of the two stages; most references are concerned with the intelligibility or non-intelligibility of modern Khalkha, Kalmyk, etc. If we kept the stages separate, etymologies could always say something like "from Mongolian foo, or a Classical Mongolian forerunner". - -sche (discuss) 22:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@-sche, yes, the Persian model would be desirable.
It doesn't make much sense to speak of intelligibility between Classical and Modern Mongolian, Classical Mongolian is exclusively a written language, its spelling reflects the phonology of 13th-century Mongolian (early Middle Mongolian). The same spelling is used in Modern Mongolian as written in Uyghur script.
The biggest problem with Classical Mongolian is how redundant it is. For any word that is shared between modern and classical periods, and that is probably most of the lexicon, we would need to make two identical entries in Uyghur script for modern and classical Mongolian. Crom daba (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
That seems not unlike how we handle Serbo-Croatian and Hindi-Urdu. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. 14:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. The way we handle them sucks. Crom daba (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
I agree. All this duplication is a huge waste of resources. Per utramque cavernam 13:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Not exactly; Serbo-Croatian and Hindi-Urdu have redundant entries in different scripts on different pages, while I understand Crom daba's point to be that we would need to have redundant ==Mongolian== and ==Classical Mongolian== entries on the same pages for most Mongolian/Uyghur script words, which would be more like having duplicate Bosnian and Croatian entries on the same pages, not our current system. And Serbo-Croats are testier about their language(s) being lumped than speakers of Classical Mongolian... ;) - -sche (discuss) 17:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
OK, does anyone object to the merge? If not, I can try to do it with AutoWikiBrowser later, or Crom or others could start reheadering our small number of Classical Mongolian entries, fixing any wayward translations, etc. For etymologies of terms that are known to derive from Classical Mongolian, we should be able to just move cmg over to Module:etymology languages/data. - -sche (discuss) 17:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Crom daba, Fay Freak I made the few ==Classical Mongolian== entries we had into ==Mongolian== entries (labelled "Classical Mongolian" unless there was already a modern Mongolian section on the same page), but many of the categories still need to be deleted, and one needs to check whther anything else is left that would break before "cmg" is moved from being a language code to being an etymology-only code. - -sche (discuss) 02:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
There's no full correspondence between different Mongolian scripts and none of the scripts is totally phonetic. It's not just the spelling, the phonologies are different but sometimes one script represents the true or historical pronunciation and it's not necessarily Cyrillic, which is strange. There are words that only exist on one or the other, which is quite understandable, cf. modern ᠱᠠᠹᠠ (šafa, sofa) in Inner Mongolia (from 沙發沙发 (shāfā) and софа (sofa, sofa) in outer Mongolia (from софа́ (sofá). I support the merge, though but I am curious if classical Mongolian terms are equally representable in Cyrillic and Arabic scripts. In other words, are there terms in classical Mongolian, which are different from modern and there's no Cyrillic form for them? I think I saw them.
Duplication of entries is a waste. You may think I am biased but I think Mongolian should be presented/lemmatised in Cyrillic (Uyghurjin should also be available in all entries where it can be found) - for which resources are much more accessible. (Serbo-Croatian should be lemmatised on the Roman alphabet, on the other hand, let's finish the senseless duplications of entries)
Also supporting the Ottoman Turkish/Turkish merge. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev In Mongol khelnii ikh tailbar toli we see the term уйгуржин бичиг is described as ‘монгол бичгийн дундад эртний үеийн хэлбэр’ (‘early form of the Mongolian/Khudam script’). Middle Mongolian in uigurjin with its own rules shall not to be equated with the later ‘Classical’-Modern script and orthography. I maintain uigurjin (with its specific glyph forms and spelling rules) shall be treated as a term only for Middle Mongolian.
Similarly I also object treating Northern Yuan – Qing (‘Classical’) Mongolian and Modern Mongolian-script Mongolian as one literary language standard. In fact orthographic standardisations and modifications make written Modern Mongolian such different from Classical. Personally I’d like to display a historical feature of this language collectively under ‘Classical Mongolian’, as only this term directly interlinks with an Inner Asian historical and linguistic tradition. LibCae (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

2018 — December[edit]

Renaming agu[edit]

We currently call this "Aguacateca", but "Aguacateco" is much more common. (Wikipedia opts for "Awakatek", which is rapidly becoming more common but is probably not there yet — not that we can't be crystal-ballsy if we want to when it comes to names rather than entries.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

You're right that several modern (and a few older) sources seem to use Awakatek. In turn, historically Aguacatec has been used in the titles of many reference works on it, and seems like it may be the most common name (ngrams), although it's also the name of the people-group. (Others: Awakateko, Awaketec, Qa'yol, Kayol, and variously spellings of Chalchitec sometimes considered a distinct lect.) - -sche (discuss) 04:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, the most common name by a longshot is Aguacatec, followed by Awakatek (but these are also names of the people-group), followed by Awakateko, then Aguacateco, and in dead last, our current name of Aguacateca. Can we rename to Aguacatec? - -sche (discuss) 07:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support renaming to Aguacatec. Also being the name of the "people-group" is hardly an argument against it; the same is true of a huge number of languages including French, Welsh, Manx and the vast majority of language names ending in -ish. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Oh, to clarify, I didn't intend that as an argument against using that name, but as a qualification on the data; comparing which term is more common can't easily determine which is the most common name of the language if one term is also used for something else (the name of the people). But Aguacatec seems to be the most common name in e.g. the books about it in Glottolog's bibliography, too. Who has a bot that does renames? This one involves few enough entries that it could be done by hand, but it seems like the tasks that would need to be done are the same for many (all?) language renames, so it should be bottable... - -sche (discuss) 07:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

2019 — January[edit]

"comparative adjectives" > "adjective comparative forms"[edit]

Apparently there was a recent vote to remove the ambiguity of comparative and superlative categories. What I don't understand is why the name "comparative adjectives" was chosen, which suggests a lemma category, yet it's now being subcategorised under non-lemmas. Lemma subcategories are named "xxx POSs", as can be seen in Module:category tree/poscatboiler/data/lemmas. Non-lemma subcategories are named "POS xxx forms", visible in Module:category tree/poscatboiler/data/non-lemma forms. Therefore, the obvious place for comparative forms of adjectives is the "adjective comparative forms" category we used to have. The new name, although voted on, stands out as an exception among all of our existing categories and is inconsistent. It should therefore either be renamed back to reflect its non-lemma status, or it should be moved back under its original lemma parent category. —Rua (mew) 23:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection, ErutuonRua (mew) 00:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

The vote was here: Wiktionary:Votes/2018-07/Restructure comparative and superlative categories. — Eru·tuon 00:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Participles are not lemmas yet they are called "(language) participles", so it's not as if the comparatives/superlatives would exactly be exceptions of some kind. They even have their own "participle forms" categories! The former also applies to gerunds. — surjection?09:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
And to make it clear, "adjective/adverb comparative/superlative forms" categories are to be made obsolete as a direct result of the vote. — surjection?09:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yes, and that should be undone, because as I said, the name "comparative adjectives" suggests that they are lemmas because of our existing naming scheme. Participles are non-lemmas by virtue of being participles, but adjectives are lemmas, so "comparative adjectives" are also lemmas. Are you implicitly proposing to rename all non-lemma categories to this new scheme, e.g. "dual adjectives", "plural nouns", "possessive nouns", "feminine adjectives"? If the vote is upheld then I will propose this change to make things consistent again. —Rua (mew) 12:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
I certainly would not assume "comparative adjectives" refer to lemmas in any way as much as "participles" don't. If we go back to "adjective comparative forms", what do you suggest for the name of the category with inflected forms of such? And don't just say "put them in 'Adjective forms'", because that at the very least isn't consistent as I stated below. In the old system, there was no consistency at all - inflected forms of comparatives and superlatives went to either the same category as them or Adjective forms without any sort of rule. — surjection?12:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
I would not even categorise inflected forms of comparatives in a special way. They are just adjective forms. I don't even think comparatives should be categorised separately at all, there is no obvious need to do so. The example of possessive forms is perhaps the best parallel, since they have inflection tables of their own in Northern Sami and many other languages. Do you propose renaming them to "possessive nouns" so that there can be a separate "possessive noun forms" category? —Rua (mew) 12:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
If you feel comparatives too don't need a special category, I'm personally fine with bunching all of them under "adjective forms", but that will too need wider consensus to implement. When it comes to those possessive nouns, I would argue comparatives and superlatives are closer to participles than to those possessive forms, which is why I believe they're not a good parallel and should be considered separately. — surjection?12:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Why? —Rua (mew) 12:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Many participle forms develop into adjectives of their own right and some comparative/superlatives too have developed into their own forms. Possessive forms by comparison basically never have, showing that they are fundamentally different in some way. — surjection?12:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
In fact, unlike this new system which has parallels, I'm fairly sure the old system of having "adjective comparative forms" but then the forms of comparatives under "adjective forms" is more of an exception. — surjection?09:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Not really. We don't have separate non-lemma categories for everything in Module:category tree/poscatboiler/data/lemmas and in fact we don't need to. Under the old system, all comparative forms could be categorised under "adjective comparative forms", so that includes all case forms of comparatives. There was never any need to separately categorise forms of comparatives. In fact I'm generally opposed to subcategorising non-lemmas, so that's why I moved everything in Dutch to just "adjective forms". We don't need a subcategory for every possible type of non-lemma form. However, if we do have them, then they should be named consistently. —Rua (mew) 12:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
We don't have separate non-lemma categories for the reason that many of them are simply not inflectable on and upon themselves. Again, participles have separate categories for the main participle and inflected forms of such - why should this not apply to comparative and superlative adjectives? — surjection?12:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
What I get out of your argument is that you think "POS xxx forms" should become "xxx POSs" when the form has its own inflections. But then what about cases like English, where comparatives don't have their own forms and are simply adjective forms? Or cases like Dutch or Swedish, where there are multiple superlative forms but their inflections are shown on the lemma? How is an editor supposed to know what the name of the category for any particular adjective form is, when some of them are named differently from others? —Rua (mew) 12:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
That is indeed my argument for comparatives and superlatives due to their so far horridly inconsistent handling. In the case of English and all other languages, they will only have "comparative adjectives", no "comparative adjective forms", much like English would have "participles" that too aren't lemmas but would not have "participle forms". In cases like Dutch, Swedish and such where comparative/superlative forms are more numerous, those need to be handled on a language by language basis, ideally to choose one of the forms as the most lemma-esque (such as which form dictionaries primarily use to describe the comparative/superlative of an adjective), and if not one can be decided, it is more of a tricky situation (possibly all into "comparative/superlative adjective forms"?). Editors in turn can rely on other existing entries and eventually remember these entries much like the existing ones are, or use language-specific headword templates. Yes, the new system is by no means perfect, but I would argue it is miles better than what we had before. — surjection?12:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
But again, how is an editor of these languages supposed to know that, while adjective forms normally go in "adjective xxx forms", it is somehow different for comparative and superlative forms? You still haven't answered this. Your argument is based on sublemma-ness, but this differs per language, not all languages treat comparatives and superlatives as sublemmas. The categorisation should allow for both treatments depending on the needs of the individual language, not force a particular treatment on all languages. The fact that you think it makes sense for Finnish doesn't mean it makes sense for English. Now we have Category:English comparative adjectives for an adjective form, but Category:English noun plural forms for a noun form. How is that consistent? —Rua (mew) 12:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
I did already answer that question - read the latter part of my previous response. Many a time has an editor checked an existing entry to see how something is formatted, and I doubt there would be a single editor that has never done that. Many of the languages with comparatives and superlatives set up have language-specific headword templates, and many of those too have ACCEL which can too give the correct headword category autom- oh wait, it can't anymore since someone removed that capability. — surjection?12:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
You have not answered the question. An editor cannot, based on the rule that non-lemma categories are named "adjective xxx forms", guess the correct name of the category for comparative forms, whereas they could before. Instead, there is now a single exception that comparatives are named "comparative adjectives". Where are all the other "xxx POSs" categories for non-lemmas? Again, are you proposing that all non-lemmas be renamed to match this new scheme? If not, what justifies this single exception? —Rua (mew) 12:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Which question exactly have I not answered? The question was "how would an editor of these languages know the correct name for the categories?", which I have now answered not less than twice in my two previous responses. Instead, what it seems you are arguing is that the new scheme creates inconsistency in terms of the category names for non-lemma forms. Indeed, if other derivations are shown to be just like participles or comparative/superlatives, I'm happy to agree to move them under a similar scheme as well, but the possessive forms you brought up above are not an example of such. — surjection?12:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Since it seems that this is the new norm for naming categories, I have proposed to rename all existing categories to match the new naming scheme at WT:BP. —Rua (mew) 13:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Rua Given the edits you have made to the templates and modules are still in place, are you willing to revert those yourself or are you asserting that you are overriding the consensus established by the vote? — surjection?21:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

See also Category talk:Terms making reference to character shapes by language.

Perhaps they could be merged, or perhaps both could be kept (Japanese: characters; letters?), but the naming should be consistent, at the least. —Suzukaze-c 11:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Merge, perhaps into Category:Terms derived from character shapes by language (a bit shorter, and inclusive of non-letter characters). - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 04:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

2019 — February[edit]

make someone's blood run cold and one's blood runs cold[edit]

These should be merged, I think. Per utramque cavernam 12:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, IMO, into someone's blood runs cold, with hard redirects from both. DCDuring (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
I would support a hard redirect. Imetsia (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Category:Taxonomic eponyms by language[edit]

Formerly entitled Category:Taxonomic eponyms

As above. —Rua (mew) 13:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

As with Category:Specific epithets. DCDuring (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2, Rua, DCDuring: I guess there is nothing to move here and this can be solved by an addition to module data so that we can auto-cat after adding {{cln|langcode|taxonomic eponyms}} in entries. I mean, in order to categorize the {{named-after}} stuff more specifically. Fay Freak (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think all of these that are entire taxonomic names must be Translingual, by virtue of being taxonomic names. The ones that are specific epithets would have the same language code for the taxonomic eponyms as for the specific epithet. DCDuring (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
@DCDuring: I am not exactly sure what you mean. I mean that “taxonomic eponyms” can be added to the topical data or to the etymological data (Category:Taxonomic names, the supercategory of Category:Taxonomic eponyms, resides in the former for some reason, but I devise the taxonomic eponym categories as motivated by etymological description, so the latter it should be), whereas Category:Taxonomic eponyms cannot because it cannot generally be applied onto all languages (only to Translingual and perhaps Latin words that also are epithets). @Rua mixed up different issues here, the reasoning “as above” is not comprehensible thus. Fay Freak (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
The question then is whether Translingual appears as "Translingual " or "mul:"? I have thought that "specific epithets" is a category having to do with the usage of the term. Thus the categorization should be the result of a label or of a non-gloss definition.DCDuring (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Since "Translingual" is a junk supercategory, not comparable to our language categories, based on an attribute of the usage of some terms. The category includes CJKV characters, airport ocdes, other international abbreviations, symbols, and codes, some non-taxonomic scientific terms, and who-knows-what-else, as well as taxonomic names. The effort to act as if every linguistic entity in Wiktionary fits into a relatively well-defined hierarchy of language families, languages, and dialects comes a-cropper with the entities thrown into Translingual, just as the taxonomic naming system has its troubles with hybridisation and trans-taxon gene transfer (eg, from viruses or from the assimilation of prokaryotes into eukaryotes as organelles).
Specific epithets have a function within taxonomic terms that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that taxonomic names are used translingually, but has everything to do with names in the taxonomic/biological "language". 'Specific epithet' is a grammatical role within certain classes of taxonomic names. DCDuring (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Rua, DCDuring, Fay Freak: Heads up that I amended Module:category tree/poscatboiler/data/terms by etymology to standardize these categories and so we now have Category:Taxonomic eponyms by language. I realize this makes the deletion discussion a little more confusing, since the main category has changed, so just giving visibility to the subcats Category:Arabic taxonomic eponyms, Category:English taxonomic eponyms, and Category:Translingual taxonomic eponyms and the fact that the main category under discussion was emptied and deleted for being empty. I've put the notice on the new main category and changed this subheading. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
By which of our definitions of eponym is Anna's hummingbird an eponym? DCDuring (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be inconsistently integrated in so far as the latter in its name contains “verbs” but the former does not contain “noun”, and the latter gets categorized as Category:Lemmas subcategories by language but the former as Category:Terms by etymology subcategories by language. Outside the category structure we have Category:Taos deverbal nouns which nobody has noticed. I have no tendency towards any gestalt so far, and I can’t decide either. Furthermore somebody will have to make a complement {{denominal}} for {{deverbal}} – so far there is only an Arabic-specific {{ar-denominal verb}}. Fay Freak (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

A lot of this is redundant to our suffix derivation categories. In many cases, the suffix used already determines what something is derived from. For example, -ness always forms deadjectival nouns, it can't really be anything else. —Rua (mew) 18:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Please see Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2018/May#основать. Per utramque cavernam 19:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
True, for “a lot”, and if you know the deep intricacies of Wiktionary’s category structure.
Category:Russian deverbals that contains now 53 entries has only entries the etymology of which consists in just removing the verb ending and using the stem. I see we have for this case Category:Russian words suffixed with -∅ – we just need to implement something like Category:Latin words suffixed with -o that is split by purpose of the suffix, Category:Latin words suffixed with -o (denominative), Category:Latin words suffixed with -o (compound verb) and so on, which is bare laudable. Now you only need to tell people, @Rua, how to create this id stuff, for to me it is a secret thus far.
However this does not work with non-catenative morphology thus far – you may link the previous discussions on those infix categorization matters here, but even if that pattern collecting is solved the derived terms listed at صَلِيب (ṣalīb, cross), for instance, would only be categorized by pattern but nothing would imply that the terms are denominal –, and the point I have made about the categorization and naming of these categories is still there. But I give you green light in any case, if you want to replace all those “[language] deverbals” and “[language] denominal verbs” categorizations by suffigation categories of the format “[language] words suffixed with -∅ [deverbal]”, as well if it concerns action towards categorization of noncatenative morphology language terms, since your idea of uniformity is correct. Fay Freak (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Nonconcatenative morphology is still an underexplored part of Wiktionary, which is kind of annoying. But quite often, we simply show the concatenative part as the affix, and then leave a usage note saying what other changes occur when this form of derivation is used. For example on Northern Sami -i and -hit. —Rua (mew) 20:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
How to create an affix category with an id: add the id to the definition line in the affix's entry with {{senseid|language code|id}}, add {{affix|language code|affix|id1=id}} (at minimum) to the etymology section of a term that uses the affix, find the resulting red-linked category and create it with {{auto cat}}. — Eru·tuon 20:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, this is easier than I imagined, so it takes the category name from {{senseid}}. I thought it is in some background module data. Now where to document it? Add it to the documentation of {{affix}} under |idN=? This is the main or even only use of this parameter in this template, right? Fay Freak (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
It's not that {{senseid}} has any effect on the category name, but that a category with a parenthesis after it, such as Latin words suffixed with -tus (action noun), expects a matching {{senseid}} in the entry for -tus, in this case {{senseid|la|action noun}} because the link in the category description points to -tus#Latin-action_noun, which is the format of the anchor created by {{senseid}}. The |id= type parameters, including in {{affix}}, generally create a link of that type. In {{affix}}, the parameter also has the effect of changing the category name. Sorry, I am not sure if I am explaining this clearly. — Eru·tuon 22:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
You explain this clearly. I just rolled it up from that side that I need to choose the name in {{senseid}} that I want to have in the category name so later with affix I will categorize in a reasonably named category because in other cases the id can arbitrary – not that {{senseid}} has an effect on the category name. Fay Freak (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Our affix system is not sufficient to handle morphological derivation we have to deal with (unless you want us to introduce lambdas...) Serbo-Croatian hardly has the intricacy of Arabic conjugation, but there are plenty of nouns that are created from verbal roots through apophony, and this needs to be categorized somehow. Crom daba (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Crom daba At least for Indo-European, we do have a system for handling combinations of affixation + ablaut, like on *-os (notice the parentheses showing the root grade) and -ος (-os). Our current system totally fails where there is no affix, though, a case which also exists in Indo-European. For example, there are some Indo-European forms of derivation, called "internal derivation", which are built entirely around changing ablaut grades and accents: *krótus (strength) > *krétus (strong) or τόμος (tómos, slice) > τομός (tomós, sharp). We have no systematic way to indicate this kind of derivation, but it is sorely needed. —Rua (mew) 23:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

2019 — March[edit]

Category:English dismissals and Category:Cebuano dismissals[edit]

1 member in this category, whose purpose I cannot discern and whose name seems like poor English to me. Note: "dismissal" is in Module:labels/data and should be removed from there if this fails. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: What about Category:English dismissals? —Suzukaze-c 04:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, suzukaze. Accordingly moved to RFM with both cats listed; I now see what the intent is, but I still think the name is bad. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think it fits in the same idea as Category:en:Greetings, but with a different naming scheme. "Greetings" should probably not be a set category, because sets group words by semantics (i.e. what the words refer to), rather than by function. —Rua (mew) 21:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Add Category:Punjabi dismissals. Module:labels/data specifies that [[Category:<Language name> dismissals]] be added whenever the context label "dismissal" is used, but nothing has been added for this in the relevant category data module. This apparently predates Module:labels/data, since it was migrated in with all the other usage labels in August, 2013. We should either do something with these categories or get rid of the categorization in Module:labels/data- it's silly to have things showing up in Category:Categories with invalid label just because someone added a context label. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

2019 — April[edit]

Category:en:Greetings to Category:English greetings[edit]

Topical and set categories group terms based on what they refer to, but this category doesn't contain terms for greetings, it contains terms that are greetings. In other words, the name of the category refers to the word itself, not to its meaning, like Category:English nouns and unlike Category:en:Colors. So the category shouldn't be named and categorised like a set category, but instead should be named Category:English greetings. It belongs somewhere in Category:English phrasebook or Category:English terms by semantic function or something like that. —Rua (mew) 21:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Category:en:Farewells to Category:English farewells[edit]

As above, these terms do not refer to farewells, they are farewells: the category name pertains to the word rather than the meaning. —Rua (mew) 21:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Support per nom. - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 06:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Support. I agree with your reasoning. Tc14Hd (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Category:en:Toasts to Category:English toasts[edit]

As above. —Rua (mew) 21:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Support per nom. - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 06:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Again, as above. —Rua (mew) 21:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Support per nom. - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 06:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Category:Translingual numerals or Category:Translingual numeral symbols[edit]

Discussion moved from WT:RFDO#Category:Translingual numerals or Category:Translingual numeral symbols.

We currently have both Category:Translingual numerals and Category:Translingual numeral symbols. If there's a difference, I'm not sure what it is. If not, I'm assuming we should merge on into the other. -- Beland (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Numerals can be words (one, two in spelling alphabets), while numeral symbols are not (Roman numerals). The difference is subtle, but I think it is there. — surjection??18:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:English entry guidelines vs "About (language)" in every other language[edit]

Some years ago, there was an RFM to rename all these pages, the discussion of which is archived at Wiktionary talk:English entry guidelines#RFM discussion: November 2015–August 2018. The original nomination mentions "and likewise for other languages", meaning that the intent was to rename these pages in parallel for every language. In the end, only the English page was moved, so that now the English page has a name different from all the others. User:Sgconlaw suggested starting a new discussion instead of moving the pages after the RFM has long been closed.

My own opinion on this is to rename the pages in other languages to match the English one. That was the original intent of the first RFM, and the new name better describes what these pages are for. The name "about" instead suggests something like a Wikipedia page where you can write any interesting fact about the language, which is of course not what they're actually for. Some discussion may be needed regarding the shortcuts of all these pages. They currently follow the format of WT:A(language code), so e.g. WT:AEN but also WT:ACEL-BRY with hyphens in the name. The original shortcuts should probably be kept, at least for a while, but we may want to think of something to match the new page name as well. —Rua (mew) 13:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Support. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Support renaming for accuracy and consistency. —Ultimateria (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
SupportJberkel 23:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge Apologies, I missed this from a year ago. I'll go ahead and rename. Benwing2 (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge FYI, this may take a little while. Lots of these pages have redirects to them and MediaWiki doesn't handle double redirects, so I have to find all the links to these pages (at least, those in redirects) and fix them. Benwing2 (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: You mean you have to fix the redirects themselves, right? I hope that we can continue to use the WT:AFOO redirects even after the moves are complete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge Yes, the redirects need to be fixed to point to the new pages. Benwing2 (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge One more thing: Some 'About' pages aren't just "About LANG". What should we rename the following?
  1. WT:About Algonquian languages: Does WT:Algonquian languages entry guidelines work, or should it just be WT:Algonquian entry guidelines?
  2. WT:About sign languages: Should it be WT:Sign languages entry guidelines, WT:Sign language entry guidelines, or something else?
  3. WT:About Arabic/Egyptian, WT:About Arabic/Moroccan, WT:About Chinese/Cantonese, WT:About Chinese/Cantonese/Taishanese, WT:About Chinese/Gan, WT:About Chinese/Hakka, WT:About Chinese/Jin, ... (other Chinese varieties), WT:About Lingala/Old: Does WT:Arabic/Egyptian entry guidelines, WT:Chinese/Cantonese/Taishanese entry guidelines, etc. work, or should we normalize to e.g. WT:Egyptian Arabic entry guidelines, WT:Cantonese entry guidelines, WT:Gan entry guidelines (or WT:Gan Chinese entry guidelines?), WT:Hakka entry guidelines (or WT:Hakka Chinese entry guidelines?), WT:Old Lingala entry guidelines, etc.? Cf. also Wiktionary:About Contemporary Arabic.
  4. Other subpages: Wiktionary:About Chinese/phonetic series, Wiktionary:About Chinese/phonetic series 2, Wiktionary:About Chinese/references, Wiktionary:About Chinese/tasks, Wiktionary:About French/Todo, Wiktionary:About German/Todo, Wiktionary:About German/Todo/missing a-d (and others), Wiktionary:About Greek/Glossary, Wiktionary:About Greek/Draft new About Greek, Wiktionary:About Hungarian/Participles, Wiktionary:About Hungarian/Todo, Wiktionary:About Japanese/Etymology, Wiktionary:About Korean/Romanization, Wiktionary:About Korean/references, Wiktionary:About Korean/Historical forms, Wiktionary:About Norwegian/Layout1, Wiktionary:About Norwegian/Layout2, Wiktionary:About Norwegian/Layout3, Wiktionary:About Spanish/Todo (probably completely outdated), Wiktionary:About Spanish/Todo/missing a-d (and others), Wiktionary:About Swahili/missing a-z, Wiktionary:About Tibetan/references, Wiktionary:About Vietnamese/references
  5. Wiktionary:About Japanese-English bilingual: What about this?
  6. Wiktionary:About Han script, Wiktionary:About Hangul script: Does WT:Han script entry guidelines work, or should it just be Wiktionary:Han script guidelines or something else?
  7. Wiktionary:About International Phonetic Alphabet, Wiktionary:About given names and surnames, Wiktionary:About undetermined languages: Not languages.

Benwing2 (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

  1. @Benwing2: 1. I don't think we need the word "languages". 2. The second option sounds more grammatically correct. 3 & 4. I would go with subpages, but you may want to hold off on those, as some of the pages are heavily used and links to them will have to be fixed. Opinions solicited: @Justinrleung, suzukaze-c, Atitarev, Tibidibi 5. It should be moved somewhere very inconspicuous; we could even delete it and nobody would miss it. 6. I guess the former? 7. The first one is now fine, the second can stay where it is, and the third seems somewhat useless (but @-sche may have an opinion). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
No opinion, although I am of the belief that many of our WT:<CJK> pages should be in the Appendix instead. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I would probably like WT:Chinese entry guidelines/Cantonese, WT:Chinese entry guidelines/Gan, etc. for the ones in 3 so that they are still treated as subpages of WT:Chinese entry guidelines. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Justinrleung WRT the Korean pages as well.--Tibidibi (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I think there's nothing on Wiktionary:About Algonquian languages that requires that page to exist, anyway, and am just going to make it a hard redirect it to the About Proto-Alg. page instead of the soft redirect which is currently its entire contents, keeping the old edit history and old talk page comments. - -sche (discuss) 18:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Note: There is another open discussion below on this exact topic. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 23:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

from Wiktionary:English entry guidelines to Wiktionary:About English (currently it's only redirect)[edit]

Reason: to align it with all other WT:About LANGUAGE pages, such as:

--幽霊四 (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

See “Wiktionary talk:English entry guidelines#RFM discussion: November 2015–August 2018”. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Sgconlaw, Rua: Partial closure of the RFM was clearly not the best solution. Someone with a bot should move all of these and update the redirects. Rua, would you be willing to do that? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2, would you be interested in helping out with this mess? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge I looked into this awhile ago and never finished it, sorry, because of various complexities. I will try to look into this soon. Benwing2 (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 Any update on this? - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 18:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
You know a discussion page has become too large and stale when there are two open discussions on the exact same topic. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 00:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Support move Wiktionary:English entry guidelines --> Wiktionary:About English. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

2019 — May[edit]


I think the categories for toponyms (e.g. English terms derived from toponyms) should be moved to a category just called [language] toponyms (e.g. English toponyms). It feels inconsistent to have English terms derived from toponyms while also having English eponyms. —Globins (yo) 01:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

A term derived from a toponym is an eponym, but is not a toponym itself. So the current names make sense. —Rua (mew) 11:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sense 2 for toponym is "a word derived from the name of a place," and the entry mentions eponym as a coordinate term. —Globins (yo) 00:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Globins Wiktionary's category structure only follows the first definition, which is the more common meaning. We shouldn't mix up the two definitions. —Rua (mew) 17:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Rua: In that case, English eponyms should be moved to English terms derived from eponyms since our current category name follows the less common definition of eponym. —Globins (yo) 21:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Not really. An eponym is derived from a name. A toponym is a name. So a term derived from a toponym is derived from a name, but a term derived from an eponym is derived from another word that is then derived from a name. They're not equivalent. —Rua (mew) 21:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think "eponymic terms" would be better if you want to preserve the "name that a term is derived from" sense of eponym (as opposed to the "term derived from a name" sense). "Terms derived from eponyms" seems odd, maybe tautological, to me because a name is not inherently an eponym, but only when we are discussing the fact that a term is derived from it. — Eru·tuon 21:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Globins Do you have any response to Rua or Erutuon? It would be nice to mark this discussion as resolved if it isn't going to go anywhere. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 03:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
@ExcarnateSojourner I think I agree with Erutuon's category name suggestion then. —Globins (yo) 17:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Category:Auto parts to Category:Car parts[edit]

This was previously submitted to deletion, but kept (why it wasn't RFMed instead I don't know). —Rua (mew) 18:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Support. DonnanZ (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Rua, Sgconlaw: The word "automobile" is not common in British English, but I think "car" is used everywhere, hence my preference for Category:Car parts. DonnanZ (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
But car is more ambiguous. DCDuring (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
I don't mind one way or another, but the whole category tree then needs to be renamed for consistency. (@Donnanz: how is car ambiguous? Do you mean it could be confused for, say, a train carriage or something?) — SGconlaw (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Well, car is used especially in US English for a railroad car (either freight or passenger), and can be used in BrE for a railway passenger carriage. I feel the word auto can be ambiguous as well; "auto parts" can be used in the UK, but "car parts" is preferred. The word "auto" isn't used for a motor car in the UK. There is another category, Category:Automotive, so Category:Automotive parts may be a solution. DonnanZ (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
I was employed in the motor trade for many years, supplying car parts of all descriptions, even body shells on one or two occasions. DonnanZ (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
In that case it seems to me that "Category:Automobile parts" is least ambiguous. I'm not sure "Category:Automotive" is well named (why an adjective?); "Category:Road transport" would be better. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Category:Nautical also uses an adjective, and there may be others. DonnanZ (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, not too hot on that one either. My suggestion would be "Category:Water transport". — SGconlaw (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
As long as I can type {{lb|en|car part(s)}} and get the topical category Category:en:Automobile parts, my increasingly arthritic fingers would be happy. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
I can only sympathise. Depending on the outcome here, if you feel like fiddling around with modules I think Module:category tree/topic cat/data/Technology is the right one. DonnanZ (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

2019 — June[edit]

have one's hands tied[edit]

As has been pointed out here, "have" isn't part of the term. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

As I see it, have isn't part of the metaphor, but it is part of an expression that is not in turn a form of tie someone's hands. The passive (one's) hands are/were/being/been tied are such forms, though none make for a good lemma entry or likely searches. DCDuring (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@DCDuring: Thanks. Also the second meaning of tied: restricted (which even offers the quotation: but the county claims its hands are too tied) --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
It's still a metaphor: a county doesn't have directly have hands. DCDuring (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
For an example of tie someone’s hands being used in the active voice: “It will tie our hands for another nine years with respect to a labor contact [sic] with no layoff clauses and raises that are built in.”
In general, for any expression of form “⟨VERBsomeone’sNOUN⟩”, there is a corresponding expression “ have/get one’sNOUN⟩ ⟨VERBed⟩”. For example, cut someone’s hairhave one’s hair cut. Or knock someone’s socks offget one’s socks knocked off. Or lower someone’s earshave one’s ears lowered. If the expression is idiom, sometimes we have one, sometimes the other, and sometimes both.  --Lambiam 21:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. Unless the active form is very uncommon, I'd prefer it as the lemma. I don't think that we would be wrong have both the active-voice expression and the have and/or get expressions, even though we could argue that it is a matter of grammar that one can transform certain expressions in the way Lambian describes. DCDuring (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Request to merge Haitian Vodoun Culture language [hvc] into Haitian Creole language [ht][edit]

According to Wikipedia and Ethnology, hvc "appears to not be an actual language, but rather an assortment of words, songs, and incantations – some secret – from various languages once used in Haitian Vodoun ceremonies". Our only entries for it are Langaj and Langay, i.e. the two forms of the lect's name for itself. I suggest we consider it a variety of ht instead. Thoughts? Pinging @EncycloPetey as the creator of the two entries, although he hasn't been around for over a month. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Although Ethnologue says it is "probably not a separate language", it does not say which language to which it might belong. So merging it into another language would be original research, unless a source documents its inclusion in Haitian Creole. Nota bene: at the time I created the entries, neither WP nor ethnologue expressed doubts about the distinctness of Haitian Vodoun Culture language. I am aware of its current doubtfulness, but it could also be considered a liturgical language in its own right. Without some authoritative statement, I'd hesitate to merge it into another language. There is more than one language spoken in Haiti. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Support. Hebblethwaite says in the excellent Vodou Songs in Haitian Creole and English that this is not only not a language, but that "[t]he words and chunks have mostly become incomprehensible to Vodouists and have a ritual or mystical purpose." Apparently the langaj used with different loa can be from entirely different languages from different parts of Africa. The entries we have are indisputably Haitian Creole (and which I think should not be capitalised according to orthographic rules). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I can find little about this apart from the references mentioned already. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics says it is "used as a second language only", as does Toyin Falola, Niyi Afolabi, and Adérónké Adésolá Adésànyà's Migrations and Creative Expressions in Africa... (2008), which says on page 157 "Langay, also referred to by linguists as “Haitian Vodoun Culture Language” (Gordon 2005), is used in Haiti as a second language for religion, song, and dance. Although it clearly has some Haitian Creole words, it is assumed that some of its vocabulary may be African.", as if they aren't even familiar enough with it to be sure what its vocabulary is. Interestingly, Jeffrey E. Anderson's article on it in The Voodoo Encyclopedia (2015), says that some pieces of it are attested from speakers/songs in the Mississippi Valley and its Voodoo tradition, outside Haiti / Vodou, which suggests the ISO's awkward FYROM-esque designation is, well, awkward. (Anderson does caution that "most [records] show little sign of langaj apart from a few words and some personal names of spirits", and "the origin of those that do appear to incorporate langaj is often unclear; the tendency of early authors to uncritically assume that Haitian Vodou and Mississippi Valley Voodoo were essentially the same thing renders it possible that some songs reportedly belonging to the Mississippi Valley may actually have been Haitian".) From what little I could find, it seems like a set of vocabulary (rather than a language per se) that might be compared to e.g. pandanus-avoidance vocabulary or Polari. (Procedurally, it will be subject to the same attestation requirements either way, and can be labelled and categorized.) - -sche (discuss) 07:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

2019 — August[edit]

devil a ...[edit]

I request that someone renames the entry devil a bit to devil a, because in practice "devil a" can be followed by any noun phrase, and it is neither practical nor desirable to have a headword for every combination. I then would also add divil a as a separate headword with no more content than referring it to "devil a" as a dialect variant. JonRichfield (talk) 08:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Category:English oxymorons to Category:English contradictions in terms[edit]

We say ourselves in the entry for oxymoron that its use to mean "contradiction in terms" is loose and sometimes proscribed (despite the fact that many people use it this way nowadays). We say much the same thing at contradiction in terms as well.

The so-called oxymorons in this category are all or almost all contradictions in terms, where the contradiction is accidental or comes about only by interpreting the component words in a different way from their actual meanings in the phrase. An oxymoron in the strict sense has an intentional contradiction. I think we should be more precise about this, in the same way as we already are with using the term "blend" instead of "portmanteau", which has a narrower meaning. I therefore suggest we move this page to "Category:English contradictions in terms" (but see my second comment below). Likewise for any corresponding categories for other languages. — Paul G (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

On second thoughts, I think this category should be retained but restricted to true oxymorons, such as "bittersweet" and "deafening silence". Ones such as "man-child" and "pianoforte" are not intended to be oxymoronic and are only accidentally contradictions in terms. — Paul G (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Support. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

2019 — September[edit]

Church Slavonic from Old Church Slavonic[edit]

Discussion started at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2019/September#I_want_to_add_Church_Slavonic_terms. A new language code for a newer version of Church Slavonic? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

2020 — January[edit]

'Cities in Foo' and 'Towns in Foo'[edit]

@Donnanz, Fay Freak, Rua I'm not sure what the real difference is between a city and a town, and I suspect most people don't know either. For this reason I think we should maybe merge the two into a single 'Cities and towns in Foo' category. Benwing2 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I oppose this merger. I would not think to look for a category with such an unintuitive name, and I do not know of any examples where this is problematic. Wikipedia seems to be able to choose which word to use without trouble, so why can't we? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Eliminating one of them is a good idea where there is no meaningful distinction between cities and towns. But that's going to be a country-specific decision: England makes the decision, the Netherlands does not. I think in cases without a distinction, we should keep "cities" and eliminate "towns". —Rua (mew) 10:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't recommend merging them. It's a complex subject though, and the rules defining cities and towns can differ from country to country, and from state to state in the USA; I have come across "cities" with a population of less than 1,000 in the USA, sometimes around 50, but apparently they have that status. Cities in the UK have that status as granted by a monarch, towns can be harder to define in metropolitan areas, and villages can call themselves towns if they have a town council. Some villages large enough to be towns prefer to keep the village title. DonnanZ (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
The odds that editors will accurately/consistently distinguish these categories when adding (the template that generate) them ... seems low. However, even if the categories are merged, that problem will remain on the level of the displayed definitions. And, apparently some users above want to keep them distinct. So, meh. - -sche (discuss) 05:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
I can see arguments for both sides, actually. The idea needs a lot more thought, as you would probably have to drag in villages etc. as well. DonnanZ (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Could merge them into Municipalities in Foo and have the various alternatives point to that category. Of course there are some "cities" which contain several municipalities, but I don't think there is a word which comprises every form of village/town/hamlet/city/urban area. - TheDaveRoss 12:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
In New York State alone, we have cities, towns, villages (which are subdivisions of towns), and unincorporated places, all of which exist within counties, except NY City, which is coextensive with 5 counties, each of which is coextensive with a borough of the City. The identities and borders of these places in NYS are generally fairly stable, though subject to occasional revision. Legislative and judicial districts are separate, with legislative districts changing after each decennial census. Census-designated places form a parallel structure with relationships to the state systems. The census system has the virtue of being uniform for the entire US, but the borders of many census places do not necessarily correspond to the borders of larger governmental units such as states and counties. Within New York State there are lists of each type of jurisdiction. In principle each US state has its own names for classes of jurisdictions. Finally, in popular practice, place names for inhabited place can differ from the names of governmental units and tend to have different boundaries even when the names are the same.
In light of the lack of homogeneity even within the US, let alone between countries, I think we need to respect national and state and provincial naming systems. If there is a worldwide system for categorizing places, we could also follow that, but I have not heard of such a system. Does the EU have some uniform system?
In the absence of any generally accepted uniform universal or near-universal system for categorizing places, I think we need to accept the fact that nations and semi-sovereign parts of nations (eg, US states, Canadian provinces) each have their own naming systems, which are accepted within their boundaries. I think it would be foolish for us to attempt to have our own system for categorizing places and derelict for us to fail to use the various national and subnational categories.
If the categories then don't lend themselves to a uniform universal categorization system, too bad. DCDuring (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply


This has both a Jamaican Creole section and an English section labeled as "Jamaican". I undid the removal of the English section by an IP before I realized what they were doing, but I don't want to revert myself and take it off the radar before someone else has a look at it to make sure the English section really is unnecessary. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Dentonius Any thoughts? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
A few of the quotes look like Patwa. But the others suggest that the word is used and generally understood by English speakers. Our -claat words are popular in Hip Hop music and are often used by African Americans (among others). I'd keep the English section. — Dentonius 08:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
I testify that it is correct to have an English section because of widespread use in Multicultural London English, and the pronunciation section is correct. This is also true for bloodclaat and bumboclaat. I.e. while “normal” Britons say bloody many of them new English say bloodclaat instead, and raasclaat. Fay Freak (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

2020 — February[edit]

go out on a limb[edit]

Merge with out on a limb. Canonicalization (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

L.S., LS, lectori salutem, locus sigilli[edit]

The only related wiktionary entry that now appears is that of L.S.; no entries appear for the terms being abbreviated (!), and search of the full terms does not even currently link to the abbreviation/initialism page. (Nor does a seach of LS bring one to a disambiguation of L.S. and LS!) All of these issues can be rectified easily by any registered editor with a reasonable understanding of disambiguation and markup (e.g., through creation of disambiguating tags and pages, and through duplication of relevant content for new definitions pages based on the abbreviation page).

Note, as an academic, I will not regulary or traceably work on Wiktionary, because of its lack of sourcing requirements for entry and note content. This leaves it with no basis for veracity, its persistent state, and a poor state indeed. (This weakness is more significant than that of Wikipedia, which is weak in largest part for its failure to adhere to its own rules and guidelines regarding sourcing.) Cheers. 2601:246:C700:19D:49BF:AECD:6AA6:2E34 16:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I just don't understand what you're after. I reverted your edit because it radically changed what seemed to be an ok entry. We don't have disambiguation pages on Wiktionary and I suggest you read up on our rules and guidelines before you start deleting info again. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Kept: I assume lectori salutem and locus sigilli are not used (in their unabbreviated forms) in English and are SoP in Latin, meaning we should not have entries for them under either language. L.S. still has literal translations of the Latin, though. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 02:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

2020 — March[edit]

centrifugal force[edit]

We have four definitions here and probably ought to have one; compare centripetal force, with its one, simple def. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

See w:History of centrifugal and centripetal forces. The article just lacks cites, dates, etc to support the historical definitions. I suppose that we should just give up on trying to cover the historical definitions and leave that to our betters at WP. DCDuring (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply


Attested only in West Germanic, so it should be moved to Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/smalt. I did that already, but Rua reverted me, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

It cannot have been formed in Proto-West Germanic, as there was no productive means to do so. Therefore, it must have existed in Proto-Germanic. —Rua (mew) 20:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ablaut was still very productive in Proto-West Germanic, as it is still today in Germanic languages. One might claim there is no productive means to form dove as the past tense of dive or snuck as the past tense of sneak in modern English, and yet they exist. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm not convinced that ablaut was productive even in the most recent stage of Proto-Germanic, let alone Proto-West Germanic. What evidence do we have that it was? —Rua (mew) 20:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Well, if the fact that it's productive in the modern Germanic languages doesn't convince you, I don't know what will. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
In what way is it productive in the modern languages? —Rua (mew) 10:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I just said: we still use it in modern English to form past tenses. And often in ways that don't even have parallels, so it can't be simply analogy. Dive/dove can be formed from drive/drove, but sneak/snuck and drag/drug don't have direct parallels that allow us to call them simple analogy, because there aren't any other verbs in /iːk//ʌk/ or /æɡ//ʌɡ/, so the only way speakers can have created them is by knowing that the language has a general process of ablaut. And even in Proto-Germanic *smultą/*smaltą isn't exactly a productive pattern: PG didn't generally create exact synonyms of nouns by changing their ablaut grade without any other affixation. So this derivation is just as irregular in PG as it is in PWG, so why not call it PWG since it doesn't exist outside of West Germanic? —Mahāgaja · talk 11:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Mahagaja: English drag derives from a strong verb, and was influenced by Old Norse draga with its indicative past "dró-". English sneak could also be derived from a strong verb but why its has snuck is beyond me, possibly by analogy. dove comes from a strong verb Proto-Germanic *dūbaną and dive from *dūbijaną. English drive has as its past participle "drove, drave, driv" with driv being the original, drove possible from *draib and drave possibly from before Middle English? "draib" (PG) -> "drāf" (OE) -> "drove" (E). None of this points towards productivity of ablaut or of the -an suffix but that English can reshape strong verbs by merging weak verbs or reshaping their pattern through analogy. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Consider also yeet, which is a running joke among young people online. They've decided that the past tense form is yote, which, given that it's completely made up, has no historical process to explain it whatsoever. That means that whoever made this up was aware of ablaut and (sort of) how it works.
Besides, this wouldn't be the first case of a form appearing to be in complete violation of all the rules of historical linguistics. It's always been a matter of probability, with the occasional exception proving the rule. Those poor early Germanic people didn't have access to the Neo-Grammarian literature, so they can be excused for getting it wrong now and then... Chuck Entz (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I agree ablaut is still (marginally / semi)productive in modern English (this, page 59 from the 1973 Meeting Handbook of the Linguistic Society of America, says "It is also reasonably clear that semiproductive processes like English ablaut are the subject of general rules. For example, new items like snuck, dove, and drug attest to the viability of the ablaut M - rules."). I lack enthusiasm for figuring out whether this is PWGmc or PGmc. - -sche (discuss) 04:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • FWIW this noun is possibly the source of Finnish malto (flesh (of fruit)), which would require a NWG dating at least. Unfortunately not assured, though… there is also a partly homonymous Proto-Northern Finnic *malto (soft) with a different Germanic etymology proposed (currently given at malto). In fact this even suggests to me that *smalt might be, instead of a regular derivative of any kind, just a meld of the competing *smultą with the adjective *maltaz, which both can be reconstructed at least for NWG. (The latter's reflexes include ON maltr > maltur and OHG malz.) --Tropylium (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Retiring Moroccan Amazigh [zgh][edit]

We renamed this code from "Standard Moroccan Amazigh" to "Moroccan Amazigh", but failed to note that the "standard" part was key. This is a standardised register of the dialect continuum of Berber languages in Morocco, promoted by the Moroccan government since 2011 as an official language. Marijn van Putten says this is essentially Central Atlas Tamazight [tzm], but most of the people producing texts in it are native speakers of Tashelhit [shi], so there is a bit of re-koineisation. However, if we move forward with good coverage of the Berber languages, every entry in [zgh] will be a duplicate of [tzm] or else a duplicate of [shi] marked with some sort of dialectal context label. By the way, the fact that there is an ISO code seems to be a political consideration rather than a linguistic one; compare the case of "Filipino", which we merged into Tagalog, or "Standard Estonian", which we merged into Estonian. @Fenakhay, -scheΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I see it's a rather recent attempt at standardization, too. I don't feel like I know enough about Tamazight to be confident about what to do, but it does seem like, if this is based on tzm, it could be handled as tzm (perhaps even, instead of putting "non-[ordinary-]tzm" entries at shi+label, they could be tzm+label, unless they're obviously shi words). - -sche (discuss) 15:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Generally, it seems the [shi] words are quite obvious; the main differences between [tzm] and [shi] are lexical (as far as I can tell, [tzm] has more internal diversity w/r/t phonology than differences with [shi]). But they're in a continuum anyway, and WP claims that there's debate on where to draw the dividing line. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
And “Moroccan Amazigh” does not sound like a language name anyway if you have not been told it is one, it seems like “Berber as spoken in Morocco”, another reason to remove it. Fay Freak (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

2020 — April[edit]

until one is blue in the face[edit]

to blue in the face (now a redirect to until one is blue in the face).

In addition of all the tense, person, and number variants (also contractions) of the current entry one can find variants omitting the pronoun, adding adverbs, using till or 'til instead of until; [VERB] oneself blue in the face; go|become|turn blue in the face; and blue-in-the-face and blue in the face as adjectives outside any of these expressions. The unchanging core of these is the set phrase blue in the face. It also has medical use (synonym cyanotic), which renders the figurative sense evolution and meaning obvious. DCDuring (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply


The reconstructed infinitive form is useful to understand what the underlying verb is but it is never used in a sentence to convey meaning, like Azerbaijani *imək, Uzbek *emoq. — 23:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Allahverdi Verdizade: Seems to me like reconstructions are not meant for this purpose. Is there a better way to lemmatise this verb? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge: I agree, and I don't think it's needed for any purpose, at least not for Azerbaijani. There was a user (or anon?) who insisted on adding those "underlying" verbs and creating templates for them, but I never understood the linguistics behind this reasoning. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Allahverdi Verdizade: So can we just delete them? How should they be lemmatised? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
You could lemmatize imiş as a free morpheme-form of -miş, i.e. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

2020 — May[edit]

state's evidence[edit]

to turn state's evidence.

Most use of state's evidence is clearly of state + 's + evidence. I haven't found any use that is suggestive of a restriction to a witness's testimony, except with the use of turn. Also compare turn state's evidence”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. with state's evidence”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

They can't be state + 's + evidence when the phrase encompasses proceedings where the prosecutor is not a state (e.g., a municipality, county, or country). bd2412 T 05:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sense 3 of state should cover it. I think if 3(a) doesn't cover it, then "Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it." is not an appropriate citation thereof; I think Einstein would consider national, state, and city governments all part of "the state".--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

play the victim card, play the race card, play the gender card[edit]

I wonder if these all ought to be merged into some entry akin to "play the ____ card" or something. There appear to be other words substituted aside from victim, race, and gender. Tharthan (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I lament that our way of handling snowclones is not optimal, banishing them to appendix-space, such that the choices here amount to 'have these multiple similar entries in the mainspace where users find them' or 'banish them to a tidy but less-findable appendix'. However, I see that we have a sense at card for this (although the definition could use some work), and between putting a link there and redirects from these entries, I suppose we could get by with migrating these to the snowclone appendix. Centralizing them does seem sensible since there are so many. ("Play the religion card" also exists.) - -sche (discuss) 23:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Maybe a title like play the prejudice card. — This unsigned comment was added by 2600:387:9:9::bf (talk) at 14:37, 2022 September 4.
Interesting idea. Perhaps there would be an extensive entry for play the (something) card, but with full entries for the main attestable instances (eg, race/gender and perhaps victim, derived terms, and a usage note about "(something)". Play the X card seems to be something that would be highly productive, unless its use in too many cases would be deemed a microaggression. Attestation for play the (something) card would have to be limited to "somethings" other than the forms that have their own attestation. Other instances that I can readily find are disability, oppression, and queer. The uses of feminist and bully don't fit the "victim" semantics, which might warrant a second figurative definition for play the (something) card in addition to a {{&lit}} "definition". DCDuring (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
BTW, we are not alone in having an entry for these, but MWOnline only has one for use/play the race/gender card. Collins and Cambridge Advance Learner's have only play the race card. DCDuring (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Besides those, there's "play the poverty card", "play the gay card", "play the abuse card", "play the disabled card", "play the rape card", etc., as well as ones which, as you say, seem like they may have different semantics (e.g. some uses of "play the Muslim card" in reference to legislation ?to get Muslim support?, and some uses of "play the Holocaust card"?) ... it seems too productive to have entries for every attested X (it becomes SOP). Should this be in the mainspace as play the something card, or at Appendix:Snowclones/play the X card like Appendix:Snowclones/X is the new Y? For snowclones like this that require placeholders other than "someone"/"one" in the title, we seem to in recent years prefer to put them in Appendix:Snowclones/ rather than in mainspace, but I do see a handful of mainspace titles where "something" is a placeholder, like give something a go. If we redirect all the variations people might search for, add usexes to the relevant sense we list at card, and maybe add a usex to whichever sense of play is relevant, it should be sufficiently findable. - -sche (discuss) 16:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'd favor having a full entry for any term (presumably they would be attestable) that another dictionary had. It is unfortunate that our basic search engine searching for "play the disabled card" (with or without quotes) does not take a user to any of our existing play the X card entries. (I have added test entries for play the card and play the something card.) That would imply that we could use hard redirects for as many attestable instances of the snow clone as seem likely to help users. It may well be that the hard redirects should go to the snowclone appendix subpages, but there is no particular reason to do so in preference to a mainspace entry. Concern about the aesthetics of headwords with a placeholders seem misplaced. And (who knows?) someone might actually search for the expression using a placeholder and find it if it were in principal namespace. DCDuring (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Also, as the MWOnline entry shows play is not strictly essential; it can be replaced by use, among other verbs, such as deploy. So, perhaps a sense of card is an appropriate target for redirects. But I doubt that the entry for card is the right place for an intelligible presentation. For one thing, any etymology (sense derivation), usage notes, and derived terms or collocations (eg, race card) would necessarily be separated from the relevant definition for the polysemous noun, so as not to appear on the same screen. And, even if they did, that they belonged together would not be at all obvious. I realize that this kind of argument, if applied, might make for some inconsistency in our presentation of snowclones and might violate a strict reading of idiomaticity, but cases like this may merit exceptional treatment. DCDuring (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Onelook finds "play the race card" and "play the gender card" in various dictionaries, but "play the victim card" only in us, and it seems unlike the others in other ways, too: card seems unnecessary, as the same meaning is expressed by play the victim. As you note, all of these can also be found with other verbs, like "use". I am inclined to redirect play the victim card to either card's relevant sense or play the something card. It has a Swedish translation; if there are others, I would think play the victim would be the better THUB location. I'm not sure what to do about play the gender card and play the race card; on one hand, each is in other Onelook dictionaries; OTOH, you can swap out "play" for "use", "gender" for other things ("sexism", "sex", "woman", and with different meaning other things like "religion", etc), it's not a set phrase and the kernel of idiomaticity is obviously some smaller part, maybe just card, not the whole phrase. - -sche (discuss) 17:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
But the current definitions of both card and play the something card need improvement before anything can be sensibly merged there. - -sche (discuss) 17:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Is the entry for race card good enough? DCDuring (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
As to card, we may need two additional definitions, one for the general metaphorical sense, another (subsense?) for the more specific sociopolitical use. As Equinox observed elsewhere, the metaphor of a competitive card game must be understood for the expression to make any sense at all.
(figuratively) A ploy of potentially advantageous use in a situation viewed as analogous to a card game.
The only card left for him to play was playing dumb.
An invocation of an emotionally or politically charged issue or symbol, as in a political competition.
race card, gender card
HTH. DCDuring (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

you're on[edit]

I don't think this is a special phrase with "you're", it sounds like a phrasal verb be on. They want a fight? They're on! She issued a challenge, so she's on!. You can also use it in reference to the fight itself, e.g. the fight is on. 18:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Just noting to compare good on you→good on someone above. — 02:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
You're on might be considered distinct because it is usually a speech act, indicating acceptance of a bet or dare. DCDuring (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, perhaps. But the IP is right that "on" can be used with other pronouns. I suppose the question is whether this is better viewed as someone is on, be on, or just on: we already have a sense for this at on, "(informal) Destined, normally in the context of a challenge being accepted; involved, doomed. "Five bucks says the Cavs win tonight." ―"You're on!" Mike just threw coffee onto Paul's lap. It's on now." - -sche (discuss) 04:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

2020 — July[edit]


I suggest that this entry be moved to Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/vьlkodlakъ, since the -dl- cluster in the Czech descendant vlkodlak indicates that the cluster was still present in the Proto-Slavic form and was reduced to -l- in the other descendants. -- 00:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

User:Bezimenen, seems sensible? PUC12:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@PUC: I have no objections to the move, however, I'm not entirely sure that *vьlkodlakъ was the primary form. Semantically, it makes sense to analyze the lemma as Proto-Slavic *vьlkodolkъ = *vьlkъ (wolf) +‎ *dolka (skin) +‎ *-ъ with -ol- > -la- metathesis or possible *vьlkodьlakъ (less likely in view of East Slavic forms with *-olo-, e.g. Russian вурдала́к (vurdalák, vampire)[1] /first recorded in written form in 18-19 cent./). You should consult with User:Rua in regard to which form should be created - *vьlkodlakъ or *vьlkodolkъ. I'm not so familiar with the style that Wiktionary likes to follows. Безименен (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
If the original form had -dl-, why do we not see it in the other languages that preserve it, such as Polish? —Rua (mew) 13:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Not sure, but looking again at the entry, it seems not only Czech but also Serbo-Croatian and Slovene preserve the -dl- as well. -- 16:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Serbo-Croatian (and, I believe, Slovene) never preserves Proto-Slavic -dl- clusters, so the Serbo-Croat form indicates either some such form as Proto-Slavic *vьlkodolkъ or a later epenthesis of -d- by analogy with dlaka. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Category:Scents, Category:Perfumes[edit]

An example of w:U and non-U English, which probably should be decided for the latter. While “scent” can possibly be broader, this category also has the danger of just about including anything that has a strong odour naturally. Hence I included بَارْزَد (bārzad, galbanum) and جُنْدُبَادَسْتَر (jundubādastar, castoreum). The English category has a weak six entries since created in 2011. But even Category:en:Perfumes includes dubious things. I doubt perfumes are something that can be categorized well – it’s basically anything smelly? –, maybe delete all? Fay Freak (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think a case could be made for "scent" being not something that smells, but smell itself (like musk and maybe putridity). I don't see any reason why perfumes can't be categorized. I don't think it's meant to include anything that could be used as the scent of a perfume, but words that specifically describe perfumes. For instance, cologne isn't "cologne-scented", it's the name of a type of perfume; jasmine is a plant, but it is also used as the word for a perfume, not just to describe a perfume (you could say, "She always wore a liberal quantity of jasmine" and not just "She always wore a liberal quantity of jasmine-scented perfume". Of course, you could also say "She always wore a liberal quantity of Autumn Breeze" because it's a proper noun, but I don't think you could say "She always wore a liberal quantity of lilac". Instead you would say "lilac perfume".) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
So keep Category:Perfumes, in case I wasn't clear. I'd lean towards keeping Category:Scents as well, but I'd have to hear a few more opinions first. Hearing the value of having the category for other languages would be helpful. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

2020 — August[edit]


Adjective section should be merged into noun section.

I do not believe that the adjective shows a word that is truly an adjective, rather than a noun used attributively. Moreover, the noun section lacks a definition like "an organism or object with a blue tail", which is precisely the sense claimed by the adjective section.

Is this page used for merging of sections of the same entry, in the same language? DCDuring (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes. the listed derived birdnames are actually compounds blue + tail + X, as becomes obvious in German, e.g. Blauschwanz-Fruchttaube, for which nobody would create an adjective entry. Fay Freak (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

2020 — September[edit]

ungjetë to a new ungjet[edit]

Ungjetë is actually just a variant of ungjet, which is the standard form. ArbDardh (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)ArbDardhReply

be up to[edit]

Tagged but not posted here: Merge with up to something.

Be is not essential to the idiom. Some other copulas work, eg. seem, appear, look. DCDuring (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

2020 — October[edit]

Category:Regional English, Category:English dialectal terms (NOT subcategories)[edit]

IMO it does not make sense to have some terms categorized directly into Category:Regional English (not its subcategories) and other terms categorized directly into Category:English dialectal terms, because in practice no-one seems to be maintaining a distinction as far as putting one kind of entry in one and another in the other, it seems haphazard as to whether an entry uses e.g. {{lb|en|US|regional}} / {{lb|en|UK|regional}} like pope, mercury, jack, snap, wedge, phosphate, tab, or gob, or else uses {{lb|en|US|dialectal}} / {{lb|en|UK|dialectal}} like pope (!), admire, haunt, on, sook, book, yinz, and gon. Many of the {{lb|en|US|dialectal}} / {{lb|en|UK|dialectal}} terms go on to specify which regions they're used in, like "Pittsburgh and Appalachia" or "Northern England" or "Scotland". And we put every more specific dialect category as a subcat of "Regional", not of "Dialectal". I'm not entirely sure which category the entries in the two top-level categories should be consolidated into, but I'm inclined to think they should go in one or the other. Or do we want to try to implement some distinction? (At the very least, entries that use "regional" but then go on to specify the regions, like "US, regional, Pittsburgh", can drop the unnecessary "regional".) The one situation I can think of where simply changing "r