Wiktionary talk:Wanted entries

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

inflected forms[edit]

As I write, every word in the list is an inflected word. These are of secondary importance if we still have redlinked words in dictionary form, but if "wanted" goes strictly by number of links alone I guess it's right. If it's not so strict it's worth working on I'd say. — Hippietrail 16:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There is already a page Wiktionary:Requested articles:English doin this job, so why do we need this page as well. Please see if you can reasonably just put these words into that list, then delete this page.--Richardb 00:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a separate page, but the embedded short version that shows up at the top of "Recent Changes". It appears nowhere on its own and is merely a short list reminder for people who might not be willing to take the time to sift through the blue links on the full page. Since I have begun updating this list, I've noticed an increased interest in the Requested articles list, so it's helping, not hindering. --EncycloPetey 01:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


I've tentatively added the "Special:" link. We'll see if it works, even though that index is only updated twice a week (automatically.) I don't think it can be limited to namespace zero, and the width will require occasional manual adjustment of the number of entries appearing. Don't know if this approach will ever replace the current method, but I do hope it does, eventually. --Connel MacKenzie 07:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


It says "wanted articles", but does anybody really want or ? I don't think they belong in this list. 지 ranks high at Special:Wantedpages (which is probably why somebody added them), but many of those links seem to come from different hanja that are written 지, or somebody linked 지 many times from articles where a word happens to contain it. The hanja already have their own articles, the meaning of 지 in combined words must be explained for each individual combined word, and the few cases where 지 it is not simply the pronunciation of some hanja are now mostly covered by the article, so I think we can remove it from the list. I guess the same applies 질. Dustsucker 21:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


Where do we put the queue now? I've hunted up the following terms for the next round:

ratiocinate - blood brother - gråta - make no bones about - tenuity - outgun - 信封 - butternut.

bd2412 T 13:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Queue? (again)[edit]

Now what do we need to put up for the list? --MacReporter 13:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at Special:Wantedpages and found these:
infedire - rivvenire - gude - arter - sara - niver - Ch'orti' - ibreve - scape - 2007 - Argos
More to come soon! --MacReporter 13:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget that this special list is very out of date - some entries were spelling mistakes that have been subsequently corrected (the first two in you selection, as examples). You need to look at the "links". SemperBlotto 13:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. Current list (not counting checked-off-because-special-page-I-got-them-off-was-out-of-date words) will be added shortly. Thanks! --MacReporter 22:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed infedire. There are only 9 Google hits, and every one of those is a scanno. For all the Google Books returns, the original clearly does not have this word. --EncycloPetey 20:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


This list currently has schrillance, for which there are no Google Web, News, News Archive, Groups, Scholar, or Books hits. Of course, it may be a word anyway, but it seems unlikely.—msh210 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

True, it may be a word, but it's certainly not a terribly important word. Removed. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Will need larger queue[edit]

Yeah, right now we have a grand total of two items on the queue and the majority of stuff on the list is not English. I think it says in the hidden area that it should be mostly English...Teh Rote 15:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


So I'm thinking that this is stupid, and not something we want to be requesting. I propose all links be switched to prefecture-level, and the entry removed from here. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

+1 —RuakhTALK 17:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I have fixed all main namespace pages that link to it. Teh Rote 00:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Un-wanting articles?[edit]

Is there any sort of informal process (or, heck, formal process) for un-wanting articles? For example, pėdės seems to be a barbarism, the correct forms being pėda, pėdos, etc.; and Special:Whatlinkshere/pėdės doesn't convince me otherwise. —RuakhTALK 21:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would propose this: If someone thinks that a word does not belong on the wanted articles list, that person removes the word from the list. They are then required to post a comment on this talk pages explaining the reasoning behind the removal (this requirement enforceable by me and my omnipotence). If others disagree with this, they state their reasons why, and a discussion ensues (a process which will be new and strange for most Wiktionarians, I'm sure). While the discussion is happening, the word stays removed, to be reinstated iff the discussion comes to a consensus to reinstate it. The reasoning behind this is that it's a bad idea to waste precious wanted articles space with bunk words, and it's quite easy to put it back on if the community decides its worthwhile. Ultimately, if someone takes offense at a word not being there, they should just create it themselves, allowing for a more formal rfv/rfd process, if they so desire. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense. :-)   I've removed pėdės because it gets very few Google hits (see google:"pėdės"), and the hits that it does get seem mostly to be mentions in otherwise non-Lithuanian contexts. Further, we imply in several places that it means “foot”, but as far as I can tell, the Lithuanian word for “foot” is pėda. It's possible that pėdė means “pedal” (http://www.babylon.com/definition/pedal/Lithuanian) or “{{US}} pay” (http://www.lituanus.org/1994_2/94_2_05.htm), in which case pėdė would be the nominative plural, but it doesn't seem to me that any of these senses meets CFI. —RuakhTALK 02:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I've just removed just as and glory hound, which are sums of parts.—msh210 18:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
just as is only sum of parts for one of its possible meanings. It can be an adverb or a conjunction. The conjunctive use is not sum of parts. --EncycloPetey
I will of course not re-remove it from the list, but can you give me a sentence wherein it's not SoP?—msh210 19:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
There are at least two sum-of-parts usages of just as that I can identify, but one conjunctive use that isn't:
  1. Sum of parts adverbial use: The ladder is just as high as the tree.
  2. Sum of parts? conjunctive use: The alarm sounded just as I lay down to sleep.
    • denotes simultaneity, but seems sum-of-parts since removing the element just does not affect meaning.
  3. Conjunctive use: Oranges come from orange trees, just as apples come from apple trees.
    • denotes a like manner, and does not seem sum-of-parts since removing just affects the meaning (to imply the simultaneity), and since just as may be replaced with and to achieve nearly the same meaning.
I would create the entry myself, but conjunctions are notoriously difficult to define, and I need help. --EncycloPetey 21:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that in "Oranges come from orange trees, just as apples come from apple trees", "just as" means "precisely" + "in the way that", SoP. Likewise for "The alarm sounded just as I lay down to sleep": "precisely" + "when/after".—msh210 21:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
...in which case we're missing a sense of just. None of the existing adverb definitions quite apply here. --EncycloPetey 22:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
No, we have it: sense 4 (“exactly, perfectly”). —RuakhTALK 22:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
That definition is incorrect in this situation. In the sentence "Oranges come from orange trees, just as apples come from apple trees", they do not come exactly or perfectly. The "coming from" for oranges and apples is similar, or comparable, but not "exactly, perfectly". The "just as" does not require two things to be exactly the same. --EncycloPetey 17:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
#3 is interesting, because the "as" can be replaced with "like" or "like how" without changing the meaning, but as you say, dropping the "just" completely changes the meaning. If we don't create an entry for just as, then I think we need a usage note for the relevant sense of as, but I'm not sure what it would say. Maybe that this sense of as requires a degree-of-precision adverb ("just", "exactly", "much", "rather", etc.)? Research seems warranted. —RuakhTALK 22:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems no different from the first sense we have for as: "In the same way that; according to what. (As you wish, my lord!)"—msh210 22:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. *introspects* It seems like this sense can be either "parallel" or "meta": "I did as you did" ≈ "you did as I did" (parallel), but "I did as you asked" ≠ *"You asked as I did" (meta). (I guess this is because the meta use is an ellipsed version of the parallel use "I did as you asked [me to do]", which ≈ "You asked me to do as I did".) It can also be either "supplementary" or "integrated": "I did it, as you thought" ≈ "As you thought, I did it" (supplementary), but "I did as you thought" ≠ "as you thought I did" (integrated). As alone seems fine in all cases except the parallel supplementary case; it's only there that it sounds wrong (and confusing) without the just. So maybe this is a perfectly normal phenomenon — in the case where the user is most likely to misunderstand (and infer simultaneity rather than same-way-ity), we add an additional adverb that (somehow?) reduces the ambiguity. But that just raises more questions: since "just as" can also be used for simultaneity, how come in this case it helps to clarify some-way-ity? And the most important question: Is all this fodder for a usage note, or just fodder for the observation that dictionary definitions have limits? —RuakhTALK 02:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I will. The policy above (which was, admittedly, written solely by me, but which was agreed to by all who participated in the discussion, and still seems like a good route to go, in any case, until some better or more official policy is produced) states that words under discussion should remain off the list until a consensus is reached to put them there. You are, of course, still quite free to create the entry yourself. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Name change[edit]

As we've changed many pages and categories from Wikipedia style "article" to "entry" recently, should we change this page too. --Bequw¢τ 10:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


A google search sees only proper noun use, the name of an obscure angel. The lower-case version is thus not a real word, and the upper-case seems to lack the requisite importance for this list, especially as it has no incoming links. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


Possibly a concatenation, anyone know for sure? bok svenska means literally "Swedish book", and could be what was meant here? -- Pinkfud 21:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I was wrong. Good entry has been done. -- Pinkfud 22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
It sounds similar to bokmål, literary the language in books. But I hope there is no bokdansk though... The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


Been trying to puzzle this one out. Looks like one possibility is from Anglo-Saxon. There was a class of adjectives ending in -lic, and if "e" was appended to that, you got an adverb ending in -lice, meaning "like" or "in the manner of". Equivalent to -ly in modern usage? As in Anglo-Saxon biterlice being roughly equal to our bitterly? (Certainly no authority on Anglo-Saxon, I'm just curious when I find something really obscure. -- Pinkfud 04:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hangul syllables[edit]

Per User talk:Visviva#Wanted Hangul entries. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

abacinare, abacinatus[edit]

Some discussion with EP reveals these words to be fairly rare medieval words of difficult to determine language status. While we probably will want entries for these words one day, I think that that day is somewhat far off, when we have specialists in this area. It seems a pity to clog up the Wanted entries with 'em. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

birth parent[edit]

I'm removing birth parent from the queue, as I think it's SOP; "birth parent/mother/father/sibling/sister/brother", even "birth twin/uncle/aunt/grandmother/etc." are all well attested. —RuakhTALK 22:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

abate a tax[edit]

How is this idiomatic? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please only list wanted entries[edit]

I note that abatere is only link to from talk pages and user pages. A lot of these entries when created end up being deleted. Let's not just blindly at entries based on the number of internal links. I think that firstly, pages that aren't linked to from the main space like abatere should not be included. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think abatere ought to be removed from this list. It's been on a long time, and has not had any takers. It also doesn't seem to exist in any Romance language that I've checked. --EncycloPetey 19:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
It gets some b.g.c hits in Romanian books, mostly related to law. -- Prince Kassad 21:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Heh, whatever...I don't think however, that no main space links should automatically be grounds for disqualification of eligibility. For example, I put abatere onto project-wanted entries because it was on RU's (updated) oldest redlinks list. As a secondary example, I created medicotechnological the other day. If I was unable to make any sort of entry for it and it ended up on some tracking list like RU's would you disqualify it too for having no links leading to it? 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
PS IMO project-wanted entries should not just mean "wanted" by the software.

In case the queue runs short again...[edit]

Here is a list of about 5,600 words that appear both in the Hotlist and in my little textpile (mostly news sources + scholarly journals + Gutenberg). -- Visviva 06:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

great :) L☺g☺maniac 14:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


The list includes (U+E83A). This is a private use character and is not appropriate for an entry. Needs to be removed. Bendono 13:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- Prince Kassad 14:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Move page[edit]

Does anyone mind if I rename this page Wiktionary:Wanted entries. project-wanted entries looks wrong (there's a discussion at WT:RFM about this)--Rising Sun talk? contributions 15:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Clean Language[edit]

What is this? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No idea. I didn't remove it because it looks like a proper noun. However, it may be improperly formatted, and mean simply clean ‎(morally unobjectionable”, “devoid of vulgarity, carnality, or profanity) + language ‎(way of speaking”, “a given vocabulary and style of speech). Conversely, it may be a proper noun unworthy of inclusion by our standards. I don't know.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Selection process[edit]

Is this just a list of random entries put onto a list? Theoretically these are supposed to have incoming links, but few of them do. Like one would not dream. Who added this? If it's not SoP, what does it mean? We should clean out all the RFV and RFD fodder, no matter who adds them. WT:REE is a pretty good source, also msh210's user subpages (I'll let him tell us which ones). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the system, personally. Random, yes, but it works. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Many of the terms have failed RFD or are extremely rare or semantically transparent ones (e.g., templatizable, which is both). In general, the wanted-entries list has been a source of low-priority, low-quality entries.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why it is separate from WT:REE. Equinox 15:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Multiple reasons, including both history and the fact that REE includes a grab-bag of mostly terms no one has been able/willing to do. --EncycloPetey 15:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
How the list is run, who adds to it, and the quality of the resulting entries... all of this changes every few months. One or two people take charge of it for a time, then get bored and stop doing so, whereupon someone else steps in, etc. With each change, a new view of how the list ought to be used commences. If there are few high-quality entries coming out, in your opinon, then what are you putting in? If you've particular ideas, then perhaps you ought to contribute in a way that demonstrates what you want out of it. I tend to add (only sporadically) those terms that I notice are missing, but which I know have links and either can't quite figure out how to define or don't have the time/motivation to do so right then. Not an ideal way to do it, but it usually results in basic-quality entries for some valid terms. And, when I see a Latin term on the list, or an English one that intrigues me, I usually try to fill the request. --EncycloPetey 15:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The lack of QC is becoming problematic. We have many lists of hundreds or thousands of missing English entries that are demonstrably real and needed, so there's no excuse for so many entries created through this list having to be deleted shortly after creation. ... I suppose I could just add a few hundred words to the queue myself, if that wouldn't be too gauche. I've felt a bit awkward adding more than a handful at a time.-- Visviva 03:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
If you have a list of kosher terms to hand, then, by all means, enqueue them.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 03:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Added a thousand. More where those came from. -- Visviva 05:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
We have the additional problem that items in the queue are not being selected in any order. Also, items put back into the queue after unsuccessfully loitering in the active part of the list are put back at the head, with no indication they were unsuccessful. This means that a long list (as we have now) is processed randomly and haphazardly. It used to be that items added to the queue were selected in the order of the queue, with changes to queue order only to break up groups of very similar items (e.g. a string of Korean requests). --EncycloPetey 03:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, when I've updated it, I've been following the rule of no more than one non-English term in the active list at a time. I see that rule is no longer with us, but I think it is/was a good one; although there are several thousand times as many non-English entries that we need as English entries, for most LOTEs only one or two editors will have any relevant expertise, so the queue tends to stagnate if these are given equal weight. -- Visviva 03:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Purposefully stagnating wanted entries[edit]

Sorry, I accidentally pressed enter before I finished my comment. Two of those entries have requests for photographs, and the proper venue for that is Category:Requests for photographs, which they are placed in. Let's keep this moving. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. This should be a list of red links.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 07:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
There is instruction on the text of this page that is directly related to this dicussion: "Then, please let newly defined words linger until someone else reviews them." I've been following this instruction and keeping blue links for some time before deleting them myself. A few hours ago, Atelaes and I were talking (through IRC) about specifying a possible limit (ranging from hours to days) for blue links to linger in the list before being removed. Should we introduce such a generous limit? Or remove that instruction to always delete blue links on sight? --Daniel. 09:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd always understood that text as referring to the short list of terms that are visible atop editors' watchlists, and not to the longer, invisible list. IMO, the most sensible regulation would be that a term ought not to be removed by either its requester nor its creator, but that's all.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think about it, I think that that's all it means, actually, that the author of an entry shouldn't remove it from the list, but anyone else can, and can do so immediately. I see no reason why the requester shouldn't feel free to remove it. Perhaps we should clarify this. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


What? Equinox 19:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I have boldly removed this and also accentmark. Both are at best on the ragged edge of inclusibility. I was working on accentmark for a bit, but could find nothing that persuaded me that the handful of occurrences were anything but (rare) typographical errors. -- Visviva 19:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I feel uneasy about this whole 'project' now. We already have Wiktionary:Requested entries, this is used for very few anonymously added entries, a large amount of which are proposed for verification or deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Visviva, may I ask how you came up with the list? I guess I assumed that it was compiled based on incoming links or something. "accentmark" had a very old one from "accent", which I have removed, but "cookiemonster" apparently had none. I think that, as long as we stick to linked words, then we should be ok. Anything that shouldn't be created is still useful, as we then know to remove its incoming links. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
If you mean the ones that I added to the queue, they were a randomized selection from the redlinks on User:Visviva/Hotlist_cited, so all would have at least two incoming links. However, none of those have made it into the "active" section yet; we're still working through the stuff I was complaining about before. :-)
Intersectionality might be a useful requirement, e.g.: a word must appear on x number of missing-words lists and/or have y total incoming links. That leaves room to keep the list interesting without letting it devolve into a poor man's WT:RE. This could be enforced by bot, if anyone thought it was a good idea. -- Visviva 23:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that it's an excellent idea. I think it's a bad idea to have people just adding whatever they feel like. There are venues for personal requests, and this shouldn't be one of them. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
A halfway solution would be to sort the queue periodically (once a week? or month?) by total number of incoming links. That way people won't get miffed by having their additions forcibly excluded, but the words that end up in the active section will reflect sane priorities. Reckon I could do a trial run of that now. -- Visviva 06:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I have re-sorted the queue in this way, so the new entries coming into the active section should, in theory, actually be wanted. (po- is apparently a prefix in a number of Slavic languages.) -- Visviva 18:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this was setup because Wikimedia stopped updating Special:WantedPages, so it should work something like that. Clearly, IMO, anything that may not be attestable per CFI doesn't belong here. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


Are there any words in English that actually have this as a suffix? The only words I can think of that end in these letters are words that words formed by adding -ity to an adjective that already ended in "-al" (or else the whole word existed in a perent language). --EncycloPetey 18:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The OED has A–H, pertinently, -ality, cleverality, cockneycality, and hyperochality, but not any of *cleveral, *cockneycal, and *hyperochal.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, that seems like pretty weak evidence to me. We should keep in mind that, under the new system, the fact that it's there (at the top of the list) means that it has a lot of incoming links. We should remove those links before we remove it from the queue, if we do so. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Since no one has presented any evidence to the contrary, I've gone ahead and removed the links to -ality, as well as those of -ivity, which suffers the same problems, and removed them both from the queue. It appears that they were both part of a series of links that was copied on numerous pages. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry; I wasn't clear. The OED gives that derivation (explicitly or implicitly) for all three of those terms. It also lists other -ality terms which lack -al counterparts, but as EP noted, they were borrowed directly from other languages; for example, the OED etymology for alamodality ([1]) is "a. mod.L. alamodalitas, f. alamodal-is, f. à-la-mode: see next. Alamodal seems not to occur." Does that seem more conclusive to you? (BTW, FWIW & FYI, t'OED does not list *-ivity.)  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
No, looking back, that was pretty clear; I just misread. Sorry. Would you be willing to create entries for some of them? I'm having a difficult time figuring out what you'd add to -ality to get the terms listed. As for those coming from other languages, such as alamodality, that wouldn't count. -ality should only be created if it is productive in English. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Already ahead of you. See cleverality, cockneycality, and hyperochality.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Sweet. However, even after all that work of yours, I feel compelled to defend my original actions. -ality merits inclusion, based on those entries, but is such a rare suffix, that it doesn't merit placement on "Wanted entries", nor does it merit linkage in all the entries I removed it from. I might just create -ality myself, though, if I can think of the right way to formulate it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you; it should not have been in the wanted-entries list. N.b. that I've created -ality already; however, feel free to edit it if you have improvements to suggest.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Move debate[edit]


The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.

Wiktionary:project-wanted entries[edit]

I'd like the page Wiktionary:project-wanted entries renamed to Wiktionary:Project:Wanted entries. --Daniel. 06:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd go along with that. It's not really a project though, as such, just a list of seemingly random entries people want made. just Wiktionary:Wanted entries might be better. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I mildly prefer Wiktionary:Wanted entries. I've always wondered where those words come from, because some of them have absolutely no links towards them. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
AFAIK this is a list of project-wanted entries, i.e. entries wanted by the project (Wiktionary), i.e. those with redlinks aimed at them. See, e.g., [[Wiktionary talk:project-wanted entries#Please_only_list_wanted_entries]].​—msh210 20:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of the word "project-wanted". Then, I go along with Rising Sun, MediaWiki (who calls the automatized list of red links Wanted pages, without project) and Mglovesfun, supporting Wiktionary:Wanted entries. --Daniel. 12:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Support moving to WT:Wanted entries. --Yair rand 17:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Done. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


What language is clerge supposed to be? All the linked pages are from outside the main namespace, and the citations on User:Visviva/Hotlist cited seem to be scannos in French for clergé. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


Not a word - likely a typo or other error for ビデオテープ. Nothing links to it except this page (Special:WhatLinksHere/ヴデオテープ). And why was it on the list twice? I'll delete it in a moment. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


The two citations given on Fraktionary seem to be scannos for barricaded. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"apple" compounds[edit]

What about all these apple- compounds on the list? Are they citable? Most of them have been on the active list, but none has ever been created AFAIR. Longtrend 18:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


I've removed this entry, as I suspect that it is nothing more than a transliteration of Ancient Greek ὅτι ‎(hóti). See [2]. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Editing the queue[edit]

I haven't edited the queue, but some of the terms just shouldn't be included, like LOTR material (Carrock, Adûnaic, etc) and probably more. There's a good reason they're redlinks. Should I remove these, or just wait the few millennia that it will take for them to ascend to the top of the queue? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

See above discussion about "ragged edge of inclusibility". I do get the feeling that people sometimes stick unlikely words here, knowing that our dislike of red links may lead to their creation, whereas if they posted them on WT:REE etc. they would probably be flagged as bad and later deleted. Equinox 23:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I've always liked (and followed) the process outlined at #Un-wanting articles?. I may be biased in this. There is certainly a tendency for crap to find its way here. That may not be entirely bad, as some tricky words are genuinely appropriate here, where there will be a lot of eyeballs on them. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to that discussion. That sounds great. I will now remove those two LOTR in-universe terms that I mentioned above, and I welcome any and all to comment if they ought to be included. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I also skipped most of the diacritic-looking things and random marks when I updated the active list, because those tend not to be made (and would flood the list). We can put them in slowly, I guess. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we remove vedder? It seems to be positively uncitable. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


Creation is blocked. ("It matches the following blacklist entry: .*[\x{FB50}-\x{FDC7}\x{FE70}-\x{FEFC}].*")

Should redirect to آ. kwami (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Redirected. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The entry has a Unicode character box but it doesn't have a Translingual section. Should it have one? If not, which section does the box belong in? —CodeCat 18:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


It's currently in the active list. I don't know which language that is supposed to be, but shouldn't the entry be called anteros? Longtrend (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think so, Special:WhatsLinksHere/anteros has a few seemingly valid references, while Special:WhatsLinksHere/anterōs has none. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Replace all instead of just two at a time?[edit]

The unwritten practice so far has been to remove two terms and place them back at the end, and add two new ones from the front of the queue. Could we instead replace all of them in one go? That way the queue will rotate faster, giving the terms more exposure overall. —CodeCat 15:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Language codes[edit]

Recently all the links codes were changed from plain [[square brackets]] to the {{l}} template and hyphens were turned from simple '-' to '–'. Both changes make it very hard to maintain this list IMO, especially the former. The {{l}} template requires a language code, but the whole point of this list is to have an option to list words of unknown origin, or even words from languages of which one doesn't know the language code. How is a newbie supposed to add entries here now? The hyphen thing is not that much of a problem, but as you can e.g. here, the most recent entries were added using the simple hyphen again, making the page look inconsistent. Perhaps a bot could replace all incorrect hyphens, but still. Longtrend (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Re language codes: newbies don't (and probably shouldn't) edit this page anyway.
Re hyphens: I prefer simple hyphens myself, but which would you rather? (I can bot-standardise this page as needed.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think newbies shouldn't edit this page? It's not protected or anything, is it? As for the hyphens, I don't have a strong tendency, but simple hyphens don't really look worse and mean less work, so I would go for them too. Longtrend (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Links for words in unknown languages can be added with {{l|und|—}}, which is the way that most of those links have been added. I'm not too concerned about whether {{l}} is used, but if it's not to be used, it would be helpful to have links for non–Latin-script terms enclosed in the appropriate script templates (IMO, it would be simpler simply to use {{l}}, with its automatic script detection). FWIW, I welcomed the edit that introduced the en dashes — it more clearly separates the terms from one another, which is especially helpful in the longer, "Queue" section — and would support the bot-standardisation of their use contra ordinary hyphens. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
If we keep the hyphens we should probably use the HTML code for them. It's hard to copy and paste the hyphens just to add a new term. —CodeCat 23:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I assume you mean "en dashes" where you've written "hyphens". I don't think that there's a need to enforce the use of either Unicode or HTML en dashes, since they'll display the same; let's leave that choice to personal preference. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


does this deserve an entry? I assume it is pinyin for 我們 meaning we, but usually men doesn't have a tone. Xit vono (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


I propose the removal of this word from the list. Google Books returns no hits, and I'm quite sure it's not citable. (In case you wonder what it's supposed to mean: It's a shop where you can rent floor sanding machines.) Longtrend (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Even if it existed, it would be Fußbodenschleifmaschinenverleih outside Switzerland and Liechtenstein. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Do such specialized niche businesses even exist? I can certainly understand a store for renting equipment in general, but a place just for floor sanders seems most unlikely. How much demand is there for sanding floors? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The original request came with a link to this photograph. So it seems there does exist at least one such store ;) Longtrend (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


I could find no evidence that this word is attested. There is ἐκτροπίας, which is attested once, and which shares obvious parallels, but is probably not enough to create ἐκτροπία off of. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

OK; thanks, Atelaes. May I ask what the isolated attestation of ἐκτροπίας ‎(ektropías) is about? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The reference is Alciphron, Collected Works 1.20. The listed definition is wine turned sour. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I see. Thank you. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

λύκος ἔχανεν[edit]

I have removed this, as it is SOP. It is simply λύκος ‎(lúkos, wolf) + the aorist of χάσκω ‎(kháskō, to yawn, gape). The phrase is found in the fragments of Aristophanes, but does not seem to be especially meaningful or idiomatic. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The LSJ entry for χάσκω has (under A.2) "λύκος ἔχανεν the wolf opened his mouth (for nothing), prov. of disappointed hopes", which I took to mean that λύκος ἔχανεν is "[used] prov[erbially] of disappointed hopes"; is this not the case? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not always possible to tell for certain, but that's not how I interpreted it. I interpreted it as "this word can sometimes be used proverbially for disappointed hopes, as, for example, in this sentence". -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
OK. I'll defer to you on this. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


The third hit for this word is this page. This is not a word. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The LSJ entry for συναλιφή has (at the end of § A.2) "cf. ἀλιφή, ἀπαλοιφή, καταλιφή, περιαλιφή". Does that section not refer to words? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
So it does. How odd. There seems to be some confusion among the Greeks about what vowel(s) should come between the lambda and the phi in this construction. In any case, it is not an attested word. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The LSJ nods! Do ἀπαλοιφή, καταλιφή, περιαλιφή, and συναλιφή fare any better? Or are they also mere lexicographers' figments? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Ἀλοιφή ‎(Aloiphḗ) does exist, and the base of our word synalepha, συναλοιφή ‎(sunaloiphḗ) too. --Fsojic (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC) — IFYPFY. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
@Fsojic: Ah, thank you. Do you mind if I add those two Ancient Greek words to the WT:WE list? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


This capitalization of salateen appears to stem from its use in titles as opposed to a separate version. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 19:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@JohnC5: Agreed. I've removed the link to it. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

īnsinuum and īnsinibus[edit]

I am having trouble finding evidence for these forms. In the case of īnsinuum, I mostly find in sinuum. In the case of īnsinibus, I can only find this and this, the former appears actually to be in finibus and the latter is claimed to be a misreading of īnsignibus. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 03:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I notice that those forms come from a request here for the word īnsinus, of which I also cannot find evidence. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 03:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Perhaps the request was prompted by a misanalysis of īnsinuō as deriving from *īnsinus + , by analogy with sinuō (sinus +‎ ), rather than the correct formation, viz. īn- +‎ sinuō. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 04:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: Seems plausible to me. I've been staring at those two for a month now, and I'm getting really tired of them. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 04:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@JohnC5: It sounds like you've done what you can to attest them. Let's just remove them as unattestable. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 04:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: Thank goodness. I'll remove the requested Latin entries bit too. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 04:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 05:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


@I'm so meta even this acronym I can find these references to omniam, but they must be typos? They are ungrammatical to my eye (de omniam, for instance). I can't find or imagine any form that would produce this except a misinterpretation of omnia as first declension, but I can find no evidence of that. JohnC5 06:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


All I can find on Google Books when I search for this term is scannos of immortale. Accordingly, I think the term should be removed from the list. @JohnC5 Agreed? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I very much agree. JohnC5 22:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

A requested Russian (?) term question[edit]

What is целами ‎(celami)? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Atitarev: It seems that I added that term in this edit, but I have no idea whence I got the word. Feel free to remove it if it's a non est. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Judging by my contributions around that time, the Russian word may have something to do with the generic names Lissemys and/or Emyda, and/or the Latin emys. I'm not sure, though. Searching google books:целами yields 57–81 hits, for what that's worth. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, removed. The Google hits that were Russian and full words are a rustic/regional pronunciation of це́лыми ‎(célymi) - instrumental case of це́лый ‎(célyj). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev: I see. Might it be worth having an entry for целами ‎(celami) as an {{eye dialect of}} целыми ‎(celymi)? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I normally don't do inflected forms, only seldom. It's not eye dialect but a rustic/dialectal/colloquial form, also used in fairy tales for some effect but there are too many variations and I think it's not too typical. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev: What about целай ‎(celaj)? Searching google books:целай yields a not-insignificant 626 hits… — I.S.M.E.T.A. 08:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


"輕哨者" in Google brings up only Wiktionary. —umbreon126 08:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Umbreon126: You'll find 輕〱者 [sc. 輕哨者] given on page 521/2 of Joaquim-Affonso Gonçalves’s 1841 Lexicon Magnum Latino-Sinicum as a translation of the Latin poppyzōn. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
But is it anywhere else? :/ —umbreon126 19:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I haven't a clue. :-S  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


@I'm so meta even this acronym Even given Citations:Kernikteri, most sources say that Kernikterus has no plural, and I can't find enough citations to support creating one. —JohnC5 03:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@JohnC5: Hmm, yes, I think you're right; Kernikteri does look rather hapaxish… Do you mind if I change the request to one for Ikteri? Judging by, e.g., these three hits, it fares a lot better than its compounded counterpart. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: It is done. —JohnC5 19:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Thank you kindly. I've now removed Kernikteri from WT:WE. BTW, I added a declension table to Ikterus; could you check that it's correct, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: I was in the process when you asked. :)JohnC5 20:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Thanks. :-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Active list[edit]

Wouldn't randomly chosen terms have more chances of getting spotted and thus created?--Dixtosa (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It would also be nice if the active list were circulated more frequently, perhaps on some schedule. —JohnC5 21:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. It was overdue, really. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

긴 한국어 낱말[edit]

If Google Translate (Korean to Japanese; I hear that it's fairly accurate) is right this just means "long Korean words". —suzukaze (tc) 05:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing "arf caru"[edit]

I've removed # {{l|cy|arf caru|arf}}({{l|cy|arfau caru|au}}) {{l|cy|arf caru|caru}} from the queue; it's Welsh for "weapon of love" (the plural arfau caru being "weapons of love"), a phrase which gets next to no Google hits, no mention in the University of Wales Dictionary, and probably doesn't mean anything more than what it seems to. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Aɴɢʀ: It has an idiomatic meaning. An arf caru is like a love spoon, but, rather than being wooden, it is made of iron. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Evidence? Google Books has nothing. Regular Google has one hit for the singular and one hit for the plural, neither of which is durably archived. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Aɴɢʀ: The hit for the plural is in the right sense. The one for the singular translates to "fisting … The act of using a fist (and arm, if it stretches that far) as a love weapon.", in which arf caru is akin to the English love truncheon. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Still, that makes one single hit—in a non-durably archived source—for the word. Not enough to warrant an entry. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Aɴɢʀ: Pfft. Well, I know it's a thing. One day, CFI-satisfying evidence will turn up to prove that. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

oligotropical [sic][edit]

@SemperBlotto: Re your addition to the list of oligotropical [sic], I've added the only Google Book Search hit for that word to Citations:oligotropical, which use is indubitably an error for oligotrophic (I've added the correct form of the cited work to Citations:oligotrophic). Can you cite any uses of *oligotropical that aren't errors for oligotrophic or oligotrophical? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No, that looks good. The word was in one of Visviva's lists - quite rich in misspellings. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I've added the citation, but it might not be formatted very well. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: Tweaked. I don't know why that article spells the words oligotrophic and *oligotropical. I can't detect a difference in meaning, but it's weird that the article doesn't feature *oligotropic or oligotrophical. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it looks deliberate. That's why I originally added the word to this list. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: Yes, I can see why. If it is deliberate, I can't define the word. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


@I'm so meta even this acronym I'm removing your request for "E.l.c." which you sourced to the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek dictionary because in my paper edition of LSJ, the entry in question says "ῑ in Hom.; ῐ in Att., Eur. l.c.", which confirms my suspicion that "E.l.c." in the edition used at Perseus is just "E." = "Euripides" + "l.c." = "loc. cit.". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Aɴɢʀ: Yeah, that's great, thanks for looking into it; that totally stumped me! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)