Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits

Definition 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 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/Others
add new | history

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

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 moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{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.


Category names containing "US"[edit]

I believe that the punctuated U.S. is the more formal usage, and has the advantage of not being mistaken for an all-caps instance of the word, "us". I therefore propose to move all categories containing "US" (e.g. Category:US State Capitals, Category:fr:US States, and Category:Southern US English) to titles containing "U.S.". By my count, this covers about 50 categories in total. If approved, I will be glad to do all of the renaming and recategorization. bd2412 T 21:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually think we'd be better off renaming them to categories containing the unabbreviated "United States". --WikiTiki89 21:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I would absolutely agree with that, as it eliminates all possible ambiguity. For states, we would have to change it to "States of the United States" to avoid the alliteration of "United States States". bd2412 T 22:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
We wouldn't have to, but I agree it would make it less awkward. Anyway, I see no problem with "States of the United States". --WikiTiki89 22:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. At least part of the time, people have to type these category names by hand, and even a couple of extra characters every time can be a nuisance (I'm surprised you aren't going all the way and suggesting "the United States of America").
I fail to see how the "US" in category names could ever be mistaken for a pronoun- do you really think people are going to look at Category:US States and mistake it for a colloquial version of "we states"?
It looks very much to me like a solution in search of a problem, with no real benefit, unless you can call forcing people to do more typing a benefit. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Our category names, being part of the visible public product, should at least look formal and professional. bd2412 T 04:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Support renaming to "United States". Note that we do currently have Category:Languages of the United States of America (rather than Category:Languages of the United States); I don't know if it should be renamed for consistency. - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
For an English-speaking audience, "of America" is indeed probably superfluous. bd2412 T 21:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Is there any further comment/opinion on this? bd2412 T 00:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Attributive US and noun United States. So US state capitals (caps sic) and Languages of the United StatesMichael Z. 2014-03-16 04:11 z
Is that just an opinion on whether United States should be spelled out, or is it also addressed to the question of whether we should use a punctuated U.S.? bd2412 T 18:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Both. These are also the forms recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style. Michael Z. 2014-03-17 21:56 z
I see no reason to abbreviate. --WikiTiki89 21:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Japanese humble language[edit]

Category:Japanese humble terms

I noticed the nonexistent topical category Category:ja:Humble in Special:WantedCategories, and checked, as I often do, whether there was an existing category that already covered the subject. I found these two. The first one was created by User:Haplology, and has more information about Japanese culture, while the other one was created by User:Atitarev along with Category:Korean humble terms, and is more suited to a multi-language series of categories.

It seems to me that Category:Japanese humble terms fits our naming scheme better, so I propose we merge both into that one, and that we convert it and the Korean category to use {{lexiconcatboiler}}, which is designed for this kind of thing. That means creating a category called Category:Humble terms by language with a general description of humble language in its subtemplate. We can then add language-specific details to the Japanese and Korean categories.

I suspect that there aren't many languages that have such well-developed and institutionalized humble lexicons as these do, but I'm sure there are an awful lot of languages that have at least a few such terms- "your humble servant" comes to mind as an English example. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It's only to do with two languages - Korean and Japanese. Note: some people mix "honorific" with "polite" or "formal" but the exact concept currently exists only in Japanese and Korean, even if other languages have similar ideas, "honorific" and "humble" are opposite and used in out- and in-group references.
I have posted on User:Haplology's page some time ago, which is now archived. You can see here: [1]. Haplology admitted that the structure wasn't perfect and needs fixing.
The current setup:
In my opinion it should be:
Which matches Japanese more closely.
@Eirikr might add more to it. I didn't get around to fixing it but I will. It's not a big list. Korean can and should be structured the same way. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The suggested structure above (2) shows that honorific and humble terms are both part of the respectful formal language but honorific is used in reference to outgroup and humble - to ingroup. The concept and usage are critical in formal communication in Japanese and Korean languages. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
We could also put them directly under Category:Japanese formal terms, if that works. —CodeCat 01:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not the same, although if it's related. Category:Japanese honorifics should be a subcategory of Category:Japanese formal terms. "Formal" is opposed to "colloquial" but respectful language is a specific variety, which needs special training, including native Japanese students. E.g. おっしゃる (ossharu, honorific) shows respect to the 2nd/3rd person or outgroup and is never used in self-reference in the polite speech, whereas 申す (mōsu, humble) is used to self-reference or ingroup (even if one talks about own CEO!). Formal words are used regardless who/what they refer to in the formal language, like in any language. An interesting example might be that a person talking to an outsider about own general manager without polite "-san" (e.g. simply Yamada, not Yamada-san) and using humble terms. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wiktionary:Foo → Category:Wiktionary foo[edit]

I have just finished moving Category:Wiktionary:Language considerations to Category:Wiktionary language considerations in accordance with the discussion above. But that's not the only category that's using "Wiktionary:" as a pseudonamespace. I therefore propose all of the following moves:

If there is consensus to make these name changes, I also request someone with a bot to do it, because the move I did by hand wasn't particularly big, but it sure was tedious. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe some of these should have "Wiktionary" removed from the names. Not sure which though. —CodeCat 14:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:Help already exists and it isn't clear what the difference is between it and Category:Wiktionary:Help, so those two probably really should be merged. The same goes for Category:Pronunciation and Category:Wiktionary:Pronunciation: they both exist, but seem to have the same function. Category:Statistics is a topic category covering things like Category:en:Statistics and Category:de:Statistics, so it can't be merged with Category:Wiktionary:Statistics. Category:Translation seems like a good potential topic category too, even though it isn't one yet, so I'd rather keep that one free at least. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I've moved Category:Wiktionary:Help,and Daniel has moved Category:Wiktionary:Transliteration. - -sche (discuss) 18:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


This poorly maintained category should be combined with Category:Taxonomy. The poor maintenance arises from the overlap conceptually as well as the poor choice of name for this category. In addition, for some undocumented and unfathomable reason Category:Taxonomy was made a subcategory of Category:Systematics. I think this is symptomatic of the unmaintainablity of the category. DCDuring TALK 19:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Support. —CodeCat 20:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we should merge the two. In the English categories, at least, the members seem to be correctly apportioned between the two, with a handful of exceptions. I do think they should be made sister categories, rather than one being under the other. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I would support that too. —CodeCat 20:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
What are the criteria that distinguish membership in the categories? Many dictionaries have them as synonyms in one or more of the variously defined senses and subsenses, two of which BTW systematics lacks. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Support. Here we have just various terms to denote the same affair, and “systematics” is a less expected and ambiguous one. With “systematics” I of course understand the systematic interpretation of law. Fay Freak (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Support merger. I don't see a difference worth preserving. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Khanty words with /ɬ/[edit]

Requesting a move of a dozen Khanty words:

These have /ɬ/, which is however written ӆ and not ԓ (this is instead, I believe, /ɭ/). Quite a few current entries are sourced from a dictionary (Kononova 2002) which uses a rather ԓ-like but regardless clearly el-with-tail glyph. --Tropylium (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(Listed here in case anyone wants to argue that ԓ for /ɬ/ is actually a competing dialectal standard that should have precedence. --Tropylium (talk))
I think you are mostly going to talk to yourself in this section. Move, if Tropylium says so. --Vahag (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I would say just go ahead and move them yourself. Unless there's a chance that other languages will have terms using the original spellings, the redirects that you leave will actually be useful for those who make the same mistake when searching. Given the similarity of the characters, I have a hunch scannos from online books might be a major source of these. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, w:Khanty language uses both letters (Ӆ ӆ and Ԓ ԓ). Are you certain that these particular words are spelled with Ӆ ӆ? —Stephen (Talk) 15:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Update: apparently the normative glyph is in fact ԯ (el with descender). However, this has not been widely available in fonts, so ӆ or ԓ have been used as workaround solutions in some materials. (Can anyone reading this actually see the first glyph?) --Tropylium (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Tropylium: Just FYI, the free font Quivira supports Ԯ, ԯ (Ԯ, ԯ). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Tropylium, do these still need to be moved? - -sche (discuss) 22:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
They do, though we never did settle here if we should move them to use ԯ or ӆ. Since the latter is attestable as well, and seems to render better, I would be okay with it (even if we might be setting ourselves up for replacing these again with alternate-spelling soft-redirects some years down the line). --Tropylium (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


Category:Probability, Category:Probability theory and Category:Statistics[edit]

The terminology of probability theory and statistics overlaps so much that there is little point in maintaining the two disciplines as separate topical categories.

I also cannot see the point of maintaining Category:Probability separately from Category:Probability theory — unless it is meant to contain terms used in informal discussions of probability (as opposed to mathematical formalisation thereof).

Also, Category:Linear algebra and Category:Vector algebra are one and the same. I would suggest deleting the latter, except I am too lazy to do a separate nomination for those.

Asking Msh210 to weigh in, just in case. Keφr 19:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, w:vector algebra, q.v., and linear algebra are identical. Probability theory is a far cry, to my mind, from statistics. In particular, their uses are different: lots and lots of people use statistics, and the words that are relevant to statistics, without knowing or caring anything about probability theory. Perhaps one topcat for statistics and applied probability and another for probability theory? But they'll share quite a few words. Perhaps instead one for statistics and one for probability? They, too, will share quite a few words. So I don't know the best course of action. Maybe we should keep the three categories we have now, but rename "Probability" to "Applied probability". If we do decide to have separate topcats for applied probability and for probability theory, then perhaps merge the latter into category:Measure theory?​—msh210 (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I have speedy-merged "Vector algebra" into "Linear algebra". Only three entries were affected: [[գրադիենտ]], [[ristitulo]] and [[vektoritulo]]. Keφr 18:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
As for "lots of people use words relevant to statistics without caring about probability theory" — can you clarify that with an example? Keφr 18:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Practical statisticians, like w:Gonçalo Abecasis and w:Nate Silver, probably know little (and care little) about σ-algebras and probability measures.​—msh210 (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I think these particular two terms would actually fit better in Category:en:Measure theory than in Category:en:Probability theory anyway (yes, even the latter). They are not "purely probabilistic" terms — in fact, I doubt any such terms exist, otherwise I would not propose this merger. Keφr 22:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe they would fit better there. As I said above, "If we do decide to have separate topcats for applied probability and for probability theory, then perhaps merge the latter into category:Measure theory".​—msh210 (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
In that case, the question to ask is what terms are characteristic to "applied probability" as opposed to "pure" probability and statistics. Right now Category:en:Probability contains terms like mgf, stochastic matrix and evens — of which only the latter seems rather non-statistical. On the other hand, it would be awkward to find probability distribution in a category whose name does not mention probability. Keφr 15:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kephir I think you are wrong about no purely probabilistic terms existing. But, even if you are correct, that doesn't in and of itself mean that Category:Probability should be deleted. Msh and I have posited that statistics-only terms exist. Statistics-only terms shouldn't be in the same combination of categories as statistics-and-probability terms; probability could continue to exist as a subcategory of statistics even if no probability-only terms were found to exist. Purplebackpack89 00:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
In defense of the quote "lots of people use words relevant to statistics without caring about probability theory", there are lots of statistics that can be discerned without using probability. Rates, and to a certain extent averages, concern probability, but statistics is also enumerations and changes, which can be calculated without using probability. Purplebackpack89 23:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


This just sounds too silly, at least from a North American perspective, and is really not something I would ever think to type in if looking for the category. Is there anyone to whom Category:en:Toilet would not be equally or more intuitive than Category:en:WC? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I've complained about this one before, back when it was a template: I would hazard a guess that there are very few in the US that even know what WC refers to. It's also odd to see it categorized under Category:Rooms, especially since it's the only subcategory under it. That means that Category:Feces is a sub-sub-sub-category of Category:Buildings and structures- counterintuitive, to say the least. The other subcategory of Category:WC, Category:Toiletry is another oddity, since it has nothing to do with water closets, and contains Category:Cosmetics
The problem is that all of the common English terms are euphemisms, and most have had considerable evolution in meaning, so there's nothing really clear and obvious worldwide. Strictly speaking, a water closet is the plumbing fixture, but has apparently come to mean the room that houses it. This is also true of toilet, and, I believe, loo, as well (our entry is ambiguous about that). At least water closet isn't ambiguous- toilet also refers to grooming, washing one's face, etc. Another US term, bathroom can refer to a room containing a bath, and lavatory can refer to a sink. Terms such as restroom, and ladies' room/men's room are vague enough that anyone who doesn't already know what they refer to will have no clue from the name. We need to figure out which term is most recognizable in all parts of the world.
As I mentioned above, we really need to rethink this part of the category tree: feces have little to do with buildings, and cosmetics have nothing to do with feces. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
What he said, basically. The whole structure needs redoing. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Perching birds[edit]

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2015/June#Category:Perching_birds.

This used to be at Category:Passerines, but was moved a few months ago - I would like to suggest it be moved back. Passerines is the more commonly used term (Google Ngram), particularly in the bird community. I doubt perching birds is in particularly common use; the common term is probably songbirds, which is technically inaccurate as it is usually taken to mean only the oscines. Keith the Koala (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I've moved this to the proper venue for such requests. I'll comment on substance shortly. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for redefining the meaning of "shortly"... I renamed the category in the first place in an effort to make it more accessible to general users: I remembered seeing the Passeriformes referred to in various encyclopedias and bird books over the years as the "Perching Birds", and I also wondered if anyone would be confused by the fact that "-ines" names for animals are usually reserved for subfamilies (which end in -inae). Given that most users of this dictionary are probably not "in the bird community" and probably have never heard of terms such as passerines or oscines before coming here, I'm not sure how important it is to reflect usage in this case. That said, there are probably only a handful of languages with enough bird names to even need an intermediate category like this, so it's not really that big a deal. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
"Passerines" is uncommon, but it's not some obscure technical term - turn on Springwatch and you can hear Chris Packham talking about passerines until your wings fall off. "Perching birds" is really no better - nobody actually says "perching birds" except to try and explain what "passerines" means, on top of which it's not SoP (lots of other birds perch) so people might think they understand it when they don't. tbh, I'd be happiest with just lumping all birds in Category:Birds, I think it's easy to overcategorize these things. Keith the Koala (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
"Passerines" remind me of the often-used fungus group, the LBMs (little brown mushrooms).
If we continue to develop vernacular names and taxonomic names in parallel (to the extent that they are parallel), we can have the luxury of different classifications in different languages, not to mention the structure that emerges from Derived terms and the semantic relations headings. The relationships among taxonomic names are likely to diverge increasingly from those among vernacular names.
Among bird names, though, there is a major effort to have vernacular language names that correspond to taxonomic names and relationships. (Similarly with mammals.) The IOC birdname website has English bird family names (sometimes in form like "Kites, hawks, and eagles" or "Pheasants and allies") that seem designed to be in one-to-one correspondence with taxonomic family names. There are frequent correspondences at genus and species level as well. I'm not sure about higher levels.
Birds (Aves) are a class (or a clade) that we have fairly well covered AFAICT. It affords us one of the best opportunities to have good vernacular categorization and naming. I don't see why we don't have categories that correspond to multiple levels of groups of birds, though I would prefer that "bird" be left to at least one of the definition, image, and Hypernyms in the entry to communicate.
Both 'Passerines' and 'Perching birds' seem like high levels of categorization that don't well correspond to words in vernacular language usage. The IOC doesn't help much with terms like 'Oscines' and 'Suboscines'. A vernacular type-based name like 'Sparrow-like birds' would be communicative, but has little else to recommend it. DCDuring TALK 23:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The birding equivalent is LBJs (little brown jobs). Chuck Entz (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

West African Pidgin English varieties[edit]

Ethnologue has assigned codes to some but not all of the varieties of West African Pidgin English, and we in turn have incorporated some (e.g. pcm) but not all (e.g. not gpe) of those codes. As WP notes, the "contemporary English-based pidgin and creole languages are so similar that they are sometimes grouped together under the name 'West African Pidgin English'" (a name which also denotes their predecessor which developed in the 1700s). WP's examples are illustrative, particularly in that its Ghanaian and Nigerian Pidgin English examples are identical. I propose to merge at least the following three varieties into wes, renaming it "West African Pidgin English":

  1. Ghanaian Pidgin English (gpe)
  2. Nigerian Pidgin English (pcm)
  3. Cameroonian Pidgin English (wes)

We could also discuss whether or not to merge Sierra Leone Krio (kri, which WP notes its often mistaken for English slang due to its similarity to English, but which has a somewhat distinct alphabet), Pichinglis / Fernando Po Creole (fpe), and Liberian Kreyol / Liberian Pidgin English (lir). - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The question is a very complex one. Firstly (but of least importance), scholars are divided on which lects have creolised and which have not, but it is generally agreed upon that at least some of the language you mentioned are not pidgins, which would make the name "West African Pidgin English" somewhat of a misnomer (the more neutral name "Wes-Kos" have been suggested as an alternative, but even linguists haven't fully adopted it). Secondly, all these lects are remarkably similar on a lexical level, but that's unsurprising; after all, they resulted from separate but very similar language contact events, and then probably modified each other (one scholar posits that Krio and Cameroonian Pidgin English relexified each other to some degree after pidginisation). The similarities are also obscured by the fact that there is nothing close to an agreed orthography for most of these, and pronunciation does differ a bit across West Africa. Linguistically, I'd probably merge them all, but practically that may not be the best decision. I know we have entries in pcm, but probably next to nothing for the rest, and if somebody wants to add them, given how each lect is very neatly assigned to a certain West African country, at least it won't be confusing for them to do so. Conclusion: the literature is schizophrenic, the lects mutually intelligible, and the existing situation remarkably unproblematic. Therefore I abstain. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Appendix:Glossary of collective nouns by subject[edit]

Appendix:English collective nouns[edit]

Appendix:Glossary of collective nouns by collective term[edit]

(Appendix:English collective nouns is edit protected, so I can't place the template there, but I guess that would be the more sensible target location)

Redundant to each other. Both pages have serious clean-up issues, of course (has anyone ever actually called a group of cheetahs a "coalition", or is that a joke at the expense of perhaps the British coalition government? (Apparently it's in use!) Will anyone ever have need of a collective noun for Jezebels?). Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Most of these fancy collective nouns floating around the Internet are artificial words that amateur philologists pull out of their asses in order to look “cool”. Most of them have never been used and will probably never be used. If you think the ones listed at the page are bad, look at the edit histories. For this reason it is important that the validity of collectives added to these appendices (and to the mainspace) isn’t taken for granted.
On topic: Appendix:English collective nouns looks redundant to Category:English collective nouns, so I favour deleting it. But I think Appendix:Glossary of collective nouns by subject is useful to keep around due to its presentation advantages over a category page. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(Added Appendix:Glossary of collective nouns by collective term - the sorting issues that led to these appendices being split would be better resolved with a sortable table). Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:en:Exonyms -> Category:English exonyms[edit]

Per Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Lexical categories, move:

Rationale: This makes these categories nominally consistent with all other categories that describe the words ("Category:English blablabla") rather than their meanings ("Category:en:blablabla"), such as all categories listed in Category:English terms by etymology.

In fact, I believe Category:English exonyms should be a subcategory of Category:English terms by etymology.

It's interesting to note that Category:English terms by etymology was once called Category:en:Etymology before it was moved multiple times. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Being an exonym is not a matter of how a word was created. In fact, terms often don't start off as exonyms, but become exonyms as the languages diverge and evolve. So it's not appropriate to put it under etymology. —CodeCat 00:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose: Exonyms should remain as a category and English exonyms should be a subcategory of it. Purplebackpack89 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I nominated specifically "Category:en:Exonyms -> Category:English exonyms", you mentioned "English exonyms should be [] ", so I don't see how this would work as an oppose vote to my nomination. I don't suppose you wanted the category to remain named "Category:en:Exonyms", right?
In any event, the format that other umbrella categories use according to Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Lexical categories is "Category:Exonyms by language" -> "Category:English exonyms". Like "Category:Nouns by language" -> "Category:English nouns". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I missed the "en" in there. Retracting my vote. Purplebackpack89 00:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem, thank you. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This should not be controversial, but it's wise to check. DCDuring TALK 23:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)
"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)
"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)

December 2015[edit]

Template:rfe and Template:rfelite[edit]

Both of these templates serve the same purpose, the only difference is in looks. So I think they should be merged. I have no particular preference for which we should keep, just that one of them should go. —CodeCat 23:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Provisional oppose, although I may change my mind; I'd like to see what @DCDuring, DTLHS think. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
They should either be merged (with one redirecting to the other), or kept. Since I generally don't like templates being needlessly consolidated, I'll say keep Purplebackpack89 23:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't really care. DTLHS (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks is a personal preference, so one of them should go. The "lite" one doesn't let an editor add reasoning (and I can only imagine reasoning awkwardly tacked onto the end of the notice), so I think that {{rfelite}} should be deleted. —suzukaze (tc) 23:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
@suzukaze-c Comments can always be added directly to the etymology section or as an unnamed parameter in any template that does not rely on such parameters for its functionality. DCDuring TALK 00:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any particular benefit to tidying by combining them. The templates differ by their look. That is not an insignificant consideration to whatever normal users may use our work, should there be any.
I think all of the big-display-box templates are hideous and potentially distracting to normal users. I'd bet that most contributions of etymologies are generated by contributors (not normal users) who find the entries by means other than noticing {{rfe}} (or {{rfelite}}). The same is probably true of {{rfi}} and {{rfc}}. I'd further bet that the main function these boxes serve is to steer a contributor to the particular part of the entry that needs work. A big box seems unnecessary for that function. In contrast, in the cases of {{rfd}} and {{rfv}}, arguably the distraction is intentional and constructive, as it serves as a warning to users that there may be something wrong with the definitions or that they might want to participate in the discussion about them.
I'd love to hear the thoughts of others, 1., on the effect of the differing displays on different types of normal users and, 2., on whether we still have the prospect of gaining such users in sufficient numbers to be of any concern to us. DCDuring TALK 00:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I think for clarity I'd merge {{etystub}} into {{rfelite}} rather than the other way around. But we should have both etystub and rfelite as they do the exact same job. {{rfe}} should really only be used when no etymology is present because it doesn't interact well with either text that's before it or after it. But it is more obviously visible, being in a box. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
{{etystub}} has a different message. It allows for the possibility that the etymology exists but is incomplete. Neither of the other two do that. Perhaps at least one of the two others should have a switch that changed the display to indicate the etymology, though present, is incomplete. The problem with not having such wording is that some new contributor could view {{rfe}} or {{rfelite}} as not having been removed when the etymology was added. Converting {{etystub}} to have a more modest appearance like that of {{rfelite}} would be an improvement. The big-box look it now has is enough to make me occasionally miss the presence of the stub etymology that is there. DCDuring TALK 22:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the nuance is much too small to be worth keeping. Just change it to 'absent or incomplete' and you're done. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Per Wiktionary:Beer parlour#October 2019, {{rfe}} is now inline by default, and {{rfelite}} is deprecated. Benwing2 (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Checking in a month later, I noticed only two entries using the now-deprecated template, which I cleaned up. I suppose the intention is to delete it at some point? - -sche (discuss) 05:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Appendix:Word formation verb -en noun -ness[edit]

Bad title. Need the word English in there, and something more 'fluent'. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As creator of this apx, I totally agree. Just wish I could think of something !! :-/ -- ALGRIF talk 15:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hows about Appendix:English adjectives with derived terms in -en and -ness? Also, I think the derivation "strong" => "strengthen" and "strongness" may not be accurate and, in any event, is the weakest exemplar. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Resurrected out of the archives; anyone have ideas for a better title? - -sche (discuss) 04:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand the purpose of this appendix. There doesn't seem to have any special relationship between verbs in -en and nouns in -ness. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Appendix:Swadesh lists for Austronesian languages etc[edit]

and Appendix:Swadesh for Malayo-Polynesian languages - Appendix:Cognate sets for Austronesian languages

These overlap a lot, and should be merged in some way. -- Prince Kassad 17:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Added another one I found. -- Prince Kassad 10:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Resurrected out of the archives. - -sche (discuss) 04:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

have it[edit]

2 definitions: "to have died" and "to be beyond repair"

These meanings only exist for have had it, which doesn't and should have these. The translations need to be moved and checked as well. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

caught with one's hand in the cookie jar[edit]

Move to hand in the cookie jar (now a redirect to this), which is included in many more expressions than this one, eg have one's hand in the cookie jar, to catch someone with their hand in the cookie jar. I would be happy to add redirects and for all possessive determiners and for the various verb forms of catch and have and usage examples for a selection of these and perhaps others, such as put and keep. DCDuring TALK 21:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

As it is now a search for "catch with his hand in the cookie jar" does not find this entry. DCDuring TALK 21:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

in lieu[edit]

I didn't find any use at COCA of this except in in lieu of (1,045) and (Canada, legal) pay in lieu (2). There was one use of in lieu thereof. The other seven instances included the name of a band, an incomplete spoken utterance, and similar.

I suspect that the translations belong at in lieu of or perhaps at fr.wikt. DCDuring TALK 04:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Move to in lieu of per nom. - -sche (discuss) 05:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
There are hits at Google Books for in lieu appointment]. Note that not all of them actually contain the phrase: some have "... in lieu. Appointment...". The same is true of in lieu payment], though it seems to be more common with a hyphen. It may not be that common, but in lieu does seem to be used as a legal/accounting term without any form of "of". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I see. That would merit a reworking of the entry for in lieu, which looks to be limited to legal contexts. It seems that in lieu is often an abbreviation of in lieu of (something obvious from the context). In its prepositive attributive use "substitute" seems like a synonym or definition. DCDuring TALK 15:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
There's also a day off in lieu [2] although I've no idea whether this would be better treated by a separate entry or an additional sense ("substitute") at in lieu. --Droigheann (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
To me it seems that the uses that are not in lieu of are derived from use of in lieu of in a legal context including labor law. They all seems to have become completely conventionalized in meaning – therefore dictionary-worthy – though sometimes the meaning might turn out to be restricted to a specific context. I think this might work presented as a non-gloss definition with each of the most typical applications illustrated with a usage example and possible with a subsense. DCDuring TALK 17:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

Linear A[edit]

Strangely enough we have a language code for Linear A [lab], even though Linear A is a writing system and not a language. I have no idea why it was encoded or why we have it. -- Liliana 15:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It's very odd. The script code for Linear A is "Lina"; the language code for Minoan is "omn"; but there's also a language code "lab" for a language called "Linear A". I have no idea what ISO and SIL were thinking, but I'm in favor of deleting "lab" from our modules. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll bet their thinking is that the language written in the script may be an unknown language, which would be consistent with w:Linear A. There do seem to be a large number of hypotheses about Linear A, nearly on the same order as the total number of recorded instances of the script. DCDuring TALK 18:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I see. Reading Minoan language more carefully, I see that it's written in both Cretan hieroglyphs and Linear A, but since neither writing system has been deciphered, it isn't known whether it's the same language in two writing systems or two different languages. So maybe "omn" means Minoan in Cretan hieroglyphs and "lab" means Minoan in Linear A, and they may or may not refer to the same language. Given that the language is unknown and undeciphered, I wonder why we have one Minoan lemma: kuro. How do we know this word was pronounced "kuro" and that it means "total"? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
It's in the wrong script anyway (it was added before Unicode covered Linear A), but afaik Linear A can be read simply by using the known values for Linear B syllables, which are visually similar. This word is always found at the end of lists, followed by a number, so the meaning was easy to figure out. -- Liliana 10:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

Balkan Gagauz Turkish[edit]

I see no evidence that this exists as a separate language, and move that it be merged with tr. The literature which references it seems to describe the dialect of Turkish which may be spoken by Gagauz people in the Balkan Peninsula. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia, citing Ethnologue, insists that Balkan Gagauz Turkish, Gagauz, and Turkish are all separate, and a few sources do seem to take that view, e.g. Cem Keskin, Subject agreement-dependency of accusative case in Turkish, or, Jump-starting grammatical machinery (2009) speaks of "Balkan Gagauz Turkish, Gagauz, Turkish, Iraqi Turkmen, North and South Azerbaijani, Salchuq, Aynallu, Qashqay, Khorasan Turkic, Turkmen, Oghuz Uzbek, Afshar, and possibly Crimean Tatar". Other references speak of Balkan Gagauz Turkish as a variety of Gagauz, e.g. James Minahan's Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations says "The Gagauz speak a Turkic language [...] also called Balkan Gagauz or Balkan Turkic, [which] is spoken in two major dialects, Central and Southern, with the former the basis of the literary language. Other dialects [include] Maritime Gagauz" (which comports with w:Gagauz's list of its dialects). Matthias Brenzinger's Language Diversity Endangered also treats Balkan Gagauz "or slightly misleading, Balkan Turkic" in his entry on Gagauz, but says it that the Balkan "varieties might deserve the status of outlying languages but very little information is available about them." (A few generalist references seem to subsume all gag into tr.) I would leave them all separate, pending more conclusive evidence that they should be merged. - -sche (discuss) 23:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I think there's some confusion about what exactly we're talking about, and whether it's Gagauz or Turkish. Just because they use the term "Balkan Gagauz Turkish" doesn't mean that they're referring to the language with ISO 639-3 code bgx. When I look at who's citing the references listed for bgx at Glottolog, Manević (the reference for its classification) is cited in papers clearly talking about the dialects of tr. These are the only actual words attributed to this lect that I can find. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@Tropylium, on the subject of Turkic languages spoken in Europe, do you know anything about this one, and about its differences or similarity to Gagauz and standard Turkish? - -sche (discuss) 01:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not previously familiar with this dispute, but here are a few handbooks on the topic:
  • Menges in The Turkic Languages and Peoples has the following slightly complicated quote (p. 11): "The Turkic languages spoken farthest west are the Balkanic dialects of Osman and Gagauz in Bosnia, Bulgaria and Macedonia. These seem to form two groups, one of possibly pre-Osman origin, and a later Osman one. To the former belong the Gaǯaly in Deli-Orman (Eastern Bulgaria), who, according to V. A. Moškov, are descended from the Päčänäg, Uz, and Torci (?), the Surguč, numbering about 7000 people in the district (vilājät) of Edirnä, who call themselves Gagauz. In Moškov's opinion, they, too, go back to the Päčänägs (?) and the Macedonian Gagauz; they number ca. 4000 people in southeastern Macedonia." — It seems clear that some group(s) corresponding to "Balkan Gagauz" is being identified here, but I am not even sure how to parse the sentence structure; e.g. are "Uz" and "Torci" some of the pre-Osman Turkic groups, or some of the alleged ancestors of the Gaǯaly? ("Osman" is, of course, Turkish.)
  • Hendrik Boeschoten in a classificatory chapter in Routledge's The Turkic Languages mentions that "a few speakers [of Gagauz] in northern Bulgaria, Romania and Greece, adhere to the Orthodox faith, and have their own history." This again seems to refer to "Balkan Gagauz", but with no indication of being its own language.
So far I would gather from this that "Balkan Gagauz" is at most a sister language of "non-Balkan Gagauz", and perhaps indeed just a different dialect group (perhaps one whose features are not reflected in written standard Gagauz). But the Manević 1954 paper would be more informative on this topic, if anyone wants to hunt it down. --Tropylium (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I think Balkan Gagauz should be merged with gag, especially since it contains no entries. The few terms that would be specific for Gagauz spoken outside of the traditional Gagauz area in Moldova/Romania/Bulgaria can be dealt with within gag entries. The only thing is that some etymologies of other Turkic languages sometimes refer to Balkan Gagauz instead of Gagauz, because editors didn't know the difference between two. Otherwise I don't see any problems with merging them two.
On the other hand, Gagauz should definitely NOT be merged with Turkish, that is pretty obvious to me.Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge This is a hard question, I can offer only guesswork.
I can't find any good maps for the distribution of Gagauz and (Muslim) Turks proper in the Balkans, most don't show Balkan Gagauz at all although we know they exist at least in Bulgaria and Macedonia.
It seems that they are not easily separated geographically from Muslim Turks although they presumably live in different localities. I'm guessing this means that their languages ("Balkan Gagauz Turkish" and "Rumelian Turkish") could be the same, although maybe only the latter call their language "Turkish", so I guess that they (would?) use Standard Turkish in education and administration.
This would be a good argument to merge Balkan Gagauz into Turkish, except that this paper shows that Balkan Turkic (if this really is a single language) is quite distinct from Anatolian Turkish and perhaps worth considering a different language. Baskakov also considers Balkan Turkish and (Moldovan) Gagauz to form a clade within Oghuz and Anatolian Turkish and Azerbaijani to form another. Crom daba (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Anylai, can you find anything in Turkish on the possible differences between Balkan Gagauz and Rumelian Turkish? Crom daba (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Merge / delete it. The distribution of the name, the way it is “mentioned”, points towards it being a ghost language. The name is not attestable as used by anyone having particular information about it; nobody can add anything under it either in such a situation where it is a content-filled concept for nobody. Its alleged synonyms “Balkan Turkish” and “Rumelian Turkish” show it is just an SOP term for Turkish as spoken on the Balkans respectively Rumelia, i.e. remnant speakers of the Ottoman rule. German Balkantürkisch, distinguished from Türkeitürkisch as a regiolect. Fay Freak (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Even more languages without ISO codes, part 6[edit]

This next batch is of languages from lists other than Ethnologue and LinguistList. As before, I've tried to vet them all beforehand, but I will have doubtlessly made some mistakes. NB if you want to find more: I've avoided dealing with most of the Loloish languages, because all the literature seems to be in Chinese. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Australian languages[edit]

Tasmanian and other[edit]

Northeastern Tasmanian:
  • Northeastern, Pyemmairre language (aus-pye) Yes check.svg Done
    alt names/varieties: Plangermaireener, Plangamerina, Cape Portland, Ben Lomond, Pipers River
  • North Midlands, Tyerrernotepanner language (aus-tye) — Bowern considers this a dialect; perhaps we should just trust her
    now has an ISO code which should be added instead, see BP shortly - -sche (discuss) 04:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Lhotsky/Blackhouse Tasmanian language (aus-lbt) — the worst name in Bowern's set!
    I'm not sure... the very language is "reconstructed" by Bowern on the assumption that three wordlists (of which only two make it into the name) attest the same language, although apparently none of the three bothered to name the language. The chance of someone "would run across [a word in] it and want to know what it means" seems nonexistent. If we wanted to host the wordlists, we could do that in an appendix or on Wikisource. - -sche (discuss) 16:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Bowern's methods are scientific; but I would feel better if more than one scholar was saying there was one language in this set of wordlists, the way that for e.g. Port Sorrell, Dixon & Crowley and Glottolog agree that there is a unit/lect there. - -sche (discuss) 16:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
and what of "Norman Tasmanian"? - -sche (discuss)
  • Here is another language we might need a code for: Ma(') Pnaan (poz-map?), also known by the exonyms Punan Malinau and Punan Segah, a language of Borneo / East Kalimantan, summarized by Antonia Soriente here and elsewhere. Compare the other things listed at Punan language. - -sche (discuss) 05:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


Maridan [zmd], Maridjabin [zmj], Marimanindji [zmm], Maringarr [zmt], Marithiel [mfr], Mariyedi [zmy], Marti Ke [zmg]: should these be merged? References speak of a singular Marrithiyel language. - -sche (discuss) 21:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]

Some more missing American languages[edit]

Here are a few more North American languages for which we could add codes:

  • Akokisa (nai-ako). WP says it is attested certainly in two words in Spanish records (Yegsa "Spaniard[s]", which Swanton suggests is similar to Atakapa yik "trade" + ica[k] "people"; and the female name Quiselpoo), and possibly in more words in a wordlist by Jean Béranger in 1721 (if the wordlist is not some other language).
  • Algonquian–Basque pidgin (crp-abp). Wikipedia has a sample. The Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication, citing Bakker, says it was spoken from at least 1580 (and perhaps as early as 1530s) through 1635, and "only a few phrases and less than 30 words attributable to Basque were written down" (though apparently more words, attributable to other sources, were also recorded).
  • Guachichil (Cuauchichil, Quauhchichitl, Chichimeca) (nai-gch or, if Guachí is added as sai-gch, perhaps nai-gcl to prevent the two similarly-named lects from being mixed up by only typoing the initial n vs s), apparently sparsely attested.
  • Concho (nai-cnc). The Handbook of North American Indians, volume 10, says "three words of Concho [...] were recorded in 1581 [and] look like they may be [...] Uto-Aztecan".
  • Jumano (Humano, Jumana, Xumana, Chouman, Zumana, Zuma, Suma, and Yuma) (nai-jmn). The Handbook says "It has been established that the Jumano and Suma spoke the same language. Three words have been recorded" of it.

and from South America:

  • Peba / Peva (sai-peb), said by Erben to more properly by called Nijamvo, Nixamvo. Spoken in "the department of Loreto" in Peru. Attested in wordlists by Erben and Castelnau, which Loukotka provides, and which disagree with each other substantially: munyo (Erben) / money (Castelnau) "canoe, small boat"; nero (E) / yuna (C) "demon"; nebi (E) / nemey (C) "jaguar"; teki (E) / tomen-lay (C) "one", manaxo (E) / nomoira (C) "two"; etc. I would even consider that one might not be the same language as the other... what's with these languages that survive in disparate wordlists? lol.
  • possibly Saynáwa: fr.Wikt grants a code to this variety of Yaminawá language, described here (see also [3]).

- -sche (discuss) 04:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Support all except possibly Akokisa. I think it's a dialect of Atakapa, and that the wordlist is very likely not being linked correctly. That said, it's so few words, that there's no real reason not to accept it as a separate language, just to be conservative about it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Good point about Akokisa. (I am reminded that you had mentioned its dialectness earlier; sorry I forgot!) The wordlist, labelled only with a tribal name per WP, is possibly plain Atakapa, but Yegsa is supposedly recorded as specifically Akokisa; OTOH that doesn't rule out that Akokisa is a dialect. Indeed, M. Mithun's Languages of Native North America treats as dialects Akokisa, Eastern ("the most divergent, [...] known from a list of 287 entries") and Western ("the best documented. Gatschet recorded around 2000 words and sentences, as well as texts [...] Swanton recorded a few Western forms", all published in 1932 in a dictionary). I suppose the benefit to treating it as a dialect would be that we could context-label Yegsa and Quiselpoo as {{lb|aqp|Akokisa}} and then Béranger's forms as {{lb|aqp|possibly|Akokisa}} without needing to agonize over which header to put them under. - -sche (discuss) 15:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]


Not sure if there should be separate entries (doodad) – Jberkel (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jberkel It doesn't make sense to merge well attested headwords. Even alternate spellings are given their own pages, not merged into a single canonical entry. --Danielklein (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh, that that four years ago, I think I have now a better understanding of how this thing works :) Still, these entries should probably be changed so that there is one main entry, with the remaining ones listed as alternative forms or synonyms, to avoid duplication. – Jberkel 22:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Judeo-Arabic lects[edit]

We currently have Judeo-Arabic, but also Judeo-Tunisian Arabic (ajt) and Judeo-Moroccan Arabic (aju). The Arabic lects they draw from are all considered separate L2s, which perhaps supports this arrangement, but I don't know how different they all actually are, and it seems worth having a discussion on this. @Wikitiki89Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually in favor of merging all of Arabic into one language. This would work similarly to how it works with Chinese. But in the past when I brought this up, there seemed to be too much opposition to the idea. As it is stands, the spoken Judeo-Arabic dialects deserve the same treatment as other spoken Arabic dialects. Judeo-Arabic (jrb) itself, however, can be merged with Arabic (ar), because it is essentially the same language as Classical Arabic expect for the fact that it is written in the Hebrew alphabet. But because of the difference in writing system, this merger would not really bring much benefit. --WikiTiki89 23:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@Fay Freak mentions Judeo-Yemeni Arabic, [jye], and seems to support merger into the topolectal codes. I really don't know what the best solution is, and I await the day when we have Arabic contributors who want to take the lead on making Chinese-style tables and maps where we can list all known dialectal forms — but in the mean time, this is a festering mess. @פֿינצטערניש, Fenakhay, M. I. Wright may be interested as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I did not notice this section; yes, I cannot oppose it. I just mentioned a priori concerns since I never specifically read or listened to Judeo-Arabic, and I thought “who could? would he even notice?”, which is why I said “The Jews might deal with it themselves”. Just on the other hand one might conclude something from the absence of information. “Pleading ignorance”, “to deny claims on the basis of lack of knowledge”. Fay Freak (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
In some places, they are very different: following the qeltu/gelet division, Muslim Baghdadi Arabic is a South Mesopotamian dialect, but Jewish and Christian Baghdadi Arabic are both North Mesopotamian dialects (though also distinct from the Jewish sociolects of North Mesopotamia). But this just underlines the need for a template that can show each city or oasis or religious group in a city alongside all the others. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed that Judeo-Arabic is very often considerably different from the Muslim and Christian dialects. It's also typically written in the Hebrew alphabet, and it might be best to keep it separate, for now. It should be understood that Judeo-Arabic as a heading refers to literary Arabic with Hebrew letters, and it's probably not a bad idea to point Judeo-Arabic head words to their Arabic-letter equivalents.
Should we have more active Jewish contributors from Arabic-speaking communities in the future who contribute Judeo-Arabic entries, they can and should feel free to work out among themselves how to handle the many forms of Judeo-Arabic, and we should support their decision if and when this happens. IMO.
I'm not against collapsing literary Judeo-Arabic with our main Arabic entries, as long as the entries remain. But I will say that there is a unique vocabulary to Judaism that might still warrant keeping Judeo-Arabic separate until we have more competent Judeo-Arabic contributors. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I looked a bit into it, having quoted a bit Lambourn, Elizabeth (2018) Abraham's Luggage: A Social Life of Things in the Medieval Indian Ocean World, Cambridge University Press, DOI:10.1017/9781316795453, →ISBN which contains an inventory of the Cairo Geniza in one column in the original Hebrew script and in the other transcribed or transliterated into Arabic – not translated as one would translate Serbo-Croatian into Macedonian –, which makes it look like a Standard Arabic text. Similarly it is with reading some of the quotes under Category:Judeo-Arabic lemmas. The transcription is as if from Arabic, and if you only read the transcriptions you don’t know it was written in Hebrew script or an alleged other language. So presuming this is the norm for written Arabic texts in Hebrew script I can definitely support merging the literary “Judeo-Arabic” with {{spelling of}} into Arabic and adding Hebrew script to the language data of Arabic. Fay Freak (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


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)

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)

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)

October 2016[edit]

Merge Category:Chinese hanzi and Category:Chinese Han characters[edit]

What distinguishes these two? —suzukaze (tc) 03:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

If there is no meaningful difference between these, I propose keeping Category:Chinese Han characters as it is managed by {{poscatboiler}} and merging Category:Chinese hanzi into it. —suzukaze (tc) 04:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wyang, Atitarev, is there a difference between Category:Chinese hanzi and Category:Chinese Han characters, or can Category:Chinese hanzi be merged into Category:Chinese Han characters as suzukaze proposes? - -sche (discuss) 00:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
They can be merged, IMO. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
(reviving this discussion after almost three years) Merge per Suzukaze-c's proposal above. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Move template:lang[edit]

to something more sensible like "template:text"? lang could be used to display the language name from a language code whenever "there is no other template (like {{derived}} or {{cog}}) that can be used instead". --Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Giorgi Eufshi: Or {{textlang}}? That'd make it very clear. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It also has 'face' and 'sc' parameters. Maybe {{textlangfacesc}}? --Dixtosa (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@Dixtosa: (There's no need to be facetious; I responded, didn't I?) {{text}} is fine. What does the |face= parameter do? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I was just making a point. hope no feelings were hurt )) My implicit question was: why do you feel lang suffix is necessary? It's not like this is the only template that can work with languages. --Dixtosa (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@Dixtosa: I just figured that it made its use clearer, that it's a template that marks the language of the text it encloses. But I really don't mind what it's called. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Question: I have used {{lang}} on talk pages. Would a bot convert these instances to whatever template name is chosen as a replacement for {{lang}}? — Eru·tuon 17:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it should not be moved since its equivalent on Wikipedia has this name. —suzukaze (tc) 07:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion debate[edit]

We could also try orphaning it instead. I believe there are many uses that could be replaced with other templates. Try orphaning it and see how far we get. —CodeCat 14:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: I use this template frequently for the text of quotations, which helps screen readers know what language the text is in; also, it's needed for display purposes sometimes, like wrapping text in {{lang|de|sc=Latf|…}} to display German text in Fraktur. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
We have other templates for quotations, that are more suited to that specific task. —CodeCat 21:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: I don't think I'm aware of them. Could you link to them, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
{{quote}} and various other templates beginning with "quote". —CodeCat 14:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
And to mention a word without linking to it, you can put it in the 3rd positional parameter of {{l}} or {{m}}, thus: {{m|de||dass}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@Aɴɢʀ: Thanks; I was already aware of and do already use {{m}} and {{l}} like that.
@CodeCat: I frequently find those templates to be flawed; they can't handle the quotation of works with unusual internal structure (Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, with its hierarchically organised propositions, is a modern example). Unless there is something that can perform the function of {{lang}} without the problems of the quote- templates, I shall have to oppose this orphaning. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you give an example? —CodeCat 14:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Sorry, an example of what? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
An example of a case where no other existing template works. —CodeCat 14:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: I confess to not being very experienced with those templates (the bad experiences I've had have been other editors trying to shoehorn existing, manually-written citations into them). Maybe one or another of those quote- templates could cope with the TLP; I wouldn't know. Could any of them cope with the modern translation of a scholion by one ancient author, commenting on the work of another ancient author, appearing in a volume of translated works of ancient authors (writing on a common theme), with the texts emended by different modern emendators, the volume as a whole edited by a modern editor, and that volume constituting one part of a series which itself has a different modern general editor? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with what either {{quote}} or {{lang}} does. I suggest you familiarize yourself with these templates before commenting further. DTLHS (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@DTLHS: My mistake. I thought CodeCat was only referring to {{quote-book}} and the like. I was not aware of the existence of {{quote}}. @CodeCat: My apologies; I misread what you wrote. {{quote}} is great; I'll use that instead of {{lang}} from now on. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

carry a torch for[edit]

Move to carry a torch, making sure that the definition is appropriate for usage both with and without for. A redirect from [[carry a torch for]] to carry a torch would be fine with me. At present the redirect goes the other way. DCDuring TALK 14:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Attestation of use without for is at Citations:carry a torch for. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:English and other topical categories about languages[edit]

It would be nice to have a name that makes it more obvious that this is a topical category. How about Category:English linguistics, and for the larger languages subcategories like Category:English grammar, Category:English orthography, etc.? I’m open to suggestions, as some people don’t like including things relating to writing or standardised language under linguistics. Another issue is that the hub categories (without language codes) would follow the same format as non-topical categories, but I still think it’s clearer than just English.

And how about parent categories for language families, like Category:Germanic linguistics? — Ungoliant (falai) 20:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]

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)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support [gn] and [grn] are the codes of the macrolanguage, [gug] is the code for the specific dialect spoken in Paraguay, also, until now, I haven't found any [gn] lemma to be out of [gug]. --Guillermo2149 (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support merging gn and gug. - -sche (discuss) 14:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportAɴɢʀ (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Guillermo2149, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, -sche, Angr: I see now that there are three more Guaraní dialect codes that we have: Mbyá Guaraní [gun], Chiripá [nhd], and Western Bolivian Guaraní [gnw]. I presume that we should merge these into [gn] as well, but the case is arguably less clear given that in our current state, all our [gn] lemmas are really [gug]. What do you all think? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    I stick by my motto, "When in doubt, merge". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
    I think we should actually merge [gn] into [gug] and not viceversa. By the way, [gn] is the only one that should be merged, [gun] has similar and some equal words but the language is very different, and [nhd] is similar and very close to [gug] but it's slightly different and always confused with [gug] --Guillermo2149 (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't forget there's also [gui] and apparently also [tpj]. - -sche (discuss) 04:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Westrobothnian lemmas[edit]

See also: Wiktionary:Information_desk#Category:Westrobothnian_lemmas_-_Our_idiosyncrasy.3F

User:Korn posted this to rfv as a way of requesting verification of all the Westrobothnian entries. The justification was that the orthography doesn't seem to be one that has been actually used for the language. Given that the terms seem, for the most part, to be real and added in good faith, I would like to see if we can figure out a way to move them to the appropriate spellings rather than deleting them as unattested. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Chuck described the situation correctly as I see it. It's about spelling, not terms. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016[edit]

Moving Finno-Ugric families to Uralic families[edit]

We don't recognize Finno-Ugric as a valid family; just Uralic. Hence urj is a valid code, but fiu isn't. Nevertheless, we're using fiu- as the prefix for four branches: fiu-fin for Finnic, fiu-mdv for Mordvinic, fiu-prm for Permic, and fiu-ugr for Ugric. I propose we use urj- for these instead, thus moving as follows:

  • fiu-finurj-fin
  • fiu-mdvurj-mdv
  • fiu-prmurj-prm
  • fiu-ugrurj-ugr

At the same time, we should move the codes for the corresponding protolanguages:

  • fiu-fin-prourj-fin-pro
  • fiu-mdv-prourj-mdv-pro
  • fiu-prm-prourj-prm-pro
  • fiu-ugr-prourj-ugr-pro

as well as the code for the etymology-only lect Proto-Finno-Permic:

  • fiu-fpr-prourj-fpr-pro

I suppose we can keep fiu-pro as an etymology-only variant of urj-pro if it's important. What do others think? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a lot of disruption for a small theoretical benefit: we've always used codes like aus, cau, nai and sai that we don't recognize as families for making exception codes, so it's not a huge violation of our naming logic. In this case, though, it looks to me like we don't recognize fiu more because it's too much like urj, not because it's invalid, per se (though I don't know a lot on the subject). We do have gmw-fri rather than gem-fri, for instance. Of course, I'd rather follow those who actually work in this area- especially @Tropylium. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I have no opinion on moving around family codes either way (it doesn't seem they actually come up much, whatever they are), but if we start moving around the proto-language codes, I would like to suggest simple two-part codes. Proto-Samic and Proto-Samoyedic are already smi-pro and syd-pro, so is there any reason we couldn't make do with e.g. fin-pro, fpr-pro, ugr-pro etc.?
Also, as long as we're on this topic, at some point we are going to need the following:
  • Proto-Mansi: (ugr-/urj-?)mns-pro
  • Proto-Khanty: (ugr-/urj-?)kca-pro
  • Proto-Selkup: (ugr-/urj-?)sel-pro
No rush though, since so far we do not even have separate codes for their subdivisions. The only distinction that comes up in practice is distinguishing Northern Khanty from Eastern Khanty (Mansi and Selkup only have one main variety that is not extinct or nearly extinct). --Tropylium (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
There is, actually, a reason: our exception codes are designed to avoid conflict with the ISO 639 codes, so they start with an existing ISO 639 code or a code in the qaa-qtz range set aside by ISO 639 for private use. fin is one of the codes for the Finnish language. fpr and ugr are apparently unassigned- for now. As for the three proto-language codes, those don't need a family prefix because they already start with an ISO 639 code. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The only codes in the qaa-qtz range we actually use are qfa as a prefix for otherwise unclassified families and qot for Sahaptin (a macrolanguage that wasn't given an ISO code of its own), right? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Right. And I didn't notice that we used qot although it is not an ISO code; it seems we followed Linguist List in using it. For consistency, I suggest changing it to fit our usual scheme, so nai-spt or similar (nai-shp is already in use as the family code). - -sche (discuss) 05:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Support, for consistency. fiu is different from nai, because fiu is [a supposedly genetic grouping which is] agreed to be encompassed by a higher-level genetic family which also has an ISO code (urj), and that code can be used if we drop fiu. nai and sai are placeholders rather than genetic groupings, and they're useful ones, because If we dropped them we'd had to recode everything as qfa- (and might conceivably run out of recognizable/mnemonic codes at that point). - -sche (discuss) 05:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Support per -sche, both the main issue being suggested here, as well as recoding Sahaptin. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I've recoded Sahaptin and all the Finno-Ugric lects except fiu-fin / fiu-fin-pro which requires moving a lot of categories, which I will get to later. - -sche (discuss) 17:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Now there are lots of module errors in Cat:E as a result of these language code changes. It might be easiest to fix them by bot. @DTLHS, what do you think? — Eru·tuon 22:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. DTLHS (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@Erutuon I've done a bunch of them- I think the reconstructions should be fixed by hand. DTLHS (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@DTLHS: Three incorrect language codes remain, I think: fiu-ugr, fiu-fpr-pro, urj-fin-pro. I couldn't figure out what fiu-fpr-pro should be; it seems to refer to Proto-Finno-Permic, but I searched various language data modules and didn't find a match. Is there someone who can look through and fix the remaining module errors that relate to incorrect language codes? @Tropylium, @Angr, @-sche? — Eru·tuon 04:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Proto-Finno-Permic is an etymology-only language (and a kind of a legacy concept) that we encode as a variety of Proto-Uralic, if that helps. --Tropylium (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The categories were easy to deal with: you just change the {{derivcatboiler}} to {{auto cat}} and the template plugs in the correct language code, if it exists. That also makes it a quick way to check whether there is a correct language code. by the time I finished that, there were only a dozen or so entries left in CAT:E due to everyone else's efforts, so I finished off the remainder by hand. It would have been easier if there hadn't been hundreds of other module errors cluttering up CAT:E- yet another reason for you to be more careful. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I apologise for not catching and fixing those uses at the time I renamed the codes. I searched all pages on the site for each of the old codes, and some pages turned up [including pages where the codes were used inside some templates, and I fixed those pages], so I forgot to also do an "insource:" search to catch other uses inside templates like {{m}}. We so rarely change language codes compared to changing language names. - -sche (discuss) 23:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

January 2017[edit]

rubber-chicken dinner[edit]

to rubber chicken. Other dictionaries in OneLook have rubber chicken, not rubber-chicken dinner. There are abundant other collocations of rubber chicken both as a substantive and in attributive use. One common one is "rubber-chicken circuit". Examples of other nouns following rubber-chicken are lunch, banquet, affair, meal, fundraiser. Substantive use can be found in usages such as: Fortunately we'll spare everyone the rubber chicken and the speeches and simply acknowledge the guidance and vision of the world's best agent/coach/editor.

Rubber chicken is not identical to rubber (rubbery) + chicken either, though that is its origin. It specifically refers to the kind of organizational meals-with-speeches that crowd a politician's schedule, but also characterize conventions, off-site meetings, etc. DCDuring TALK 13:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

February 2017[edit]

Chinese Pidgin English [cpi][edit]

This is not a separate language at all, it's just English with different grammar and some loanwords, but other than that it's completely intelligible with standard English. As such, it should be moved to Category:Chinese English. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not at all the impression I get from Chinese Pidgin English. It seems to be a distinct language to me, as much as any other English-based pidgin. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
We did delete Hawaiian Pidgin English in the past though (see Template talk:hwc). I don't see how this case is any different. -- Pedrianaplant (talk)
I know we did, but I didn't participate in that discussion (only 3 people did), and I disagree with it too, probably even more strongly than I disagree with merging cpi. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Basically, this is a terminological problem. There may have been a true pidgin in each of these cases, but it has not been recorded. What is called a pidgin in many descriptive works is instead a dialect of English that is very easy to understand, nothing like the real English-based pidgins and creoles that I have studied. If you look at the actual quotations used to support lemmas in Chinese Pidgin English, you find that it is Chinese English. Support merge, but leave [cpi] as an etymology-only code. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • At least some texts seem very distinct, to the point of unintelligibility; consider "Joss pidgin man chop chop begin" (Whedon's translator begins chopping things? or "god's businessman begins right away"?). On the other hand, other sentences given by Wikipedia are quite intelligible...and possibly not attestable under the stricter CFI to which English is subject. I'm not sure what to do. (Our short previous discussion also didn't reach a firm resolution.) - -sche (discuss) 17:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    I mean, I use joss and chop chop in English normally (having grown up in a fairly Chinese environment likely has something to do with that)... and I think that was chosen as an especially extreme example. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]

Appendix:Australian English terms pertaining to money and wealth[edit]

Too much granularity? A merge into Appendix:Australian English vocabulary might be appropriate. Perhaps simply a rename would suffice. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Merged. - -sche (discuss) 01:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: some of the smaller appendices at Appendix:Australian English vocabulary#See_also could probably also be merged... - -sche (discuss) 01:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@-sche: Thanks for pointing those out. From a cursory glance, I would definitely support the merger of animals, body parts, clothing, food and drink, motoring, people, smoking, and the toilet, all into the main appendix. Do you agree? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I don't see why we need so many different appendices.. - -sche (discuss) 21:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

More unattested languages[edit]

The following languages have ISO codes, but those codes should be removed, as there is no linguistic material that can be added to Wiktionary. This list is taken from Wikipedia's list of unattested languages, but I have excluded languages which are not definitively extinct (and thus which may have material become available). If there was any reliable source I could find corroborating the WP article's claim of lack of attestation, it is given after the language. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Aguano language [aga]
    Unclear if it even existed per The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide (Campbell and Grondona).
  • Barbacoas language [bpb] (the Wikipedia article has a discussion of the conflation of this unattested language with Pasto, which needs a code; for clarity, I think this [bpb] should be retired and an exceptional code made explicitly for Pasto)
    Retired, following the ISO, see Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/October#2019-2020_ISO_code_changes. Content, if needed for migration to a Pasto code, was m["bpb"] = { "Barbacoas", "Q2669202", "sai-bar", otherNames = {"Pasto"}, scripts = Latn, } - -sche (discuss) 06:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Giyug language [giy]
    AIATSIS has the following to say: "According to Ian Green (2007 p.c.), this language probably died before the 1920's and neighbouring groups in the Daly claim it was the language of Peron Island which was linguistically and perhaps culturally distinctive from the nearby mainland societies. Black & Walsh (1989) say that this may or may not have been a dialect of Wadiginy N31." —Μετάknowledge
    The 1992 International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, v. 1, p. 337, says "Giyug: 2 speakers reported in 1981, in the Peron Islands in Anson Bay, southwest of Darwin." The 2003 edition repeats the claim that "2 speakers remain". Wikipedia says it's extinct and unattested, but Glottolog, although having no resources on it, suggests it's not extinct. Might be best to leave it alone for now. - -sche (discuss) 01:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Mawa language (Nigeria) [wma] (We call this "Mawa", if removed, [mcw] Mahwa (Mawa language (Chad) can be renamed to the evidently more common spelling "Mawa".)
    Removed, and mcw renamed. Glottolog had only one reference to support the existence of Mawa, Temple (1922), which does not even include a section under that header. There may be confusion with the section on the "Marawa", but that does not even mention what language those people speak. (Temple also knows very little about linguistics; while skimming through, I found that Margi (a Chadic language) was said to be similar to the languages of South Africa. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Nagarchal language [nbg]
    Appendix I in The Indo-Aryan Languages records this language as being a subdialect of Dhundari [dhd] and the 1901 Indian Census concurs; this is at odds with its description as an unattested Dravidian language, but the geographical specifications seem to match up.
  • Ngurmbur language [nrx]
    AIATSIS says: "Harvey (PMS 5822) treats Ngomburr as a dialect of Umbukarla N43, but in Harvey (ASEDA 802), it is listed as a separate language." Nicholas Evans confirms in The Non-Pama-Nyungan Languages of Northern Australia that it is unattested.
  • Wasu language [was]
    Unclassified due to its absence of data per The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide (Campbell and Grondona).


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)

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)
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)
(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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)
The Khitans had their own script. These entries use the Chinese script. —suzukaze (tc) 17:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
Moved to RFM. - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017[edit]

Some spurious languages to merge or remove, 2[edit]

remove Adabe [adb]

Geoffrey Hull, director of research for the Instituto Nacional de Linguística in East Timor, notes (in a 2004 Tetum Reference Grammar, page 228) that "the alleged Atauran Papuan language called 'Adabe' is a case of the mistaken identity of Raklungu," a dialect (along with Rahesuk and Resuk) of Wetarese. He notes (in The Languages of East Timor, Some Basic Facts) that only Wetarese is spoken on the island, and Studies in Languages and Cultures of East Timor likewise says "The three Atauran dialects—with the northernmost of which the dialect of nearby Lirar is mutually intelligible—are unquestionably Wetarese, and not dialects of Galoli, as Fox and Wurm suggest for two of them (n. 32). The same authors refer (ibidem) to a supposedly Papuan language of Atauro, the existence of which appears to be entirely illusory." (The error appears to have originated not with Fox and Wurm but with Antonio de Almeida in 1966.) - -sche (discuss) 01:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

We could repurpose the code into one for those three Atauran varieties of Malayo-Polynesian Wetarese, Rahesuk, Resuk, and Raklu Un / Raklungu (the last of which Ethnologue does list as an alt name of adb, despite their erroneous family assignment of it), perhaps under the name "Atauran Wetarese" for clarity. - -sche (discuss) 01:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
remove Agaria [agi]

Glottolog makes the case that this is spurious. - -sche (discuss) 07:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


Arma (aoh) is also said to be "a possible but unattested extinct language"; I am trying to see if that means it is entirely unattested, or if there are personal/ethnic/place names, etc. - -sche (discuss) 09:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed, see Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/October#2019-2020_ISO_code_changes. - -sche (discuss) 06:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Aghu language

The VU Amsterdam report linked to here seems to indicate that one lect has been given multiple codes, and that "Jair" at least is spurious. Further research wouldn't hurt. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Categories in Category:Letters[edit]

Can we come up with more descriptive names than Category:Aa please? —CodeCat 22:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


Apparently this is not a set category, despite its name seeming like one. User:Smuconlaw apparently intended it to be about things related to limbs. I think it should be renamed to more clearly reflect that. —CodeCat 17:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What is a "set category"? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
A category that contains items belonging to a particular set. See Category:List of sets. A characteristic of set categories is that they have plural names. —CodeCat 17:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm not sure what it's supposed to be. I was just following the example of other categories under "Category:Body" such as "Category:Buttocks", "Category:Face", "Category:Muscles", "Category:Organ systems", "Category:Skeleton", "Category:Skin", and "Category:Teeth". — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm currently working with User:-sche on a more permanent solution to issues like this. —CodeCat 19:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


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)

Can both of these templates be renamed to include a language code? —CodeCat 19:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
{{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)
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)

Entries in CAT:Taos lemmas with curly apostrophes[edit]

Many Taos entries use curly apostrophes to represent glottal stops. They should either use the easy-to-type straight apostrophe ' that many other languages use, or the apostrophe letter ʼ that Navajo and a few other languages use. - -sche (discuss) 21:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The headword template interprets the curly apostrophe as a punctuation mark (because it is), and automatically links words such as adùbi’íne as adùbiíne. (Personally, I think the apostrophe letter looks better, but there may be other considerations.) — Eru·tuon 21:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and I just learned of the Unicode character for the saltillo. But no entries use it, and I am averse to introducing yet another visually-almost-identical symbol to represent the glottal stop, next to the three (counting the curly apostrophe) mentioned above that are already in use, plus the ˀ that some entries use. - -sche (discuss) 02:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm in favor of standardizing on U+02BC MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE for any language that uses an apostrophe-looking thing as a letter. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Probably reasonable for glottalizationy apostrophes. At least Skolt Sami uses ʹ U+02B9 MODIFIER LETTER PRIME for suprasegmental palatalization though, which should likely be kept separate. --Tropylium (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I've moved quite a few of these; about 140 remain to be moved. - -sche (discuss) 04:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:E numbers to Category:European food additive numbers[edit]

The Category:E language surely has numbers, which would require this category to be used. Other suggestions for the food additive category name would be welcome. Maybe "List of E numbers"? DTLHS (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

If we adopt a systematic naming scheme for topic and set categories as CodeCat and I have been discussing, then I guess it could be "Category:mul:set:E numbers" or "Category:Translingual:set:E numbers". However, independent of whether or not such prefixes ("Translingual:set:") come into use, a more intelligible name like the one you propose, replacing "E" with "European food additive", would be good. Other food-additive numbering schemes in use in Europe could also go in the same category. - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good find. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree. They are not called European food additive numbers, they are E numbers. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
    @SemperBlotto: So what do you want to do about numbers in the E language? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
    I think you may be implying that the category should be something like mul:E numbers just in case any of our users think E is a language. I wouldn't object to that. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
    To be clear: E is a language, spoken in China. CAT:E language. (And like CAT:English numbers, it will have a "numbers" category someday when our coverage of it improves.) Perhaps a move should be postponed for a little while, though, while we see if we can come up with a systematic naming scheme for topic and set categories (see my talk page). - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
    Since there's been no progress towards systematically changing how topic and set categories are named, this one does need to be renamed, because it does conflict with the expected 'numbers' category of the existing E language. Does anyone else want to weigh in on whether the name should be "Category:European food additive numbers" or "Category:mul:E numbers"? - -sche (discuss) 22:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

June 2017[edit]

all it's cracked up to be - not all it's cracked up to be[edit]

Redirect one towards the other. --Barytonesis (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of instances that don't include adjacent not (eg, not anything (also nothing) like what it was cracked up to be) and others that have no not (or any other negative) at all (eg, to send Ray and Isaac up there to see if it was what it was 'cracked up to be'.). Note that the second example does not have is/'s and also omits all. It also could be in the plural.
Thus it is not obvious what the lemma should be. cracked up to be is the core, but makes a poor lemma. DCDuring (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
This Books search shows that the active form can be found. DCDuring (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
We do have sense 4 at crack up that covers this in principle, but not in actuality for most users. DCDuring (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring: thanks for your input. You're one of the few contributors here interested in improving the English entries ahah.
Should we keep all it's cracked up to be as the lemma (and redirect the negative form to it), with notes explaining that it's often used in the negative (there's already one), and that it admits a fair amount of variation: "all" is not compulsory, there are instances of the active voice, the verb can be at a past tense, etc.?
Maybe you'll be interested in the case of "give a monkey's" as well, which I posted some time ago on that very same page? --Barytonesis (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't think of a better simple solution than what you propose. It has the disadvantage that there is no place other than usage notes to give usage example of the major possible variations. It would probably not be helpful to give usage examples for all the forms anywhere on the entry
Another approach would be to have redirects to a senseid for sense 4 of crack up from all of the versions of this with or without all, with the various pronouns (∅, what), all the person pronouns, and various tenses and aspects of crack up for hundreds of redirects. Probably some are very rare/unattestable and could be omitted with no harm at all, but many would remain. And there would still be no place at crack up for the numerous usage examples either.
An idiom dictionary at OneLook has 1 lemma (at not what something is cracked up to be at OneLook Dictionary Search) and 14 or more redirects thereto. DCDuring (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, what you (Barytonesis) propose sounds good. In general, I find it confusing when we take expressions that are usually negative and lemmatize and define them as positive expressions; if readers search for the negative form and don't notice they've been redirected, the risk that they'll think the phrase means the opposite of what it actually means seems high; but ah well. There should be redirects from not what it's cracked up to be, what it's cracked up to be, and probably even the forms with "be" (be all it's..., be what it's...) and "not be". - -sche (discuss) 20:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I wonder where I can find the stop words (if the search engine even needs to have them) for search here. There might be some way to radically reduce the number of redirects. DCDuring (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added usage examples and expanded the usage label for crack up#Verb (sense 4). For me that would be sufficient. Redirects are fine, but usage examples for the common collocations should be enough. DCDuring (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)!

August 2017[edit]

post mortem[edit]

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English.

Google ngrams for post-mortem,post mortem,postmortem Google ngrams for ante-mortem,ante mortem,antemortem So Google says clearly antemortem and probably postmortem, Merriam-Webster says antemortem and postmortem, Oxford says ante-mortem and post-mortem and we say post mortem and antemortem. We should probably move post mortem to postmortem and make post mortem an alternative spelling entry for postmortem? I don't actually question the existence of any of these, but this seems like the best place to put this. I'm not sure it would be okay if I tried to move these pages myself (assuming I even can) and it might be better to have someone more experienced do that anyway because swapping pages can be confusing. W3ird N3rd (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

If you don't question the existence of any of them, RFV is not the right place. Accordingly, I've moved this discussion from WT:RFVE to WT:RFM. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I've somehow always overlooked this page. I don't think I've ever even been here before. I now notice it's in the bar at the top, but I guess I just always skimmed over it. This page move isn't going to be uncontroversial seeing that the dictionaries don't even agree, so this is the right place. I have a cheap paper dictionary, less than 10 years old that says "post-mortem". But I don't think we should blindly follow the dictionaries here. W3ird N3rd (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

it's a long story[edit]

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

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


Suggest merging with time bank, although that has an additional sense listed. Otherwise make this a cross-reference to time bank in the appropriate sense(s). — Paul G (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


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)

September 2017[edit]

Renaming mey[edit]

We currently have it as "Hassaniya" (which we used to spell as Hassānīya; those macra were removed along the way, presumably by Liliana, although I don't see any discussion; MG deleted the old category once it was empty). To match the other colloquial Arabic languages, it should be "Hassaniya Arabic". (Note: if Arabic is merged, this will become moot.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

This seems a bit different from most of the other forms of Arabic which are "[Adjective referring to a place] Arabic", where just calling the lect "Libyan" (etc) would be more awkward. Still, I have no objection to a rename, though I don't have time to rename all the categories right now. I also notice that, while Hassaniya is probably still the most common spelling overall, it seems like Hassaniyya started to become more common around 2003. - -sche (discuss) 04:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


An IP has been repeatedly tagging this for speedy deletion on the grounds that it's the wrong script and that they've created an entry with the right script. Since this was created by a veteran editor, I feel we should consider merging the two entries if we decide to delete the Latin-script version. At any rate, I don't feel comfortable just deleting this without input from editors familiar with the language. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@ZxxZxxZ created it, but I'm really not sure why. We have a longstanding standard that Aramaic entries should never be in Latin script. If there is an entry with the proper pagetitle and all the content, we can delete this. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
That's what I figured. My main concern was with deleting the content without knowing anything about the replacement entry (𐣬𐣤𐣣𐣡𐣭𐣣𐣱). I just now compared the two, and it appears that the IP copypasted the entire contents of the entry (even the |sc=Latn) to the new page without attribution. I don't have a font that displays that script so I'm completely in the dark here, but I don't trust this IP to know what they're doing, especially after reading the discussion on your talk page. Given the blatant copyvio, I think we're best off deleting the replacement entry and moving the old entry to the correct spelling so we can keep the edit history. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi guys, I was the creator of mhrbndq. Note that the word is attested in Hatran Aramaic, which is written in Hatran alphabet (not in the more widely used Aramaic alphabet). I don't know if there had been any discussion regarding Hatran Aramaic entries. But scholarly works usually avoid using the original script for such ancient, difficult to read, or barely attested scripts. If I remember correctly, the practice in Wiktionary have been to use the original script as the title, but keeping the letter-by-letter transliterations (mhrbndq in this case) as alternative forms. --Z 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
It turns out that there is actually a Unicode block for the Hatran alphabet. Of course, it was only added a couple of years ago, so it may not have much font support yet. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I've now deleted the replacement entry as a copyright violation. If we decide this is the wrong spelling, we can move it to the correct one. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fay Freak, I can't seem to find a font for Hatran, so I'm not sure if I can transcribe it correctly. Can you check that this is right? 𐣬𐣤𐣣𐣡𐣭𐣣𐣲Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz, Metaknowledge: Not enough stuff anyone would do different, so the threshold of originality has not been reached, so no copyright violation, but nonetheless of course the correct approach is to move the page to the correct spelling, for which purpose the copy had to be deleted, and this Hatran spelling seems to use the correct Unicode characters in the correct order (not that I would be a great Hatran reader 😄, but even without font, which I nonetheless have, one can just check the characters in a character map one by one). Fay Freak (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Moved. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

October 2017[edit]

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)

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)
I would have opposed a lot of these, but I was too late on the scene. DonnanZ (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

@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)

@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)

  • 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)
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)

December 2017[edit]


CAT:Animals > ... > CAT:Bovines > CAT:Cattle, and there you have strange things happening: abattoir, beefsteak, bullfighting, cowboy, sirloin. --Barytonesis (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam, I don't really see what you want us to do about this. It's a somewhat unavoidable side effect of how our categorisation system works, in that terms related to cattle are not going to be animals themselves. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
This means that Category:Cattle should be terms for cattle, not related to cattle. —Rua (mew) 22:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Our categories could be one of the most interesting and innovative parts of this project, but not if we're going to be lazy like this and see such dilution as "unavoidable"... --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Sorry for this unpleasant answer, I cringe rereading it now. PUC – 14:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


I don't think "wiki" is a mass noun. DTLHS (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

No, but neither is the category for listing wikis. Maybe Category:Wiki culture or Category:Wiki terminology? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 07:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Our topical categories never contain "terminology" or "related" or anything like that. Such changes were rejected in the past. —Rua (mew) 22:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


This is a newly created (September 2017) topical category. It should be renamed to something that does not imply that it contains expressions that are directive. It contains terms that relate to direction or, more frequently, terms that can be confused with direction. I recognize that Direction would not be a suitable category name. I don't have any suggestion. It may be that the category is ill-conceived. DCDuring (talk)

I see nothing wrong with it. If it contained directive expressions, it would be called Category:English directives or similar. We have voted in the past to keep topical category naming distinct from other categories, so the naming scheme is considered indicative of its use/meaning/function. —Rua (mew) 20:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that you see nothing wrong, what with the cat scheme being otherwise so perfect.
I favor keeping topical categories as far way as possible from our other entry categories.
But, unlike other categories that have names that are plural in form, Category:en:Directives contains neither examples nor names of the referents of its category name, ie of directives. It contains a dog's breakfast of terms that the categorizer, User:, thought to be connected to some sense of the noun(?) directive. One mistake was to pick as name for a concept/category a de-adjectival noun. Probably the name was made plural to avoid confusion with the adjective.
If you can make sense of the rationale for the membership in the category of ban, bare minimum, beckoning, behest, besaiel, beseeching, bidding, bill, blacklist, blackmail, bloodlust, blueprint, booty call, boundary, boycott, breve, bribe, and bytecode, you, Gunga Din, are a better man than I. I am at a loss to understand the common element among these terms. Is each suppopsed to be a type of directive? If no one can come up with a better name for the category, or prune membership rationally, or split it into multiple comprehensible cateogries, or RfDO it, I will RfDO it. DCDuring (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Bytecode in the sense of compiler directive! Really pushing it a bit. Equinox 02:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018[edit]

Template:list helper[edit]

Is {{list helper 2}} an improved version of {{list helper}}? Can all instances of {{list helper}} be converted to {{list helper 2}}? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

ZIP Code[edit]

User:Largoplazo moved ZIP code to this spelling with the following edit summary:

  • This is a trademark, a brand name, of the U.S. Postal Service, for the U.S. version of what are generically known as "postal codes"

They also left the following comment on the talk page:

Rather than just jerking it (and the plural) back with a rude comment about how this isn't Wikipedia and how we're a descriptive dictionary, I thought I would bring it here so we can be sure we do it right. The problem is that determining relative usage of different case forms is rather difficult. Plus, there should be entries at both case forms, with one as the alt form. There are also other case-form entries such as zip code that were unaffected.

I should add that there's a 2008 RFD discussion linked to from the talk page. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

[4] This may help. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 23:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
This slightly improved Google N-gram (1960-2008)] shows that, in order of frequency in the sampled books the frequency order is zip code, ZIP code, Zip Code, ZIP Code, Zip code, ZIP CODE, with zip code being about 10 times more common than ZIP CODE and about 5 times more common than ZIP Code post 2000. There are also some solid-spelled versions, but they are much less common, though the most common zipcode is about as common as ZIP CODE.
It's so much better to have credible corpus-based facts than the speculations of the 2008 discussion. DCDuring (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
BTW, the collocation "international zip code" is suggestive that some English speakers think of zip code as including any post/postal code. DCDuring (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Checking the latest ngram corpus data, not much has changed. And according to w:ZIP Code, the trademark already expired in 1997, so this whole renaming business is/was a bit pointless IMO. – Jberkel
I went ahead and split this into a trademark / generic sense, and yes, zip code does get used to refer to non-US codes. – Jberkel 22:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

February 2018[edit]

Template:eggcorn of into Template:misconstruction of[edit]

...keeping the redirect. Or is there a sensible distinction between the two that we want to maintain? - -sche (discuss) 18:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I was hesitant to recreate CAT:English misconstructions, but labelling evolutionary stable strategy as an "eggcorn" seems like a stretch. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh wait, that's not what you're suggesting. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I changed the eggcorn template to categorize into the misconstruction category, emptying Category:English eggcorns and Category:Vietnamese eggcorns, although that should be undone if there is some distinction I am missing that it would be good and feasible to maintain. - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I feel that there's a semantic aspect to eggcorns that isn't really present in evolutionary stable strategy, trompe-d'œil or analysises. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
True, but that distinction seems a bit fuzzy; e.g., dominate is labelled an eggcorn (because it's homographic to a valid word?) while unfortunant is labelled a misconstruction. And evolutionary in evolutionary stable strategy is also a word. (But I'm not opposed to making a dinstinction; I'm just pointing out the issues with it, devil's-advocate-style.) - -sche (discuss) 19:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@-sche: I agree that the distinction is fuzzy (in fact, I'd even say that the distinction between "misconstructed", "nonstandard" and "proscribed" is fuzzy: compare our treatment of developmentation, abortation and pronounciate). Still, I think it's not entirely without merit, although I would be hard pressed to give you a specific set of criteria.
I wouldn't call dominate an eggcorn, but without any quotation it's hard to judge anyway. In fact, I'm going to RFV it. not necessary: it's used indeed.
Another thing: I don't like the way idiosyncratic is used in our def of eggcorn. It seems to be used as a synonym of "odd, strange, peculiar, eccentric", but it shouldn't be. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
orange is a result of misconstruction of naranga, isn't it? But orange is certainly not nonstandard. (Other cases of loss of juncture are apron, newt, nickname) Though misconstructions may tend to be nonstandard (for all intensive purposes, at least), they can become standard over time, as with many "errors". DCDuring (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
It's specifically a rebracketing/metanalysis, which you could say is a type of misconstruction. However, I certainly wouldn't want to label orange as a misconstruction; that's true diachronically, but not synchronically. I do want to label it as a rebracketing, though. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
It's hard to find references rather than intuition to support classifying terms one way or another, but I suppose the difference between developmentation and pronounciate vs unfortunant and dominate is that I think the first two are intentional (jocular) errors and the second two are unintentional. If we keep the categories separate, should "eggcorns" be a subcategory of "misconstructions" or a "sibling category" on the same level (cross-linked)? - -sche (discuss) 20:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
And then there are entries like firstable which only say they're eggcorns in the etymology, not the definition... - -sche (discuss) 21:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Shortcut -> Wiktionary:Shortcuts[edit]

Why is this in the singular? It just looks weird in the case of a title like this. (Somewhat irrelevant, extra issue: the page needs a lede to explain what a shortcut is.) PseudoSkull (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Support on both counts. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018[edit]


In an almost ridiculous turn of events, this template should itself be merged into {{rfm}}. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like {{rfm}} should default to "suggests that this ... be moved, merged or split" and should (does?) have a parameter to specify which one, and then {{merge}} and {{move}} and {{split}} should be shells that just consist of {{rfm|type=merge}} or the like. - -sche (discuss) 17:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
This should probably be done now, because I got confused looking at the template, not sure if what I was seeing was the output of the template, or an actual RFM message! —Rua (mew) 20:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:English non-idiomatic translation targets[edit]

I propose to rename this category to Category:English translation targets, so that we don't need to waste time to discuss whether each entry is idiomatic or not.--Zcreator alt (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that technically, any English entry with a translation section is a translation target. This category is for a very small subset of those entries that would not be kept otherwise. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The purpose of the category would be "terms which are mainly retained for the benefit of translation". However I am considered to launch a discussion to modify CFI to formally include these terms.--Zcreator alt (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I was under the impression that this category was supposed to correspond to the use of the "this entry is only here for translations" template, because an entry should only have a definition if it's idiomatic; and any entry with a definition is a normal entry (right?) and can have translations, either in the entry itself, or centralized in some synonym. I don't understand why this category seems to be used on pages that do have definitions; it seems like an error. Hence, it seems like we'd still have to make the same decision about idiomaticity, about whether or not to use that template. Hence, I see no benefit to the rename. (But Meta has pointed out a big drawback.) - -sche (discuss) 17:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
It may be a debate whether this category is useful at all - we don't have a categories for entries kept for COALMINE rule; and what the definition should be for entries kept as translation targets (imo we can alternatively treat them as normal entries and describe them literally e.g. cooked rice as "rice that is cooked" instead of using the translate only template, once we formally include them to CFI). Again, this should be discussed in a wider venue (like Beer parlour).--Zcreator alt (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Struck as the category is renamed.--Zcreator alt (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
42 entries in the category remain to be moved, after which the redirect should perhaps be deleted to discourage unwitting (e.g. HotCat) re-addition of entries to it. - -sche (discuss) 01:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
Delete per proponent. --Per utramque cavernam 18:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)

April 2018[edit]

get it over with[edit]

Merge with get over with --106 for now (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't both of the above be redirects to get something over with? I don't remember ever hearing get over with, certainly not in the applicable sense. DCDuring (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I haven't found any evidence that User:WurdSnatcher's 2015 move of get something over with to get over with was done pursuant to any proper request, like RfD or RfM. [Why w]Was he whitelisted? DCDuring (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
We should either delete get over with (my preference) or make it redirect to get something over with. And get it over with should simply redirect to get something over with, because one can say things like “Let’s get this over with”.  --Lambiam 05:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

in the midst of[edit]

The article name is "In the midst of", but the headword is "in the midst" (which redirects here when searched); usage notes states that "of" usually follows. It seems like the article is inconsistent with the title and should be moved to "in the midst". --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


Same suffix as in быль (bylʹ), убыль (ubylʹ), прибыль (pribylʹ), отрасль (otraslʹ), поросль (poroslʹ). а belongs to the stem. Guldrelokk (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Benwing2, Chignon: Please voice an opinion; if you agree, the couple of entries using this suffix need to be modified. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. The two entries need a change. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
ruwikt: Категория:Русские слова с суффиксом -ль (Category:Russian words suffixed with -ль). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Guldrelokk, Benwing2, Chignon: I have modified entries, the category is orphaned, -ль (-lʹ) still needs to be defined. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev, can you please resolve this? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


對弈? , graceful; , chess. —Suzukaze-c 06:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: is an alt form of , so we can keep 對奕 as an alt form of 對弈. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

zero width character[edit]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/ne­st should be moved to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/nest (which doesn't exist).

The two links look identical on Wiktionary, but if you copy and paste the first link onto windows notepad, it is revealed that it contains a zero-width character. —This unsigned comment was added by RubixLang (talkcontribs).

I doubt this move would be controversial, so I'll just do it. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 17:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. These creep in entry titles sometimes; I'm not sure why. I made an entry on WT:TODO a while ago advising periodic checks for them, which I try to carry out. I'll search a database dump for any more now. - -sche (discuss) 17:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I found and moved one more entry with a soft hyphen in the title, and am fixing a few hundred with soft hyphens in their content, mostly in German and Georgian translations for some reason. - -sche (discuss) 17:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Re. German: duden.de has soft-hyphens at syllable boundaries Mofvanes (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

June 2018[edit]

roleplaying gamerole-playing game[edit]

The hyphenated spelling is the most common spelling and the grammatically correct one. Wikipedia uses the non-hyphenated spelling (W:Role-playing game, W:Role-playing video game). https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Interqwark roleplaying game once had a hyphen but was moved in 2010 by a non-administrator, seemingly without a discussion. Interqwark talk contribs 13:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What is not grammatically correct about roleplaying? Equinox 14:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Equinox: “Role-playing” is usually spelt with a hyphen (sometimes with a space instead). “Roleplaying” is the non-standard spelling.
“Role-playing game” and “Role-playing video game” are the most common spellings and the ones used on Wikipedia. Interqwark talk contribs 14:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
In the 21st century, it's spelled without a hyphen. I checked various works:
Dungeons & Dragons PHB (1st edition) (1978) role-playing game
Dungeons & Dragons PHB (2nd edition) (1989) role-playing game
Dungeons & Dragons PHB (3rd edition) (2000) roleplaying game
Dungeons & Dragons PHB (4th edition) (2008) roleplaying game
Dungeons & Dragons PHB (5th edition) (2015) roleplaying game
Pathfinder Core Rulebook (2009) roleplaying game
Starfinder Core Rulebook (2017) roleplaying game
Mage: the Ascension (2nd edition) (1995) roleplaying game
Changeling: the Dreaming (2nd edition) (1997) roleplaying game
Mage: the Ascension (revised edition) (2000) uses neither roleplaying game nor role-playing game, but uses both roleplaying and role-playing
Mage: the Ascension (20th anniversary edition) (2015) roleplaying game
Changeling: the Dreaming (20th anniversary edition) (2017) roleplaying game
Fate Core Book (2013) roleplaying game
Trail of Cthulhu (2008) roleplaying game
Paranoia (new edition) (2016) role-playing game
GURPS (3rd edition) (1989) roleplaying game
Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game (powered by GURPS) (2015) roleplaying game
Steve Jackson Games style guide (owner of GURPS) mandates roleplaying, not role-playing
Star Wars: Edge of the Empire (2013) roleplaying game
Star Trek Adventures Roleplaying Game (2017) roleplaying game
It's a somewhat arbitrary selection, but I mostly kept to major 21st century games. As you can see from http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1984-Top-5-RPGs-Compiled-Charts-2008-Present , I got all five of the best selling games for the most recent quarter, and a good sample of the best selling games going back for years. (M:tA and C:tD are samples of the World of Darkness books.) Dungeons & Dragons is dominant in the industry, so that alone would be an argument for roleplaying game. Paranoia is produced by Mongoose, a British company, which may be why they use the hyphen; Modiphius Entertainment, the British producers of the Star Trek Adventures RPG, don't use a hyphen. In any case, it is overwhelmed by the mainstream usage of "roleplaying game".--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I suppose you’re right and that it is not non-standard if the unhyphenated spelling is so common. I rarely see it myself, but it does seem more common than I thought. In that case, my apologies. However, since Wikipedia uses the hyphenated spelling, shouldn’t Wiktionary do too? Interqwark talk contribs 19:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
We're a group of individuals whose common decisions are usually not, and should not ever, be dependent on the decisions of another group of individuals. What should count here are other people's arguments, not their results. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
In the titles of RP content roleplaying seems common, but in edited content it seems almost non-existent with role-playing being the overwhelming choice. Other dictionaries seem to strongly favor role-playing, as do the NY Times, Washington Post, The Times, etc. While it is hard to determine, I am curious how often roleplaying is used outside of the titles of particular products, and if it is predominantly used there how we ought to handle that. Is it akin to a word like lite, which is extremely common in product names but much more rare as an independent adjective? - TheDaveRoss 21:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Ngrams would suggest that, as you say, role-playing game is more common. - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Is Google making a distinction between "role playing game" and "role-playing game" in that search?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: No, I’m fairly certain Google doesn’t care about punctuation marks. Interqwark talk contribs 00:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it does seem to distinguish them, as you can see if you compare all three spellings in the Viewer. The spaced spelling "role playing game" is the rarest of the bunch. - -sche (discuss) 05:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Most of those selections were not from titles, but were instead from body text. I object to "edited content"; all of those books are from professional multi-person publishers with editors on staff. It is not like "lite"; it's the normal spelling of the word in the tabletop RPG industry.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I was not contrasting "edited content" with the information you provided, but rather with things like Usenet usage etc. I don't disagree that all three variants are common within the community and associated materials (be they edited, user-created or otherwise). I think we ought to have all three variants represented and if there is a useful distinction to be made about where each of them is most commonly used or rarely used we should make note of that information. It does seem like the single-word variant is much more common within the industry than it is in other places, as is clear from the news reporting on the subject strongly preferring the hyphenated variant. - TheDaveRoss 02:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


Merge/move into 트랙터; is 트랙타 right? It doesn't seem right. —Suzukaze-c 03:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: I’d say it’s right but dated. Similar ending variations include 센터 (senteo) / 센타 (senta) and 데이터 (deiteo) / 데이타 (deita). See '센타'와 '센터'. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

July 2018[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)

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

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

Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Bhagadatta (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


The two verb senses are bad IMHO. The first should be at busy oneself, I think, since it is always reflexive AFAIK. The second one doesn't sound right at all -- "He busied her" isn't something I've heard. Is that real at all? 02:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]


Move to lowercase oekaki? I don't think it's a proper noun. —Suzukaze-c 00:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

blow someone out of the water[edit]

merge into blow out of the water, retaining a redirect. For one thing it could be a 'something'. DCDuring (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree/support. - -sche (discuss) 20:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)

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)

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)
Most Nahuan languages don't use any sort of apostrophe. Mecayapan is unusual. --Lvovmauro (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018[edit]

Arawak and Island Carib[edit]

Any objections to me renaming Arawak arw (4 entries) and Island Carib crb (0 entries) to Lokono and Kalhiphona, respectively? Arawak is easily confused with the Arawak/Arawakan proto language and family, and Carib is one of two often confounded languages, the Carib language and the Island Carib language. --Victar (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

No objection to renaming Arawak, but I'm not sure about Kalhiphona, which seems to be quite rare even on a Google web search, and which seems to invite as much possible confusion (in its various spellings) with the various spellings of Garifuna as it avoids with other "Carib"s. - -sche (discuss) 06:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

willfulness wilfulness[edit]

willfulness wilfulness willful wilful : any need to merge ? 02:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Moved from Tea Room Leasnam (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
No need to revise willful. In any case spellings differ in British and American English, so no merger. DonnanZ (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The younger entry should be a {{standard spelling of}} the older entry, and I see someone has taken care of this. - -sche (discuss) 06:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

give one enough rope[edit]

give someone enough rope. And do we even need enough? Per utramque cavernam 10:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The old Chambers 1908 dictionary I've been going through has (under rope) the sub-entry give a person rope, "to allow a person full scope". In my personal experience (which may be inadequate, wrong, etc.) the metaphor is that if you give a person enough rope, they will hang themselves, i.e. the person is irresponsible or unwise. Equinox 22:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:superlative predicative of to Template:da-superlative predicative of[edit]

Template:superlative attributive of to Template:da-superlative attributive of[edit]

Only used for Danish. —Rua (mew) 17:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't envisage using them in Norwegian. DonnanZ (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Japanese kanji by goon readingCategory:Japanese kanji by go-on reading[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)

October 2018[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 ([5]). The last ones are not determiners. (pinging @Atitarev, Eirikr, Garam, HappyMidnight, KoreanQuoter) — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Support. --Garam (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)

wipe the floor but mop the floor with someone[edit]

Which is better? Per utramque cavernam 11:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the latter: I have never heard wipe the floor without with (though the entry suggests it's possible; is it?). Equinox 11:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd prefer mop, but Google NGram favors wipe to mop 5:2. DCDuring (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The question here is whether to include "...with someone" in the entry title. Equinox 14:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I ignored the page it was on. I thought it was a TR question.
I think Lambian suggested that someone is sometimes useful to distinguish an idiom from literal use (eg, of wipe/mop the floor with a sponge-mop) without some of the ambiguities of an entry without someone, even with {{&lit}}. DCDuring (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

ichthyosaur vs. ichthyosaurus, and other terms like these.[edit]

I'm in a dispute with an editor over the exact meaning and differences between these two terms - are they the same or must we tell apart the order from the genus? Is there is a standard to follow? Дрейгорич (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The standard is making a survey of contemporary and past usages and using that to inform the definitions. DTLHS (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and cleaned up the definitions, and linked to the scientific genus in the entry in case anyone wants that. Дрейгорич (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Polish words suffixed with -ysko[edit]

Merge into Category:Polish words suffixed with -isko. These two are allomorphs of the same suffix, the one that gets used depends on the final consonant of the stem. The entry -ysko should also be defined as such, rather than having a full entry. —Rua (mew) 20:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Our entries for such (allomorphic and related) suffixes are a bit of a mess, it's true. (Compare the categories for the English suffixes -ian, -an, and -n.) IMO we should update the affix etymology-section templates so that they have access to lists of suffixes (etc) that are allomorphic in each language and which we want to merge, so people can input the suffix that's present (-ysko, etc) but have the entry categorize into (and potentially link to) the "lemma" suffix. Otherwise, categories like this will keep getting repopulated forever. - -sche (discuss) 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018[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)

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)
I wouldn't object to merging them. --Lvovmauro (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup suggestions for some badly attested Semitic languages, needing admin action[edit]

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2018/November#Cleanup suggestions for some badly attested Semitic languages, needing admin action.
  1. Pray somebody add scripts = {"Narb"} to Module:languages/data3/x after line 1026 for xna. (Otherwise mentions of words in it are shown in slanted letters.)
    Added. DTLHS (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    It seems that even MediaWiki:Common.css needs a new class for Narb added, to get font-style: normal; Sarb is there and has it, Narb is not there. If the mention of a North Arabian word in عَنْكَبُوت(ʿankabūt) works then it is complete. Also I see that in Module:scripts/data Narb does not have direction = "rtl" while Sarb has. Fay Freak (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    Good catch. I've updated Common.css and Mobile.cc and set it to display rtl. Sadly, it seems there are no fonts that display it. If you or I could find a good image of what the letters are supposed to look like, I might have time to make a basic font iff the letters don't have to be joined the way they do in Arabic. - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    I as an Archfag recently had a great update three weeks ago that adds displaying support for Old North Arabian, amongst other things like which improved Arabic and Syriac script rendering everywhere. gucharmap calls the name of the font by “Noto Sans Old North Arabian”, which I find in the filelist of the noto-fonts package. @-sche Fay Freak (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. I think everything under Category:Old North Arabian script languages should be “Ancient North Arabian” (xna), it is to wonder that Dadanitic (sem-dad), Hismaic (sem-his), Safaitic (sem-saf), Taymanitic (sem-tay), Dumaitic (sem-dum), Hasaitic (sem-has), Thamudic (sem-tha) are separate languages on Wiktionary (some also with no script assigned). (Prolly someone went through some lects and added all he found.) Those lects are at a level of attestion or study where it does not even matter whether they are dialects or languages, and “Thamudic” is even a collective term for any of the Ancient North Arabian lects not further classified. Many inscriptions cannot be classified unto more specific lects anyway (you know, people also were nomads and wrote graffiti here and there) and they can only be entered as “Ancient North Arabian”. With words being found randomly and in concise consonantal writing I don’t see why one would pursue separation other than by stating the find spot.
  3. Also, “Qatabanian” (xqt), “Sabaean” (xsa), “Minaean” (inm), “Harami” (xha, redirects to “Minaean” on Wikipedia), Hadrami (xhd) – likewise otiose distinctions, regarding form and amount of attestion of Epigraphic South Arabian, as the name says only epigraphically attested, without any vowels –, have been unpopular in use already, entries and etymologies use the header “Old South Arabian” (sem-srb). I suggests to cross out those. Etymology-only is possible so one can use those in {{cog}} when in an individual case a word is known to be attested as of one of the dialects. North Arabian epigraphy categorization is more complex and it is better anyway to mention in each etymology where a lexeme has been encountered.
    1. Himyaritic (sem-him), as an attested language, is rather mythical because the Ḥimyarites wrote Sabaean. Wikipedia mentions “three Himyaritic texts”, at the same time in the Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Lingustics s.v. we read about two: “It is not even possible to establish whether they were written in the same language. The first text dates from around 100 C.E. and the second from around 300 C.E.” And about the secondary material from Early Medieval Arabs: “It is easy to see that quotations from Himyaritic offer very different readings according to the manuscripts.” Or according to others, mentioned in the EALL, Ḥimyarite is the same as Arabic, only with peculiar features (which might as well derive from Arabicized transmission, or later language fusion or whatever, much that could fool us). It could be grouped with those spurious languages if this category held languages from Antiquity.
  4. Gurage is according to Wolf Leslau, it’s most eminent scholar, one language with twelve dialects; others share this view. The material for this language, particularly by Leslau across his works, only lists words as “Gurage”, without qualifying if they are “Inor”, “Mesqan” or some other Gurage, so on Wiktionary one cannot simply give “Gurage” words (which has recently been done in Semitic comparisons by abusing the code of the largest dialect Sebat Bet Gurage, in spite of the source saying “Gurage”). The following dialects I find on en.Wiktionary as languages: Kistane/Soddo (gru), Mesqan (mvz), Sebat Bet Gurage (sgw), Silt'e (stv), Inor (ior), Muher (sem-mhr), Mesmes (mys), Chaha (sem-cha), Wolane (wle), Zay (zwa); some of these are considered subdialects of Sebat Bet Gurage. There are more I don’t find on Wiktionary. It’s perhaps like with the Aramaic dialects yore or the Low German dialects today. People publish Westphalian dictionaries but it’s still Low German and so treated by Wiktionary. I suspect that instead of holding controversial subdivisions deriving from Ethnologue we should, holding to the sources, keep the Wiktionary-language level higher. The source for a certain word can be further qualified by labels as with Coptic. I mean that with language, unlike with biological taxonomy, one cannot simply assume that distinctiveness of a taxon is ascertained by experiments and then authoritatively published in some reference. As the individual forms are described in this dictionary, one must weigh if the data allows distinction at all. Currently it looks to me that hence Gurage must be lumped; I don’t know if, with new data or emerging different literary standards, separating the lects with separate codes will later be convenient (the increase in language material will be disappointing and unlikely someone will come and add Gurage in thousands of entries anyway, let’s be realistic), but I doubt that it would be comfortable. See also Why is Old Novgorodian a separate language in Wiktionary? This is the question: Is the difference in data enough to justify separation? The actual language-dialect distinction does not matter, it must be seen functionally, for dictionary purposes, for dictionary purposes. And if linguists publish material as “Gurage” the distinction is probably not good for Wiktionary headers. Isn’t it out of scope of Wiktionary to distinguish lect clusters when they are generally unwritten and chiefly written by and variously lumped and splitted by linguists? That’s a difficult question. Also I fear that such distinctions might be precisely the cause why nobody comes and pours out his rich Gurage knowledge. An adept would not be sure to distinguish, pendulating between two extremes, not witting if he should split as much as he can by all kinds of criteria or if to standardize and to abstract. To help though first all mentioned codes need the Ge'ez and Latin script both assigned, and the macrolanguage created. Maybe there will be late order from early ambiguity. Though I would perhaps do the order by lumping and labelling by location, were I that certain aficionado.
The obese Wiktionary:List of languages currently comprising 8055 lects needs cuts however. Fay Freak (talk)
This discussion really belongs at rfm, because that's where we normally discuss changes to whether or how we recognize a language. The Grease pit is for discussing how to implement something along those lines- not whether it should be implemented. The other option would be at the Beer parlour, but this seems like something that would benefit from the more specialized focus of rfm. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Good distinction. I hesitated at 4:13 AM where to put it because of the mixed content. Moved. Fay Freak (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Some prior discussion of Thamudic et al is on Category talk:Hismaic language; IIRC they were separated because literature does mention them as distinct entities, but if they were very similar or often treated as one language, and especially if there's difficulty in assigning specific texts to specific ones due to similarity, that would be an argument for reversing that decision and going back to the conservative approach of treating them all as one language with 'dialect'/'region' labels where appropriate.
(As to the venue, yes, these discussions tend to happen on RFM for quirky historical reasons — originally the discussions entailed actually merging or splitting language templates — although some have proposed the Beer Parlour as a more logical venue. There are minor benefits and drawbacks to either venue; this venue does have the advantage that discussions stay on the page until resolved.) - -sche (discuss) 17:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I avoided Beer Parlour because I thought it is only for matters already affecting people, but it would not affect anyone we know now. Fay Freak (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Who is likely to have access to resources on Africa's Semitic languages that could help judge what to do with Gurage? User:Metaknowledge, User:Wikitiki89? Wikipedia insists "The Gurage languages do not constitute a coherent linguistic grouping", which seems incompatible with merging them. William A. Shack, in his book on The Gurage, writes that "each Gurage dialect is usually understood only by its own speakers, and there is a rough correlation between the contiguity of dialect groups and the extent to which their dialects are mutually intelligible." (Steven Danver, in his (general-focus) encyclopedia, says "the languages of the different groups of Ethiopian Gurage are seldom mutually intelligible.") Marvin Lionel Bender, in his 1976 Language in Ethiopia, says "Although seventeen varieties of Gurage dialects are listed, mutual intelligibility reduces this to four languages and three dialect clusters as follows (Hetzron classification):
  Gogot, Misqan, Muxir, Soddo
  East Gurage (Inneqor, Silti, Urbareg, Weleni, Zway)
  Central West Gurage (Chaha, Gumer, Gura Izha)
  Peripheral West Gurage (Ener, Geto, Indegegn, Innemor)"
However, his very next sentence is: "Gogot, Muxir, Soddo comprise a geographical (non-genetic) grouping of non-mutually-intelligible languages known as 'North Gurage'", all of which seeems to suggest that merging all of the Gurages would not be sound.
- -sche (discuss) 17:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The cited grouping of course adds to the confusion. Three languages, but four dialects clusters, not mentioning their intersections? Well, we will not find out how one should see them without deep-diving. But the question is which direction Wiktionary should go: likely the current division is not correct. Should Wiktionary just add all possible splits so they can be cleaned up later when someone would commit himself to add the whole Gurage and judge about which distinctions are most convenient or should we have one macro-code because distinction is hopeless? The reason why I have even mentioned Gurage is that for example Leslau’s Etymological Dictionary of Geʿez which I like to use just gives words as “Gurage”, which sounds like there is a common vocabulary. Fay Freak (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you can deduce from Leslau's literature list which Gurage language he gets his data from? He seems to have written an etymological dictionary of Gurage as well, presumably its foreword could clear things up.
His own field studies. I hade linked his Etymological Dictionary of Gurage (“according to Wolf Leslau” etc.). Fay Freak (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
As a volunteer project (run on fancy), we really have no other choice than to wait for someone to investigate the matter deeply and order the languages in a manner that facilitates their lexicographical work.
Maybe we need non-genetic language group categories and ways to give forms in unindentified languages belonging to language groups. Crom daba (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Fay Freak, -sche: A bit late, but here are my responses to the three outstanding problems (your #2–4):
    1. It is fairly evident that Ancient North Arabian is not a single language, and I advocate that sem-xna be abolished rather than the specific language codes; read Al-Jallad (2018), "What is Ancient North Arabian?". He sees Safaitic (which he has written a grammar of) and Hismaic as being of the same continuum as Old Arabic, but they are obviously too distinct from Classical Arabic for lexicographical purposes. He supports the distinctness of the others as languages, and of the various "Thamudic" lects. Based on Al-Jallad, I would prefer we split Thamudic B, C, D, etc as necessary; each language will have a very small corpus, but it seems like the most honest way to do it, and if more inscriptions are found, the lettered Thamudic wastebaskets will probably get their own names as the others did.
    2. Old South Arabian is also not a single language, though Sabaean was the standard that the other lects imitated, and I advocated that sem-srb be abolished as well. Multhoff (2019) in The Semitic Languages makes the case for four distinct languages: Sabaean, Minaean, Qatabanian, and Hadrami. She makes no mention, however, of Harami. Macdonald (2000), "Reflections on the linguistic map of pre-Islamic Arabia" explains that "Harami" is a name given to a few Sabaean texts that seem to have been contaminated by other Semitic languages, which is not at all an unusual feature and not unique to that site, so I suggest we remove that code.
      1. As for Himyaritic, I now think I was wrong to include it. There are three texts often attributed to it, but see Stein (2008), "The ‘Himyaritic’ Language in Pre-Islamic Yemen", which makes a strong argument to consider these as simply very late examples of Sabaean, which is indisputably the language of the other texts of the region in that script.
    3. Finally, for Gurage, the chief problem is that some scholars follow Hetzron in saying that Gurage is polyphyletic, in which case lumping would be committing a grave error (and the same charge has been levelled for Aramaic, with perhaps more evidence). Meyer (2011) in the International Handbook does seem to support the unity of Gurage, and treats the lects together, which gives me hope for lumping, but he is unwilling to commit to whether they should be considered dialects or languages. I think your Gurage-adding genius is mythical, so we have to choose which is least bad: many languages with scanty coverage, because their forms may be similar to forms entered under a different L2 header; or one Gurage language with decent coverage, but many forms that are not marked for what dialect they belong to and therefore a poor resource. I hesitantly support merger, given those choices. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    4. An addendum: "Hadrami" is a terrible name for xhd, and invites confusion with Hadrami Arabic. Wikipedia uses "Hadramautic", but N-grams and a quick literature review suggests that "Hadramitic" is more common. @Fay Freak, -sche again (yes, I know I'm pestering, but I don't want to move forward on all this alone, both because I am fallible and because some of these, particularly splitting OSA, would require a bit of work, although in that case there is an online corpus that will help immensely). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Re North Arabian: Many works I browsed through speak of Old North Arabian as a unit with dialects, but also carefully specify what lects (including Thamudic B vs C, etc) words are attested in. Some imply, in their presentations, that a large number of words are identical between dialects, at least in the sample of vocabulary that they're treating (e.g., the pronouns treated in Roger D. Woodard, The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia (2008), pages 197-198), though this seems to be because the authors are presenting 'normal', normalized and romanized forms, given Al-Jallad's evidence that words (even the supposedly distinctive definite article) varied not just among dialects but even within the writings of individual speakers. The native script also loses many possible differences in pronunciation, but then, we are a written, writing-based dictionary. I find slightly more works speaking of "Ancient North Arabian dialects" than "Ancient North Arabian languages", and the fact that some authors have argued the varieties are the same language not only as each other but even as Arabic itself does suggest a high degree of similarity (or that the scholars in question are lumpers). As we're dealing with small, extinct and apparently clearly delineated corpora, it seems like the conservative approach of treating each under its own L2 could be better, and we could retire xna ... unless we need it as a wastebasket for unsorted things, which Al-Jallad (and Fay Freak, above) suggests we would. (Bah, It's messy business, deciding what's a language and what's a dialect...) I will try to dig into the rest later. - -sche (discuss) 04:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)
@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)
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)
@-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)
That seems not unlike how we handle Serbo-Croatian and Hindi-Urdu. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 14:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. The way we handle them sucks. Crom daba (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree. All this duplication is a huge waste of resources. Per utramque cavernam 13:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)

December 2018[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)

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)

lend a helping hand[edit]

Redirect to lend a hand. Per utramque cavernam 08:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  • No OneLook reference has this; several have lend a hand. A redirect, though not necessary, might be helpful to someone. DCDuring (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Redirected, - -sche (discuss) 04:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

January 2019[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)

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

The vote was here: Wiktionary:Votes/2018-07/Restructure comparative and superlative categories. — Eru·tuon 00:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why? —Rua (mew) 12:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

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)

@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)

Reconcile Category:#### terms derived from the shape of letters and Category:#### terms making reference to character shapes[edit]

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)

good on yougood on someone[edit]

per good for someone. —Suzukaze-c 05:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure that other objects are even possible? This is somewhat of a set phrase. DTLHS (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
google news:"good on him" has a fair amount of results. —Suzukaze-c 06:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to see what the usage note says if it's to be at [[good on someone]]. If we can't write a good usage note, I'd favor the current entry staying where it is, with a full entry also at [[good on someone]]. DCDuring (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Right, we can say "good on him", "good on her", "good on them", "good on Mr Smith", and so on. In fact we can even say "good on someone" if the person is unknown (e.g. "Good on someone for fixing this"). Even so, to me "good on someone" seems a bit unexpected or unintuitive as the main entry. Having said that, I don't know what else to suggest. Mihia (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Hard redirects from the common forms and usage examples for the common forms should reduce any user confusion. DCDuring (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Unless the entry could be at "good on". I mean, we can say "good on the company", "good on parliament" etc. Although these nouns are still "people-related", they are getting further away from "someone". Mihia (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't have any problem saying good on that toaster if a toaster did something remarkable. I think it can just be good on.
Moving this to good on with redirections from good on you, good on someone, etc seems like the way to go. - -sche (discuss) 20:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Good discussion, everyone. I think good on someone as per OP is preferable to avoid usages such as "that looks good on you", "make good on a promise", etc. Also parliaments and toasters are rare uses that no one would expect to find in a dictionary.Facts707 (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The query "good on the government for" yields many results on Google. I don't think, as the IP who made the toaster pointed out, that this refers necessarily to people; any actor can do something to prompt this response, including institutions, companies and non-human actors such as animals. So I support an entry good on as the logical option. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
True, but to overwhelmingly more common object/complements are a person or group of people (even a 'government'). I'd limit the impersonal objects to a mention in a usage note. Many of the instances of impersonal objects are probably metonymy for a person or group of people: "Good on City Hall", "Good on the 42 car", "Good on Python", "Good on The Economist." DCDuring (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Interesting case: "good on mother nature tho for holding off on the rain". Personalization of impersonal forces might allow anything that has ever been deified to be the object of good on. DCDuring (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2019[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)

Yes, IMO, into someone's blood runs cold, with hard redirects from both. DCDuring (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Taxonomic eponyms[edit]

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

As with Category:Specific epithets. DCDuring (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)

Category:Deverbals by language, Category:Denominal verbs by language[edit]

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)

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)
Please see Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2018/May#основать. Per utramque cavernam 19:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)

March 2019[edit]

(reversed numeral)年[edit]

This should be moved to appendix namespace (similar to those in Appendix:English snowclones).-- 17:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Created by @Dokurrat. This is obviously a bad title that nobody would ever search for, but I don't really know where to move it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Can't say I know anything about these entries, but maybe add a usage note under ? — SGconlaw (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not a usage of 年, really... if anything, it's closer to a snowclone, like the anon suggested. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
It's defined as "Used to stress the recentness or modernness of the year", so my take would be that it is sufficiently closely related to . — SGconlaw (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

@Metaknowledge: What about Category:English dismissals? —Suzukaze-c 04:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

April 2019[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)

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)

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

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

Category:en:Responses to sneezing to Category:English responses to sneezing[edit]

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

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)

Support. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Support renaming for accuracy and consistency. —Ultimateria (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
SupportJberkel 23:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge Apologies, I missed this from a year ago. I'll go ahead and rename. Benwing2 (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@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)
@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)
@Metaknowledge Yes, the redirects need to be fixed to point to the new pages. Benwing2 (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@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)

  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)
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)
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)
I agree with Justinrleung WRT the Korean pages as well.--Tibidibi (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

May 2019[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)

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)
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)
@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)
@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)
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)
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)

Category:English haplological forms to Category:English haplological words[edit]

And likewise for other languages. Why "forms"? This makes it look like they are non-lemma forms of some other words, which is definitely not the case for most of the words in the category. I decided to propose "words" because haplology is an intra-word process, not something that applies to multiword terms as far as I know. If people prefer Category:English haplological terms I'm ok with that too. —Rua (mew) 11:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Support. —Globins (yo) 00:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Thesaurus into various members of Category:Thesaurus entries by language[edit]

Right now, this contains a mess of various languages, mostly English but also some others. Thesaurus pages have distinct level 2 language sections just like regular entries do. Thus, we should treat thesaurus pages like we do regular entries and split them by language. The topical categories pose a problem, as they also need to be language-specific, but there is no naming scheme for them yet and no category tree. I propose moving their contents into our regular topical and set categories, to avoid creating a parallel tree of topical thesaurus categories. —Rua (mew) 17:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that lumping them into one category is messy, and leads users to take categorization into their own hands. See Category:Danish thesaurus entries, which contains pages with 3 distinct naming schemes! I support putting Thesaurus entries into the existing topical categories. Some Thesaurus categories already are, e.g. Category:Thesaurus:Mathematics. Ultimateria (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

Symbol support vote.svg Support. DonnanZ (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@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)
But car is more ambiguous. DCDuring (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Category:Nautical also uses an adjective, and there may be others. DonnanZ (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, not too hot on that one either. My suggestion would be "Category:Water transport". — SGconlaw (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)

June 2019[edit]

take slave[edit]

to taken slave. The forms take slave, takes slave, and taking slave appear unlikely to meet RfV. take slave is already at RfV; the other two forms are redlinks at this time. DCDuring (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)
@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)
It's still a metaphor: a county doesn't have directly have hands. DCDuring (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

August 2019[edit]


Needs to be split into lowercase, uppercase, mixed case. --Pious Eterino (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Not controversial, IMHO. Just add the missing entries. You could then RfD the extra definitions at [[gox]], just to be careful. DCDuring (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, PE, be bold and UUACs --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Split/Move. --幽霊四 (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

September 2019[edit]

Merge Category:Czech nouns ending in "-ismus" with Category:Czech words suffixed with -ismus[edit]

Tagged but not listed. Since most words ending on “-ismus” are loanwords, the “ending in” category seems the better merge target.  --Lambiam 16:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

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)


Three L2 sections for New World languages have diacritics that would seem to require that they be moved. I have no familiarity with these languages. DCDuring (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

If the diacritics are like macrons in Latin, only aiding in pronouncing the term or the like, they may be fine where they are. I don't have time at this moment to check. - -sche (discuss) 15:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019[edit]

Canonical name of "fan"[edit]

Our canonical name for fan is "Fang (Guinea)", which is unfortunate since it isn't spoken in Guinea. It's spoken primarily in Gabon and Equatorial Guinea. I'd recommend calling it "Fang (Gabon)" since there seem to be more speakers in Gabon than in Eq.G. and since the name of Gabon is shorter. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC) I'd recommend calling it "Fang (Equatorial Guinea)" since according to Ethnologue there are more speakers in that country than in Gabon. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The fact that there are even some speakers in Cameroon (according to Wikipedia) but it's not the same as "Fang (Cameroon)" is icing on the confusion-cake... and they're both Bantoid languages, so disambiguating by family doesn't help, and both spoken in Central Africa, so we can't disambiguate by mere region as we sometimes do. - -sche (discuss) 16:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@-sche: They are different branches of Bantoid, though. We could call [fak] "Fang (Beboid)" and [fan] "Fang (Bantu)". —Mahāgaja · talk 22:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah, true; I saw that Wikipedia classified Fang language (Cameroon) as "Western Beboid" but caveated that it was not necessarily a valid family, but if Beboid overall is valid, then that works and is clearer (IMO) than picking just one of the countries to list. I would support renaming them in that way. The only other languages that come to mind which are disambiguated by family are "Austronesian Mor" and "Papuan Mor" both spoken in West Papua), which are mentioned on WT:LANG; probably we should change those to "Mor (Austronesian)" and "Mor (Papuan)" for consistency. - -sche (discuss) 18:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I was going to rename Austronesian and Papuan Mor to use the 'parenthetical, postpositive' naming format for consistency with the Fangs and with how languages with country-name disambiguators are named, but I notice we also have e.g. Austronesian and Papuan Gimi, Austronesian and Sepik Mari (and some other Maris), and several other such languages, and I don't have time to rename all of those, so consistency will have to wait. (There is also "Sepik Iwam", but it appears to actually get called that, to distinguish it from the other Sepik language called Iwam which is spoken in the same place and belongs to the same Iwam subfamily of Upper Sepik. Confusing!) - -sche (discuss) 08:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The reason I haven't archived this is that several other languages, mentioned above, still need to be renamed to fit the format of the other languages. I or someone else just need(s) to find the time... - -sche (discuss) 01:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

December 2019[edit]

為止, 到……為止[edit]

Can 為止 be used without ? —Suzukaze-c 07:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: In modern varieties, basically no, but there are some fossilized constructions like 迄今為止. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Hm, then I suppose having both are fine (unless someone thinks 到……為止 should go). 為止 might benefit from usage notes. —Suzukaze-c 09:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020[edit]

put someone in the picture[edit]

Move to in the picture: be in the picture, keep in the picture. Canonicalization (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

be all ears and all ears[edit]

Merge. Canonicalization (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Be not essential to the idiom. Other copulas work, eg, seem, appear, become. DCDuring (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Redirect be all ears to all ears.  --Lambiam 19:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

'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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


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)

@Dentonius Any thoughts? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)

Thesaurus:y'all to Thesaurus:you[edit]

...or Thesaurus:you plural or something. We probably shouldn't be using just one dialect's form as the name. At Thesaurus:you, it could also collect other forms of singular you in their own sense-section, like thou and your ass, and things that are synonyms of both senses, like u. - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Where I'm from, y'all is either slang, or has the connotation of being something a hic redneck from the Southern States would say. You guys is the more normal way to express it, or in more formal contexts, you all or you folks. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Where I'm from, y'all is perfectly standard in all registers while you guys makes you sound like a damyankee, but I acknowledge that that isn't the case in other varieties of English. I'd be in favor of moving the page to Thesaurus:you (plural). —Mahāgaja · talk 09:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Educated Southerners use y'all in all spoken registers AFAICT, but not much in writing. DCDuring (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020[edit]

red cunt hair to cunt hair[edit]

I propose to rename red cunt hair to cunt hair, which can certainly cover red cunt hair as a more specific version of the slang term. The common abbreviation is even "CH," not "rch," at least in North America, as it refers to a very fine, albeit it specifically undefined, unit of measurement.

Alternatively, I propose to create a separate entry for cunt hair. Nevertheless, one of these two proposals needs to occur.

--Dmehus (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Since they both seem to be attested, the entry shouldn't be completely moved. It should be kept as an alternative form or synonym. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
We should have cunt hair, which is the form I am familiar with. My impression from the quotation on the entry is red cunt hair is smaller, and that's not obvious from red, so we should keep both. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I created cunt hair. One of the quotations indicates that a red cunt hair is smaller than a cunt hair, so they are not strict synonyms or color variations. Unless there is an objection this can be resolved. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

go out on a limb[edit]

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

funny papers and funny paper[edit]

Probably should be merged ~somehow~, or at least refer to each other. —Suzukaze-c 03:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a slight loss of precision in the synonymy from merging, but I have made funny paper the lemma, without (yet) deleting funny papers, which should, IMO, be just the plural of funny paper. If someone thinks the possibility of lost precision outweighs the more straightforward presentation for normal users, please discuss. DCDuring (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

March 2020[edit]

Yeet Hay[edit]

yeet hay? —Suzukaze-c 20:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

as tight as Dick's hatbandtight as Dick's hatband[edit]

A look at e.g. google books:"is tight as Dick's hatband" shows that this is often used without the "as", and Ngrams suggests the form with "as" is even too much less common to plot. Various other sites that are concerned with phrases like this seem to be divided, some including the "as" and some dropping it. - -sche (discuss) 09:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)


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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
In what way is it productive in the modern languages? —Rua (mew) 10:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
  • 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)

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)

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)
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)
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)


{{R:egy:EDE}} (vol. 3, p. 201) has a whole page dedicated to this complex in Chadic, and concludes that two separate roots have been conflated by Jungraithmayr & Shimizu. Takács reconstructs the form given by the A languages as *h-m (comparing Egyptian hmh (saliva), Iraqw hamee (sweat), etc), and the form given by the B languages as *y-m (comparing Proto-Semitic *yamm- (sea)). He is not a Chadicist, to be sure, but his collation of sources is very comprehensive, and avoids the otherwise awkward *y > *h that this reconstruction demands. (As an aside, where the hell did they get the third consonant of *y-m-n from when none of the descendants seem to have it?) @Allahverdi VerdizadeΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Emoticons that use a low line[edit]

These emoticons should be moved to "Unsupported titles/" because they use a low line (which is not a supported character in titles):

One has the same page for different characters ("* *" and "*_*"):

Two emoticons with a low line are already in "Unsupported titles/":

J3133 (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020[edit]

Replace [noq][edit]

Van de Velde et al. (ch.2, by Hammarström) report that confusion over the name "Ngongo" led to Maho (2009) and other references as claiming this to be a language in zone H, which does not actually exist (or if it did, it is extinct and unattested, because those Ngongo people speak Bushoong). There is another Ngongo language that does exist and needs a code, in zone B, which WP refers to as "West Ngongo" (not sure why). I think we should retire this code and create a new exceptional code; both peoples are in the DRC and both languages were claimed to be Bantu, so there is no effective parenthetical we can apply, but a new code might reduce confusion. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

One argument against is that Van de Velde et al. do use [noq] for the zone B language. So there's precedent, but it's still asking for trouble IMO. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@-sche, Mahagaja: In this (probably overwhelming) flood of discussions, this is the one least based on linguistic criteria and on which I am most uncertain on how to proceed, so I'd really like to hear some opinions. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know anything about Bantu languages, but how about just merging it into [yaf]? —Mahāgaja · talk 18:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: Maybe I wasn't clear — the putative zone H language doesn't exist, so it can be considered merged into [yaf], but the question is whether to use this code for the real language of the same name in zone B as some references now do. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh, OK. In that case I suppose if there is a precedent for using [noq] for the Zone B language, we can do the same. We should have a WT:ANOQ page explaining what we're doing, though. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
We could optimistically hope that, somewhat like with vmf, Ethnologue/SIL will one day "re-scope" the code to refer to the real language... or they might reitre it and grant a new code. Eh. I think there's a case for either course of action. How much content are we anticipating having in this language? If it's not much (where a shorter code would be easier to remember and type), a new code would be clearer, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 06:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@-sche: Yeah, I have no idea what Ethnologue will do — or if they even notice for a while. As for content, there won't be much for a long time; I searched a PhD thesis and a couple papers on that group, but I can't even find the word for "water" in Ngongo. Anyway, Mahagaja's inclination and yours seem to be in opposite directions, and I still feel undecided... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
If there's not going to be much (any??) content, then I would argue clarity is more important than brevity; a new code would be unique to this language, and could be changed later as needed, whereas re-using the code for the spurious language makes for unclarity about whether we also mean the spurious language, especially if anyone were to use it for the spurious language, or in a way where we couldn't tell whether it was for the spurious (but ISO-intended) language or our intended language, e.g. in adding a word that someone (mis)recorded or that or even just mentioning it in an etymology as "a cognate may exist in [x]" or the like. If the two are not related, then my guess is Ethnologue will eventually catch and retire rather than reassign the spurious code... in the case of vmf, it was apparent what language was most likely intended and they just scoped/definend it wrong, so it makes sense that they later fixed it rather than retired it. - -sche (discuss) 17:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I've decided just to keep it after all, as there seems to be a preference for retaining existing ISO codes. I've documented what we're doing as -sche recommended. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove avl “Eastern Egyptian Bedawi Arabic language[edit]

An absurd language name apparently copied from glottologue. This is not even attestable, nor its synonym Levantine Bedawi Arabic, and no native would ever use this to create an entry. “Bedawi” is = bedouin. The “characteristics” in the Wikipedia article Northwest Arabian Arabic linked are in every or many Arabic dialects. There are difference in urban and desert-dweller speech everywhere but one sorts these speeches under the regiolects, so it would be Egyptian Arabic, South Levantine Arabic, South Levantine Arabic, Najdi Arabic. Fay Freak (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Remove aao “Algerian Saharan Arabic[edit]

Unattestable or SOP language name fudged by the for-profit language database Ethnologue; the linked Wikipedia pages will always stay stubs. The Verkehrsanschauung sorts this under Algerian Arabic. There is a continuum with Moroccan Arabic. Pinging @Fenakhay following our considerations at Talk:زرودية; nobody has ever thought such a category. One can attest the term “Saharan Arabic” but this is of course not meant to denote one language. As distinguished from Hassānīya Arabic one could need codes eastwards for some dialects spoken in the Sahara and Sahel, like for Malian and Nigerien Arabic – Chadian Arabic we have as shu. Fay Freak (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the idea here is that Algerian Arabic as spoken in Algiers belongs on a continuum that speakers in the southern and western desert of Algeria (inclusing many who are not ethnically Arab) do not belong on. I don't see the use of this code, though, because that speech definitely counts as Hassaniya. (As for the other countries on the fringe, we seem to count Nigeria and Cameroon under Chadian Arabic, which is less than ideal, but then again, I think that our whole system needs to be more like Chinese to be functional at all.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge [aec] “Saidi Arabic” into [arz] “Egyptian Arabic[edit]

Hardly attestable language name. Occurrences for it turn out as “Saʿiidi Arabic” for example. “Upper Egyptian Arabic” (I don’t see use of “Upper Egypt Arabic”, but this is a detail) is sometimes posited, variously ill-defined because of superstratum influence from the Nile Delta, but this is usually not accepted as distinct language and can well be an sum-of-parts term; Arabic Wikipedia clearly says Ṣaʿīdīy Arabic is “within the Egyptian Arabic dialects”. There are but some isoglosses dividing Arabic-speaking Egypt latitudinally, but so one can shed urban and bedouin speech and Muslim and Christian speech. English Wikipedia says “the realisation of /q/ as [ɡ] is retained (normally realised in Egyptian Arabic as [ʔ]” but this is the speech of the desert vs. the speech in the largest cities and [ɡ] for ق(q) can be found in northern Egyptian bedouins. Most natives of Upper Egypt would use the code for Egyptian Arabic, and I would too sometimes with label “Upper Egypt” or more specific labels. I have created the single entry in “Saidi Arabic” and only because there was this code. Fay Freak (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge [ayn] “Sanaani Arabic”, [acq] “Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic”, [ayh] “Hadrami Arabic” into a new “Yemeni Arabic”[edit]

The categories are ill-defined; the second one is unattestable. Yemen is a dialectologically complicated area – the material is even partially collected outside of Yemen, as for instance the Dictionary of Post-Classical Yemeni Arabic 1990 is surveyed in Israel – with many isoglosses and the number of distinct languages is multiplied at will if one is oblivious of SOP designations of lects so for this reason, apart from nobody being able to safely use these categories, it is not wise to distinguish at the L2 level already. If you look into the Dialect Atlas of North Yemen and Adjacent Areas published by Brill four years ago and probably also Saint Elbakyan you will forget those categories and won’t be able to map content onto the codes. Apart from that the distinction is inconsistent with the fact that we have a code for “Judeo-Yemeni Arabic” jye – as if Jewish speech in Yemen were one language while Muslim speech were three! I just mention here that I find “Judeo-Arabic” and its sub-languages suspicious, it could all be only Classical Arabic or Arabic dialects with some peculiarities written in Hebrew script, remaining from a time when Wiktionary did not use {{spelling of}} for this purpose. The Jews might deal with it themselves. Fay Freak (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I pinged you in a separate discussion above about Judeo-Arabic. As for Yemen... it is true that the codes are oversplit, but it is also true that the WAD attests to the fact that when Hejazi and Omani speakers disagree about a word, chances are that North Yemen agrees with the Hejaz or Egypt, and that South Yemen agrees with Oman. The existence of Piamenta's dictionary gives me hope for treating Yemen as a unit, but I don't know how he does it (do you have a PDF?). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Nay, I do not. Fay Freak (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I find this “South Yemen” and “North Yemen” part difficult and think that one needs an elevation profile of Southwest Arabia to dissect the Arabic dialects of and close to Yemen. Fay Freak (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Deboo's Jemenitisches Wörterbuch is another good example of treating all Yemeni varieties together, with scrupulous dialect-tagging. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:eggcorn of[edit]

To Template:misconstruction of.

"Eggcorn" is a lovely term for our own amusement, but it is an inside joke that makes Wiktionary more closed to normal users. I believe that a term like misconstruction is more understandable to normal people and includes all eggcorns, mondegreens, etc. DCDuring (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

A Google search for eggcorn brings up Wikipedia for the first entry. A Google search for misconstruction brings up "is misconstruction a real word" and dictionaries. Eggcorn might be slightly whimsical, but misconstruction is not a word used by normal people.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, the whole concept is not discussed by "normal people". Misconstruction is immediately understandable to the average educated English speaker, even if they've never heard the term before; eggcorn isn't. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep as is. It links to the entry eggcorn, so users are never more than a click away from comprehension. If you think it's an inside joke, then the in-group is all of linguistics, and we might apply the same logic to eliminating the word illative from our entries — only linguists know what it means, and why should we use the most exact word when a vaguer one might do? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep. I don't like dumbing things down to appeal to the broadest population possible. What about the people who want more precise information, or who want to learn whimsical words to describe things? I'm quite happy with us filling a niche that other dictionaries don't fill, since that's why I use Wiktionary in the first place. Besides, the kind of people who aren't interested in expanding their vocabulary tend not to look up words in the dictionary very much anyway. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
FWIW I proposed something similar earlier / further up the page, #Template:eggcorn_of_into_Template:misconstruction_of. I think the issue is less that the term is opaque, and more that the distinction is fuzzy/questionable, compare my comments above. - -sche (discuss) 17:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

live in the moment[edit]

Move to in the moment: also used with be. PUC – 19:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


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)

@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)
@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)
@Allahverdi Verdizade: So can we just delete them? How should they be lemmatised? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
You could lemmatize imiş as a free morpheme-form of -miş, i.e. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Suppletive adjectives by language, Category:Suppletive adverbs by language, Category:Suppletive nouns by language, Category:Suppletive verbs by language[edit]

Misleading category names. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).


The traditional form should be 手捲 when it means "temaki" (see [6]). --theDarkKnightLi 🙏 🔧 23:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, please confirm and move as needed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

May 2020[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 at OneLook Dictionary Search with state's evidence at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

Just noting to compare good on you→good on someone above. — 02:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)

July 2020[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)

User:Bezimenen, seems sensible? PUC – 12:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

August 2020[edit]

when one's ship comes in[edit]

Should this be moved to one's ship comes in? It can be found introduced by other things than when, e.g. "until one's ship comes in", "waiting for one's ship to come in", and so on. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  • The when form is the one I hear most often. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Dialectal Southern Valley Yokuts[edit]

and Category:Dialectal Delta Yokuts, Category:Dialectal Kings River Yokuts, Category:Dialectal Buena Vista Yokuts, Category:Dialectal Northern Valley Yokuts (and possibly a few others) seem to be the only categories named in this manner, so they should perhaps be renamed. But e.g. Category:English dialectal terms does not contain subcategories, so I guess the standard(?) thing to do would be to ... move these to Category:Regional Delta Yokuts(?). (Category:Regional English does ultimately contain several non-regional dialect subcategories, like Category:African-American Vernacular English.) - -sche (discuss) 16:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding Fogaha[edit]

It's time to start chipping away at the mess that is our Berber codes. Wikipedia considers the Sokna language to be spoken in three oases: Sokna, Fogaha, and Tmessa. According to van Putten, the claim of any Berber variety spoken in Tmessa is wholly unsubstantiated. That leaves Sokna and Fogaha, which were each documented by different Italian scholars using their problematic style of notation, but do seem to be significantly different nonetheless. I suggest that we add a code ber-fog for Fogaha (variously spelled "Fuqaha", "Foqaha"; the definite article is often tacked on, including by its only documenter Paradisi, who wrote "El-Fogaha", but this seems contrary to one's expectations when it comes to alphabetisation). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Support. (I can even find such spellings as "Fojaha", "Al-Fojaha", "Fodjaha",...)
Off of the immediate topic, but re Tmessa: I can find quite a few overviews which mention Tmessa, but AFAICT none provide detail about it. The Oxford Handbook of African Languages (Rainer Vossen, Gerrit J. Dimmendaal, 2020), page 285, says it is merely undocumented, not nonexistent, as part of a lengthy lament about Berber ("an unconvincing classification has been provided by Aikhenvald and Militarev (1991), [...] at many points this classification seems to be arbitrary. Moreover, at points it classifies dialects which are fully undocumented (e.g. Tmessa in Libya) or which are not Berber at all (e.g. Tadaksahak, which is Northern Songhay, and the Kufra oases, which are Teda-speaking). Unfortunately, some of the main lines of this classification have been taken over by the Ethnologue"). I reckon these changes are fine, though, since if any documentation subsequently emerges attesting Tmessa, it'll either show that it should be (re)included in an existing code or given its own. - -sche (discuss) 21:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Here's a blogpost that explains the deal with Tmessa. As for the spellings with (d)j, they merely betray people who have made a faulty transcriptional assumption because they can't actually read the Arabic script... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:English words by number of syllables and its subcategories[edit]

I suggest that “Category:English words by number of syllables” and its subcategories be moved such that words is replaced by terms, since these categories do not only contain single-word entries. If there are similar categories for other languages these should also be moved. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m not so sure if having multi-word terms in these categories is useful at all. I mean, would a reader who looks up Category:English 13-syllable words really want to find behind every successful man there stands a woman. Not to mention it leads to mistakes such as in Abegg's rule. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, the problem at at Abegg's rule is due to the template being told that it is a single word. I suspect that having multi-word terms in these categories is at least party the result of implementing syllable counting in the IPA template without addressing the issue of how to divide an utterance into words- in some languages, that's not a simple task. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, Chuck Entz Abegg's rule had two issues: its pronunciation was indicated as if the term were just "Abegg's", and Module:IPA adds terms to "LANG #-syllable words" even if there are spaces or liaison marks (‿) in the pronunciation. I fixed both issues. As Chuck notes, checking for spaces won't work in languages like Thai that don't put spaces between words (or conversely, in Vietnamese, which puts spaces between all syllables). For these languages, either we can disable the categories or rename them (for these languages only) to "LANG #-syllable terms". Benwing2 (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Resolved: {{IPA}} has been updated so English multiple word terms no longer have their syllables counted. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Overhaul of Berber language codes[edit]

The current state of our Berber (Amazigh) codes is the ISO codes without any modifications made to their scheme, depsite its many problems. The Berber languages have comparable diversity to Romance, but specialists are distinctly uncomfortable with the idea of dividing up what is mostly a dialect continuum into over 25 languages, as Ethnologue does, despite the fact that nobody disputes this practice for Romance (even though on grounds of mutual intelligibility, it's hard to say why, say, Galician and Portuguese should be considered separate). For the most part, I think we should follow the Romance practice and be (mild) splitters; in cases like Tashelhit and Central Atlas Tamazight, you wouldn't gain much by merging (as most entries would still be on separate pages), and the remarkable internal dialectal diversity in these "languages" means that good coverage will still require a great deal of dialect-tagging. I have worked through the Berber classification used by Kossmann (2013) below, using his numbered "blocks", with my notes on changes to our scheme that I recommend.

  1. Two languages, Zenaga [zen] and Tetserret [tez], both separate from the continuum and each other. No changes needed.
  2. The Tuareg group, which has a macrolanguage code [tmh], but also codes for Tahaggart [thv], Tawallammat [ttq], Tayart [thz], Tamasheq [thq]. Tamasheq is meant to encompass both Adagh and Taneslemt, and the sole sedentary Tuareg lect, Ghat (spoken in Libya) is missing a code. I struggled to find data on mutual intelligibility; Adam (2017) indicated that speakers from Ghat had a lot of trouble understanding non-Libyan dialects, but that this might be a recent phenomenon. There is a written Tuareg standard using Tifinagh, although it does not indicate vowels and does not seem widely used any more. Clearly, the current state is redundant, and I think collapsing into a single "Tuareg" would be workable, but perhaps not ideal.
  3. South-Central Moroccan group, Tashelhit [shi] and Central Atlas Tamazight [tzm], both written in Tifinagh. There is also a poorly defined Judeo-Berber [jbe], which I don't want to get into (but reminds me of the issues with Judeo-Arabic). These are all fine, but ISO also gave a politically-motivated code for "Standard Moroccan Tamazight" [zgh], which is a redundant literary koiné that I have already posted a request to delete above.
  4. Northwestern Moroccan group, Ghomara [gho] and Senhaja de Srair [sjs]. No changes needed.
  5. The Zenatic group, and here is where things get messy.
    • The existing codes in the West are Tarifit [rif], Chenoua [cnu], Tachawit [shy]. Missing are Iznasen (sometimes considered "Eastern Riffian", so presumably merged under [rif]) and Eastern Central Atlas Tamazight (a kind of contact language between [tzm] and [rif], presumably merged under [tzm]).
    • In the Moroccan and Algerian oases, Tagargrent [oua], Tugurt/Temacine [tjo], Taznatit [grr], Tumzabt [mzb], and Tidikelt [tia] (which is almost undocumented!) all have codes, thus excluding Sud-oranais (principally the Figuig dialect, which has a grammar). Mutual intelligibility in this cluster of dialects is known to be high, and this seems ridiculously oversplit; I would recommend one code, although I'm not sure what to call it. Ethnologue calls it "Mzab–Wargla", which are only two of the dialects and is obviously not great, while Kossmann calls it "Northern Saharan oasis" Berber, which is highly clunky, and my "North Saharan Berber" is a protologism.
    • In the East, there is a single code for Sened [sds], an extinct dialect in Tunisia, and no codes for the extant Tunisian varieties (principally Djerbi), nor for the closely related Zuwara dialect over the border in Libya. I recommend that [sds] be repurposed as "Tunisian Berber", and a new code be added for Zuwara (also known as "Zuaran"), which has a grammar by Mitchell; this could be considered oversplitting, but it would be odder for "Tunisian Berber" to have entries that are almost all from Libya.
  6. The remaining languages of the East belong to various blocks, and are mostly covered appropriately: Kabyle [kab], Nafusi [jbn], Siwi [siz], Sokna [swn], Ghadames [gha], and Awjila [auj]. The only one missing is (the presumably extinct, and thus finite) Fogaha, which I recommended for a new code in its own section above.

Feedback would be appreciated, especially on the naming of North Saharan Berber. Note that I intend to give etymology-only codes for all the dialects that end up getting merged. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Re North Saharan Berber: I think naming it "Northern Saharan Berber" is OK; we're not inventing the grouping, it's a descriptive name, and it's similar to and simply trims an excess word off of an existing name used in literature. - -sche (discuss) 21:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Reviewing Tuareg further, I see that Heath (2005) refuses to take a stand: "it is very difficult to decide whether we are dealing with a single "Tuareg" language (with many dialects), or two or more languages (each with some internal dialectal variation)." That said, he endorses the four-way distinction (where "Tahaggart" should be renamed to "Tamahaq" to include the Kel Ajjer), supports the bundling of Tamasheq, and makes no mention of Ghat, presumably lumping it into Tamahaq as well. The 4 lects with codes all have good dictionaries (ttq and thz share a dictionary, but all forms are marked for which lect they belong to), and 3 of the 4 have grammars, so they won't be hard to sort out or attest. As a result, I now definitively lean toward retiring the macrolanguage and keeping the split codes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I still haven't dealt with this, and I found reason to merge Tuareg instead of splitting it. Sudlow (2008) says: "Tamasheq has split into three major dialects which the Tamasheq themselves refer to as ‘sha’, ‘za’ and ‘ha’, or Tamasheq, Tamajeq, and Tamahaq." His grammar itself supports the utility of that view, as it treats two dialects spoken together (often in a mixed form) in Burkina Faso, which would have to go under two different language codes in the splitter scenario. We would have to dialect-tag our entries carefully, of course. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

speak highly[edit]

Move to speak highly of.

I have yet to find usage at Google NGrams that has this expression without a following PP headed by of.

At OneLook no lemming has this, whereas two have speak highly of. DCDuring (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Speak highly about; speak highly regarding? I see some examples of these. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Jê languages[edit]

The names of most languages which belong to the Northern branch of the Jê family as they are now are not the ones actually in use (either by linguists or by their speakers), and for a couple of languages even Glottolog (let alone Ethnologue) gets it right. I suggest:

I would also be happy to know if I can make any of the above changes myself without being an admin (I am new to Wiktionary so not everything is clear to me yet). Degoiabeira (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

In answer to the last question, on a technical level you can't make these changes without being an admin or Template Editor, since they require changing Module:languages. But at least three admins have eyes on this now (User:Mahagaja, User:Metaknowledge, and me) so any changes that need to be made will get made after discussion here. :)
As for the suggested renames: AFAICT Suyá is much more common than Kĩsêdjê (or Kisedje) overall, though most occurrences refer to the tribe, and many of the occurrences which refer to the language are from 25+ years ago, as you brought up on Mahagaja's talk page. Even then, judging by google books:Suyá OR Kĩsêdjê OR Kisedje language, the two names seem roughly equally(?) common in books from the last 25 years. On one hand, Kĩsêdjê being the autonym speaks in favor of it; on the other hand, Suyá being historically more common speaks in favor of it. (From the perspective of ease of input, both names contain diacritics, so neither is per se easy to type.) The situation with Kayapó / Mẽbêngôkre is much the same.
For Parkatêjê, it seems like that name might indeed be most common, aided by the fact that there are so many alternatives ("Gavião Perkatêjê", bare "Gavião", "Gavião do Pará", etc) that no one name is that common AFAICT.
For Apinayé, judging by both books and scholarly journal articles, Apinayé seems to be the most common name even in recent sources, and it is also most common among the sources Glottolog lists which are specifically about the language and which use one spelling or the other in their names, so that is fine as-is and should not be renamed.
I will look into Pykobjê and Tapayuna.
Creating a code for Proto-Northern Jê seems like a good idea (there are reconstructions of it), especially if you will be adding entries in it or mentioning it in etymologies of other words. :)
Pinging User:Ungoliant_MMDCCLXIV, in case you have anything to add.
- -sche (discuss) 07:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I assume the other admins I mentioned above are following this, having participated in it when it was on the user talk page of one of them, but I'm going to re-ping User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV because I recall that pings must(?) be added in the same line as signatures in order to work. - -sche (discuss) 07:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@-sche: The mention doesn't have to be in the same line as the signature, but mw:Manual:Echo seems to say that it has to be in a chunk of added lines that contains a signature. — Eru·tuon 19:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Not much more than what you’ve researched yourself. Ultimately each language will have to be researched individually to find its ideal canonical name. I do recall reading that our canonical name of a native Brazilian language was considered an ethnic slur by the people who speak it. I think it was one with a bird’s name, maybe Gavião or Urubu Kaapor.
I’ll add that I believe the main criterion in choosing a canonical name should be the name used in English-language media only. If multiple English-language names exhibit roughly the same amount of use, only then should its status as an autonym or not be considered as a “tiebreaker” (as should practical concerns such as the non-use of diacritics). — Ungoliant (falai) 22:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. The situation with Kayapó vs. Mẽbêngôkre is arguably not the same, however: the label Kayapó has been ambiguously used for designating both (i) a specific Mẽbêngôkre-speaking people (that is, to the exclusion of the Xikrin) as well as the dialect they speak and (ii) as a synonym of Mẽbêngôkre (that is, encompassing both the Kayapó and the Xikrin). In this sense, Mẽbêngôkre is preferrable because it helps avoid this ambiguity. Kayapó and Xikrin could be listed as varieties of Mẽbêngôkre (perhaps as different between each other as are Quebec French and Hexagonal French). Regarding the remaining comments, I realize I might be an interested party (I've been doing comparative and some descriptive work on Northern Jê for ~6 years and I've heard too many linguists' and native speakers' comments regarding their preferred ways to spell the names of these languages), so I guess I'll just wait for a consensus among unbiased Wiktionarians to form. I can also confirm that the Proto-Northern Jê reconstructions you might have seen out there are most probably mine and yes, I would be willing to add the respective entries (guess it's not a problem as long as the reconstructions are published in peer-reviewed outlets). Degoiabeira (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@Degoiabeira I got a bit distracted, but returning to this, I added a code for the family Northern Jê, sai-nje, and a code for the reconstructed language Proto-Northern Jê, sai-nje-pro.
You may already be familiar with how to use them, I don't know, but if not: reconstructions in it would go the Reconstruction namespace (Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/askyi is an example entry in that language), and are mentioned in etymologies in the way you see in e.g. hàki, while the family could can be used if you don't know the precise language (as in sagamité).
- -sche (discuss) 10:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I've also added a code for Tapayuna, sai-tap and Pykobjê language as sai-pyk. - -sche (discuss) 10:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Brilliant, thank you! Degoiabeira (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


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)

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)

September 2020[edit]

Murzyn, murzyn[edit]

Is it really the case that speakers distinguish these as separate words by capitalization? The dictionaries linked in each entry's "further reading" suggest it is not, and that all the senses should be moved to murzyn. (Probably the occasional capitalization of the term is like with English a black man vs a Black man, where we centralize the content at black with Black as an alt form.) (The debate over how offensive the term is is a separate matter.) - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@-sche, yes, it is really the case. Murzyn in the sense "a black person" is always written with capital M.
The "further reading" links are search pages that find two separate entries: Murzyn murzyn
WSJP also has separate entries: Murzyn murzyn
JWilk (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

with main and mood[edit]

This currently exists in the usage notes of mood and a non-English quotation under its last sense-line. If this phrase is attested, it should have its own entry; if it's not attested three times, it's not worth a usage note IMO, we can just put any cites that do exist under that last sense-line. - -sche (discuss) 08:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

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)ArbDardh

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)

October 2020[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 "regional" to "dialectal" would not work is that some entries are labelled "regional AAVE". Thoughts? - -sche (discuss) 01:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I personally think that dialectal and regional terms should be separated. Since a term for something in a region from an out-of-region dialect should be categorize into both regional dialects. -- 16:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • That doesn't make sense. It's not the thing referred to that makes it regional or dialectal, it's the term itself. Do you have an example in mind? Chuck Entz (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the real problem is that it's not clear what we mean when we say something is dialectal. Linguistically, a dialect can be any speech variety that is separate from the rest of the language. With a language such as English that has multiple standards, you could say that much of the language is dialectal, though no one uses the term that way. I suspect there may be a value judgment involved: dialectal English is the way local people talk when they're not using proper English. Regional has less of that: I say potayto and you say potahto, but that's just a matter of geography. Theoretically, sociolects like AAVE and Cockney would be better described as dialectal than regional, but I'm not sure whether they're described as either. For a lot of people, though, it's probably whatever it's called in the references they check (or copy from). Chuck Entz (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
"dialectal English is the way local people talk when they're not using proper English".
What, pray tell, is proper English? General Australian? Standard Canadian English? General American (*had trouble including that as a suggestion with a straight face*)? Standard Indian English?
If someone were to suggest that whatever is arbitrarily declared to be the 'standard' dialect of the English in their country is thus "proper English", and every other dialect is not, then that is obvious nonsense. I get that that is the reason why you used the phrasing value judgement, but if what you suggest to be going on is actually going on, then that is a problem.
Wiktionary aims to be descriptive, not prescriptive. So if the category "Regional English" is being used to suggest that certain dialectal terms are more "proper" than others, then we need to get rid of one category or the other. Tharthan (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not agreeing with the value judgment. I was too lazy this morning to put everything in quotation marks. The basic problem is that this terminology goes back to earlier academic standards and it's hard to tell what it means in a more modern context. A dialectologist or other linguist would probably have a more rigorous definition, but we don't seem to. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


There was a discussion about this in 2014 which was closed (in 2016) after little input, but: should this be -trix? The only word listed as a derivative of this which is not -trix is ambassadrix, and viewing it as containing a suffix *"-rix" while simultaneously viewing ambassadress as containing "-ess" is not consistent anyway (why not view it as -ix, at that point? or more compellingly, as a blend influenced by -trix?). Perhaps if there were two more "-rix"es, it could suggest "-rix" had become an alternative form derived from -trix (although again, the lack of a verb *ambassade makes viewing ambassadrix as *ambassade suffixed with -rix rather than ambassador blended with -trix questionable), but the main form appears to be -trix. (Or, actually, the main process by which English acquires -(t)rix words appears to be borrowing directly from Latin without the application of any suffix in English in the first place.) No? - -sche (discuss) 03:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

There may be some cases where the term doesn't exist in Latin. Either way, this page should be moved to -trix. Ultimateria (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Shanghainese, Category:Shanghainese Chinese[edit]

(Notifying Atitarev, Tooironic, Suzukaze-c, Justinrleung, Mar vin kaiser, Geographyinitiative, RcAlex36, The dog2, Frigoris, 沈澄心, 恨国党非蠢即坏, Thedarkknightli, Michael Ly): I have no idea what the intended difference between these two categories is, but in practice there's none. The former gets triggered by the Shanghainese Wu label while the latter gets triggered by either Shanghai or Shanghainese. They should be merged. Benwing2 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: If we are trying to make a distinction, one category should be referring to Shanghainese Wu, and another should be referring to any variety spoken in Shanghai (i.e. both Shanghainese Wu and Mandarin). I don't know if this distinction should/can be made, though. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Can 硬盤人 be an example that is used in "general Chinese in Shanghai"? -- 07:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@沈澄心: Yes, I think so. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I guess the issue then is, do we have native Shanghainese speakers here who can make this distinction? It looks to me like most entries in both categories are Wu terms. Benwing2 (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
If we have any entries that make this distinction (and one such entry has been convincingly adduced above), then merger would result in losing information. Do you want Shanghai-specific Mandarin terms to go uncategorised as such? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Benwing2, Metaknowledge: @Thedarkknightli probably knows the Mandarin terms and may know some of the Wu terms. For Shanghainese, we have some resources we can consult, so it's the Mandarin terms that are more difficult to figure out. The terms that are in CAT:Shanghainese are Wu for sure (and I would prefer to call the category "Shanghainese Wu" to make it clear). We would need to sift through the CAT:Shanghainese Chinese category to check what's actually Wu and relabel them with "Shanghainese Wu" or just "Wu". BTW, there might be some need to revamp other labels/categories, like "Sichuan" displaying as "Sichuanese" and categorizing to CAT:Sichuanese Mandarin, which could be confusing when we introduce terms in Sichuanese Hakka or Xiang (which we might have some already). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A native Shanghainese speaker would be User:辛时雨 but he is not very active.
What we lack with regional labels, which is specific to Chinese since the merger needs to work for varieties and subvarieties is the ability to add variety specific categories, {{lb|zh|Shanghai|Wu}} is meant to not only label a term but also categorise it as Shanghainese Wu but {{lb|zh|Shanghai}} is for general Chinese, esp. Mandarin. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I think you would need to use {{lb|zh|Shanghai Wu}} or something, not {{lb|zh|Shanghai|Wu}}, since I don't think the same label ("Shanghai") can categorize into two categories. Anyway, add my voice to those saying that if there is intended to be a distinction here, the category names (and, probably, boilerplate texts) should be made clearer. We could also consider "see also"-style crossreferencing them, like Category:Louisiana French and Category:Louisiana Creole French language. - -sche (discuss) 17:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

autarchy, autarky[edit]

Significant overlap. Equinox 09:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. "Autarchy", meaning dictatorship, is a different word with s different meaning from "autarky", meaning self-reliance and autonomy. Some writers have confused them because they are homophones. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Eastern Subanen language[edit]

@-sche, Metaknowledge We have the northern, western and central variants as languages, as well as a couple of other Subanen/Subanon/Subanuns. Someone manually put Pagadian into Category:Category:Cebuano terms derived from Eastern Subanen, which causes an error. Ethnologue recognizes an Eastern Subanen language and even assigns a code sfe. Should this exist on Wiktionary? Benwing2 (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I knew this language name/code seemed vaguely familiar to me, and after poking around I find that it's because I noticed we were missing it a few years ago, but I didn't have time/resources to look into whether we should add it (which isn't a helpful comment, I realize). Wikipedia has little to say about it; the one innovation they mention it has is shared with several other Subanens. What little I see on Google Books suggests Eastern Subanun is a more common spelling for the ethnic group; I see little mention of the lect under any spelling. It's hard to draw firm conclusions, but on the face of it I don't see why we're missing the code (it indeed seems to be one of the major dialects / dialect clusters). - -sche (discuss) 08:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:ar:sisters of ʾinna[edit]

Pretty clear that this is poorly named. I think we can fix this summarily, but I was unsure of exactly what needs to be done. @Benwing2Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It does look like that is the correct term, though: see "w:ʾIʿrab#Sisters of inna". — SGconlaw (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Fascinating. I suppose it should at a minimum be capitalized ("ar:Sisters [...]"), since I believe that is the standard practice (compare "en:Types of plants", "en:Named roads", etc). - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, Sgconlaw, -sche This category IMO should not exist as a topic category as it is specific to Arabic. The commonality between all these particles is that they govern the accusative case so maybe the category should be called 'Arabic particles governing the accusative case'. Benwing2 (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@Benwing2: The term "particle" is poorly defined for Arabic, and there are other things one might call a particle that govern the accusative and aren't considered sisters of إن. What do you think about just moving it to Category:Sisters of ʾinna? Or should "Arabic" be in the category title? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020[edit]

Category:en:Artificial languages[edit]

This should probably be moved to Category:Conlangs, because:

. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 11:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The odd choice of wording was intended to avoid the topical category conflicting with Category:Constructed languages, which is a holding category for those languages. Given that our MediaWiki trappings make it impossible to resolve this conflict, I support this proposal as a better compromise. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

not give someone the time of day, give the time of day[edit]

Clearly need merging under give the time of day (compare give a damn, give a shit). Benwing2 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Support, this makes sense and is an obvious fix. Rauisuchian (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

bainin, bawneen[edit]

One should almost certainly be an alt-form of the other. I’m not sure which is best as lemma or whether the pronunciations should be identical. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 05:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

de kat sturen[edit]

It looks like this is only citable with a pronoun, so the lemma should be zijn kat sturen. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Translingual bibliography terms[edit]

  • ibid. is entered as English, while ibidem only as Latin. It is easily found in Latin texts and other languages, it should be Latin or Translingual. Fay Freak (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • sic – I do not accept this as English, Dutch, French, Portuguese. Why would sic be as English as sick? Its use is restricted to certain contexts, which suggests its not being English just like the abbreviations employed for apothecary use are not English.
  • etc. – merge all sections into translingual, or some troll will execute the idea of creating fifty other individual language sections so we have a Lua memory error from the midriff of the page.
  • et alii, et alia, et aliae, et alios, et alibi, et passim, et seq., et seqq., et cetera, ad loc., vel sim. – this is entered as English, but the fact that it is even declined shows it is Latin or translingual. I parallely move to delete these phrases because they are SOP, even as English, since we even have et in addition to seqq., seq. and so on which should also be moved. I make only the first motion for s.v., v.s. and s.p. – absurdly this is presented as English while s.n. is entered as Latin. And v. a. is “epigraphy, obsolete” – how English is that?
  • brevic. – breviculum is not created, but the natural assumption is that it is Latin and not English. If I search “the breviculum” I only get results for particular books. This demonstrates well how people bad at foreign languages try to sneak in foreign words as English without duly assessing the language; for the translingual nature of terms not using a standard format like taxa and anatomical terms have is only apperceived when actually checking many languages.

Anticipating a popular argumentation that XYZ cannot be Latin because it is used by people who do not know a sod of Latin, I note that I have already disproven this line of argumentation at Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English § de gustibus non est disputandum concerning de gustibus non est disputandum (which the undersigned links both as the discussion in the former page tend to by archived at the talk pages of the individual entries), namely expounding that the objective lexicographic nature of terms cannot depend on the incidental language proficiencies of their users, their expectations about the language proficiencies of their recipients, or the language proficiencies of their recipients. I also note that such couldn’t exclude the categorization as translingual, I have not stated a preference of whether one should move to Latin or translingual. Fay Freak (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep, because:
  • forms like English etc (no dot), i.e. (no space), ie (no dot and no space), and viz (doesn't make sense as abbreviation of vidēlicet or vidēre licet which doesn't contain a z; and isn't shown to be really used in Latin or multiple other languages than English)
  • pronunciation, such as ie/i.e./i. e. as /ˌaɪˈiː/ or like that is
  • Lua memory error is no argument for doing something that might be wrong
For German, dots and spaces are prescribed like z. B. (Duden) or i. e. (Duden), albeit z.B. ([7]) and zB. ([8]) can be found as well. Reasons why the proscribed forms are used, can be: it saves spaces and space; z.[smaller space and never a line break]B. which is more fitting can't be typed easily. --幽霊四 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

volti subito[edit]

and its abbreviation v.s. This is Italian or translingual. As I understand the intended use of such terms is in note sheets which do not even contain linguistic content. There are a lot of similar terms missing from Wiktionary by the way if somebody is interested in music and wants to expand, and there may be other terms already entered but likewise under the wrong language. Fay Freak (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep, because of WT:About Translingual#Rejected. --幽霊四 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Big man ting, this bloke wants to delete e.g.[edit]

The fact that e.g., i.e. and viz. are generally not pronounced as English shows they are not English and should be moved to translingual. (These exact abbreviations are also used in Latin, amongst other languages.) One could imagine these terms to redirect to their pronunciations by a template {{heterogram of}}, literally like in Pahlavi or cuneiform (what’s Category:Translingual logograms for? there is only one translingual entry in it as I am speaking), but I see no reason why they couldn’t be translingual terms in the stead of any individual language entry. Having them as English is just motivated by the natural bias of monolingual English speakers. The entries v.g. (and alternative forms) and vid. I am not well acquainted with are probably like cases. Fay Freak (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I completely disagree with most of these, although a case can be made for some. In my opinion, when a word enters the spoken language with a pronunciation adapted to that language, it can be considered a borrowed word. I think you either betray the fact that you're not a native English speaker or we are familiar with different varieties of English. I hear "e.g." and "i.e." pronounced all the time (as /iˈd͡ʒi/ and /aɪˈi/ respectively). And "etc." is most certainly English and French, etc. People use it all the time in speech, pronunciation varies by language (no one tries to use a more "correct" pronunciation and say /et ˈkeː.te.ra/), and it can be translated into different languages. For instance, German uses usw. instead. To say that it is Translingual is also extremely Euro-centric, because I doubt many African or Native American or Asian languages use it. Just take a look at the translation section....
I'm more open to moving the other terms, but I also hesitate to label words "Translingual" when they are only used in certain languages that happen to all be related.... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
How recent is the phenomenon of pronouncing these abbreviations though? I know about these spelling pronunciations (!), but how much do we have to imagine thereof in the colloquials of various classes in say late 19th-century English, I mean when people were more into natural language and less bookish? In total it seems that it has been more often spelt abbreviated than pronounced so, and that the pronunciation as written is an exception. And in November 2020 everything is an exception and unnatural; it will become unclear how much we can rely on the current language.
I have begun, of course, merely with one argument for the translingual nature of these abbreviations. One may deem them translingual for various other considerations. The “nativized pronunciation” arguments always seem weak to me, since people just pronounce anything in native accents, including undisputably translingual terms like Rubus idaeus. Fay Freak (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Fay Freak: Re “translingual terms like Rubus idaeus”: for example of pronunciations of a translingual term, see Homo sapiens § Pronunciation. J3133 (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea why you'd say "generally not pronounced ... shows they are not English". I have said "ie" and "eg" for decades now, with no difficulties making myself understood. In fact, I'm surprised that some entries say things like "Usually read out as namely, to wit, or occasionally videlicet. Otherwise pronounced as follows: IPA(key): /vɪz/" Of course, that some entries do invalidates the tag someone put on viz. and 21 others, showing they didn't really consult the entries? Slapping the tag on 22 entries at once seems more like enthusiasm than understanding. Anyway, perhaps this again demonstrates there are multiple Englishes, as in academic English? Shenme (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Shenme: I added the tags (because Fay Freak did not) which is customary for discussions of entries and does not mean it was done enthusiastically or with agreement. J3133 (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for the explanation. It _was_ confusing. Shenme (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
They are pronounced as English (by English speakers). The letters "I E" etc. Equinox 08:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
First place, "the objective lexicographic nature of terms cannot depend on the incidental language proficiencies of their users, their expectations about the language proficiencies of their recipients, or the language proficiencies of their recipients" is silly. We label words as English because they're used by English speakers to communicate with English speakers. Why is sick English? Because English speakers use it to other English speakers. Why isn't it Middle English code-switching? Or take kobold (German code switching) or bonsai (Japanese), if you feel like special casing Middle English for English. In any case, once you've tossed aside the languages spoken by the speakers or understood by the listeners, I don't think you have anything at all, much less anything objective.
Certainly a multiword phrase that's typically italicized doesn't say much about words used universally by English speakers and pronounced as English. When you start tossing out i.e. and sic, I wonder how much of anything would end up as English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
“Sick” is English because it is considered English by the doxa. Otherwise your definition is circular, because you would have to define first what an English speaker is. The question is as broad as being about which view is pivotal to a language assignment. My argument is that it must be decided from a learned view what language something is and the naïve view of a monolingual is not enough to distinguish what pertains to a language. He lacks the overview to know whether something is translingual or his language only. Particularly if it turns out that for example the German view does not consider sic German but translingual – I never heard those alleged pronunciations on de:sic#Deutsch in speech just to say –, it is a contradiction if there is also an English section, so the view must be an universal one, abstracted from the typical beliefs of an individual language’s speakers. To say nothing about the fact that the convenience by which non-linguists decide what language something be is even a political one, so terms are declared “Croatian” and “Montenegrin” and the like while seen from above they must be Serbo-Croatian. Fay Freak (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
An English speaker is a speaker of the language most characteristically associated with England, hence English. Alternately you could use a reference speaker--e.g. Queen Elizabeth II--and declare them an English speaker, and the language they speak in and write in to be English.
No, it is not a contradiction if the Germans consider something translingual and the English consider part of English. There's no reason for the view to be universal. This is a categorization, not a fact, and it is a categorization set up so we don't have to produce mostly duplicate entries for a large number of languages. 17 is certainly English, but it does us little good to add that, especially given the hundreds or thousands of languages that use 17. Words like Homo habilis have a weird relation to languages, as they are created to be translingual. On the other hand, there are seven languages at sic, with three more (Latin, Scots and Serbo-Croatian) that use it in different ways; even looking at the translation box, there are seven languages that use sic in the supposed translingual meaning, all western European, with Slavic languages using variants of tak. (tomato, on the other hand, has eight entries in the same sense as English, with three of them in completely non-Indo European languages.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

December 2020[edit]

take advantage of, take advantage[edit]

Tagged by Adam78 in July 2019, but apparently never listed. The specific diffs for the taggings are Special:Diff/53620744 and Special:Diff/53620742. The entries seem to have some distinct definitions listed, with take advantage of having "To exploit, for example sexually." and take advantage having "To profit from a situation deliberately." They also seem to share the definition "To use or make use of."/"To make use of something." Of final note, take advantage has a quotation with a usage that is not followed by of. Feel free to move this entry into the 2019 section if appropriate. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

scare line, scare-line[edit]

Two senses, one sense in each entry, and each entry is an alt form of the other. Would be nicer to have one entry with the content and the other with only alt forms. Equinox 00:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a recurring issue; compare blacksnake and black snake which I brought up at WT:TR § when words are interchangeable but senses are usually spelled one way or the other. If the rope sense is usually spelled scare line and the phrase sense is usually scare-line, I could see why someone would set the entries up the way they are, but I agree it'd be easier to get an overview of all the senses if they were in one place, probably whichever spelling is more common overall regardless of sense. Meh. (Compare also breakfast's religious sense.) - -sche (discuss) 20:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I favor the current approach, but I could be convinced about an alternative if I could see a mock-up. DCDuring (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Merging Thesaurus:large and Thesaurus:gigantic[edit]

I recently happened upon Thesaurus:gigantic and Thesaurus:large. They seem to generally serve the same purpose, though gigantic does describe a greater size than large. Does anyone have any objections to me merging them? I would keep whatever page gets the most views and transform the other into a redirect. Depending on the number, I might also replace all links that exist to one with links to the other. Best. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

No objection, provided the distinction between large and gigantic is made clear somewhere. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
I've discovered that there are an even larger number of similar thesaurus pages than the two I mentioned in my first post. These include WS:small and WS:tiny, WS:gigantic thing and WS:giant, as well as WS:ample and WS:big. Would it make sense to similarly merge the first two pairs as well include the third pair in the merger that I mentioned in my first post? Finally, would it make down to cut down WS:size so that it is only a directory to other thesaurus pages? —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it's fine to merge thesaurus pages that relate to the same part of speech, so long as the shades of meaning of the different words are made clear on the unified page. However, pages that relate to different parts of speech (e.g., gigantic (adjective) v. gigantic thing (noun)) should probably be kept separate – and if I read your post correctly you aren't suggesting such pages be merged. No objection either to most of the content in Thesaurus:size being moved to specific pages and the former being converted to a directory (though synonyms of the word size can be retained). — SGconlaw (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good. For the record, the way I am currently thinking of noting that there are shades of meaning is by putting a note at the top of the page stating something along the lines of "the implied extent that the object is larger than usual is different for each of these terms with some referring to even bigger sizes than others". Is this sufficient in your mind or would using dashes to separate different parts of the list as is sometimes done on thesaurus pages based on their implied size necessary? —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm concerned such a note won't be clear enough. It would probably be better to split the terms into completely different sections, with shorter notes (e.g., one section for big: "Sense: the weakest sense of great size"; and another for gigantic: "Sense: of very great size"). — SGconlaw (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think I should be able to do that and still be able list antonyms in a meaningful way, specifically by doing a similar division between them based on the strength of their senses. For some of the terms I may not be able to accurately determine what section they should be in due to my unfamiliarity, but I'll do my best and shouldn't run into too much trouble. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Hah, separate pages for "large" vs "big" is particularly unnecessary; at least with gigantic vs large/big it's obvious what distinction someone was going for. I wouldn't necessarily consider "most page views" the deciding metric as far as where to put the page, since a majority of page views likely come from (a) which page our entries link to, and (b) which page has content, both of which would change if we update the page title and/or links. In this case, though, it seems that large not only gets the most pageviews (44 in the last 30 days, vs 18 for big, also more views in the last 90 days) but is also the more common word. - -sche (discuss) 20:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you that page views aren't as relevant for thesaurus pages. I think the content should be at the most generic or common synonym. With that, I think it would make sense to look at informal language rather than book corpa which tend to be more formal. I suspect big is more common in informal contexts, but have currently hit the rate limit for the english-corpa.org so cannot do the relevant research yet. When the month changes, I should be all good and I plan to follow the links here on which corpa cover informal English. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I did the searches in the "(personal) blog", "spoken", "interview", "non-academic", and overall "internet" genres of various BYU corpa (those at english-corpa.org) as well as in WorldLex-English in the "BlogFreqPm" (frequency in blogs, per million words) column. I decided to exclude television corpa because I couldn't identify a way to filter out scripted television and just focus on live television. I found big to be more common than larger in almost all cases. Given that, do you think that it would make sense to put the content at WS:big? Thanks and I hope you the best. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
So far I've merged Thesaurus:small and Thesaurus:tiny as well as Thesaurus:gigantic thing and Thesaurus:giant. I think its going pretty well so far, though slowly. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021[edit]

all out, all-out[edit]

Two assorted groups of adjective and adverb senses. Merge? Equinox 14:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd bet that you couldn't come up with definitions on the merged entry that were both complete and subsitutable as both adjective and adverb in such definitions. Also I'd expect that synonyms might need to be distinguished by PoS. DCDuring (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't mean that Adj and Adv should be merged, but rather that the two named entries should be merged. Equinox 21:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


These are terms that were historically used in the Dutch East Indies, perhaps to some degree also in Malay-speaking territories of the Dutch East India Company. A rename to Category:Dutch_East_Indies_Malay makes the most sense. It is doubtful that a category "Netherlands Malay" is needed because the number of speakers of Malay in the Netherlands is not very high. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Support, assuming this can be demonstrated with cites for all the entries. Categories for polities that existed in the past is a good practice when merited; cf. Category:Rhodesian English. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

cut no ice[edit]

Move to cut ice, keeping redirect.

There are other collocations in which this expression can appear. The negative may appear some distance from cut ice, may not grammatically modify ice ("that doesn't cut (any) ice with him"), and may even be omitted altogether ("Would it cut any ice with him?"). There may be other redirects that should be added. DCDuring (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year[edit]

Move to “merry Christmas and a happy New Year” as merry and happy are adjectives which do not need to be capitalized, and per the quotation and the entries merry Christmas and happy New Year. J3133 (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The capitals seem to be common, albeit not mandatory ([9], [10], [11]). Other forms might be:
As alternative forms (comma or not, different capitalisation) get there own entries, keep what exists. As for the main entry, which form is the most common? --幽霊四 (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I see the capitalized form more often than the other forms (as illogical as it is), so oppose. But a usage note or at least an alternative forms section should make note of the other forms ("New Year" is rarely lowercase, in my experience). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

donut, doughnut[edit]

Another pair of almost duplicate entries. Equinox 01:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:noitalic, Template:upright[edit]

Merge; both contain the same code. J3133 (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

These seem clumsy anyway. {{m}} and its friends already know not to italicize scripts other than Latn; can't {{quote-book}} and its friends be taught the same thing? —Mahāgaja · talk 10:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

court martial, court-martial[edit]

J3133 (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


The Italian entry should be moved to -ficare. Every other Italian dictionary has this as the actual suffix, not -ificare. Imetsia (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021[edit]

grown up, grown-up, grownup[edit]

J3133 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

one-on-one, one-to-one[edit]

Significant overlap. Equinox 18:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

See “Wiktionary talk:English entry guidelines#RFM discussion: November 2015–August 2018”. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@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)

reconnoiter, reconnoitre[edit]

Merge (note that both have additional translations and reconnoiter was WOTD). J3133 (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I've merged the verb translations for reconnoiter and reconnoitre. They are all now on reconnoiter#Translations, and reconnoitre#Translations points to this with {{trans-see}}.Voltaigne (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

prolog, prologue[edit]

Partly duplicated material, and then there are two noun senses that only occur in one of the entries, plus the verb (which probably doesn't occur without a u). Equinox 03:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

classic, classical[edit]

Not synonyms, of course, but certain senses overlap almost entirely (except people have edited one and not the other without realising). Equinox 04:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

An approach would be to put all and only the true definitions that are most commonly use a given spelling in that spelling and also have a definition in each saying that it is a synonym of the other spelling. That might not be exactly true, but would be close. To rely on the other term appearing in related terms seems a bit weak. DCDuring (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's what we may have to do, with glosses in the {{synonym of}}s to make clear that each entry being a {{synonym of}} the other is not (just) circular. Like egoist vs egotist (we are not the only dictionary to have a sense line defining each of those terms as the other, in addition to other definitions). - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
If possible and if properly executed, the approach I advocate gets you out of circularity for each individual definition. DCDuring (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


I wish that the

  1. Currencies page [[16]]

would be merged into the

  1. Currency page [[17]]

page. It seems unnecessary to have these split up. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Vininn126 (talkcontribs) at 11:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC).

It looks as though "currencies" was intended for actual currency units (pound, dollar, franc) while "currency" was intended for other terms related to the topic of currency; but if so, this rule has not been followed consistently. Equinox 19:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

banane Gros Michel to Gros Michel (French)[edit]

I would do this myself (it's SOP), but I don't know gender and other grammatical details. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:R:Babiniotis 2002, Template:R:Babiniotis 2008[edit]

How about merging the templates

Template:R:Babiniotis 2002 (2nd ed.), Template:R:Babiniotis 2008 (3rd.) *Template:R:Babiniotis 1998 (1st), *Template:R:Babiniotis 2012 (4th), *Template:R:Babiniotis 2019 (5th)

into something like

Template:R:Babiniotis Dictionary

with parameters such as ed for the edition, p for page, entry for the entry? --2003:DE:3702:3E44:8047:3646:C5CC:6344 14:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we normally handle these. @Sgconlaw, have you got experience with this? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Unless the editions differ significantly in some way, I’d say merging them is a good idea. For example, {{R:Babiniotis 2010}} (not mentioned above) seems to be a completely different dictionary, and should probably not be merged with the others. Also, please think about whether it is necessary to refer to so many different editions of that dictionary. I would suggest it’s enough to have just the 1st or an early edition, and a more recent one. The more editions are merged, the more complex the template will be to maintain. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw: That makes sense. Would you be willing to merge this? Obviously we should support the editions currently referenced in entries, but besides that, maybe the most recent one will suffice. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure. By the way, the work isn’t actually available online, is it? — SGconlaw (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have merged {{R:Babiniotis 2002}} and {{R:Babiniotis 2008}} into {{R:Babiniotis Dictionary}}. A few things to note:

  • So as not to break anything, {{R:Babiniotis 2008}} still exists but it essentially relies on {{R:Babiniotis Dictionary}}. If it is desired to delete {{R:Babiniotis 2008}}, all uses of it must first be replaced by {{R:Babiniotis Dictionary}} (@Benwing2 may be able to assist by doing a bot run).
  • I could not find the 3rd edition of the Dictionary at WorldCat, so I am assuming that publication year of 2008 is correct. (The latest version I could find appears to be a 2006 one. Did the name of the Dictionary change?) (Found it. It was listed under a transliteration into the Roman alphabet rather than in the Greek alphabet.)
  • I have no access to print versions of the Dictionary, so I have not been able to provide proper examples with page and column numbers on the documentation page of the template.

SGconlaw (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

labor, labour[edit]

Equinox 11:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Not precisely identical, given the Labour Party. bd2412 T 19:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

non si può cavare sangue da una rapa[edit]

Should be moved to cavare sangue da una rapa, since other verbs can precede it such as volere, sapere, etc. Not sure whether to redirect or simply delete, however. Imetsia (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

the icing on the cake to icing on the cake[edit]

FTW Oxlade2000 (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. DCDuring (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

the usual suspects to usual suspects[edit]

unnecessary article Oxlade2000 (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. DCDuring (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021[edit]

head count, headcount[edit]

Equinox 00:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

New code for Mpuono[edit]

Pacchiarotti et al. (2019) "Untangling the West-Coastal Bantu Mess" has some handy tips on frequently confused language identifiers. One trap we seem to have fallen for is Mbuun vs Mpuono; our entry mânià (by @-sche) is supposedly Mbuun, but is actually supported by a Mpuono wordlist. We currently lack any entries in the real Mbuun, in which the word for water is ma:ts (source). Per Pacchiarotti et al.'s recommendations, the code [zmp] rightfully belongs to the (much better documented) Mbuun, and we need a new code for Mpuono; I suggest [bnt-mpu]. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The four Boma languages[edit]

Pacchiarotti et al. (2019) "Untangling the West-Coastal Bantu Mess" have a section on the highly confusing Boma languages. We currently follow Ethnologue in having one Boma language [boh]. They suggest retaining this for the B82 language of the DRC, and renaming it "North Boma". That leaves Boma Yumu, Boma Nkuu, and South Boma, all of which are attested B80 languages of the DRC lacking both ISO codes and Guthrie codes, and which they find reason to consider separate languages (and definitely not closely related to one another). I suggest new codes: Boma Yumu [bnt-boy], Boma Nkuu [bnt-bon], South Boma [bnt-sbo]. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

s'habiller comme la chienne à Jacques and habillé comme la chienne à Jacques[edit]

Probably verb main lemma Oxlade2000 (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

American Italian or Italian English? Category fusion or entry deletion or renaming or... help.[edit]

Fairly new user here, been adding some Italian English/American terms to the wiki and found out a few additions in that the category was named American Italian which is why I couldn't find it. Which term should we use, and can we pick one so we can put them all in one place? (Also, on the topic, what's a good way to categorize things when we know we're from one of four dialects but aren't sure...which?)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:American_Italian I have the American Italian category here; I've managed to move gabbadost and jamoke there, but https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Italian_English will have to be renamed I think, depending on which is a more accurate name; additionally, I don't know what the correct syntax relationship between "definition of the dialect, dialect category, etc." is.

American Italian is the Italian language as spoken in America. Italian English is the English language as spoken by Italians. Since the US is the main place with English-speaking Italians, there tends to be overlap, especially with code-switching.
That said, they aren't the same thing. Most-English-speaking Italians in the US don't really speak Italian, but their usage has enough differences from mainstream English for the "Italian English" label and category to be useful. Likewise, Italian as spoken in the US has enough differences from Italian as a whole that the label and category "American Italian" are useful.
The same people may often be speaking both, but the important distinction is: are they speaking Italian, or are they speaking English? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that? Andrew Longo categorizes American Italian as the pidgin language that comes from using both Italian and English together so I'm not sure how to answer "are they speaking Italian or English" when the answer frequently seems to be "both" and "neither". And part of the issue re: American Italian in particular is that they are speaking Italian - it's just dialect/Neapolitan or Sicilian, which is why it doesn't register as 'Italian' to Italians. Elliott Dunstan (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Chuvantsy and Chuvan[edit]

Hi, I propose renaming Chuvantsy (xcv) to Chuvan. The pro of this renaming is the consistency between the WM projects (both the English wikipedia and Wikidata favour this name). Furthermore it's a more simple name, that is easily deductible from the native speakers' ethnonym. I don't personally see any downside to this, since all the primary (descriptive) sources on this language are written in Russian, and the term Chuvan seems to be just as, if not more, often in use as Chuvantsy. Thadh (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

lombard and Lombard[edit]

A wee bit of cross-over Yellow is the colour (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Merged. - -sche (discuss) 19:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Zagreb counties[edit]

Could someone please preform moves listed at Appendix talk:Place names in Croatia. Thank you! --Ivi104 (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

een sprong in het duister maken[edit]

I think this should be moved to sprong in het duister and converted to a noun. The forms with maken are not overwhelmingly common compared to other uses. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021[edit]

slue, slew[edit]

There are several "rotation" senses that are patchily duplicated between these entries. Equinox 19:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

story, storey[edit]

The building and floor senses are duplicated. Equinox 20:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

fight shy, fight shy of[edit]

The definitions are different (I think fight shy is better; the other is too vague) and it seems that the entries should be merged anyway. Note that fight shy can occur alone, without of. Equinox 02:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

ghafir, ghaffir[edit]

Apparently the same word but the definitions differ somewhat. Equinox 08:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:English plurals ending in "-en"[edit]

This is a subcategory of "Category:English irregular plurals". Should it be renamed "Category:English irregular plurals ending in "-en"", to match other similar subcategories? (If so, "Category:English plurals ending in "-a"" and "Category:English plurals ending in "-oi"" should also be renamed.) — SGconlaw (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021[edit]

spit in someone's face[edit]

Should be moved to spit in the face of, since one can spit in the face of, e.g., the law, the government, hip-hop culture, and other non-people nouns. Imetsia (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually it should be spit in one's face, as there are already many such set phrases involving a genitive construction where the variable object is represented as one's. For example: change one's mind—though there is also change someone's mind, which is redundant and should probably be deleted. — 02:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Canonical name of "mep"[edit]

Currently, the canonical name of the language in WT is spelled Miriwung, even though every primary/secondary source I could find recommended the spelling Miriwoong, as that is consistent with the language's own orthography, while the spellings "Miriwung" and "Miriuwung" are considered nonstandard. Can someone fix it? --Numberguy6 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


Fix to the standard format for reference templates.
For the same reason, also:

and perhaps:

and others of similar form.
There are many others, but I won't attempt to list them all. Some, such as Template:R:Duden, Template:R:DIL and Template:R:Dwelly, are used on hundreds of pages and therefore moving the template would be a disruptive change; in such cases the original titles should be kept as redirects for convenience–but I doubt that these more established ones will be considered for moving at all.
There doesn't seem to be any official policy on the naming of reference templates; the common Template:R:[code]:[name or abbreviation(:[year])] format is merely a convention. Some categories of reference templates such as Category:Proto-Indo-European reference templates have members which are almost entirely named according to this format; others have none at all; most are a mix. The inconsistency is confusing. Would it be improper to suggest a rule that all (future) reference templates include the respective language/family code when applicable? I would appreciate feedback from any big contributors on how you handle this type of thing, considering that templates have often been renamed according to this "standard" formatting in the past, despite lack of much discussion or an official guideline. Such a discussion would at least inform Wiktionarians on how to name reference templates in the future. 02:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Silly me, I didn't notice these parlour discussions on it: 04:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)