Visit the forum if you have a language query!

Dictionary:Requests for cleanup

Definition from Dictionary, a free dictionary
Happiness radiates like the fragrance from a flower, and draws all good things toward you. Allow your love to nourish yourself as well as others. Do not strain after the needs of life. It is sufficient to be quietly alert and aware of them. In this way life proceeds more naturally and effortlessly. Life is here to Enjoy!
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Jump to: navigation, search
Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | Archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification
add new | history | archives | Index

Verification and GENERAL DELETION nominations and discussion.

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

Deletion for policy problems; request listings, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Special page deletion requests, questions and discussions.

{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-cjkv}} - {{rfcc}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} - {{rfr}}

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

This is a manually created and maintained list of pages requiring cleanup. There is also a Category:Requests for cleanup, which is an automated list of such pages.

Use the Make a new nomination link below to add your nomination to this page.

If you wish, you may include a brief explanation of your reason for nominating the page for cleanup, but please put any extensive discussion in the Talk: (Discussion) page of the article itself.

When the article has been cleaned, please strike the word here, and put any discussion on the talk page. This makes it easier to see what has been done and what still needs to be concentrated on.

Pages tagged with the template reference {{rfc}} are automatically placed in Category:Requests for cleanup. They are automatically withdrawn from the category when the template reference is removed (or, if the template has not been used, when [[Category:Requests for cleanup]] has been removed from the page).

  • Entries in the category should have a discussion of why the entry needs cleanup within the Talk: (Discussion) page of the article itself.

Make a new nomination


category=Entries that need to be wikified namespace=0 count=1000 mode=none order=ascending </DynamicPageList>

Oldest tagged {{rfc}}s

category=Requests for cleanup namespace=0 count=1000 mode=none order=ascending </DynamicPageList>


2006 miscellaneous


New sense of "Jose" as a common name in Kerala is missing some detail. Rod (A. Smith) 16:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation marks

{{Punctuation marks}} and {{punctuation}} are used inconsistently in punctuation entries (e.g. percent and \ use {{punctuation}} but comma and @ use {{Punctuation marks}}) to show related entries for punctuation. The marks in one template should be moved into the other, which should be used consistently in all punctuation entries, and the deprecated template should redirect to the complete one. Rod (A. Smith) 16:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think {{punctuation}} is easier to remember. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The table is also much too large. See ellipsis for an example of how it just doesn't work. Maybe horizontal would be better. Davilla 18:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. What are our current choices? Perhaps a four column footer thing? --Connel MacKenzie 16:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I've made {{punctuation}} cleaner and more complete, and standardized on that template on all the punctuation pages. I didn't touch {{Punctuation marks}} so it still has a section listing punctuation and another for "Other typographer’s marks", but it's only used on a few of the latter section's pages. In that form it's not very useful (someone could retool it into an "Other typographer's marks" only template, but I'd say it could just be orphaned and deleted. --Bequw¢τ 00:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:RQ:Chaucer Troilus II

EC: There is a mass of these RQ templates. This one is used in only one place. Were they an experiment and now need cleaning up ? If they are to be left in place, in the Template namespace, can you please do something to document the use of them (either within the template using noinclude or comments, or in the discussion page, or in the WT:I2T page). Or, if they really only for private use, they should be moved to your own user space, not in the shared template name space.--Richardb 06:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

They can be used by everybody. Documentation is still needed, but see Dictionary:Quotations/Templates. Would be nice if they were on WT:I2T, indeed. But then: maybe we want people to use {{quote-book}}? H. (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ancien Régime

Needs to be de-Wikipedia-ified, split into two separate entries, etc. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Doremítzwr 13:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) (Author of entry)
Okay, but from the etymology it appears to be a borrowed word in English as well. 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is, but I thought the English meaning was less specific, just being a pejorative reference to a previous ruling body, eg the previous management of a business which has since been taken over (and thus able to be used in the plural, though I forget the plural form) rather than just referring to the French aristocracy, as in the present def. But I could be wrong. --Enginear 16:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC) (This comment applies more properly to ancien régime.) --Enginear 01:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that there is a distinction between Ancien Régime and ancien régime. The lower-case version is regularly used for the specific pre-Revolutionary sense (in both languages). Widsith 16:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Part of speech, etc.? --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


I don't see the difference between any of the four definitions given (for the English word/concept) even though the translations obviously show distinctions in German? Also: translation table is a bit of a mess; not even alphabetized? --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I took a crack at this. Please take a look. Feel free to revert, etc. DCDuring TALK 02:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Letters of the alphabet

a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z

A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z

  1. Shouldn't these all have {{see| }} at the top?
    Yes. Go for it.
  2. Shouldn't these all be listed as ==English==?
    Yes. Go for it.
  3. Under what circumstances should they also be listed as ==Translingual==?
    Well, they are used in most European languages as well.
  4. Shouldn't these all be listed as ===Letter===? Or are we using ===Symbol===? (Why are they split about 50/50?)
    They should ALL be letter. But many are used as symbols as well, so should also have a symbol section. The split is probably due to different people having different ideas.
  5. Shouldn't these all have audio and IPA pronunciations?
  6. Shouldn't the vowels have long and short pronunciations?

--Connel MacKenzie T C 18:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Added some thoughts (I don't understand pronunciation though). SemperBlotto 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • My opinion is that the primary heading for these should be ==Roman alphabet==, not ==Translingual==. Then the secondary header should be ===Letter===. This is the way I did the Cyrillic alphabet (ж), and have begun the Arabic (ب). —Stephen 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should move this to the Tea room? The idea of nominating it for cleanup is to have standard language headings for each of these alphabets; an alphabet itself is not a language. Using =Translingual= seems much better, to me. That's why I've been changing so many alphabet entry definitions. But I don't wish to go through these all (again?) if there isn't agreement on what they should look like. (Roman alphabet being only one of very many.) As it is right now, without the =Translingual= heading, many of the foreign language alphabet entries find their way back on to my various automated cleanup lists.
  • Pronunciation: currently, [z] has the audio files listing the "ABCs" sound, not the sound the letter makes. My question is: is it too silly to ask for all 52 entries to have both soundfiles (how it sounds and how the letter is spoken individually in the "ABCs.") The vowels, of course, have long and short sounds. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


It's listed as a noun but it seems adjectival:

  1. situated to seaward of the region nearest the shore.

Rod (A. Smith) 05:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Littoral is used as an adjective as well as a noun, so theoretically, infralittoral (literal translation lower than littoral, ie below the low-tide line) could be too. I've not altered it, since I've never heard it, and I don't know in which sense it's used, but the definition given seems a bit out even as an adjective. Any geographers out there? --Enginear 10:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Is this a Britannica Mountweazel? Move to WT:RFV. --Connel MacKenzie 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I did minimal definition. I am removing the RfC tag and adding RfV.
I think that there are numerous naming systems for various zones, which differ a bit in whether they are intended to cover places that have tides or other major variations in water level. Ecoologists, biologists, geologists, paleontologists might be using the words a little differently, too, which is hard to determine without specialized dictionaries. In any event, the sequence appears to be what one might expect: lower infralittoral, upper infralittoral, infralittoral fringe, littoral or intertidal, supralittoral fringe, lower supralittoral, upper supralittoral. Supralittoral ought to be added. DCDuring 01:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

brown goods

I suspect senses 2 & 3 are complete nonsense (not worthy of rfv), but the term was completely unknown to me before I researched it tonight - so someone else needs to look.. - Versageek 03:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Fixed. Also added white goods to complement it. SemperBlotto 06:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    Are they equivalent? Why use "electronic" for one and "electric" for the other? DAVilla 22:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    This makes me feel as old as I am. I'm sure most of you know some or all of this, but let me explain for those who don't. White goods nowadays usually have electronic controls, but formerly did not. Their main use of electricity was and is to power an electric motor (washing machine; refrigerator) or heating element (electric range or oven; toaster). Brown goods, so called because they formerly were so bulky and expensive that they were generally used only in living rooms where they were supposed to look like furniture, used electricity principally to generate sound or picture, originally using vacuum tubes, which are also electronic devices (like transistors and integrated circuits). The carryover from the casing color is increasingly tenuous. One source defined a class of "gray goods" that included personal computers and telecommunications equipment (for homes and home offices only ?), but this may not be in wide use. I have included a quote that lays out the white goods/brown goods distinction almost definitionally, with the wood-/bakelite- casing as origin of "brown". DCDuring 14:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


Entry is now a mess. Anon IP contribs seem to have completely invalidated the translations? --Connel MacKenzie 07:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked at it but I couldn’t see what you mean. The page looks all right to me. I didn’t see any incorrect translations. —Stephen 12:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


This could use a bit of review. --Connel MacKenzie 08:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


From rfv. Does this exist? Should it be defined at stairstep if it does? Needs formatting. SemperBlotto 21:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it used mostly as a verb, sometimes an adjective, but never as stairstep. The metaphor fits for much more than rectangular city blocks though. (When I first saw this listed here, I expected to see a description of exercising on a stairmaster.) I'll look for cites if needed. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I have found stair-stepping as a definition for a chart of stock market movements, and stairstepping as a definition for a defence in a team game of some sort, (the article was meaningless to me) Have moved to rfc. Andrew massyn 15:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, there is also stair-stepping in go, (the game) when the plays "build" a staircase in one diagonal direction. --Connel MacKenzie 19:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


This entry could use some cleanup, some formatting (esp. to the quotes, which are haphazardly done), and as long as we're at it, it could use Hebrew script, too. Beobach972 22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Added Hebrew. —Stephen 10:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


The definition of Bönhase is completely incorrect. w:de:Bönhase explains it, but I cannot condense that into a short dictionary entry. Anyone else care to try? Beobach972 00:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless I’m missing something, Bönhase says it means cat; then looking at w:de:Bönhase, it says it means cat. —Stephen 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Eh? As far as I can tell, w:de: says that Dachhase means a kind of cat; and Bönhase means something to do with being a middle-ages merchant who built things without the permission of the local guid mafia, or something like that. Vytautniks 16:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
w:de:Bönhase says: "Bönhase, also Böhnhase or Beinhase, see Dachhase = cat."—Stephen 17:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Aeh, I found him in the German wiktionary (de:wikt). That sheds some light. Appearently Bönhase is slang for cat; but the meaning of the word is 'ein Handwerker, der in keiner Zunft ist; später übertragenen: Stümper' : a manual labourer, which is a member of no guild'. Vytautniks 17:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:English abstract nouns

Most of the items in this category don't seem to correlate to the abstract noun definition (it seems like this has been used as a collection bin for sexual terminology, actually) Jeffqyzt 01:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

fixed. I also added a short explanation of abstract nouns. Foxjwill 00:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


From rfv: Yes, it is the right word, but the def is not quite right. See w:Kashrut. There seems to be a division in usage between the Ashkenazi and the Sephardi rabbis. And the very English treif or treyf also need to be documented.--Allamakee Democrat 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is an adjective - meaning not kosher. SemperBlotto 20:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Yes, it is the right word, but the def is not quite right. See w:Kashrut. There seems to be a division in usage between the Ashkenazi and the Sephardi rabbis. And the very English treif or treyf also need to be documented.--Allamakee Democrat 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is an adjective - meaning not kosher. SemperBlotto 20:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


I've started deleting some of these. They seem to all be bad-faith edits. But there is a lot (and they all look almost reasonable at first glance.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that these don't need cleanup, but perhaps these are not in bad faith. This anon's entries are apparently nearly all taken more or less verbatim from the 1811 Dictionary of Vulgar Tongue, and would be reasonable except for the use of the vulgarities categorization; at the least, however, most of these should be categorized as archaic. Jeffqyzt 17:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Rather unusual non-standard headings, for this Arabic entry. The numerous transliterations suggest these should be separate entries. --Connel MacKenzie 15:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It’s all a single etymology and spelling, Ħ-S-N, which is overlaid with a variety of patterns to form verbs and verb forms, nouns, adjectives, etc. I think some languages have to have some different headings in some cases. The single most important feature of Arabic is its system of verb classes, from Class I through Class XI; no verb includes every class, and only a few verbs such as حسن contain very many classes. The elative is another important part of speech, which we do not have in English. In the best Arabic dictionaries, all of these words come together in the same place under the root حسن. I think two or three of the words could be moved to separate pages, and quite a number of them should have separate pages in addition (in the same way we have plural-form pages in English). But I really think the page is most useful as it is, since people usually look up a word by its simplest form, in this case حسن. —Stephen 16:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 02:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


The definitions on this page seem very repetitive, and could probably be winnowed down. --EncycloPetey 02:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Took the first step by adding links for all these phrasal verbs that belong in Derived terms, and whose defs belong on different pages. 16:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Since when is "Copula" a valid heading? Should it be? --Connel MacKenzie 08:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It’s a tough question. The words adalah and ialah are not verbs and are not used in the spoken language. Strickly speaking, they are "predicate markers". Indonesian and Malay, like Russian, Arabic, and many other languages, have no copula. To say "Ali is angry" in Indonesian, you just say "marah Ali" (literally, "angry Ali"); "Ali is a teacher" is "guru Ali" (literally, "teacher Ali"). Indonesian uses no verb in such constructions, and indeed has no such verb.
However, there are some sentences which can be understood in two different ways, and in speech the difference is indicated by intonation. Since writing cannot show intonation, Indonesian uses the predicate markers adalah and ialah to clarify the meaning.
Example: "Kerjanya menarik mahasiswa" (work-his attract student) can mean either of "His work attracts students" or "His job is to attract students." Since intonation can’t be written, you can insert adalah to indicate that the following is a predicate: "Kerjanya adalah menarik mahasiswa" (work-his equivalence-marker attract student) can ONLY mean "His job is to attract students."
So, adalah is not a verb, and it really isn’t a copula either. It’s a predicate marker. —Stephen 14:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Just ran across this because it was categorized as an English noun. I know nuthin' 'bout it. Robert Ullmann 16:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

fixed by Stephen and EP. --Bequw¢τ 04:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


What's our format for trademarks? --Connel MacKenzie 05:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


Previously tagged, not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 07:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this a misspelling of a phonetic transcription? --Connel MacKenzie 17:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

All those articles whose definition starts with the word "when"

See pimp for an example of this unprofessional approach to definition. I expect someone can somehow produce a list of them. SemperBlotto 11:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


Formatting is garbage - really should have citations (not made up examples) for such a sketchy (yet valid) entry. --Connel MacKenzie 22:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Novial section is incorrectly formatted (see comment on page). Didn't we decide that Novial entries were going to be deleted anyhow? — Paul G 19:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

WT:CFI lists Novial as one of 7 constructed languages that we do include. All of the "related terms", month names etc. have the same issue (same list of related terms). I wouldn't mind cleaning them up (and marte is at the wrong capitalization) but has there been more recent discussion of Novial? What we have seems to be mostly from September 2005. Robert Ullmann 21:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

flip fuck

A kind of slang I'm blissfully ignorant of :) \Mike 20:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Should be deleted - Reason: No cites to be found in Google Books... --BigBadBen 19:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Google Books is not the only source of verification. And, as you know, if you wish to nominate this for deletion based on lack of use, you should use WT:RFV.—msh210 20:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


Needs print citations. See talk page of article.

December 2006

Session Bean

Wikipedia doesn't seem to be able to decide whether this is capitalised or not (see the section "Stateful Session Beans", for example). Could someone who is familiar with the terminology check and modify the Wiktionary entry as need be, please. — Paul G 09:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Adjective - Alternative spelling of chubby.
  • a type of rug
  • Urban word for bitch
  • Noun - pet name for a mouse originating in Australia.
  • Boy's name
  • place in Zambia

a brief google search didn't turn up anything matching these meanings --Versageek 04:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As a spelling of chubby, it’s illiterate. For the mouse, I suppose it means that the term originates in Australia, not the mouse. It cannot be an Asian name because it doesn’t give the language, and almost all Asian languages are written in scripts other than Roman. Can’t be a place in Zambia, because that requires capitalization. Too many serious problems, too little of any value, delete. —Stephen 08:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Is a place in Zambia (non-capitalization was a mistake): Place in Zambia:

Name: (an actor's name)

Urban word for bitch: —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

The entry certainly needs to be cleaned at this point, it didn't have all of these meanings when I initially rfv'd it. I think there is enough to support a proper noun entry for Chubi (Upper case), for the two name senses & possibly the rug as a derivitave of the place name. The urban dictionary entry is tosh, and I'm still not sure about the original two.. --Versageek 13:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

To rfc. Perhaps to come back later. Andrew massyn 07:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


Where in the Appendix does this go? --Connel MacKenzie 07:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Does belong in the main namespace, it is a single cuneiform sign. Needs some serious formatting though. (Translingulal/Akkadian/Hittite/Sumerian language sections.) Robert Ullmann 08:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it belongs in the main namespace, just like letters of the alphabet and Japanese kana syllables. Instead of ==Translingual==, I prefer ==Cuneiform script==, with Akkadian, Hittite, and Sumerian sections. —Stephen 12:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Level 2 headers are all languages, or "Translingual". "Cuneiform sign" belongs at level 3 (in Translingual). The language sections following do belong at level 2, in alphabetical order. The references should be at L4, under the L3 Cuneform sign heading. All this is the same way we do everywhere else. Robert Ullmann 12:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Alphabets and scripts are different from words. We spent a lot of time thinking about this before doing the Cyrillic and Arabic alphabets and came to the conclusion that names of scripts and alphabets where letters are concerned were the equivalent of names of languages where words are concerned. As for "translingual", I wouldn’t consider anything to be translingual unless it was used by most major languages. Periods, commas, and numerals are translingual (used not only by all languages that use the Roman alphabet, but also the languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet and some languages that use the Arabic script, and to a large extent in languages that use Chinese ideograms and in most languages that use various syllabaries), but cuneiform glyphs, while used by several ancient languages, are not, in my opinion, translingual and are not used by any language except those few that use cuneiform. Cuneiform certainly is not equivalent to modern periods, commas and numerals. —Stephen 13:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather have a consistent way of dealing with all symbols, by placing them in ==Translingual== so we know where they can be found. "Cuniform script" is a little too specific to only one alphabet. Do we need a ==Miscellaneous== language heading? I don't want to see 7,000 separate alphabets, listing only the alphabet of a rare script and nothing else. --Connel MacKenzie 17:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Symbols and letters are different. Symbols such as !@#$%^&* are translingual. Alphabets may be used by many languages (Roman), some languages (Arabic), a few languages (Cyrillic), or only one or two languages (Greek, hiragana, hangul, Tamil, Oriya, Khmer, Thai, Lao, and many, many others). It is very consistent to treat symbols as translingual (when they are, since some are not), and scripts according as done for the Cyrillic and Arabic scripts. —Stephen 17:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I followed that. Wouldn't that imply that there would be a language heading for each language that uses that character? Or should alphabets simply be kept in the Index: or Appendix: namespace, with no trace left in the main namespace? I know this has been discussed before, but I do not recall where, nor what the outcome was. --Connel MacKenzie 20:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
No, each language that uses the letter in question would be in alphabet order following a #: ==Cyrillic alphabet==, ===Letter===, Г, г, # Fourth letter of the Bulgarian Cyrillic alphabet, representing the sound ...; # Fourth letter of the Russian Cyrillic alphabet, representing the sound ...; # Fourth letter of the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, representing the sound ...; # Fourth letter of the Ukrainian alphabet, representing the sound ...; etc. Then if, besides being a letter of the alphabet, it is also a word or abbreviation, it gets the usual language headers: ---- ==Russian== ===Abbreviation===, etc. —Stephen 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Since all level two headings are considered "languages," that approach will really hose up the statistics I currently generate. I'm sorry, but I don't see the compelling reason to make the exception to the "Translingual" language heading. That already is our one place to put stuff like that. --Connel MacKenzie 18:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Where is your place to put all the letters and syllabary syllables that are used by only a single language, such as most of the Asian scripts (both alphabets and syllabaries) as well as some African and American scripts (such as the Cherokee syllabary). Headings like ==Cuneiform script== and ==Cyrillic alphabet== seems much more useful and practical to me than statistics. —Stephen 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that they go under ==Translingual== because even in English, we refer to those symbols as "An alphabet character of the xxx script." --Connel MacKenzie 23:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
My understanding of translingual is that, like !@#$%^&*(), it can be used in numerous languages. Many scripts and alphabets are used by only one language, and most other scripts contain several or many glyphs that are used by only one language. A letter such as the Ӳ ӳ of Chuvash. While it is a Cyrillic letter, it is not translingual since no other language uses that Cyrillic letter. Actually, I think the symbol should be listed as Cyrillic rather than translingual, because it is only used by languages such as Russian that use the Cyrillic alphabet, due to the fact that these languages have no N on their keyboards. Languages that use the Roman alphabet, such as English, do not use that symbol, but write No. instead (or , etc., depending on the language). —Stephen 06:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That still seems unsatisfactory (inconsistent) to me. What other approaches haven't we tried yet, or mistakenly rejected in the past, that would work better? --Connel MacKenzie 21:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

It seems like we rather simply have to think about another word for ‘Translingual’, such that letters also fit under it, since I really think they belong there. What difference does it make whether a symbol is used in only one language or more than one? We want an entry for it, and we want that entry to explain what kind of symbol it is and how it is used in which languages. It is generally agreed that this should not be put under the header for the languages in question, so a general header is needed. This is Translingual, but due to the ‘trans’ some people are not happy with it. How about just Symbol? (And have those that are now ==Translingual== ===Symbol=== be ==Symbol== ===More specific type of symbol=== (i.e. punctuation or IPA or ...)) Re: ‘We spent a lot of time thinking about this before doing the Cyrillic and Arabic alphabets’: who is we here? I already planned to ‘clean up’ those entries after I finished the Greek alphabet (in the far future, that is ;-)) H. (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Language? Translingual symbol or something? --Connel MacKenzie 17:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It’s a script, like Arabic, Cyrillic, and Hiragana. —Stephen 17:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that like Cyrillic а and Hiragana it should have language/translingual at L2 as appropriate, and split meanings/pronunciation in individual languages into separate L2 language headings? (Arabic أ is a redlink; see also a α א) Cynewulf 21:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly. ==Cyrillic alphabet==, then ===Letter===, then #Azeri, #Russian, #Serbian; then if, besides being a letter, it is also a word or an abbreviation, then: ---- ==Russian== ---- ==Serbian==, etc. —Stephen 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
For Arabic letters, see Appendix:Arabic script. —Stephen 17:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
What happened to using ==Translingual== for alphabets? "Cyrillic alphabet" was never acceptable as a language heading. --Connel MacKenzie 19:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
We go round and round on this, but I'm not particularly happy with calling them Translingual. In all the discussion, I haven't seen an approach that really seemed to work well. On the one hand, yes certain letters, glyphs, or characters are used in multiple languages, but some of them are restircted to a single language. Using a consistent header (like Translingual) is good, but it doesn't make a distinction between different systems of writing. Having ç and ю and ω and all identified as "Letter" by the third level of header fails to make clear the fundamental fact that no language uses all four symbols to spell words. For words, we begin by distinguishing between languages at L2. That's the fundamental distinction we want to make. So, why aren't we making a fundamental distinction between character systems when it comes to letters? Stephen's proposal would do that, making our L2 distinctions consistent across both words and characters. Labelling them all as Translingual > Letter does not. --EncycloPetey 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Most should be removed or moved to English abbreviations? --Connel MacKenzie 16:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

January 2007


Rather long list of synonyms. Even if valid (unlike Wikisaurus type synonyms), the formatting is quite messed up. --Connel MacKenzie 11:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Is this really our entire template help page? Gah! --EncycloPetey 03:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Should it be a redirect to WT:I2T? --Connel MacKenzie 20:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. I wind we had a stated policy on what exactly was supposed to go in which namespace. I would expect policy on template use to be in Dictionary:Templates, a list of templates to be in Index:Templates or Category:Templates, and help in using them in Help:Templates, but having that much division of the information could itself be detrimental (or just plain mental). --EncycloPetey 05:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:100 English basic words

First of all, there are 101 words in there. Secondly, I often see a word that ranks somewhere over a Hundred in Gutenberg, but is in this category. Third, there are so much of those lists around, I do not know which one to choose. henne 17:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This was a list of words created and designated by THEM, and is not based on what words are most common. It's a "starter vocabulary", and the equivalents of these words are deemed to be a good starting point for a new Wiktionary project. --EncycloPetey 06:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
My analysis of Project Gutenberg (as a corpus) has no relation to this person's project. I find them interesting in comparison to each other, as well as to the other Frequency lists we have.
Perhaps if I actually had compared them in earnest, I would have noticed (before now) that it links to a copyright site, that has a no-commercial reuse clause. So this should move from WT:RFC to WT:RFDO.  :-(
--Connel MacKenzie 06:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
But I will not move it to RFDO myself, as that would possibly look like I'm favoring Project Gutenberg unfairly, or some-such. --Connel MacKenzie 08:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

dispute resolution organization

My instincts tell me this is spam. Can it be salvaged? Should it be salvaged? --Connel MacKenzie 22:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up, rfv'd, rfv passed, striking. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


This is a Trademarked name. How do we format those? --EncycloPetey 02:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is used generically, we reference Scantron Corporation in the etymology. See xerox for a very good example. If it is not used generically, it fails CFI, so the format is moot. Robert Ullmann 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It's used generically in the US, at least, especially at universities. I had no question about meeting CFI, just format. --EncycloPetey 23:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Do we really need an obtuse paragraph for each definition? Perhaps someone could pare this down to something more reasonable? --Connel MacKenzie 04:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing something similar; a list of 850 (later 1000) words with an exact concept in spanish and italian. The "weight of the word" (so to speak) is based also on if it has or not a direct translation in 1 word. The uses are different (to manage a basic vocabulary on N languages); but it may help. I'm basing first on the "simple english" dictionary, with some deletions and additions and later on a vocabulary based on frequency that I found (in ~5 languages).
At least it's a way to study languages, but I may give input on this category. This dictionary is on my userpage--Esteban.barahona 19:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

tidal wave

Needs to be trimmed, consolidated, and examined for POV. -dmh 17:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Not sure if this represents a weakness in our translingual scheme, or just an error. This obviously isn't used in Spanish (alone) to indicate emphasis. Also, the e-mail separator is a protocol-level indication (that I'm not certain is valid) but does not apply to application-layer use (i.e. in your e-mail program of choice.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


We really need a better way of tagging words that are sometimes spelled with diacritics, but normally not, like this. --Connel MacKenzie 20:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

February 2007

Appendix:List of dialect-dependent homophones

Spot checking several sections of this, I can't see how any of these assertions are made. As many parts overlap my NY accent, it seems odd that so very much does not correspond.

So, do we have a way to label this as "controversial" or "disputed" or something?

--Connel MacKenzie 05:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It certainly needs a bit of a clean up. It could also use references. Though, I'm not 100% sure, Connel, what you mean. Parts also overlap with my Sydney accent and parts don't. Is this odd, considering that it's a list of dialect-dependent homophones? I must be missing something. Jimp 07:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for nothing

My definition is not that good - could someone provide a better one, please? — Paul G 10:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

nice has extra translations

When adding Hebrew translations for 'nice' I noticed that there is an extra translation section, not corresponding to any of the definitions: showing or requiring great precision or sensitive discernment. I personally don't think that this is a meaning of nice (although I'll accept different opinions if such exist), and (based on the translations), this actually belongs in the definitions of 'fine'. Does it seem reasonable to remove it? AggyLlama 01:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that the translations section is all jacked up. Personally, I think that only two of the definitions are valid (1 & 3). We should try and figure out exactly how many definitions we want, and then we can start working on the translation tables. Atelaes 08:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I think nice sometimes has the stated meaning of "showing or requiring great precision or sensitive discernment"; for example, a nice distinction. Here it does not mean pleasant, attractive, or tasty, it means something like fine. —Stephen 08:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


Has Wikipedia-esque links. --Gobbler 09:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned it up bvut can someone check this def: conspiracy- the ability to have the material means and a motive to commit an act against the law.


Which sense(s) do the synonyms apply to? — Paul G 17:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed! --BigBadBen 18:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


Computer science entry needs to be trimmed and formatted. — Paul G 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Some of the definitions don't seem to make sense:

  1. comic good times marked by special events
  2. a parade group masquerading, especially when overstepping the bounds of decorum

Paul G 12:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


It needs to be decided what language this entry is: English, Greek, Ancient Greek. As far as I can tell, it's not Ancient Greek (θεῖον does exist, which I'll attempt to create shortly). The word was originally in English, but listed as Greek. It was then moved to a location with Greek characters, but all of the quotations are of an English word. Perhaps both exist and should both be created. Atelaes 18:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The entry name does not match the included citation forms. Any content from this article worth preserving should be merged into θεῖον, which seems to be the article the author intended to create. --EncycloPetey 03:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I could be wrong (I'm no mindreader), but I believe that bd2412 may have been genuinely trying to create an English article. I don't believe that it should be created, because it's simply a transliteration of the Greek word (and in all the Google Book cites I looked at, was evidently so). I am curious, however, about the accentuation which Widsith switched it to. Was it simply a mistake, or is this a modern Greek equivalent? In any case, I think I'll use the second quote from this entry on θεῖον, as I've been itching to try out the citation format for the Ancient Greek words. On a side note, I find it slightly humorous that godly and brimstone are the same word. :-). Atelaes 05:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I reminded of (but can't find) a quote from Archie Bunker to the effect that "God sends floods, and hurricanes, and fires...that way we know He loves us and is watching over us." --EncycloPetey 06:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
θεῖον is the Ancient Greek and θείον is Modern. Modern Greek usually has only the acute accent and the diaeresis, although the classical accents are still used by some writers, especially in scholarly works. —Stephen 11:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
While I admit that I'm not impressed by my NTC dictionary of modern Greek, I'm still surprised that it doesn't contain any seplling of θείον. --EncycloPetey 16:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe that all, or virtually all, Greek dictionaries show the polytonic accents, but people actually write only with the acute and the diaeresis. It’s a little like English dictionaries inserting points or hyphens to show hyphenation, but people don’t actually write them. Or Italian dictionaries, which not only put an accent on every word, but also use some special letters to indicate some sounds such as "zh" ... but people know to write with accents only on certain words, and only the regular Latin alphabet is used. —Stephen 16:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up by Flyax. Striking. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Patricknoddy's Contibutions

Patricknoddy is a new user and has been adding place names in Alaska. All well and good, except he's been giving them plurals and what have you. I've cleaned up a few (such as Valdez) and let him know what he is doing wrong, but there are quite a few more. — Paul G 14:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


There is a word pronounced /ˈwɒri/ that has "ware" as one of its spellings. This pronunciation has crept on to the page for ware without a definition being given because "ware" is listed on the rhymes page for -ɒri. Please could someone add this word. Alternative spellings are "warree", "whare", "wharre" and "wharry". — Paul G 16:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

tactical air command center

And others, same contributor. Could someone else please try to explain this to this contributor. The idea that we have a standard format is not getting through ... Robert Ullmann 11:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid that you can't tell this contributor anything - he's military and doesn't take orders from people like us. SemperBlotto 09:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

March 2007


  • The usage note says the same about three times.
  • From the links, it is unclear whether it is really Afro-American Vernacular. I think it is more widely used. H. (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Too many definitions in Something

Please see discussion page in order not to duplicate the discussion.


There are no less than five distinct words (that is, five different etymologies) in the entry sol, all with only one floating pronuciation section at the top. I've added the pronunciation which applies to the musical term, but does anybody else care to figure out to which of the senses that floating pronunciation applies? -- Beobach972 22:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would add a request for clarification on capitalization. Is the period of time capitalized (as here) or not (as on wp)? May the name of the star (our star) be written in either capitalization? \Mike 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


-- Beobach972 21:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


-- Beobach972 21:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


English, but with Cyrillic spellings? Are we sure this isn't Russian/Polish/Bosnian and not English? -- Beobach972 04:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that when a Serbian Bogdan emigrates and becomes a citizen of Britain or the U.S., then his name will be English. Certainly the Russian/Bulgarian/Ukrainian is Богдан. —Stephen 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Is the 'virginity' sense a noun or a verb? It is given the Verb POS header, but defined as 'The act of [...]'. -- Beobach972 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

dumpster diving

The synonyms look regional; for example, "skip" is the UK (Commonwealth?) term for the Americanism "dumpster", so "skipping" is probably a UK (or Commonwealth) term. The regionality of these terms needs to be researched and suitable labels added. — Paul G 09:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Do we add labels in the synonyms section? DAVilla 07:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
In Australia we use the word "skip" for the very large rubbish bins. I've never heard the verb "skipping" but I am familiar with the term "dumpster diving" but perhaps only from American sources/influence. I couldn't say "dumpster diving" is or isn't used in Australia but I can say that "dumpster" alone is not used there. It could be similar for the word "closet" which we don't used but we do used expressions such as "to come out of the closet" etc. — Hippietrail 00:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

All contributions by User:Khalsayogi

See Special:Contributions/Khalsayogi - strange formatting or no formatting. Wikification of small words. Definitions often strange. SemperBlotto 16:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like this has been taken care of by now. H. (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


Needs a definition, not just the spell out of the acronym. Maybe usage note or something. H. (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Usually we just expand an initialism and link to the corresponding Wiktionary or Wikipedia article where the user can see what the expanded term means (eg, "UK" need only give United Kingdom as its definition, as there is a Wiktionary article for the expanded form). Where the term is not used in its expanded form, as here, we must should explain what the full form means, how it is used, or both. Here a usage note is probably sufficient. — Paul G 16:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Somebody added more, I cleaned up after him now. Still work to do, but doesn’t need this mention anymore. H. (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


Why is there a section Mandarin there? AFAIK, that is not written in roman alphabet. If it is Pinyin, then it should be marked as such. Also, the pronunciation contains a double ˥, which seems nonsense to me, but I have no experience with tonal languages. H. (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Should be first tone first tone or first and neutral, but I don't know exactly how to mark that. And is it actually informal? Just because there's a more formal way to say it doesn't make this informal. DAVilla 18:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


The computing noun sense contains typos, uses jargon, making it unclear, and has an example that seems to be for an attributive usage ("attribute set", if there is such a term). — Paul G 14:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:greek letter

Would be nice if this had some CSS instead of tables. H. (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I converted this to use a wiki table now, but surely if somebody felt like it, he could use CSS to style it properly. H. (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


Surely this could be more concise? --EncycloPetey 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


"LIS" is not a language; these seem to be Laboratory IS terms that might fit somewhere in the Appendix: namespace? Translations for each belongs on the entries, not in this tiny table (too small of a subset, anyhow.) So the non-English terms should just be removed from the table. --Connel MacKenzie 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Marked Roman spelling unknown/invalid header. There are many of these, but I have seen no suggestions for a different solution. A few languages such as Serbian are currently written in either the Roman or the Cyrillic alphabet at the writer’s whim, so every Serbian word has a Cyrillic spelling and an equally valid Roman spelling. (Russian, by contrast, is only written in Cyrillic, and any romanizations are due to equipment or software limitations or as an aid to people who are simply at sea with the Cyrillic alphabet.) Before these headers can be changed, another solution must first be decided on. —Stephen 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

But romanizations, whether used (e.g. romaji, pinyin, etc.) or just transliterations, are always given right on the inflection line. And then linked if they are used, and have their own entries.
Things like "Devanagari spelling" are a bit different, they clearly should be Alternative spellings (whether tagged as Devanagari or just treated as obvious ;-). Robert Ullmann 18:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
What I meant was that with Serbian, the Roman spelling is not a romanization, it is an alternative spelling. Serbian written in Roman or Cyrillic is like Urdu written in Arabic or Devanagari. Many people write Serbian exclusively in Cyrillic, and many others write it in the Roman alphabet instead. —Stephen 13:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
What about a level 3 version of the "Alternative spellings" header, which is already in use? --EncycloPetey 07:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I am all for a new method of listing these terms. But, I'm not in favor of using "Alternative spellings" header. Alternative spellings suggests that the word is pronunciated the same way (or very similarly) as another, but it is written just a bit differently. That is the case in English and how the header is used here. In this case, it is written in a different script. That deserves a completely different section. Making it a level 3 does not change anything and might even cause others to "fix" it. --Dijan 18:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Well they are alternative spellings so they would not be misnamed. Fewer kinds of headings is good - we don't really need specially named ones for each language which has been written in more than one script. We shouldn't worry about what the brief wording in headings or any other part of the user interface "suggests" because we can document them fully. This is already the case with the alternative spellings heading which has been contentious for years for "suggesting" it means something other than what it is. We can't put lengthy sentences in headings and labels and category names so we put the best concise term we can and then we explain it in lengthy sentences in the documentation. I don't see any problem with putting a (Cyrillic), (Urdu spelling) or somesuch for these under the one-size-fits-all "alternative spellings" heading. We already attach notes to many alt spelling entries to explain what countries it's used in, dates the spelling was standard, etc. — Hippietrail 00:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Unformatted quotations, a bunch of funny Cf.'s, derived terms defined on page. DAVilla 18:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 00:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

April 2007


Robert’s AutoFormat bot added this, however I think the L4 header ‘Names in other languages’ is appropriate here. ‘Translations’ is not appropriate, since there is no source language. Maybe it should handle Translingual entries with special care? H. (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If we agree on the header, is there a way to set a mark for the bot to ignore certain things? H. (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The header handling is all controlled by User:AutoFormat/Headers (like the documentation says ;-). It is listed as "non-standard" so it is recognized and not tagged. (for now, then we can decide what to do) There are other headers it is discovering along the way; this one was new (not in my previous reports on L3/4 headers). Robert Ullmann 17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
While I very much appreciate all the work you're doing on the Greek letters, this has rather larger ramifications, I think. I propose that a BP discussion be started on the formatting for letters. There are a number of issues regarding grapheme entries which need to be addressed (for example, see the previous entry and some of the other cuneiform entries and the back and forth which has gone on between Stephen and Connel). These need to be settled properly. Also, I think it would be a good idea to set out a sort of standard format for letter entries, so that they don't all become so hodge-podge. Atelaes 11:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
A thought: wouldn't this "Names in other languages" be better as the Translations table at gamma. Wouldn't they be duplicates? I think this entry might just refer there? Robert Ullmann 11:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


I've read the def. I still have no idea what this word means. Widsith 17:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had linear algebra at the university level, and did well, and still have no idea what an eigenvalue is. DAVilla 22:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
That was largely my experience as well. I can work with the given definition to determine (on a case by case basis) whether a particular scalar is (or is not) an eigenvalue, so the definition is practical to a trained mathematician. However, I wouldn't want to try to explain the term eigenvalue to someone who didn't already understand the terms matrix, scalar, and determinant. --EncycloPetey 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The amount one must add or subtract from each element in a square matrix to reduce the determinant to zero. ;-) Robert Ullmann 11:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. To tweak your definition: The amount one must subtract from each element of the main diagonal of a square matrix to reduce the determinant to zero. I think adding that to the definition might very well make it clearer. --EncycloPetey 16:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I entered the original definition, but I was not as verbose as this. The thing is, you simply can't define words in higher mathematics without using non-technical language. If you want to understand what an eigenvalue is, then, as EncycloPetey says, you must already understand what matrices, scalars and determinants are. It's a bit like explaining to Galileo what the Internet is knowing that he doesn't understand what a computer is, or even what electricity is. — Paul G 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Eigenvalues needn't be associated with matrices. For example, the stationary solutions to the elementary wave equation in a bound medium, such as a column of air in a pipe or a stretched string clamped at both ends, are standing waves with associated discrete frequencies. Those frequencies are the eigenvalues of the problem/system and the corresponding waves are the eigenfunctions. — iharoldz 09:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Application domain

I'm unclear what this means still. Dmcdevit·t 02:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think of it as a figurative use of "domain of expertise" - but I agree it seems to be sum-of-parts. I'm not sure whether it should be kept as a set phrase, or not. --Connel MacKenzie 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:English verbs which are their own past participle

Is this a good title? -- Beobach972 18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to my ears. --Connel MacKenzie 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
A past particple is a verb (form), no? It's not clear. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it's a bad title. A verb can't be its own past participle. The participle of a verb can, however, be the same as its infinitive. A better title might be "Verbs whose past participles have the same form as their infinitives". (One example is set.)


Added IPA pronunciation to the article; previously the pronunciation was listed using a non-standardized pronunciation key. Can someone more clued-in to IPA syntax doublecheck it please? Mickey Mephistopheles 05:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Re the 2nd pronunciation, IPA: /i/ only exists in standard English at the end of a word, otherwise it'll be IPA: /iː/. But personally I've only ever heard the first pronunciation. Otherwise fine! Widsith 10:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

rugby football

Tagged but not listed here (?). — Beobach972 22:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

papel, knottra

These contain definitions rather than translations (or translations with glosses, or simply glosses, if the concept does not have an English equivalent), and do not make sense. Further, the comma is not used as a decimal point in English. — Paul G 08:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up, but Swedish is not really one of my languages. Needs a native eye. —Stephen 13:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with much medicine or pathology, so I don't know whether "adenoma" is correct too, but at least in the colloquial use of "knottra" it does mean the little "pimples" or "bumps" (or whatever their names are in English), which is part of the goose flesh. More commonly used as a (reflexive) verb, however: "skinnet knottrar sig" (="the skin is forming goose bumps"). "Papel" I've never heard. \Mike 07:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I have now reinstated the sense about the goose bumps, as I'm unable to find any indication in adenoma or w:adenoma that it could have anything to do with goose bumps. Rather, I wonder what source has been used to say that "knottra" has anything to do with benign epithelial tumor arising in epithelium of mucosa (stomach, small intestine and bowel), glands (endocrine and exocrine) and ducts. Perhaps I should request verification of that sense ;) \Mike 11:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:List of German words and phrases

This was transwikied a while ago, and quite a few of its definitions seem to be red links. It would be nice to have some editors go through and copy-and-paste those into formatted articles where appropriate. Dmcdevit·t 09:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Native Korean words

Is this genuine and useful, or part of User:KYPark's effort to link English and Korean? The differentiation of "native Korean" words from "Euro-Korean" makes me suspicious. — Beobach972 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is part of KYPark’s delusion about Korean being genetically related to the Indo-European languages. Besides his steadfast refusal to use our approved Korean transcription system, he insists that he has the right to use Wiktionary to promote his unpopular linguistic theories. —Stephen 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright then, let's move this discussion to WT:RFDO. — Beobach972 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Impersonal verbs

This category has articles from more than one language. Needs tidying up.--Williamsayers79 09:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

May 2007

Category:Imitative Korean words


Korean entries with etymological nonsense

I'm going through and cleaning up the etymological nonsense, but I'd appreciate any help. Here are a bunch of entries that need cleanup : , , 등대, , 바르다, 까까, 과자, 설탕, , 바다코끼리, 두껍다, 엄마, , 부레, , bakke, , , 가다, , 솔기, 불라 (linked to Arabic! I'm impressed!), 두다, , bal, , 도끼 (again, impressive!), 썰다, 방아, 울안, 오른, 써리다. — Beobach972 03:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

See also and . — Beobach972 03:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
For some background on this subject, take a look at User talk:KYPark. A number of editors have attempted to deal with this (myself included), but it is a pickle, no doubt about it. Atelaes 03:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I've read through all that... that's why I didn't bother adding (what would just be yet another) section on this subject to the page. — Beobach972 19:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


This monster of a word has 42 definitions. Surely some of them can be taken together no? Anyway, it needs some love. H. (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made some progress. I've made this a project of mine (but obviously, any help is welcome), I'll try to clean it up and group the ones that are related but cannot be combined. — Beobach972 15:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are the links in the definitions showing up in a different color on this page? --EncycloPetey 15:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The request-for-date template has some yellow text. For a while, links on this page to previously-visited pages mysteriously turned from blue to black instead of purple. Is that it? — Beobach972 14:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Part-serious, part-sarcastic aside: wait till we've finished working on "set". That has literally hundreds of separate senses. — Paul G 12:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean that hundreds of senses need to be added? I see only 40 or so senses (at most) on the page. — Beobach972 20:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


needs the works. Andrew massyn 20:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


One small section of this looks to be a mistake. Anyone more learned than me care to take a look. ===Adverb=== '''so''' # [[very|Very]]. #: ''He is '''so''' good!'' #: ''It’s not '''so''' bad.''

To me, ignorant as I am, this looks more like adjective use than adverb use.--Richardb 12:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So in "so good" and "so bad" is an adverb. Try translating them into some languages that differentiate adjectives and adverbs more clearly and you will see. —Stephen 13:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Redundant senses, ambiguous translation section. --Connel MacKenzie 12:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


This entry is labelled "Scottish". Is it Scottish Gaelic, Scots, or Scottish English? --EncycloPetey 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is in the OED so must be English. They give its etymology as "Sc." - I think that means Scots. (And it was my mistake in the first place) SemperBlotto 08:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Described as a common misspelling, but then goes on to say this is used in ASCII environments. If anything, this should explain that this is a way of rendering "cliché" when accented characters are unavailable rather than label it as misspelled. Anyone who types this is probably well aware of the acute accent in the spelling, otherwise they would omit the apostrophe. (The spelling "cliche" without the accent is a separate issue.)

Many Italian words ending in an accented character are commonly typed or written in this manner, eg, e' and caffe' . —This unsigned comment was added by Paul G (talkcontribs).

Typing Italian with the apostrophe instead of accents is a long-time standard way of typing Italian. Typographers have to know enough about Italian to know whether a given ' is an accent or is really an apostrophe, which is also common in Italian. But this common and accepted practice does not mean that the same is okay in English. In English, we either write the accent (è, é, ê), or we don’t put anything at all. I would consider the English usage of cliche' to be a should be cliché or cliche. —Stephen 16:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I know I've seen this form in usenet, and I entered it on en.wiktionary, after someone questioned my use of it on IRC. Is the complaint that such information should be limited to a usage notes section? --Connel MacKenzie 17:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably. I'll change this to a cross-reference to cliché and put this spelling under the usage notes for that word. — Paul G 14:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. The question remains, however, how the plural of cliche' is written - presumably cliches, as cliche's looks like a case of the greengrocer's apostrophe. — Paul G 14:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the plural, I've never seen it. While the singular is exceptional, I don't think the plural would be understood. --Connel MacKenzie 16:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


The grammatical notes in the translation tables are too discursive to fit comfortably. These need to be moved to the pages for the translations themselves. (I'd do this myself but I don't have time right now.) — Paul G 12:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact all the pronouns need a serious going-over. This is planned as one of my major summer projects when I'll have more time (in about two or three weeks). --EncycloPetey 15:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Needs formatting; in particular, needs the italbrac template. (I'd do this myself but I don't have time to right now.) — Paul G 12:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cardinal numbers

Which category naming scheme should be used, Category:German cardinal numbers or Category:de:Cardinal numbers? The subcategories need to be cleaned up. If, as I suspect, the Category:de:Cardinal numbers-style names are prefered, there is a lot of recategorising that we'll need to do. — Beobach972 20:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Numbers should have the respective language name, as in "German cardinal numbers", since they are actually German cardinal numbers (eins, zwei, drei, vier, fünf, etc., are German cardinal numbers). Since German cardinal number is a logical term, the "de:" format is not needed. —Stephen 13:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The community uses prefixes like de: for topical categories and language names like German for part of speech categories. Stephen dissents in this matter. For cardinal numbers, I use Category:de:Cardinal numbers and the like because it's a topical rather than a grammatical category. That is, there are words that may be defined as cardinal numbers for mathematics but which do not function grammatically as numerals. The cardinal number aleph-null is my standard example for this. It represents the number of items in a particular kind of infinite set. However, since most cardinal numbers function in a particualr grammatical way, I would include Category:de:Cardinal numbers within a grammatical category like Category:German numerals (or Category:German numbers, since the vote reached no consensus). This way they may be found by looking through a grammatical over-category.
You are correct that we have been very inconsistent in categorizing Numbers/Numerals, with different editors and languages using different terminology and approaches. As I noted above, I ran to vote to standardize them. The result was two small strongly-opinionated (and opposed) points of view with a large group of apathetic abstentions. --EncycloPetey 20:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
That’s probably because you probably held the vote on a "new" voting page which does not appear in people’s Watchlists. The dearth of votes isn’t due to apathy, but because the vote is effectively secret. —Stephen 13:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I didn't say there was a dearth of votes, I said that there was a large group of abstentions. They voted to abstain, so they obviously found the page and voted. The vote was announced in the Beer Parlour as well, though not everyone announces new votes that way. However, all votes are linked through a single coordinating page, so if you are having trouble keeping track of new votes then I suggest you put Dictionary:Votes on your Watchlist. --EncycloPetey 15:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, alright. I've started to recategorise them. — Beobach972 02:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute... we divide by POS... 'cardinal number' is a POS and is accepted as a header. What's the distinction here? — Beobach972 02:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


if anything, this page should be a Template: page, not a Dictionary: page, if necessary at all? --Richardb 07:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think ideally it should be a help page or style guideline for concordances. But concordances are still a very underdeveloped area of Wiktionary at the moment. Dmcdevit·t 08:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

anarchy the heat is now off. Time to clean up and unprotect

Hopefully our visiting autocratic anarchist has done his dash and moved on to other parts. So time to clean up this horribly compromised entry. I've added my small suggestion at the end of the discussion page. --Richardb 14:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected. —Stephen 20:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

About the first five...

I reccommend that we just pull out #4 and combine #3 and #5, and replace 'someone or something' with 'a person, object, or idea' and describe it as an example of a euphamism.

Also for that verb one we can just delete that.

What entry are you talking about? --EncycloPetey 04:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


(from RFV)

The sense "hair" - this has a citation so seems OK, but is it under the right etymology? — Paul G 10:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not a simple question to answer. The OED etymologies for poll are convoluted in the extreme. Appparently there were once several words spelled "poll" in various senses and origins; these led to several derived terms; these then collapsed back into the form poll, but the details are complicated. We're also missing many, many definitions of this word. Note that the Poll page is currently a redirect to poll. --EncycloPetey 16:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The poll tax article at Wikipedia mentions that "poll" once meant "head". It seems like a bit of a stretch to say that Stephenson meant "head" in this cite, but to me it clouds the "hair" definition a bit. Afiler 16:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


  • POS is "Abbreviation", but are these acronyms or just initialisms?
  • The expanded forms are given with initial capitals, which is probably incorrect. (The fact that an abbreviation is made up of capitals says nothing about the capitalisation of the expanded form.)
  • No meaning is given for the full phrase (although it can be guessed at).

Paul G 12:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


Why is a nonstandard numbered POS heading used here? Just to mess up bots? Or just to be incomprehensible? --Connel MacKenzie 16:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's because the entry has two homographs, each of which has a different declension. Our structure has no other way to match declensions when we have homographs that belong to the same part of speech but decline differently. I've handled levo (for Latin) by assuming that there are two different etymologies for the two words, though I don't know what those etymologies are, and they may not in fact be different. --EncycloPetey 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
That seems to be a non-sequitur...if they have the same etymology, then they are the same word (with the same declination.) If they are separate words (homographs) then something in their origin is different. --Connel MacKenzie 17:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The lemma form is a homograph, but there are two different inflection lines because the other forms are different. It is possible for two words to share an etymological origin, but inflect differently. The point is that outside of English, we seldom have etymologies entered. For many languages, no good etymological research exists. We have to be able to cope with this fact. --EncycloPetey 17:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Entering "Unknown" for an etymology section is perfectly valid (when accurate.) Why should an exception be made for other languages? Etymology is equally counter-intuitive for definitions of English words. To be less ambiguous about what I said earlier: each lemma homograph is a separate word, with a separate etymology (even if they all say simply "unknown.") --Connel MacKenzie 03:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
In the same way that English sometimes has more than one plural to accommodate different senses (antennas, antennae), even though they have exactly the same etymology, Russian often will pronounce a word that has one spelling two different ways, with two different declensions, though they have the same etymology. Likewise, Arabic nouns frequently have different plurals for different senses of a word, sometimes even different genders, even though they share the same etymology. The same thing occurs in many different languages, and while there are occasionally different etymologies, usually the homographs share the same etymology. —Stephen 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, antenna is a good example of what I mean: the things sticking up on an insect's head are not the same word (lemma?) as the electronic devices used to relay radio waves. Certainly, the etymology of the electronic device should not be the same, as that word's origin came from an imitation of the things sticking up from an insect's head. (When the Latin word for the things atop an insect's head was devised, electronics did not exist. When the term was borrowed from Latin into English, electronics did not exist. When television sets were invented with two things sticking up from the "head", Latin was already "dead.") --Connel MacKenzie 06:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
But surely they are the same, the radio devices being named after the insects' —Saltmarsh 05:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, the situation is generally different in the case of English, since English has borrowed the vast majority of its lexicon from other languages, especially Old French. Most languages have not done this, or at least not in historical times, and homographs are not borrowed from two similar languages, but are native vocabulary. So, the only etymological differences, if there are any at all, are the etymologies of the plural affixes. The stems of homographs usually have the same etymology. —Stephen 20:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I have, coincidentally, just runn into the same problem with θέρος with 2 genders, 2 meanings (harvest & summer) but surely 1 etymology. —Saltmarsh 05:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Or лебедь with two genders, two declensions, one meaning (but one poetic, one regular). Same etymology. —Stephen 18:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure that my logic above is right and philologist I aint. But if θέρος has 2 genders, it is 2 words not one they both evolved from Ancient Greek when both meanings (harvest and summer) had the same n. gender. At some point the word for harvest changed gender so θέρος (n.) θέρος (m.) have different etymologies - the masculine version has a step beyond the neuter version - whether this was taken last year or 500y ago is irrelevant? —Saltmarsh 14:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Verb: still needs a rewrite. --Connel MacKenzie 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Intensifiers by language

I've rfc'ed this category for two reasons: primarily to establish its parentage as it occurs to me that intensifiers should not be considered a Parts Of Speech category. Secondly, I believe there are some items in the category which do not belong. __meco 11:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Usually, intensifiers are Adjectives, so no, I do not believe that inventing a new p-o-s classification is correct. Also, not all definitions will necessarily be identified as an intensifier, so having the ability to simply tag individual definitions is better, in my opinion. --Connel MacKenzie 16:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Intensifiers can also be adverbs, and in some languages particles. This isn't a part of speech, it's a function like negation is. --EncycloPetey 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Is this a noun? Should it be capitalized, then? --Connel MacKenzie 16:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It’s a pronoun. Cleaned up. —Stephen 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


The quotations need some work. H. (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

what the Sam Hill

Etymology is a mess. --Connel MacKenzie 15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now edited this quite a bit, but I left the clean-up tag since the exact quotation is still needed. -- WikiPedant 14:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
An American Glossary - Page 762
by Richard Hopwood Thornton - 1912
1868 1839 What in sam hill is that feller ballin' about ? ... He had bought him
a little bobtailed mouse-colored mule, and was training him like Sam Hill. ...
Also, I didn't find "Sam Hill" in TKAM, but it does seem to be present in the "Play" adaptation for Broadway. But searching "Sam Hill" on b.g.c. shows that it is much older than that etymology suggested. (Thank you for cleaning that up, BTW.) --Connel MacKenzie 08:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

artificial grammar

The definition makes no sense to me. Needs attention from somebody familiar with this concept. -- WikiPedant 02:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


The etymology is spread all over the article, should be brought together. H. (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, we had quite a run with the "whale penis" vandalism. I think it was Paul that verified it as completely untrue (just a 4chan vandalism effort or something.) --Connel MacKenzie 21:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I mean the ‘door key child’ thing, which should be split in its own etymology. H. (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
That seems to me to be an RfV-sense candidate. DCDuring TALK 12:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

click wheel

--Connel MacKenzie 21:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's O.K. now, at least cleanliness-wise. Properly speaking, the term should probably be capitalized ("Click wheel" or "Click Wheel", I'm not sure which), but plenty of b.g.c. hits don't capitalize it; this might be a matter for RFV. The bigger problem as I see it is that we currently give only the iPod sense of the term, which while currently the primary sense (if Google is any indication), is presumably not going to last as long as the traditional sense. —RuakhTALK 23:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree the definition could be rewritten. An iPod is merely an example, but probably shouldn't even be mentioned. --Connel MacKenzie 15:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged, but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

heartleaf, heart-leaf, leather leaf, ragleaf, sweetleaf

What is the plural of these words? Any botanist know what the various plants referred to are? Every dictionary I look at seems to have different definitions. — Paul G 06:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not in Mabberley (The Plant-Book), so I couldn't guess which plant(s) is meant. Common names for plants can be highly regional. Consider that Populus alba (the white poplar) is commonly called a sugar maple in the Ozarks and Oauchitas, even though it's not even remotely a maple tree. For an animal example, consider that the robin is an entirely different bird in the US and UK. About their only similarity is a bit of red color (or colour) on the breast. My guess for the plural is that it's the same as the singular. For almost any plant, and especially grasses and shrubs, a group of individual plants uses a mass noun identical to the singular, as in: The hillside was covered in heather. An inflected form for the plural shows up when individuals are being emphasized, as in: The forest was dark under the oaks.; or for showy flowers, as in: We strolled among the roses.; or when the common name is used to refer to a suprageneric taxon such as a family, as in: The lilies have flowers with six tepals and a superior ovary, I couldn't say what form the plural would take in this case, as it might not even be used. --EncycloPetey 06:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The reference works with differing definitions are the OED (two defs: heart-clover; floating heart), onelook (two defs, including "wild ginger"); and Wikipedia (Houttuynia cordata as a root vegetable). — Paul G 06:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, I don't have access to a British Flora these days. For the OED, we'd be dealing with nomenclature from over 100 years ago, subject to lots of changes. So, the species might have been split into two new ones, or it might have been subsumed into another one. I can say that most clovers are in genus Trifolium, and most have heart-shaped leaflets (in threes) at the end of each leaf. I wouldn't want to guess at "floating heart" (which does not have an OED entry!), since it could be a water lily or a member of the litle floating aquatic plant species with heart-shaped leaves (whose name escapes me at the moment). Wild ginger is usually Asarum canadense (which is in no way related to the plant used in cooking as ginger). --EncycloPetey 06:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
As for the plural, I wonder whether it is "-leafs" or "-leaves"; if this is a plant you can buy, would you ask for "two heart-leafs" or "two heart-leaves"? Comparing Google hits doesn't help much. — Paul G 06:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Calling all botanists again... What is the plural? Which binominal name is correct? The OED has Ouvirandra fenestralis but Wikipedia has Aponogeton madagascariensis and Aponogeton fenestralis. — Paul G 06:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the International Plants Names Index, Ouvirandra fenestralis is now called Aponogeton fenestralis. The genus Ouvirandra was subsumed into the genus Aponogeton. --EncycloPetey 07:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - that's very helpful. I'll update the article accordingly. — Paul G 08:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:picture. --Connel MacKenzie 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary comment: "rfc novial : shouldn't the stuff in Derivation be in a standard Etymology section?" User:Hippietrail. --Connel MacKenzie 22:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No POS entered. --Connel MacKenzie 22:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

fiscal conservative

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

power inverter

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved to όχλος, cleaned up. —Stephen 23:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 23:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 23:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 23:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 00:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up, but not stricken. \Mike 17:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 00:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 01:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Students of Hebrew and Aramaic use those terms in English. There really are no common English equivalents that someone who knew nothing about Hebrew would understand. English has some parts of speech that do not exist in some other languages, and some languages have parts of speech that are different from the English ones. Sometimes we try to use an English term, such as gerund for the Russian деепричастие, but it causes a lot of confusion since it is quite different from an English gerund. For example, an English gerund is a verbal noun, but a деепричастие is in no way a noun. Trying to force foreign languages into an English mold may work for closely related languages such as Spanish, French, and German, but the more distant the language, the more it does not fit the mold. —Stephen 16:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Stephen, we don't ONLY have our current format, so that the end result is comprehensible (unlike this current entry.) We also avoid things like "Qal construction" as headings to avoid allegations that we are taking some of our material from copyright-protected sources. While I agree that the etym/POS breakdown does not work, even for English, it is the Wiktionary way. From my perspective, there is no way that the POS heading "Participle" can be a Level-5 heading. For the "Qal construction", that is quite absolutely, undeniably "Etymological" information!
This is the English Wiktionary, with articles written for ENGLISH READERS. Writing an entry in a style comprehensible only to Hebrew linguists is not appropriate. --Connel MacKenzie 09:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

email split

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

bonga maso

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 01:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

unilateral contract

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

carrying violation

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

bent as a two bob

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

trou du cul

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 01:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

and all

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jew's harp

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 22:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

mountainous climate

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

two's company, three's a crowd

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

multiconfessional state

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

SoPs, so I split off multiconfessional as an adjective. --Bequw¢τ 14:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

discourse marker

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the entry seems to be how to handle the vast number of examples: on second thought, anyway, but seriously folks, .... Shouldn't this be a category or a grammatical marker for senses or even a PoS heading? The words and phrases that are used as discourse markers appear under PoS headers of idiom, phrase, interjection, adverb, and possibly others. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

amortisseur winding

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 21:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

compelling interest

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

polar cone

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

modal scale

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is upset by me listing these 113 previously tagged, but unlisted entries, I'll be happy to move them as a list to my userpage-space, and continue adding them here only intermittently. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


If this is a Provençal given name, then it should not be under an English language header. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It’s English with a Provençal etymology. —Stephen 16:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


This is a Greek placename — albeit Romanised — not an English one, and should therefore not be under an English language header. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It’s English, just as Athens and Beijing are English. —Stephen 16:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Probably not English, but rather Spanish or Belizean Kriol. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 08:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved to ايفاء. —Stephen 16:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Should the translations all just be marked with "TTBC"? --Connel MacKenzie 08:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 08:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Change to {{rfd-sense}}? --Connel MacKenzie 08:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


The indentation levels are incorrect and sort out which meanings belong to which etymology. Also clean up cites (dates and markup). H. (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up structure, but not cites. DCDuring TALK 11:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


What a mess. Tagged, but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 19:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


The derived terms section includes terms derived from terms in the list (eg, "ideally" from "ideal") which should be moved out of this table; further, not all terms are derived from "idea": those beginning "ideo-" are certainly not; these may well be related, however.

Note that this table was mistitled "Related terms", so probably lumped all derived and related terms together. — Paul G 14:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


The usage notes are a bit messy (I moved one from in between the definitions). Citations need dates as well. Doe we want WEAE in pronunciation sections? H. (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged, not listed. Needs better split-out of Republican senses to separate entry. --Connel MacKenzie 00:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Shorter, separate. DCDuring 03:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

El Caganer

--Connel MacKenzie 05:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Catalan, not Spanish. Moved to el caganer. —Stephen 14:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


The language of the definition seems a little old-fashioned, and the definition doesn't correspond with emir (which lists amir) as an alternative spelling). Pistachio 08:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Improved. —Stephen 14:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. *-* Pistachio 17:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 09:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

ratepayers group

Moved from RFV.

Is this any more than the sum of its parts? SemperBlotto 07:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem any different from most of our {{legal}} terms. There is a sense missing, in the context of group benefits meaning groups of groups. I'd say yes, this is a technical definition...just jargon specific to both the legal and health insurance industries. --Connel MacKenzie 03:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you mean to RFD? Keep per Connel. DAVilla 17:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


POS? --Connel MacKenzie 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not an easy question to answer. I've begun learning a little Indonesian, and I'm baffled so far by the way they handle parts of speech. The definitions I can find for this word are sometimes verbs, sometimes adjetives, sometimes adverbs, and even nouns. And no, the definitions are not sorted according to these various POS as we understand them. As near as I can make out, Indonesian uses a number of base forms and the addition of affixes shades the meaning to the desired sense, grammar, and part of speech (see w:Indonesian_language#Grammar). It will take someone very familiar with both Indonesian and the study of grammar to categorize any Indonesian word we have questions about. --EncycloPetey 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


This is a symbol, right? --Connel MacKenzie 23:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a letter, used in cuneiform languages. However, it's also a word, and so does require all the separate language sections that it has. Unfortunately Dbachmann was one of the few people on Wiktionary who knew enough about these characters to write a proper entry on them. My suggestion is to simply leave them as they are. While they are rather garbled, I believe they do contain a fair bit of good information. Hopefully, someone will come along, in time, who knows enough about cuneiform languages (and is willing to follow Wiktionary formatting policies) to create a better entry. Atelaes 23:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Cuneiform is a script used to write long-extinct languages. While research exists for these languages, most of it seems to be heavily copyright protected research. Two of the 19 references listed on w:Cuneiform seem OK, but are written in German. The notion that we should wait for a native speaker come along and flesh out these entries is not reasonable. The information that is there offhand seems highly suspect; either it is is translated from German (where it might violate NOR,) or is gleaned from copyright-protected sources. Simply leaving it alone seems precarious. I suppose the argument could be made that the information has been "common knowledge" since 1841, but I wouldn't believe that the whole body of research was, personally. The fact that the "contents" of the entry is unintelligible (codes cross-referencing modern research texts, presumably) make this more suspicious. Move to RFD? Or to WT:BP? --Connel MacKenzie 01:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Someone User:Michelo moved this entry from "evil" to "badness". It needs to be split ito "evil" and "badness", as it is a fairly useless mish-mash as it is.

And why they moved it is beyond me. There is an evilentry in Roget's for starters. Do they think "Evil" and "badness" are the same thing ?

And then some of the words in it are completely dubious for either category - funmaker, joker, elf, bad boy, mischief ???

Which does raise a question about whther Wikisaurus will ever work if people are that s*!$@d.

I'll try to clean it up, work out what they were really trying to do. --Richardb 03:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


We have been trying to fit foreign languages into English patterns, sometimes disasterously. Maybe we should have a miscellaneous header, such as ===Other===, which could be followed with Predicative, or Predicate marker, or whatever the case may be. In adalah for example, the word is a predicate marker, and while it is in no wise a verb, it is often translated as one. Russian words such as нельзя are predicatives, words that act as a sort of verb but which are not verbs. Changing the headers to ===Other=== 'Predicative, etc., would be much better than mistakenly changing to ===Preposition=== or ===Verb===. —Stephen 16:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not use Particle? --EncycloPetey 22:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Particle is vague enough that it could be used for this one case, but it still has to mention that it’s a predicative marker because particle is too broad. But there are a number of other cases where different languages have parts of speech not found in English and where particle can’t be used. There are some words that could be labelled "impersonal verbs", but which cannot be called simply "verbs". Since they are not verbs and the header "impersonal verb" is too exotic, something else needs to be found (I think it would be a stretch to call them particles). There are other words that may be called predicatives, but they are neither verb nor adverb. German has something vaguely similar to some of these called modals, but modals are true verbs, and predicatives are not verbs. There might be some little-known term for some of these words that I don’t know about, but that offers no help. There are some Russian words that are occasionally called gerunds, but which are nothing like English gerunds and are not verbal nouns or any other kind of noun (some people call them gerunds because there are partial parallels with the Latin gerund). If they cannot be called what they are (adverbial participles), then we need a vague term like ===Other===. I don’t think anything like particle, noun, verb, or adverb will work for them. I can add the correct term for all these words, but the correct term is frequently different from standard English grammar and so someone has to clean them up by "Anglicizing" the headers. It seems to me that the safest thing to do would be to create a catch-all header like ===Other===. That way at least, predicative markers would not get changed to ===Preposition===, and Russian gerunds would not be changed to ===Noun===. —Stephen 23:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand the problem. I'm partial to using ===Participle=== in Latin because calling them "verb" or "adjective" isn't adequate. Personally, I would rather see a new positive descriptive header used to tell the user what an entry is, rather than use a vague ===Other=== which simply tells the user what the entry isn't. This might mean expanding the unofficial list at WT:POS, but then we are trying to include "all words in all languages", so there are bound to be some POS headers that look unfamiliar to English speakers. In this particular case, why not use Particle and add some Usage notes to explain the entry's function a bit? --EncycloPetey 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I would much prefer to call things what they are. Participles play major roles in Russian and Arabic, too. Russian participles are complex and "adjective" is not adequate for them. Arabic participles are sometimes used as adjectives, sometimes and nouns, but very often in place of finite verbs, and therefore they cannot be called adjectives. There are numerous other cases specific to certain languages. But there are complaints that calling things what they are has a deleterious effect on some statics and cause problems for bots. I haven’t seen these statistics and it’s difficult to imagine why they would be of more than passing importance, but I do understand the bot argument, more or less. What if we included an invisible code at the beginning of nonstandard headers, such as ==={{@}}Participle=== which would tell the bots to ignore it? I doubt that there is any reasonably good solution to this problem, especially because of the statistics concern. Right now it’s a mess, and people cleaning pages in languages they don’t understand are just messing them up. —Stephen 16:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
That's one of the key reasons I moved to get WT:POS started. The idea was to have a reference list for POS headers in use that bot users could compare against. If there was a need for a new header, there would be a place to list it and explain the rationale for including it. As one of the people cleaning up messy old headers, I can understand the concern. We have Pronoun, but also Personal Pronoun, Demonstrative Pronoun, Interrogative Pronoun, etc., and all of these can simply be Pronoun. At the same time I understand the issue that not all languages fit neatly into the classical mold of Latin grammarians. I suspect once most of the cruft is cleaned away and a bit more standardization is in place, there will be less concern for bot issues. In any event, having a list of headers (even if it's still unofficial) should solve much of the bot problem. Connel and Robert would be better able than I to speak on that issue. --EncycloPetey 01:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: If there are some POS headers you've been wanting to see added, a discussion on this topic has just begun in the Beer Parlour. --EncycloPetey 05:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


I can't see how more than one sense is justified, here. Were they split up just to add the extra "quotations?" --Connel MacKenzie 19:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is certainly another one besides the obvious one...e.g., proud flesh, which is swollen tissue around a healing sore. —Stephen 17:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
There is also both a positive and a negative sense pertainig to pride. Saying "We're proud of what you've done," carries a different sense from "The man was too proud to speak to me." The former is a sense of satisfaction and vicarious pleasure, whereas the latter carries a sense of haughtiness and disdain. Along with the sense Stephen has noted above, I'd say it looks like we have three definitions. --EncycloPetey 22:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
And what about "He's too proud to accept help when he needs it"? I don't think that really falls into either category. —RuakhTALK 01:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reworked it fairly extensively. Also RFV-d one sense. Widsith 17:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Tagged by initial contributor (who apparently realized we had formatting standards, but didn't know what they were), but not listed. —RuakhTALK 04:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. I'll try and contact that user on WP, to remind them not to do that. --Connel MacKenzie 08:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Is this French slang for drunk/stoned (lit?) --Connel MacKenzie 10:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it’s an Anglicism. I’ve never heard allumé used to mean drunk or stoned before. —Stephen 17:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard it, either; I think it might be heavily dated slang. The digitized Trésor de la Langue Française (TLFi) includes as a sub-sub-sub-sub-sense (sub-sense of the figurative sub-sense of the light-related sub-sense of the adjective sub-sense):
Arg. [Slang], pop. [native] ,,Échauffé par le vin.`` ["Heated by wine"] (LARCH. 1880 [i.e., the def was taken from an 1880 source])
and gives a cite from 1887.
RuakhTALK 19:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


Should this word be under, or include, Hindi script? Pistachio 17:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


The "usage notes" are longer than the dictionary entry. This is becoming an encyclopedic entry, and need to be cleaned up. —This unsigned comment was added by Littlebum2002 (talkcontribs) 21:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

I tried to clean it up, but there are probably NPOV problems now. More eyes welcome. —RuakhTALK 01:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the fact that the usage notes are longer than the entry should bother us, especially for such a term, where the usage is subject to so much debate and the term is so frequently used with a fairly precise definition. Many of the usage notes in American Heritage (at least online) are longer than the terms' definitions, and they have concerns about concision (at least in their printed editions) that we don't have.
The usage notes as they were were not encyclopedic. People coming to a dictionary expect to understand a word's meaning and how it's used (along with pronunciation, etymology, and other things), and many dictionaries employ usage notes, quotations, and example sentences for that reason. Many terms that cannot be effectively summed up in a section shorter than the definition, and I think we should include racism among them because of the many common usages of the term that are not encapsulated in mainstream dictionaries.
The current usage notes section is just a list of rather unclear ideas about the term, some of which don't belong on that page. For example, I don't really think reverse racism deserves more than a simple mention; the paragraph currently there belongs in some form on the reverse racism article itself and not on the article for racism. Personally I feel like the usage notes have gotten significantly worse than they were before, but I don't exactly have an unbiased opinion (even were such a thing possible). That said, they should probably just be removed until someone with more interest in citing their sources than I is willing to take a stab at them. I've always been more interested in arguing ideas than in researching (the latter of which is much more valuable and certainly more appropriate in this forum). Jun-Dai 02:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


several words which appear not to be synonyms, and not listed under any other heading.--Richardb 13:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


What...the...@#$%? --Connel MacKenzie 20:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No idea what the person was trying to do. --EncycloPetey 23:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Supposedly "untranslatable"? --Connel MacKenzie 05:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Cool. For those who haven't seen this essay on words that are not translatable, I recommend it. --EncycloPetey 20:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


The Vietnamese section probably needs a L3 ('POS') header, if not other cleanup. — Beobach972 02:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


The definition is in term of verbs, while the word is a noun. Wikipedia gives something else to interpret. H. (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


This entry needs cleaning up and formatting better, but I'm not certain how to go about it. Thryduulf 17:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

July 2007


The second sense is not defined — only exemplified. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


This entry needs cleaning up. The style of the definitions is unusual for Wiktionary and so it should probably be checked to make sure it isn't a copyvio from somewhere. Thryduulf 00:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reworked the verb fairly thoroughly. Widsith 17:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


I seem to be rather inept when it comes to handling English definitions and would appreciate help to make the definition more succinct. Medellia 06:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How does that look now? --EncycloPetey 06:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you! Medellia 06:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


The noun and verb senses need standardising. I'm not certain how to sort it, particularly the noun sense which is almost exclusively used in plural (some senses are plural only) but the singular does exist. Thryduulf 21:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


The noun senses refer to numbered senses of other definitions which are no-longer accurate. For exmaple definition 6 starts "by extension of (6)... ". Thryduulf 11:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

economy class syndrome

Needs wikilove. --Connel MacKenzie 19:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


Seven noun definitions listed need to be combined into two: #1) the act or agent of transporting (troops, mail, emotions, etc.) #2) obsolete: a deported convict. The definition(s) given for transit/mass transit should also be removed - you can't say "transport" to mean that. (Or is that a UK-ism?) --Connel MacKenzie 20:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've combined the two "vehicle used to transport" senses into one as per your suggestion. But I think it's right to keep this separate from the "act of transporting" sense. As for the convict, clearly we need to keep that as a significant historical definition, and not an obvious one. Widsith 16:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional rfc: Pronunciation. Needs to be split by accent, not phonetic alphabet. DCDuring TALK 14:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
    done. Thryduulf 16:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Still long, but that's a separate matter. Striking, in the absence of an objection from CM. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

vertical bar

Tagged but not listed. The definition needs to be split and probably made not quite so technical (and that’s coming from me!). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

folk etymology

The definitions here need to be severely trimmed; they're getting encyclopaedic. The Wikipedia article also needs attention by the look of things if anyone feels so inclined. Thryduulf 22:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How's it now? —RuakhTALK 01:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
much better, thank you. Thryduulf 07:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

look like

The two senses seem to be an avalent and a copula sense of "look" with the preposition "like". Do they belong at "look"? Rod (A. Smith) 19:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think this deserves its own entry, though I'm not sure that the first sense currently on the page is worth retaining here. It looks like it's only a particular use of "like", and is synonymous with "look as though". However, the second definition isn't synonymous with the same set of uses. Rather, the second definition is synonymous with "resemble", so its meaning is equicalent to that of other words-in-their-own-right. There's also a third sense, as evidenced by the construction: "It looks like rain," which isn't covered by either of the existing definitions. That puts two solid definitions on this one contstruction (if we discount the existing first one), neither of which shares the same set of synonymous expressions as the other. --EncycloPetey 19:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I probably didn't express myself clearly. I wasn't RFD'ing the entry, but rather RFC-ing it because I think the definitions belong at "look" noting their use with "like". The idiomatic sense seems part of the verb "look" with a normal sense of the word "like". Consider the following:
  • It looks like I'm stuck with you.
  • It looks as though I'm stuck with you.
  • Ostriches look like emus to some people, but they are only distantly related.
  • Ostriches look similar to emus to some people, but they are only distantly related.
Rod (A. Smith) 16:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

look alike

Like "look like", "look alike" probably belongs on "look". Consider these two sentences:

  • They look alike.
  • They look identical.

Rod (A. Smith) 18:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a look alike should be listed as a noun as well. But "look like" seems to be sum-of-parts. --Connel MacKenzie 18:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
For example, "The Dodge Shadow was more than a look alike of the Plymouth Sundance; they actually were the same car with only a nameplate change." --Connel MacKenzie 18:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

air display

Random combination of words, or a regional equivalent of air show? --Connel MacKenzie 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

To me an air display is a performance of aerobatics, etc. (more than just a fly-past) at an event that is not an air show. For example I went to the British Grand Prix (Formula One) a few years back, and there were air displays by the w:Red Arrows (Sunday) and the w:Blue Eagles (Saturday). An airshow being an event where aircraft are the primary focus - e.g the w:Royal International Air Tattoo. Thryduulf 21:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
That's pretty much my understanding too. Although the term might sometimes be used synonymously with "air show", that doesn't seem to fully capture the meaning. For example, as you say, a performance at a Grand Prix would normally be called an "air display", not an "air show". In the UK anyway. Matt 00:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC).
Alrighty then, moving to WT:RFC instead. --Connel MacKenzie 05:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 01:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked whether this is a copyvio? Thryduulf 08:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Address of record

Could someone decrypt this into English please? :-) I have no idea what it means to say. Dmcdevit·t 03:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The link to here uses PAGENAME, not FULLPAGENAME, so I've masked the "Transwiki:" portion.
RFC 3251 is about telephone-over-ip "Session Initiation Protocol". Their definition is:

Address-of-Record: An address-of-record (AOR) is a SIP or SIPS URI that points to a domain with a location service that can map the URI to another URI where the user might be available. Typically, the location service is populated through registrations. An AOR is frequently thought of as the "public address" of the user.

and although similar to the definition given in the transwiki, doesn't convey that that it is the reported address you'd connect to, to establish connection with someone over a bridge or through a NAT firewall, etc. --Connel MacKenzie 04:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary:Make only links relevant to the context

What...the...fuck? --Connel MacKenzie 20:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If Hippietrail doesn't mind, I think we might be best off just discarding that. It's not really very reflective of our linking practices here. —RuakhTALK 00:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
deleted per WT:RFDO. --Williamsayers79 09:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


Is this a noun? --Connel MacKenzie 18:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

From the example sentence I'd have said it was an adjective, but The Chambers Dictionary (1998) has it as a noun. Thryduulf 20:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

milk it

Move to "milk"? Rod (A. Smith) 20:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --EncycloPetey 21:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


This Japanese Romaji entry needs formatting and cleanup. --EncycloPetey 22:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Made it look like a normal romaji entry Cynewulf 03:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


The order of entries needs correcting, a translation table needs constructing and the definition wouldn't harm from condensing. Thryduulf 23:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
"Nounal sense"? What is the preoccupation with unfamiliar terms, when actual English words suffice so much better? --Connel MacKenzie 04:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Noun and verb are nouns; nounal and verbal are adjectives. I am merely being grammatical. (Connel, just what exactly is your esoteric definition of an “actual English word”?) † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 07:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, the normal adjective form of noun would be nominal, and while perhaps verbal has an adjective sense definable as "of or pertaining to a verb", its main sense is quite different. Secondly, there's nothing ungrammatical about using a noun attributively, as in "noun sense" and "verb sense". Thirdly, seeing as the translation sections appear within the part-of-speech section to which they apply, immediately after the definitions, I don't think including the part of speech in the table header is helpful or useful. Fourthly, there's a convention here of giving glosses in the translation table header — essential if another sense is later added. —RuakhTALK 16:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Definitions overlap etc. Native speaker needed. H. (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The "separate" definitions (all) under etymology 2 and 3 should be one single definition. The (very, very rare) stitching tightness is just a figurative use from same definition, certainly not a separate etymology. Bizarre that someone split it up so much. --Connel MacKenzie 15:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


The numerous unnecessary headers need cleanup. --EncycloPetey 05:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs to be made into a table. —Stephen 12:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


This needs controlling by native (better) speakers of Spanish and Swedish, copied over from Tamil. H. (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the Spanish section. --EncycloPetey 08:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


All but two senses seem bogus or non-sensibly over-precise. For example, marijuana and tobacco are both weeds, but the slang usually refers only to marijuana. Rather than list the senses on RFD/RFV, I tagged them so it is clear (clearer) what my complaints are, directly in the entry. After cleanup, if any remain I guess they can be nominated on RFD or RFV.

The translations seem to depend on the Polish language's distinction of lots of sub-senses. The English meanings shouldn't be split out to accommodate that, rather, the translation tables where it applies should list the three variants and what restrictions apply (one or two words, with usage notes or full glosses given as explanation on the target Polish entries.)

--Connel MacKenzie 02:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on some of the senses to be discussed:
  • I can cite usage of weed to mean tobacco from Tolkien (and it's in the OED). I remember the Peter Jackson film sticking to the original line from the first book of "Finest weed in the South Farthing", which caused unintended laughter amongst the Berkeley audience I saw it with. We should keep the "tobacco" sense, however, we should probably mark it as archaic or obsolete, given that it's no longer understood to mean that by most English speakers.
  • The sense of "cigar" is listed and cited in the OED (likely obsolete now), so is the "animal unfit to breed from" although the OED specifically applies it to horses and says that it pertains to a mangy straggly sort of appearance.
  • The "underbrush" sense is not redundant. Look closely and you'll see it's (uncountable), and is therefore not truly combinable with sense 1.
  • I don't find any evidence of "sudden illness" or "somthing unprofitable" as possible definitions.
--EncycloPetey 06:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I've made some of those changes, and reordered the current meanings to come before the obsolete meanings, and the rfv-senses to come after that. --Connel MacKenzie 18:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is media whore an appropriate word for a dictionary?

I'm not sure media whore is an appropriate word for a dictionary , it's more an insult than something else and it should at least get the appropriate definition(not the one it has now, as it is a term to refer ppl using their popularity). Anyway, the better thing to do remains to be to delete the word's page on wiktionary right now. —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Firstly, as a real word in a real language it is suitable for inclusion in Wiktionary. I have added a second definition based on my understanding and a suggestion at talk:media whore, and marked both definitions as (derogatory) to better convey how the word is used. If you feel the definition is still lacking, please either improve it yourself or let us know specifically how you feel it can be improved. Thryduulf 16:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this is merelt a specific use of the general word whore with a modifier, so it does not require a separate entry. --EncycloPetey 19:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007


The etymology for this Dutch word seems to be for another Dutch word, or am I mistaken? --EncycloPetey 06:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be under Derived terms rather than Etymology. —Stephen 14:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. I think the User who created this entry is regularly confusing Etymology with Derived terms. Thanks for figuring this out. --EncycloPetey 18:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

time-span reduction

Definition given:

  1. "the relative structural importance of events as heard within contextually established rhythmic units" takes place over the time-span segmentation

It's apparently from the referenced source: Lerdahl, Fred (1992). Cognitive Constraints on Compositional Systems, Contemporary Music Review 6 (2), pp. 97-121.

I can't make much sense of the given definition, but it needs to be written anew from a copyright standpoint, anyway. Rod (A. Smith) 06:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

DeLone copyright definitions


all-interval set

beat level



division level

durational pattern

equal-interval chord







metric level

mixed-interval chord

multiple level



rhythmic gesture

rhythmic unit


Lerdahl copyright definitions

artificial grammar

grouping structure

metrical structure

musical grammar

natural grammar

preference rules

prolongational reduction

stability conditions

time-span reduction

time-span segmentation

transformational rules

well-formedness rules

As noted in WT:BP#DeLone copyvios?, the music definitions for the above entries contain definitions for which DeLone and Lerdahl hold the copyright. Rod (A. Smith) 05:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 13:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the English form should be moved to lowercase. —Stephen 12:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


The Portuguese translation translates the definition, not the headword. It needs to be replaced with a proper definition or, if none exists, trimmed into a brief gloss (the current one is far too wordy). — Paul G 13:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

net sales

I think this could maybe have a good entry some day, but right now has no content and should really be cleaned up and have a decent def and format put in. Neskaya 22:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

go to the dickens

...sigh... --EncycloPetey 05:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup on this, is there anything else that needs doing? Thryduulf 08:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 08:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. \Mike 11:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

double negative and litotes

These two entries need cleaning up in conjunction with each other. They each imply that a double negation to imply a weak positive (e.g. "not bad" meaning "alright", "so so"; "not unhappy" meaning neither particularly happy nor unhappy) is the other. Thryduulf 15:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether this has been changed yet, but based on the current definitions, I disagree:
Firstly, neither of them necessarily mean a "weak positive"; Double Negatives can just be considered bad english, and Litotes quite often imply a strong positive.
Secondly, the overall opinion of the two differ widely; Litotes are used deliberately, and intended for emphasis, whereas Double Negatives are generally frowned upon, and considered a mistake.
P.S. This is my first comment; I hope I'm not out of place! Dave
—This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 09:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC).


The page created with this title essentially had no content, but a perfunctory search seems to (perhaps) suggest its existence. Medellia 16:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 11:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Not being much of a Spanish speaker, I would assume this to have more meanings. Medellia 16:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Stephen 11:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ardi Gasna

Lowercase? --Connel MacKenzie 22:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Seemingly like the names of most cheeses, the capitalisation of the name is not fixed (e.g. cheddar and Cheddar are used interchangeably to refer to the cheese, although the toponym is universally capitalised). In this instance, there are too few b.g.c hits in English to form a representative sample, but about 70-80% of the google web hits are capitalised.
According to the google web hits, "Ardi Gasana" is not a toponym, but is Basque for "sheep's cheese" (or "ewe's cheese"). My knowledge of capitalisation in Basque is non-existent, but the name of the cheese should get a Basque entry at whichever is correct (similarly also French and German and possibly other languages, based on the b.g.c hits). The individual words should also get Basque entries if they haven't already (I haven't checked). Thryduulf 22:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


The mathematical sense. I can’t really figure out what it is, never heard category theory... H. (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Lasciate ogni speranza. I've just read through various relevant Wikipedia articles, and went nowhere pretty fast. —RuakhTALK 23:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Somebody simplified it radically. I think this is fine now. H. (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


Quotes need dates etc. One definition is a bit strange, native speaker needed. H. (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree about that definition, I've marked it for RFV. Thryduulf 11:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


I think the etymology for this is wrong... It's from the Arabic المناخ (al-manaakh) rather than the Greek, I'm sure. We might've got the word through Greek, but it probably came from the Arabic to start with. المناخ means "the climate" Sorry if I'm wrong Jakeybean 18:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually this word has a confusing origin. It is likely that it went from Coptic to Late Greek to Hispano-Arabic, and then from there into Arabic المناخ as well as to Latin or French. Arabic المناخ has two distinct meanings, climate and way station, presumably both from نوخ (náwwaxa, to stop for a rest)...since the meaning of climate is quite a stretch, it is possible that this meaning of المناخ is unrelated to the other, but was borrowed from Hispano-Arabic and associated with نوخ by backformation. —Stephen 12:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


Cebuano word defined as "indeed" but marked as a noun. What is the correct part of speech? --EncycloPetey 02:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 11:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


This definitions for allopathic and allopathy are no good. The origins of the word and its current usage differ significantly. See Talk:allopathic for examples of its usage. There is wide regional variation in how the term is used, and in the connotations it carries: U.S v U.K. v India. Can someone with some Wiktionary expertise take a look. Thanks. —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 17:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC).

Here in the US, I've never heard either. Very interesting, though. Google news is suggestive, that it may be an India-only set-phrase. If that is so, then it should have {{India}} at the start of the definitions. (Note the Connecticut news item had to define it in parenthesis.) The allopathic definition should explain what allopathy is and perhaps give an example that uses 'homeopathic medicine' (its antonym) as a counter-option. --Connel MacKenzie 05:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
In my region of the US, I've only heard “allopathy” in discussions about homeopathy. Specifically, I've heard people in chiropractor's offices refer with disdain to the American Medical Association and, seemingly by association, to allopathy in general. I don't specifically remember hearing “allopathic”, but I'm sure it's part of the vocabulary of those who say “allopathy”. Rod (A. Smith) 05:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, I've only heard "allopathic" when a friend of mine specifically mentioned both kinds of medical college in one sentence; otherwise she referred to allopathic ones as simply "medical schools". —RuakhTALK 06:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: lots of reading material on talk:allopathic. --Connel MacKenzie 04:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Our current definition of allopathy is "traditional medicine" but the wikipedia article it linsk to defines it as "Allopathic medicine or allopathy, a term for scientific, research-based orthodox medicine". I'm not convinced this is the first use of traditional I'd think of. RJFJR 12:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a transcript of recent congressional testimony where the word is used frequently:
Salsberg, Edward.Testimony to United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. Association of American Medical Colleges. 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:allopathic for some sources. 20:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC) [Copied from Allopathy/Allopathic below DCDuring 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]


References done in an unusual style - copyvios? Possibly needs to be deleted and restarted. --Connel MacKenzie 20:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Tidied up now. I've already tidied up a lot of these entries. The refs were actually quotations. The user who originally contributed this odd formatting has been made aware and seems to be taking note in more recent contribs.--Williamsayers79 08:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


See talk:anal-retentive. --Connel MacKenzie 14:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please inspect my efforts. DCDuring TALK 23:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

sexual intercourse

Circular definition. --Connel MacKenzie 17:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

information technology

Redundant defs (translations obviously only to one encompassing definition.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I merged the first two defs. The remaining unmerged one (“the computing department of an organization”) seems distinct to me, so I didn't merge it. Opinions? Rod (A. Smith) 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree/but - it would be shorthand for "IT Section", "IT Dept", etc? BUT then we have Engineering for "Engineering Dept", English for "English Dept" - so I'm not so sure. —Saltmarsh 14:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Should probably go to RFV if not removed outright. This is familiar enough in uppercase (although I concur with Saltmarsh that it seems like part of a general pattern of department-naming) and especially in the abbreviation "IT"...but using the lowercase spelled-out form seems quite odd. -- Visviva 17:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Move to an appendix (if one doesn't already exist.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean that the list of examples should be moved, not the complete entry. Some of these also appear on the Wikipedia article for w:Malapropism, which is primarily a list of examples, so we could just transfer then to WP. --EncycloPetey 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I meant the examples. I think we could have our own appendix entry, but don't care either way. --Connel MacKenzie 19:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


I nedd help with formatting. I'm not sure how to set up etymology for the verb form. And the noun is a problem: the noun is actually mopy fish, which should actually have the odd capitalization MOPy fish, but I can see people trying to look up mopy if they saw the term mopy fish somewhere. (Sorry about the mess). RJFJR 13:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


{{subst:notenglish}}: ik; wij; jij/u; jullie; hij/zij; zij. --Connel MacKenzie 19:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what cleanup you're asking for. The list you've given are the Dutch pronouns "I, we, you/you (formal), you (pl), etc." Each pronoun should proceed the corresponding verb inflection. I don't see anything to clean up. --EncycloPetey 23:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Connel's saying we should use the English labels "first person singular" and so on. I'm inclined to agree, actually, though I see both ways. —RuakhTALK 00:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That would make the table very messy. Instead of saying "jij/u", we would have to say "second person singular familiar preceded by pronoun and third person singular formal preceded or followed by pronoun". Dutch has two second person familiar verb forms that differ depending on which second person pronoun is used; one (jij) precedes the verb while the other (je) follows the verb when it appears in a question. --EncycloPetey 02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The table is already messy, but that aside: it is described in Dutch, not English. At least link the things to a special appendix, or do something to describe them in English. My preference, would be to see "I, we, you/you (formal), you (pl), etc." instead of the Dutch currently there. A less acceptable compromise would be "I (ik); we (wij); you (jij); you (formal; jiju); you (plural; jullie); etc." But listing only in Dutch belongs on nl.wikt, not here. --Connel MacKenzie 23:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Do not forget to also fix the derived templates {{nl-verb-refl}} and {{nl-verb-sep}}. H. (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

All the cats added by User:WritersCramp

Remove bad Italian translations. Remove links to nonexistant Commons entries. Format headword properly. Add brief description. Remove word "cat" from article name where appropriate. SemperBlotto 07:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Nkhukutemwa is not a ===Phrase===, it’s a single word. —Stephen 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Misc. templates

Apologies if this belongs in WT:GP, not here...

The following templates seem to be incorrectly plural (the labels should be singular, the categories plural):

{{dogs}}, {{particles}}, {{proteins}}, {{steroids}}, {{vehicles}}.

I think vehicles should be a redirect to automotive. Anyone feel like fixing these?

--Connel MacKenzie 17:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the first one should even be a context label. Vehicles is okay because it defines a narrower category within automotive. DAVilla 15:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that the label in {{particles}} is physics, and the category Category:Elementary particles. There could be a redirect from {particle} to {particles}. Right now {Particle} redirects to {particle}, which contains "Particle" and isn't used anywhere at all ...
In general, there are sub-cat templates that label for the parent classification. There is a Category:Dogs Robert Ullmann 09:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


I'd clean it up myself but don't know whether it's accurate. Rod (A. Smith) 00:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Both sound unlikely. Move to RFV? --Connel MacKenzie 16:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The first sense has been used by Ellery Queen and Dashiel Hammett; it is in the Oxford Thesaurus. The second sense checks out too, but might a bit harder to find citations of use. Robert Ullmann 09:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

French, Basque, Irish, …

These words can be used for ‘the X people collectively’. However, most of the translations for these definitions mention singular persons. H. (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Practically all our entries that are language names need to be redone thoroughly. --EncycloPetey 04:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:vomit (regurgitate)

Completely wrong syntax for Wikisaurus title. --Connel MacKenzie 16:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Many of the language entries seem to be spelled pandiero (incorrectly?). SemperBlotto 07:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Two pronunciations, one embedded in the text - definitions improperly split. SemperBlotto 09:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


There are indications of quotes that are nowhere to be found. Some definitions are repeated. Obsolete definitions are given before common ones. The only confirmed translations are Dutch and German.


This suffix entry has a huge list of hundreds of ostensibly derived terms. Some are clearly not as they do not even end in -eous (!), and others’ entries’ etymology sections (such as those for heterogeneous, hideous, and homogeneous) conflict with the assertion they are thence derived. It appears that the list was automatically compiled from a blanket search of the online Oxford English Dictionary, thus not only erroneously adding underived terms (as the search was for a word ending, not a common suffix), but also adding terms whose only probable relation to -eous is that their entries refer to the suffix, or make use of an -eous-terminal word. Lastly, a minor point — such a huge list ought most certainly to be enclosed in a rel-table (as translations are in trans-tables). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 22:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

pinch and a punch for the first of the month

The entry has dubious claims and is not formatted per WT:CFI. Rod (A. Smith) 04:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The claims seem fair enough to me, but I think maybe it should be resited as an encylopedia article, expanded and given a bit of a tidy-up. (S. Dorrell) 11:28, 1 March 2008 (GMT)


Wrong language, copied from another wikt. Robert Ullmann 08:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


The "examples" thing needs a more creative approach. Or not. --Connel MacKenzie 04:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Appendix:European Computer Science Dictionary

--Connel MacKenzie 04:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


vi? --Connel MacKenzie 08:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam, like other countries in China's sphere of influence, used to use Classical Chinese for a lot of writing, and also to use Chinese characters for native writing. "Han tu" are characters that weren't used for native writing, but we probably still want to include them because different countries pronounced these characters differently, so Classical Chinese words have Vietnamese pronunciations, Japanese pronunciations, and so on. (These fall into a larger umbrella called "readings", and it can be quite complicated; in modern Japanese the same "kanji" — Chinese character for Japanese — will often have a "Chinese reading" and a "Japanese reading", with some expressions using the one and some using the other.) In the case of "han tu" I'm not sure if it makes more sense to list the character as Vietnamese, though, or to give its Vietnamese reading somewhere in one of the other language sections. —RuakhTALK 15:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel qualified to start Dictionary:About Aleut and set about gathering input from Aleut-speaking editors and formalizing policies as to what POS headers would be appropriate? (I don't think we have a language considerations page for any agglutinative language yet, so you'd be treading new territory. For one thing, these languages will definitely test how serious we are about including "all words in all languages". From what I understand, an entire English sentence can often be cast as a single, grammatical word in Aleut; will we therefore require that Aleut sentences be attested wholesale in order to merit inclusion?) Until we have a header for such things, listing these entries here seems pointless. —RuakhTALK 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I know a little about Aleut, but more about Yup’ik, which is a related language. I think these languages may be too exotic for Wiktionary at the present time. Yes, Aleut is polysynthetic, which means that suffixes can be piled on apparently without limit to build very complex words that mean an entire sentence or more in English. Still, there are some simple words, such as Aleut kartuufilax̂ (potato), kurix̂ (cigarette), suupax̂ (soup), paltux̂ (coat), braatax̂ (brother) (note the similarity with Russian картофель, курить, суп, пальто, and брат); or native Aleut ulax̂ (house]], angalix̂ (day). Aleut nouns are declined for three numbers, and the verb morphology is complex: asx̂alakax̂txidix (those two did not kill someone); ayugikux̂txichin (they went out in their boat); dux̂taasaĝilakatxichi (you don’t have a guest). Unfortunately, these languages require the use of some unusual grammatical terms such as postbases, relational case, aequalis, vialis, terminalis, and so on, and I am not able to make it palatable to a reader who knows little about grammar and cares less. I can’t even figure out how to do relatively easy languages such as Russian and Arabic, or even how to format the letters or syllables of scripts such as Cyrillic and Burmese. Right now I limit myself to easily described words such as nouns, basic adjectives and adverbs. Words that call for difficult or odd headers like "expression" or "impersonal verb" will have to wait for another time (and this includes Ojibwe, Aleut and Yup’ik and any other polysynthetic languages). —Stephen 16:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
That's disappointing, but I understand where you're coming from. The less a language is like English, grammar-wise, the harder it is to integrate into a system that we originally designed with English in mind. —RuakhTALK 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Cherokee often does this as well, which is one of the reasons that I have been very reluctant to add words, because there are words for such things as become an entire sentence in English. --Neskaya talk 18:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Very cute POV ranting, but the problem isn't the system; it is the desired end result. The target audience here is English readers, with familiarity of English. It is hard because it is very hard, not because of systemic restrictions (as you assert.) Fitting unexpected structures into a comprehensible scheme is very difficult. It seems obvious to me, that you are currently pushing in some ways, to undermine the little coherency and consistency we do have.
How many "sentence words" does Aleut actually use? Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words? If so, then our consideration for Aleut words cannot be "space delimited" as that would not apply. If it is instead, a small (or finite) collection of terms, they of course should have individual entries. Do you know which it is, or are you ranting for the sake of ranting?
--Connel MacKenzie 17:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Very cute personal attack, but my comment was brief, calm, and sincere; not a "rant" at all. It did reflect my own POV, obviously, but that's inevitable; obviously your comments reflect your POV. I am by no means criticizing the system, besides to state the obvious: it was originally designed with English in mind. Some things are easy to extend; the languages that I speak all fit nicely into this system, as do many others (granted, one editor has objected to Hebrew having a "Root" POS section with a "Forms" subsection, but that's not a consequence of the system itself). However, with polysynthetic languages it's more difficult, because they don't all have "words" in exactly the same way we do, and it's hard to figure out how to incorporate them into our system in a coherent, consistent way (which is something that both you and I prize).
Believe it or not, it actually seems like you and I mostly agree about this. (Our main disagreement seems to be that whereas you think it's more important to fit other languages into the mold of English so that English-speakers will feel like they understand whether or not they actually do, I think it's more important to try to extend the mold in coherent, consistent ways so that our entries are accurate while still being maximally useful.)
Regarding your specific questions:
  • Re: "How many 'sentence words' does Aleut actually use?": From what I understand, an unlimited number. That's the way the language is normally structured, with everything kind of being rolled into the verb. (Caveat lector: I don't actually speak Aleut, and my understanding may be wrong.)
  • Re: "Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words?": I didn't assert that. Please look up the word "often".
  • Re: "Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words? If so, then our consideration for Aleut words cannot be 'space delimited' as that would not apply. If it is instead, a small (or finite) collection of terms, they of course should have individual entries.": Aleut does have things that can be considered "words", but I don't think the boundaries are always well-defined. From what I understand, there are a lot (or perhaps arbitrarily many?) of what are called "portmanteau affixes" that blend different kinds of tense/mood/aspect and agreement information into single forms, that then interact with adjacent affixes in different ways … but I really don't know how it works, exactly: hence my suggestion that people who do speak the language start a Dictionary:About Aleut and set about figuring out how to fit Aleut into our system -slash- extend our system in a coherent, consistent way so that we can cover Aleut.
  • Re: "Do you know which it is, or are you ranting for the sake of ranting?": Neither.
RuakhTALK 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry if I incorrectly attributed malice to your tone; other posts of yours at the time were directed at me and rather scathing. In that light, it is hard to see your comments as having been neutral. Yet, I still did not make a personal attack; I'm sorry you feel that way. But, perhaps we can move past all this, anyhow?
You seem to have missed the crux: the system isn't designed with English in mind causing these restrictions. We've had foreign language entries from very early on here on The system is designed to cater to English readers. Aleut having trouble fitting into a coherent mold is understandably difficult, but I don't think that implies (as you seem to imply) that the structure as designed can't accommodate Aleut. The entries for Aleut terms may not end up taking the same approach as other English-to-Aleut and Aleut-to-English dictionaries. But then, doesn't take the same approach for defining English words (and especially word forms) as other English dictionaries.
It doesn't mean that we can't have Aleut entries. It does mean we need to think about how we incorporate knowledge about Aleut words into Wiktionary. I would not be at all surprised to learn that we can't use any other Aleut-to-English dictionary's format. Unlike you, I don't think that is any great travesty. If anything, it will reduce (if not effectively eliminate) the possibility of copyright violations creeping in.
--Connel MacKenzie 03:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: "But, perhaps we can move past all this, anyhow?": I'd like that, yes. :-)
I completely agree with your last paragraph, except that part that implies I think that's a travesty. :-)   I'm not saying that we need to do things the way other Aleut dictionaries do; I'm just saying that we need the Aleut-speakers here to figure out a way to do it that presents Aleut accurately and jibes with our system here. It's my opinion that this will require bending the system a wee bit, but we'll never know until they try. ;-)
Re: "You seem to have missed the crux: the system isn't designed with English in mind causing these restrictions. We've had foreign language entries from very early on here on": I suppose so. It looks to me like most discussions here still take place with mostly English in mind, and we simply transfer these results into other languages, having specialized discussions when necessary. Heck, the "narrow community" clauses in CFI seem to exclude entire languages that are only spoken in narrow communities (not that such an interpretation would find any support).
RuakhTALK 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Very good. Is it a verb, then? --Connel MacKenzie 23:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this particular one could be called a verb, an expression, or a sentence. Aleut is a polysynthetic language and the parts that go to make up expressions usually cannot stand independently as words. Polysynthetic languages don’t have many of the simple words that Indo-European languages have, and the smallest unit is often a sentence or clause (but not a phrase, since phrases are characteristic of analytical and agglutinative languages). —Stephen 07:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see how "phrase" doesn't fit. Since when does it need to be more than one word to be a phrase? Our definitions certainly imply that it does not need to be more than one. That said, if you can say with any certainty that it should be a 'verb', then by all means, please make that correction. --Connel MacKenzie 23:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. The hyphen in Aleut doesn’t separate words, it only separates phonemes, like writing "work-s" or "work-ed" in English. —Stephen 16:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your examples of either "work-s" or "work-ed." Could you please rephrase that? --Connel MacKenzie 23:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think he meant, “hyphen in Aleut [...] only separates morphemes”. He illustated that concept by showing how the English words works and worked would look if English orthography called for separating morpheme by hyphens. Since work, -s, and -ed are English morphemes, works would be written as work-s and worked would be written as work-ed. With that in mind, if toe and skin are Aluet morphemes that combine into a single word, they would be appear as toe-skin. Does that help? Rod (A. Smith) 00:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Unspeakable that such a thing could be entered, not listed as an error. --Connel MacKenzie 23:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Note this is not an RFV - rather a request for SOME way to list the blasphemy. Yes, I am well aware that WT:CFI is broken beyond repair...but there has to be some way this can be tagged as an illiteracy without the usual suspects going ballistic. --Connel MacKenzie 00:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This term is usually used as a noun; this can be explained as a substantive use of the adjective (since nearly all English adjectives can be used substantively), but in this case it's so pervasive that I think we should have a "noun" header. —RuakhTALK 02:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, never mind; you can distinguish nouns from substantive adjectives in various ways, and this seems to be a substantive adjective: "the apparently unsayable", not *"the apparent unsayable". —RuakhTALK 15:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
"Unsayable" is neither blasphemy nor an illiteracy. It is perhaps better known to readers of philosophy than some others, but it is a perfectly valid English word. Rodasmith has now added quotations from very reputable sources to the article and I have added verified references citing other dictionaries. As for POS, I'm more comfortable classifying it as an adjective, although I agree with Ruakh that it is often (although I'm not so sure about "usually") used substantively, especially in the expression "say the unsayable." -- WikiPedant 05:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I missed your mention of that expression previously. The expression is "speak the unspeakable" over here. --Connel MacKenzie 03:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
With the senses properly split up the senses (thanks, WikiPedant), I was able to add what I think Connel hopes to see in this entry, i.e. tags that indicate a limited use of the word. Does it seem right, now, Connel? Rod (A. Smith) 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The references cited each give a single sense. I don't agree that our two senses should be worded in a way that makes them distinct, as they (by the citations) aren't. The synonyms, likewise, list "unspeakable" for only one sense, yet the first citation of the "other sense" uses it synonymously. Where a marked difference in connotation exists, with one word that is very common, while the other is obscure, something should indicate #1) the common form (unspeakable,) #2) how this rare form differs from the common form. Trying to use "unsayable" in normal context, I maintain, is an illiteracy. Looking at and it seems apparent that this is yet-another-pondian variant. (A couple odd US quotes in the US for the latter, presumably from visitors. Likewise, a handful of UK quotes for the normal word. CW countries split evenly between them?) Even if one were somehow to ignore the regional issue (as it would be understood in a poetry context in the US,) it would be quite silly to ignore the order-of-magnitude preference for the common form. [1] vs. [2]. --Connel MacKenzie 06:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how you are reading the quotations, but they certainly don't seem to give the same sense to me. The first series of quotations (e.g. “...there are limitations on what we can say—we must always attempt to say the unsayable”) use unsayable to describe something that nobody can say (everyone is incapable of saying), e.g. due to logical limitations or those of would-be speakers. The last quote—the one associated with the second definition (i.e. “He was sacked, rather, for, saying the unsayable: for telling the truth.”)—describe something that nobody may say (everyone is prohibited from saying), e.g. due to social pressures. Which sense do you seem to think is the one used with those quotations? Rod (A. Smith) 08:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Connel MacKenzie that "unspeakable" is not a suitable synonym for only one of the senses, since (among philosophers, at least) it has the same double sense as "unsayable." I'm going to modify the entry so that "unspeakable" shows as a synonym for both senses. But I agree with Rodasmith that two distinct senses of "unsayable" clearly do exist in usage, and are readily documentable with quotations, so the entry is correct to distinguish them. Connel MacKenzie is correct that other dictionaries do not show the 2 senses (although the Am. Heritage defn provided at gets close), but that is just one more point on which Wiktionary is doing a better job than the competition. -- WikiPedant 14:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
To WikiPedant and Rod, it is misleading not to combine those two senses (that are not distinct) into a single, broader sense. I do not understand the mentality of misleading our readers by suggesting that the minute distinctions aren't in fact, tremendously the point of being only a single sense. Other dictionaries list a single sense because they have paid professionals writing their definitions, who easily can see when combining redundant senses will convey the total meaning of the word better. The hard part of writing a definition, always, is to keep it brief and succinct enough, yet still be complete. Pointlessly splitting senses into not-really-distinct sub-senses doesn't do that; it just gives our readers more cruft to sift through. But I admit, splitting is the easier (lazier, IMO) way.
As to the addition of just a synonym, WikiPedant, I think you missed the central issue for the entire cleanup request here. The definitions themselves (well, the single definition) should clearly show that there is a preference for "unspeakable." (Confer the links given above.) The definition should then clarify what circumstances are appropriate for "unsayable" and how it ("unsayable") casts different shades of meaning. You know, genus proximum, differentiam specificam; classify then differentiate. If you aren't going to explain that much, then <joking>the entry should just say # Unspeakably rare variant of unspeakable. </joking> :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 02:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Connel, do you seriously think we should create a broad definition with specific sub-definitions? (unindenting)

If we follow what you appear to be suggesting, it would look like this:

  1. not able or allowed to be said
    1. (Template loop detected: Template:context 1) Not capable of being said.
      • 1938, G. E. Moore, Ethics, University of Chicago Press, page 215:
        Nonetheless, in some unsayable way, value sentences are about values and reflect the structure of values.
    2. (rare) Not allowed or not fit to be said.
      • 2007, "Talking points: Racism and the cult of knee-jerk outrage," The Week, iss. 605, 17 March, p. 20,
      He was sacked, rather, for, saying the unsayable: for telling the truth.

None of our style guides seem to recommend sub-senses, so I don't understand why you are suddenly advocating that format. Rod (A. Smith) 17:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't advocating that format; I was suggesting the two definitions be reworded into one broader definition. Discussing this particular entry on IRC, it was suggested that we require all Wiktionarians to read w:Definition and related articles before being allowed to edit.  :-)   Your usage note does address my original complaint (thank you.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
In response to points made and reiterated in a number of postings above, the only significant differences I see between "unsayable" and "unspeakable" are (1) that "unsayable" is less commonly used and (2) that "unspeakable" has the extra sense of "extremely bad" (many dictionaries give 3 senses for "unspeakable"). I do not see any substantive differences between the 2 senses of "unsayable" given in the Wiktionary entry and the 2 matching senses of "unspeakable," recognized by most dictionaries, so no comparative classificatory exposition is appropriate. Further, I am unconvinced that the second sense of "unsayable" is the extreme rarity or the un-Americanism which Connel MacKenzie believes it to be. In support of this point, I have added 2 more quotations for the 2nd sense, one from the NY Times and the other from Time magazine.
And, as for Connel MacKenzie's gratuitious embedded comment above (i.e, <!--Please Lord, tell me they have heard that before...somewhere, but just forgot.-->), I shall refrain from suggesting that it sounds to me like the sort of thing a smart aleck making a personal attack would write. -- WikiPedant 05:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Your specious omission of addressing the links (evidence, counter to my expectations) that I provided above, that show this term to be undeniably specific to the UK (despite an errant NYT quote) is curious. Also, are you suggesting that I am making a personal attack against all contributors (myself included?) Yes, the comment wrapped in "<joking>" was snarky, but please.
Yes, Wiktionary's criteria is broken. Thank you for providing quotations that illustrate the point admirably. Yes, I still disagree that the second "sub-sense" is, in fact, a distinct "sub-sense" at all. If the first sense were worded properly, it would encompass both aspects. Instead, someone has reworded it to emphasize a distinction that does not really exist (neither for the writer nor the reader.) Without exposition, neither "sub-sense" can be inferred. And yes, I am using the term "sub-sense" loosely, in the hope that Rod won't detect any ambiguity, this time. --Connel MacKenzie 15:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
One further point: you mention a fallacy above: You say "many dictionaries" but alas, I can't tell if you are being intentionally misleading because of some perceived hostility, or are just mistaken., indeed lists two senses, not three, while Cambridge lists zero {{notaword}}, Webster's 1913 lists zero {{notaword}}, Wordnet lists zero {{notaword}}, lists one, Encarta lists one and even the COED lists only one. "Many" = one? By that logic, we should add erroneous "second senses" whenever any dictionary anywhere else has an error. --Connel MacKenzie 15:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Connel, might I suggest that you read comments carefully before lambasting them? WikiPedant's only use of the phrase "many dictionaries" was in mentioning how many senses they give for unspeakable, not for unsayable. I cannot believe that you're interpreting his comment differently from how I do; rather, you simply didn't read it carefully enough. (It wouldn't have been a big deal, except that your comment was unjustly mean. So I guess what I'm saying is, either read carefully, or restrain yourself.) This is exactly the sort of thing that causes needless strife. —RuakhTALK 19:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
And your incorrect butting in helps? He was making accusations and specious arguments, ignoring what Wiktionary, Wikipedia and real dictionaries say on the topic. So you, in your typical fashion, irrationally exonerate anyone in opposition to me, no matter how petty the topic is? I think you are the one adding needless strife here. WikiPedant's irrational defense of his POV (after shown to be wrong on several levels,) combined with his accusations is increasingly suspicious.
Note also that he went ahead and damaged the entry, removing Rod's "Usage notes" section. Any good intentions to suspect in that action? Any? --Connel MacKenzie 07:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
As for WikiPedant, no, his specious arguments have no merit. Changing the subject, suddenly criticizing the correct word-form is entirely beside the point. His assertion is still about what the entry unsayable and its 'usage notes' section should say. (Did you misread what he wrote?) Looking to what most other dictionaries say, we could say that unsayable is not a word in English. Looking at usage, we can instead perhaps say it is a rare poetic use, an uncommon British term, or a rare error. His irrational opposition to reasonable tags smacks of gaming the system and remains inexplicable. He again, seems to be gaming the system when choosing bizarre statistical aberrations (NYT & Time) and immediately stuffing them into the entry, as if they somehow represent typical use. If there were any way I could imagine it was a casual error on his part, I would.
You should be able to see pretty clearly in the above, how he turned friendly banter into some kind of accusation-fest. Your immediate support of that, Ruakh, can be explained, precisely how? --Connel MacKenzie 06:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Look, sorry, I didn't mean for my comment to be "butting in". I addressed one specific part of your comment that was seriously flawed; I did not criticize the rest of your comment, and I did not say anything about WikiPedant's comment except as it bore on the one part of your comment whose serious flaws I was pointing out. I have a good deal of faith in WikiPedant, and rather suspect that everything he did was eminently reasonable; but I look before I leap, and as I have not looked into all of it, I am not leaping to its defense. (Regarding your claim that "he turned friendly banter into some kind of accusation-fest", I can only say that it takes two to tango. You included an HTML comment that you didn't intend personally; he took it personally and overreacted a bit, implying it was a personal attack; you then overreacted in turn, and took his implication as carte blanche to stop assuming good faith on his part. Neither of you handled this very well, but I'm not in a position to judge; G-d only knows how many times I myself have overreacted in online discussions-cum-arguments. The beauty of a community like this is that we can all do our best to learn from our mistakes, and to help each other learn from them as well.) —RuakhTALK 21:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


This entry is a mess. I did what I could, but people from all possible languages have to look at this. H. (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


The sense given originally was, "to fuck, to be in sexual intercourse". Subsequent edits changed it to "faith", but seem to be defining a Greek transliteration. Rod (A. Smith) 22:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up by Opiaterein, striking. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


This does appear to be a valid Sherpa word... It appears, however, that the Sherpa language can be written either in Tibetan or Devanagari script, not in Roman. Can someone more clueful than I please move this entry to its proper spelling in one of those scripts? -- Visviva 15:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don’t have a source for Sherpa. Apparently "kangmi" means snowman. Typing it phonetically, it would be ཀང་མི་ (kang-mi) or possibly ཁང་མི་ (khang-mi). —Stephen 17:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

admiral of the blue

who carries his flag on the main-mast is written aftert he bold heading for noun. This seems to be a non-standard format. RJFJR 15:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

See <>. I understand the confusion of the anon who created that entry: it's hard to tell whether "who carries his flag on the main-mast" is supposed to be part of the headword. —RuakhTALK 16:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It certainly seems to be part of the headword; the location of the flag distinguished different ranks of admirals (only full admirals could carry their flag on the mainmast), and the wit (if any) of this coinage lies in comparing the publican to a full admiral based on the location of the flag... But personally I would not mind seeing this kind of entry deleted as uncited and unciteable. Have we not enough to do? Must we weigh ourselves down with the implausible inventions of long-dead lexicographers? -- Visviva 17:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 02:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Should this redirect? --Connel MacKenzie 04:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

tell off

Are the 2 senses given here sufficiently distinct? The example sentence for defn1 would work just fine for defn2 as well. -- WikiPedant 13:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think they are the same. I would guess that the contrib. intended to put the UK idiomatic noun telling off for nº2 - Algrif 16:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is the demonstration that it is not restricted to the Commonwealth realm, but should be current in North America too with regard to the origin of the dictionary, should not it? Please, remove the UK tag. Bogorm 22:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


Junk in last translation section. --Connel MacKenzie 15:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Redundant senses. --Connel MacKenzie 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

have to

This needs formatting. It probably should be simple but I'm too tired to do it now. Thryduulf 00:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


If “LOCATOR” meets WT:CFI, it belongs at “LOCATOR”. Does it meet WT:CFI? Rod (A. Smith) 06:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Someone doesn’t seem to know what a Derived term is. These[3] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are correct: I do not understand how you can say that those are not derived from the headword. --Connel MacKenzie 05:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


These[4] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


These[5] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly seem like it. "Related" is better? --Connel MacKenzie 17:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


These[6] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


These[7] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


What's with the Usage note here? Is it a copyvio? Or is it just unnecessary information? Widsith 11:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC) [8] --Connel MacKenzie 05:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Missing a slew of derived terms (medicine and botany.) The definitions given, themselves seem sketchy. --Connel MacKenzie 04:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


This is either spelled wrong or not Yiddish: Yiddish does not use the Latin alphabet.—msh210 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


This is either spelled wrong or not Yiddish: Yiddish does not use the Latin alphabet.—msh210 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


This is either spelled wrong or not Yiddish: Yiddish does not use the Latin alphabet. —msh210 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree (unsigned by User:
I've taken a stab at it; please take a look. (In particular, I wasn't sure if it was "frequently offensive", or simply "offensive".) —RuakhTALK 22:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks good; thanks. Not sure whether it's frequently or always. Is it really from German, not some common ancestor?—msh210 22:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: its etymology: I have no idea. If I had to guess, I'd guess the same as you, that it's from Middle High German. Unfortunately, my babel for that is about the same as my babels for its modern descendants, and Category:User gmh suggests we might not want to hold our breaths. :-/   —RuakhTALK 02:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


This is either spelled wrong or not Yiddish: Yiddish does not use the Latin alphabet.—msh210 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


This is either spelled wrong or not Yiddish: Yiddish does not use the Latin alphabet.—msh210 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I supposed this should be spelt עקפֿעלד (ekfeld), but I’m not familiar with the term. It’s a noun but I don’t think it qualifies as a proper noun. —Stephen 12:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


It's not clear to me whether the abbreviation section refers to the abbreviation ll or the abbreviation li. Rod (A. Smith) 17:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is the lowercase of "LL". The doubling of the l indicates the plural in the same way that pp = pages, or LL.D. = Doctor of Laws. —Stephen 11:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


The usage notes say, “Never use however when you mean to say but.” We should only include such proscriptions if they are backed by references. If retained, the wording should show that third parties denounce the usage instead of give the impression that the English Wiktionary proscribes it. Rod (A. Smith) 21:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Someone decided to mark the parts of speech by using template calls to n., Template:v, Template:adv, Template:prep, etc. These all need to be removed/replaced since these templates either do not exist (and shouldn't) or else they are used for something else. --EncycloPetey 13:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that page even supposed to have definitions? —RuakhTALK 15:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
In the long run, no. However, it may have started as an import to be carved up into entries. --EncycloPetey 03:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


The usage notes say this:

Incorrigible is a complex term that has antithetical denotations. In certain contexts, it may be cognate with impeccable.

The two words are certainly not cognates. Should it say, "synonymous"? Rod (A. Smith) 23:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


It's not clear that noun sense 4 under etymology 1 does in fact belong under that etymology. We need either to remove this claim, or to back it up with one or more references. —RuakhTALK 05:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... to me sense 4 seems like the most natural fit of all the senses there. Throwing a pot on a wheel is nothing but an act of twisting and turning (the clay). -- Visviva 15:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, to clarify: the question is about noun sense 4 ("A single instance, occurrence, venture, or chance"). —RuakhTALK 19:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Possibly too many definitions? Most of them seem to give the same definition just in different words. Maybe they can be concentrated into a few? Jakeybean


Needs a rewrite. --Connel MacKenzie 22:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That will be problematic, since the person who wrote the article is the only Albanian speaker here. Note that this is not a prefix. It is an enclitic form of a particle or pronoun. Prefixes join with an exisitng part of speech to modify, clarify, or inflect. This does none of those things, it is a separate contracted form of another word. --EncycloPetey 22:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


If it passes rfv. H. (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

catarrhal fever

b.g.c. indicate this is influenza for animals? --Connel MacKenzie 05:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

WP redirects it to Bovine malignant catarrhal fever. But I found an online dictionary entry that said one of several diseases of animals. Further catarrhal is a medical term meaning inflammation of the mucous membranes of the respiratory tract with discharge so any disease with fever and a cough might work for this term. RJFJR 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


I just edited the necromancy entry. I changed quite a lot of stuff, and I'm sure the Middle English translations could be put into a better format? Feel free to change things around; I had so much to include, it got a bit confusing where to put it. Jakeybean

The entry’s in the right order, but the transcriptions of the Ancient Greek etyma need to have the acute accents indicated, and the quotations need to be reformatted as per WT:QUOTE. You definitely don’t need to list all (eighty-eight?!) of the Middle English alternative forms in the translations section — choose the “primary” spelling (good luck!), and list the other alternative forms at the Middle English entry (in a rel-table, I suggest). Nota bene that Middle English became Early Modern English circa 1470, so some of the 15th century and all of the 16th–18th century forms will need to be listed as (Modern) English obsolete spellings. Last point: all translations should be linked, even if you just intend to leave them as red links.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like the right way to go about it, I've done this before in the past with some of the other divination entries.--Williamsayers79 19:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


pōnō, like many Latin verbs, has its lemma entry (the first person singular present indicative) and pōnere (the infinitive) swapped. Is there an easy way to tag them all? Rod (A. Smith) 02:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


There are many declensions and grammar notes in the translation table. As more languages are added, the translation table will become unwieldy. Should the declensions and grammar notes be moved into the foreign language entries? Rod (A. Smith) 17:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. As per discussion elsewhere (where?) I would advocate only listing the lemma form (usually the masculine nominative singular), or at most the set of nominative singular forms (with gender). Any more than that becomes unwieldy. --EncycloPetey 19:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The other discussion is WT:BP#Noting lemma forms in WT:ELE. I brought this here, though, because some editors have been vocal about translating words from some parts of speech (e.g. pronouns) into all forms, so words from closed classes (e.g. articles) probably deserve individual discussion. Rod (A. Smith) 19:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


Many of the derived terms listed therein are not derived thence.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 10:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


Alternative spellings and cites need cleanup. Formatting is definitely not my strong point. sewnmouthsecret 16:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Usage note on 2nd etym refers to both etyms, and also repeats some of the info in the usage note on the 1st etym. Both usage notes need copyediting. The first sense blongs at youse not at you'se.—msh210 17:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Strange copyvio. --Connel MacKenzie 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the "Yale" edition citation with the apparently identical text from Project Gutenberg. MW3 attributes the original idea of serendipity to a "Persian folk tale", for which I am not aware of sources. I have ascribed to Walpole the introduction into English, since multiple sources agree on that. DCDuring 00:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


I'm actually not sure what to do with this, other than to say that: the formatting is all off, languages/capitalization ought to be considered, and the etymology could use some tidying. I'm out the door myself right now; apologies! Medellia 19:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Now cleaned up, and I can confirm that אב really is the Hebrew word for "father". Unfortunately, abbas and Abbas were created by everyone's favorite long-term sysop vandal, so who knows what in there is real and what isn't? —RuakhTALK 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've done some additional cleanup and checked the listed Descendants (excluding the Dutch). The only things I see left to do are to verify the AGr. listing; verify that it came from Hebrew, and fix the 3rd-declension Latin noun declension table template, which isn't displaying macrons properly. --EncycloPetey 05:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Ordinal numbers

I'm not sure I'll ever understand the dividing line between our "topic" vs. "grammar" category trees, but should this category be called "Category:English ordinal numbers"? Rod (A. Smith) 23:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the perennial number/numeral issue. The problem you've noticed exists for all numerals. My personal practice is to consider "Numeral" the part of speech, and use subcategories like Category:Cardinal numbers and Category:Ordinal numbers (or Category:es:Cardinal numbers, etc) for the specific words.
The core difficulties are (1) no one can agree on whether to call the POS "Number" or "Numeral", where a vote on the matter deadlocked, and (2) not all cardinal numbers (by topic) are also cardinal numbers (by grammar). That is, there are cardinal numbers such as aleph-null that are cardinal numbers by definition, but do not function like the grammatical class of cardinal numerals. As a result, the dividing line here is very, very fuzzy.
In my edits, I've chosen to categorize these words topically, then group the topical categories as subcategories of grammatical categories like Category:Spanish numerals. It's a compromise designed to avoid some of the difficulties. ...I hope that's clear, because this is a diffuclt issue to explain because of the inherent imprecision of the labels. --EncycloPetey 02:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

it is off topic

it is not a dictionary-like article

I do not see an entry for it is off topic. --EncycloPetey 23:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


I think there are a number of terms that do not belong here.

The fact that an exclamation mark is used to end a sentence or phrase does not, in itself, make that sentence or phrase an interjection.

"Go to the dickens!" is a complete sentence (a verbal phrase in the imperative) so I don't quite see how this can be considered to be an interjection just because it ends in an exclamation mark. Similarly, although "Every man for himself!" is not a complete sentence, I wouldn't say it is an interjection. "Does a bear shit in the woods?" is another complete sentence, and is definitely does not belong in this category.

Ideally, I would like to see the part of speech "interjection" reserved for words that express an emotion and have no grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence (interjections in the purest sense), such as "oh!" and "phew!". It is not possible (or even practical) for us to be this strict, however, because there are some phrases that function like interjections, like "good riddance" and "for heaven's sake". Strictly, we would classify these as pro-sentences, but this is not a part of speech.

Certainly, however, some of the terms listed in Category:Interjections (and the corresponding category for other languages would more accurately be described as pro-sentences, verbal phrases or complete sentences.

See the Wikipedia article for more discussion. — Paul G 05:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


Etym. --Connel MacKenzie 08:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

capital of the world

Encyclopedic content of usage notes. --Connel MacKenzie 05:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

mass noun

The definition is preceded by '''(OED 1933)''', so I assume said definition was copied thence. As that source is seventy-four years old, I think copyright still applies. Ergo, copyvio. What needs to happen — does the entry need to be deleted (to make the copyright-violating material inaccessible-via-history) and then recreated, or can the definition just be rewritten, preserving the copyright violation in the history?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

After checking the OED, it’s obvious that the original editor intended the parenthetic comment as a reference, and that the entry was not a copyvio of the OED’s. I reformatted the entry accordingly. However, the definition needs trimming — it’s three sentences long.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned it up some, and removed the tag. Michael Z. 2008-09-17 20:12 z


--Connel MacKenzie 23:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


Someone with easier access to OED please check; looks like the "references" simply repeat verbatim. --Connel MacKenzie 07:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone asserts that this is a preposition. It is not a preposition. —Stephen 08:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Someone asserts that this is a part of speech called a conjugation. It is not a conjugation. —Stephen 08:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


I thought the header was supposed to be ===Related terms===, not ===Relative terms===. —Stephen 14:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. --EncycloPetey 01:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


Needs some expert attention (and a definition) --EncycloPetey 01:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved to ὕδωρ. ύδωρ changed to Modern Greek. —Stephen 02:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


17 senses? --Connel MacKenzie 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Reduced to 8 senses, two of which are RFV'd. Moglex 20:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 ?? Did you forget to save your changes, or something? —RuakhTALK 22:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Evidently. (Arrrgggghhhh). Moglex 08:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


7 senses? --Connel MacKenzie 19:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added sense 8, which, I hope combines senses 4-7. I'm not really happy that it accurately includes sense 4 (fencing), though as that seems subtly different. I've left the other senses. Moglex 19:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 22:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 22:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 22:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 23:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

nah#Old High German

Should this be nāh, as it's listed in the inflection line? There are quite a few of these created by Drago—like fuġol‎, ānro, ġēar, rēocan, and so on—for Old High German, Old English, and Romani. Dmcdevit·t 05:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


Copyvio? —Stephen 06:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 21:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 21:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: is this about the presence of multiple "noun" sections in the same parent section? —RuakhTALK 21:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. --Connel MacKenzie 22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
So, what would you prefer? —RuakhTALK 17:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, what would you prefer? Such structure seems to be the only way to achieve a goal that I thought you (Connel) supported: moving grammar details from definition lines into headword/inflection lines. Rod (A. Smith) 18:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


"В гостя́х хорошо́, а до́ма лу́чше" is not a Derived term. —Stephen 20:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

vast right-wing conspiracy

Etymology needs trimming. --Connel MacKenzie 22:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


Some or all translations are for August (month), not for august (adj.). DCDuring 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about concepts, not words. It looks like the real problem is that for some languages for which the 8th month on the Gregorian calendar is written "august", there is no entry under "august", though there is a translation shown under "August" (Interlingue and Sundanese). I don't trust myself to get it right, so I'd rather someone with a firmer hold of this make the remaining changes. Someone should just look to make sure that the translations and entries are consistent. I suspect that there other kinds of inconsistencies as well as the one I mentioned above. DCDuring 15:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Needs definitions, needs assignment of quotes to definitions.—msh210 23:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

All the Dutch entries from Special:Contributions/Joepnl

These all need parts of speech and wikified definitions. SemperBlotto 08:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Stephen 17:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


méh second noun section, Hungarian. Definiton is: MEHHHH also known as "Shmeh" a migration of "Meh" the "meh" face also a hit. sasjb

RJFJR 14:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism to me, so I removed it. If it's just terribly formatted, terribly worded, and full of typos, then someone can replace it.—msh210 18:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


Something is broken in template invocation but I can't fix it. RJFJR 21:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


What part of speech is "conjugation"? This is not a conjugation. —Stephen 21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The Participle → Conjugation thing was a brief error in one of the pages that AutoFormat reads for configuration. The error has since been fixed, but that didn't undo existing damage. When you find such pages, you don't need to bring them here; you can just fix them. —RuakhTALK 22:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


Tagged, not listed. —RuakhTALK 06:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary:English inflection

Should this be moved to Appendix:English inflection? Rod (A. Smith) 04:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably. DAVilla 06:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


Etymology needs Ancient Greek script and antonyms, derived terms, synonyms, and translations all need categorising. The German section also needs a pronunciatory transcription.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Now all that is left to do is to correctly categorise the translations and to give the German section a pronunciatory transcription.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Added German pronunciation. —Stephen 23:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


This looks like a stray would-be Spanish language entry. DCDuring 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is already listed on RfV, so it doens't need to be duplicated here. --EncycloPetey 16:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Is that the rule? Only one Rf per entry? Each Rf seems to have a different function. DCDuring 16:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


This is redirected from bawbles which should instead have its own page. Also, there are two definitions here, which should be split. Also, they should have quotations. Also, this looks like a simple plural; if it is, then either the definition or the etymology should indicate as much.—msh210 18:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

which in turn is a misspelling of baubels (singular baubel) --BigBadBen 21:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


Indonesian and Latvian section: cryptic descriptions, improper formatting. Hm, maybe this belongs in rfv. H. (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It also needs to have the Quotation template subst'ed. --EncycloPetey 16:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


This is labelled "Scottish". Is it Scots or Scottish Gaelic? --EncycloPetey 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


This is labelled "Scottish". Is it Scots or Scottish Gaelic? --EncycloPetey 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


This is labelled "Scottish". Is it Scots or Scottish Gaelic? --EncycloPetey 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


This is labelled "Scottish". Is it Scots or Scottish Gaelic? --EncycloPetey 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Needs a lot of cleanup. --EncycloPetey 23:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Needs a lot of cleanup. --EncycloPetey 23:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Latin section needs a lot of cleanup. I'm through following BiT around with a shovel. --EncycloPetey 23:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Formatting, sources consist of "See Wikipedia article" (which, granted, has plenty of them for whoever cleans this entry up). Globish 02:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


Quotations are too long (and old format). DAVilla 05:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Improperly entered without language line. Said to be Norwegian. Sense: "roadfence" made of steal. DCDuring 23:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It means cornice. Fixed. —Stephen 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Derivations seem misplaced. --Connel MacKenzie 06:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Would spontaneous generation and alternate generation merit their own entries extracted from the material already there ? DCDuring 18:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

December 2007


Everything included under the second etymology looks suspect. I don't know whether there is any salvageable material, either for homer or Homer. It would help if you know your Homeric Greek. DCDuring 19:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Crap removed. Striking. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


This may prove to be a tricky rfc... some background first: the first two Swedish senses of this word ("effort" and "work", respectively) was entered by a user who has attracted my attention more than once before, so as I didn't recognize them, I looked them up. Yes, they exist...ed. Sort of. They are described in SAOB - the not-yet-finished Swedish version of OED - as having been mentioned as "föråldrade" (='archaic' or 'obsolete') in a 1807 dictionary - then they continue by claiming that the word was "resurrected" during the 19:th century through literature. I'm fairly confident though that these senses didn't survive far into the 20:th century.

Well, the problem then, is that the definitions given in SAOB seems to me to be a *bit* of a stretch from these presently given in our article, but as said, I'm not familiar enough with the words to know how to define them instead, and neither can I find these senses in other dictionaries I have at hand. Hence this is a call to any other Swedish-speakers to try to come up with better definitions... \Mike 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Allopathy / Allopathic

See Talk:allopathic for some sources. 20:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume your objection is the second inflection line within the noun section. If we accept that each inflection line needs its own POS heading, the natural solution is to add a second ===Noun=== section. You objected to that solution, though, in Dictionary_talk:About Spanish#Reflexive verb formatting. Could you please clarify your objection? Navigation to non-English entries in general is limited to the language section. That is, in an entry with the structure ==Portuguese==/===Noun===/==Spanish==/===Noun===, adding another ===Noun=== section to the ==Spanish== section wouldn't affect MediaWiki navigation at all, so what is your objection? Rod (A. Smith) 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The separate POS sections are supposed to be listed under separate ===Etymology === sections. --Connel MacKenzie 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleaner. Would probably meet RfV, IMHO. DCDuring 23:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


These photos can't be reused on commons:, right? They are royalty-free, but copyright protected. Is there any point in keeping the link, or is it just (inadvertent) spam? --Connel MacKenzie 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, Connel. Ideally I would like to add my own photos on commons, but for now I just thought enquirers might like to see the variety of breadsticks. Please delete the link if you think it is inappropriate.
Dbfirs 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the Wiktionary policy on links to photos elsewhere on the web? (I know it is quite likely to lead to a broken link sometime in the future.)
Dbfirs 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Linking to the image or embedding it into the Wiktionary page? I don't know Wiktionary policy, but the latter is very bad Netiquette, as it uses the server housing the picture.—msh210 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


A Finnish word meaning contest, but it isn't clear whther this is a noun or verb. --EncycloPetey 03:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It’s a noun. The verb would be kilpaa. —Stephen 07:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


How much of this is salvagable? It looks like an encyclopedic dump. --EncycloPetey 15:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


A new user has entered a Middle English word using Wikipedia formatting conventions. He could probably use some gentle guidance. Widsith? --EncycloPetey 04:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Only section is Spanish. Isn't the given name with an accent Máximo? --Bequw¢τ 22:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Moved. —Stephen 13:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


Presumably medical jargon, but it's encyclopedic and has no language header. --EncycloPetey 10:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


No language header, needs formatting. --EncycloPetey 10:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Stephen 13:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

King Charles spaniel

Not sure if this entry can be salvaged. --Connel MacKenzie 08:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Salvaged --Keene 01:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

conscious parallelism

This need a rollback or a rewrite? --Connel MacKenzie 21:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote for the last version before the anonymous contributor gave us the WP article. I'll put in a pedialite link and some "see also"s to make the other anti-trust terms more accessible. DCDuring 23:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

you know

Had old obscure cleanup tag on - it is a very scruffy page, dubious definitions and quotations, vague and unhelpful usage note, translations to be checked and sorted too and probably unclear headings - It would be an interjection, not a particle. --Keene 01:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As you say, 2nd sense is clearly an interjection, very much like er, um, erm, uh, and possibly others that indicate hesitation. I have so amended it. Could the first sense be viewed as an impersonal pronoun, specifying "that which you know I mean, but don't want to say"? Reminiscent of you-know-who and similar. I will sleep on it and think about it tomorrow. DCDuring 02:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
My best guess would be pronoun for sense 1, and I agree with calling the second one an interjection. Good catch. --EncycloPetey 02:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


RuakhTALK 19:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

my bad

This doesn't read like it's in Wiktionary style. I'm not certain if the final section needs to be here at all. Thryduulf 23:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a nice simple entry at bad. Noun sense: fault, mistake. Maybe the usage note at my bad should suggest that "bad" could be "your bad", "her bad", etc. It is, of course, very difficult to find the specific sense we are talking about because most collocations of a possessive pronoun with "bad" are not in this sense, even in fiction. DCDuring 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
General-purpose noun-ish "bad" in this sense probably meets CFI — a minute or two of creative Google Book Searching is enough to pull up [9] and [10] — but "my bad" is definitely its own thing, at least for me. Consider "my brave" and "my proud"; these are already a stretch, but I don't think I'd even understand "your brave" if I came across it in context. —RuakhTALK 06:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My Bad is the way it is used to try and change it to fit your context would take it out of it context...although it would seem that Wiktionary could stand some improving —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 09:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC).

January 2008


There are five phrasal verb entries buried here that I can't make properly now. DCDuring 16:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got them covered, except for reckon upon. DCDuring 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


The language is given as Arrernte, but is this Western Arrernte (iso=are) or Eastern Arrernte (iso=aer)? --EncycloPetey 18:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


I don't see how "computer" is any sort of usable definition for this. But the whole thing needs an actual entry written. --Connel MacKenzie 21:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


RuakhTALK 04:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


A well-meaning, but misguided translator has destroyed this entry, splitting into separate senses things that aren't separate senses in English. --Connel MacKenzie 07:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? I don't see any problems. --EncycloPetey 15:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The entry looks like it could use more separate senses for the preposition, not fewer. MW3 has 5 main senses (not all of them in our entry ("in" as in "in the key of" is missing) and 18 subsenses. I'm fairly sure that we don't have a lot of the more figurative sub-senses. DCDuring 01:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Unclear pronunciation section--Keene 17:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed --EncycloPetey 03:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Needs complete rewrite. Definitions are pretty rambling. Missing the definitions for "apply for a job" and "That rule only applies for foreigners". An important word too. --Keene 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And those are the definitions we use most often. Well, I'll see what I can do. Connell66 07:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


So, the primary definition of language for the past four years has been "an expression of an understanding", which is in turn a reference to a book. While in the context of the book, I imagine that definition is quite meaningful, however I'm hoping everyone else also sees that it is hardly appropriate for Wiktionary. So here's the problem, there are quite a few translations attached to this meaning (perhaps simply because it has been the first entry for so long). It seems to me that this definition should be cut, and its translations relegated to the trans-check section. Thoughts? Atelaes 20:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I had similar feelings last time I looked at that entry, but haven't been brave enough to tackle the cleanup. More cleaning power to you! --EncycloPetey 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I've gotten rid of that ridiculous definition and allocated all of its translations to ttbc. However, in my opinion, we could shave off all but maybe three of the definitions. They're highly redundant. However, I'm just not feeling that bold. If some langophiles feel like attacking it, it could use some help. Atelaes 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm? I'm not sure about the distinctiveness of sense 2, but I'd keep all the others myself. --EncycloPetey 05:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think two and three are defined by one. The rest should stay. Atelaes 05:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
They may need improvement but they are seem distinct to me. MW3 has 6 main senses and 9 subsenses.
BTW, Meaning 2 refers to the generic capability of communication, but seems to exclude sign language as a part of that capability. If we are harkening back to an age when such languages were ignored, this sense should remain unrevised and a more inclusive sense added. Alternatively, a weasel-worded clause or phrase would be needed to indicate that some include and some exclude sign languages from the "gift of language". DCDuring 12:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


I fail to understand how to read the two different pronunciations, which are given three different "region" markers. I can't see which belong where, as I don't know much about pronunciation in general... \Mike 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


"One direction" looks like a noun but is listed as an adjective.—msh210 17:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Done DCDuring TALK 11:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


These Wikipedia-naming-convention articles need to be moved to Wiktionary names (i.e. remove "List of ".) There are about a dozen or so left. Special care should be taken not to delete the redirects for two weeks after each move, so that double-redirects can be fixed in a semi-orderly, semi-automated fashion. --Connel MacKenzie 18:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

first come, first served

This isn't a proverb, but what WT:POS fits it? Rod (A. Smith) 20:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A phrase. Interestingly, first-come-first-served is valid as an adjective. --Keene 20:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd bet it's used as adjective, adverb, and interjection. Not much value from having inflection lines for all three though. Would it be OK to just use one and insert the categories for the others by hand and add a usage note? DCDuring TALK 12:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a pro-sentence, not an interjection. — Paul G 09:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


This entry ranks near 550 on the "page ranks". That high ranking must be an artifact of the partiicular corpus selected. It should have been a stopword, I think. It makes the page ranks generally look suspect. Do they need review and updating? DCDuring TALK 19:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


The general senses given in the translations and the specific ones in the definitions overlap. It's difficult for me to determine exactly how many senses we should list. Rod (A. Smith) 17:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My MW3 has 20 main senses and a few subsenses. We are missing many basic and early senses. I can barely understand the economics one and, if I do understand it, disagree. To tackle that one, I'm going to have to improve my work area so I can have a few reference books open and within reach at the same time. DCDuring TALK 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2008


zorched Adj, "(slang) intoxicated on alcohol." Where is this slang used? RJFJR 20:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Move to RFV? --Connel MacKenzie 20:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


The Portuguese and Spanish entries need to translate "@" as the equivalent English symbol, not give a definition; if there is no equivalent symbol, these definitions need to be turned into glosses. — Paul G 09:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

@ is used in Portuguese, Spanish and virtually all languages in the same Internet sense, but it has a different name deriving from a different meaning. It would be better to have a Translation section detailing the name in each language than to have hundreds of separate language entries on the page. In Basque, @ is a bildua (rounded a); in many languages, it means snail: Belarusian сьлімак, Southern French petit escargot, Welsh malwen or malwoden, Ukrainian слимачок or равлик, Turkish salyangoz, Korean 다슬기, Italian chiocciola; in many languages, it means monkey, referring to a monkey’s tail: Bulgarian маймунско а, Croatian manki, Dutch apenstaartje, German Klammeraffe, Polish małpa or małpka, Romanian coadă de maimuţăj, Slovene afna, Serbian мајмун, Luxembourgish Afeschwanz; some languages call it a cat’s tail: Finnish kissanhäntä; some languages call it a word for rollmops, a pickled herring rollup: Czech zavináč; some languages call it an elephant-trunk a: Danish snabel-a, Faroese snápila, Swedish snabel-a; some languages borrow from English: Finnish ät-merkki (at sign), Japanese アットマーク (atto mâku); some languages call it a dog: Russian собака; in some languages, it’s an ear: Ukrainian [[вухо]; in Taiwan, it’s 小老鼠, or little mouse; in Greenlandic, it is aajusaq, meaning "a-like thing"; the Greeks call it a duck: παπάκι; Hungarians call it a worm: kukac; in Tagalog, it’s utong, or nipple; the Israelis call it strudel, שטרודל or כרוכית; in Morse code, it’s a commat or "A C" (·--·-·); the Iberian languages call it after a weight: Catalan arrova, French arobase or arrobe, Spanish arroba, Portuguese arroba.
All of these and others should be included on the @ page, and I think the best way is in a Translation section. —Stephen 20:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
But this isn't called "@" in English (unless we're having a really bad day), it's called "at" or "the at sign"; surely that is where the translations should go. -- Visviva 17:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, added to at sign. —Stephen 18:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


An anon removed the synonyms section - is it offensive or something? --Connel MacKenzie 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Move =Derived terms= to Index:Italian. --Connel MacKenzie 20:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth moving them to Index:Italian - they're "hidden" on that page so not so cluttered, and besides, putting them all into Index:Italian would take ages because of the alphabeticalness theron. --Keene 16:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
They'll get copied to the index when I build by Italian index building bot (year after next) SemperBlotto 22:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


The sociology definition needs rewriting, I'm not entirely sure what its trying to say. Thryduulf 20:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It might just be tosh. We inherited it from the original version of wikipedia:Catastrophe, which is available at and doesn't exactly fill me with confidence: the contributor didn't even spell the word correctly. However, it does clarify one thing that our entry doesn't, which is that this sense (if it exists) is just a more-precise definition that sociologists use for the same general sense. —RuakhTALK 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Tosh. A layman's catastrophe without "magical explanations" wouldn't be a sociologist's catastrophe? DCDuring TALK 03:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

flea pit

Tagged, not listed ages ago. I agree - I've never heard this used in a way that restricts it to cinemas. --Connel MacKenzie 09:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dictionaries have, though, fwiw. But [11] is just one example of a use referring to a hotel. Simple cleanup: change the definition. Do we agree on so doing?—msh210 19:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Many of the senses are included in the first (past and participle of). Do we want to have (among those) only the first, or only the others? or double indents (##)? (If we keep the many senses, then we should add the math sense.)msh210 20:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed all senses given, all from verb. Added adjective with 3 senses. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


This is given as "Persian", but is in the wrong script. It is supposedly a surname from Iran. --EncycloPetey 23:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In Persian it would be نانکلی, but I don’t think foreign surnames are useful entries except in notable cases such as Pahlavi or Khrushchev. Foreign given names (in the correct alphabet) are good to have. —Stephen 15:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Reads more like a Wikipedia stub than a definition. Any equestrians here? --EncycloPetey 04:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm no equestrian, but it's not clear that it's the right term. "Sport pony" gets more hits. I've left a message on the user's page and will follow up in a week. DCDuring TALK 02:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki:Glossary of darts

More important than formatting and wikification, this needs to be checked by someone clueful on the subject. An awful lot of seemingly random and difficult-to-verify stuff has been added. -- Visviva 16:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Seems to have Wikipedia formatting. --EncycloPetey 05:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not at all clear how to fix it though. The folk-etymology seems to be accurate and referenced. Why was tag removed? --Connel MacKenzie 21:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Would converting to footnote templates (which by using anchors avoid the basic problem of cite.php) solve the problem? -- Visviva 03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


There's some weird stuff in the Adverb definition. Since I don't speak Latin, not sure if they're badly formated quotes or citations, or what. --Bequw¢τ 20:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki:List of Japanese sex terms

Some of these Japanese terms are missing and could be used to create independent articles, and some of the English transliterations would probably pass attestation as a word borrowed into English, judging by the citations already present. Someone might want to see what you can salvage from this list. Dmcdevit·t 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


Long etymology, definite POV, possible copyvio. Incidentally, the Latin etymon should probably be in the form used by lemmata with this suffix. —RuakhTALK 22:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


Seems to have questionable TM status (former?) Not sure if the current entry matches the trademarks resolution for Wiktionary of November 2007. --Connel MacKenzie 20:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

March 2008


The usage notes section needs reformatting and possibly rephrasing. Thryduulf 14:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

như thiết như tha, như trác như ma

And generally, all of Ehonobe (talkcontribs)’s contributions. H. (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


The definition give is actually an etymology, and no definition is actually given. Thryduulf 16:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please review. DCDuring TALK 17:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. Thryduulf 18:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Removed rfc tag, Thryduulf said its good now almost 2 months ago. Mutante 21:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


This needs formatting, but I don't know whether this is singular (what's the plural then) or plural (what's the singular, or is it a plurale tantum?). Thryduulf 22:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a borrowed Latin fourth-declension noun, the plural is the same as the singular (like deer is in English). That doesn't mean that English hasn't fashined it's own plural form, mind you, but strictly as a borrowed Latin term, that's the expected plural situation. --EncycloPetey 22:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


This very basic English word has one massive translation table that needs to be split according to senses. --EncycloPetey 23:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that better? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a start, but the translations themselves still need sorting. That will take many experts to accomplish. --EncycloPetey 00:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Note: the title of this section was previously [[:averroist]].

This is marked as a noun, but the defninition seems to be defining a person - in which case (if it meets the CFI) shouldn't it be a proper noun with a capital letter? Thryduulf 15:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: capital letter: Yes. This is an old conversion-script error. Re: proper noun: No, it's a common noun (and for that matter an adjective). The definition rambles a bit and talks about the guy for whom the sect is named, but for "one of a sect" you can read "any one of a sect". (Unfortunately there's no good way to express this; actually including the "any" in the sense line would sound silly.) —RuakhTALK 23:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Would "a member of a sect" be better, or have I misinterpreted it? Thryduulf 23:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if it would be better, but yes, you've interpreted it rightly. I've tried a different approach that I think might be simpler and clearer; let me know what you think. —RuakhTALK 00:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That's generally much clearer, but the phrase "a certain sect" seems very odd to me. It reads like "they belonged to a specific sect, but we aren't going to say which one". Thryduulf 00:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
How about "Any member of a particular sect of peripatetic philosophers that appeared in Italy before the restoration of learning."? (See also user:Msh210/specificity.)—msh210 15:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That works for me. Thryduulf 16:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Duplicate Adjective sections (history shows it going between noun and adjective). --Bequw¢τ 13:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


This entry needs something doing to it as at present its a very off-putting big block of dense and not brilliantly worded text. Possibly some example sentences would help, if there is anything we could illustrate then that might help as well. Thryduulf 18:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


The English section needs splitting into multiple etymologies - I'm sure the Italian money changers' benches are not the origin of the nautical, aviation or rail transport senses (I'm not certain this latter is not more general either, e.g. w:Sutton Bank), etc. Thryduulf 01:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


This needs cleanup, but I don't understand what it is trying to define. It was transwikied from Wikipedia, but hasn't had any significant changes since. Thryduulf 23:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC) botany's a bit rusty, but wouldn't that be cuticle? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Take a look. DCDuring TALK 18:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
In English, this is just called "cuticle". --EncycloPetey 23:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


I'd clean up this entry myself, but it's not a term/abbreviation I've ever seen before. --EncycloPetey 01:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

paper sheet, page, and book size abbreviation, part of the sequence beginning folio, f, fo, F;quarto, 4to, Q, 4to, "4o"; octavo, O, or 8vo. It would seem that we should have about 5 entries per size, one for each synonym of the sizes for 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, 64, for a total of 50 or so entries or additions to existing entries. We have many of them already. DCDuring TALK 08:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look. Note the table now included. DCDuring TALK 04:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

April 2008


The verb section in particular is very dated. Must have come straight from some out-of-copyright (out of date) dictionary. Also related meaning in noun section. Haven't got time to work on it myself just now.--Richardb 23:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no shortage of entries with the weaknesses you have identified. You could find a lifetime supply by looking for the entries that still have the {{webster 1913}} template. Then you could review those entries that had those tags removed without the definitions having been fully worked over, such as jaw. If you could figure out some good rules for searching for and rapidly improving some of the sense lines based on search and replace (with manual review) you might be able to make some real headway. DCDuring TALK 23:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


The primary definition is so very dated

  • A structure serving as an abode of human beings.

Needs updating.--Richardb 23:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


still missing some basic dictionary definitions

It is still too easy to find basic words, such as head, which have far fewer meanings listed in Wiktionary than in many a concise dictionary. I pointed this out about head a couple of years ago. Yet it is still missing some simple definitions:-

  • head of steam, head of pressure.
  • head of a door frame
  • it cost him his head (it cost him his ilfe, but his head may still be in place!)
  • $10 per head
  • side of a coin
  • part of a tape or disc player, printer etc
  • promontory
  • events come to a head; a climax
  • the top of a pimple;spot;boil
  • out of one's head; off one's head

etc etc.

some parts are confused:-

  • (countable) The topmost, foremost, leading or principal operative part of anything.

What does it say on the head of the page?
Principal operative part of a machine has nothing in common with head of the page

I previously tried to get some sort of Quality Control Project going on the top 1000 words, but was defeated by apathy (mine and everyone else's). It has to be a team effort, but team efforts never seem to succeed here. Everyone seems to want to do their own thing. So Wiktionary still seriously lacks credibility in it's most basic function - as an English Dictionary.

I'm no longer interested in trying to take this on. But unless quite a decent group takes it on, the dictionary is still going to be lacking credibility, despite all the other wonderous stuff which people spend time adding.--Richardb 00:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible additional sense:

  1. Will, intention.
    He gave his horse its head.

I am uncertain as to the relationship of -head to head. The entry for -head shows it as a suffix. It is also a combining form, which is not shown in the entry, which possibly needs to have split etymologies. As a combining form it can take most meanings of head. In some cases it might have different meaning, which, of course merit inclusion. Following are two types of usage of -head which are combining forms only if there is a proper associated sense (possibly archaic or obsolete) in head.

  1. Terminus for a means or route segment of transportation; transhipment point
    railhead; bridgehead; beachhead; airhead
  2.  ???
    bulkhead; as in bulkhead line; (pierhead probably already included, also as used in pierhead line). DCDuring TALK 14:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
w:Bulkhead_(partition)#Etymology is somewhat illuminating... haven't authenticated that sense yet. -- Visviva 14:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

From the Richardb's list we are still missing at least the side-of-a-coin and promontory/placename (used in both -head and head forms) senses. Also as short for heading and, possibly short for header, the top margin of a page. I intend to do a specific comparison with MW3's 75 senses, but only after we have gotten the senses that come to our (collective) minds, taking that as a crude indication of the importance of the senses. DCDuring TALK 14:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am skeptical of those myself. I'm not yet convinced that head is actually used to mean heads (side of a coin) or Head (promontory); these are both quite plausible but need to be verified. I also came up empty when looking for the "heading" sense -- the phrase "a head of north" brings up nothing relevant on b.g.c. The top margin sense probably does need to go in -- I saw it on Wordnet, but was unsure whether it was really distinct from the "topmost part" ("head of the page") sense already present. -- Visviva 14:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd be amazed if we couldn't find cites for names like "Nag's Head", "Marblehead", which both refer to headlands. If a sense historically must have been a meaning of head in order to now exist as combining forms and parts of proper nouns, I would think that we would show it with some kind of tag. I also wonder if there is a connection between the bulkhead-line and pierhead-line senses and promontory/headland. Because it is all metaphorical and figurative, I find it hard to see why we would exclude the heads/tails sense and include some of the others, especially since not all coins have literal faces or heads on them, though all (???) seem to have an image that includes a head. Perhaps the coin sense belongs at heads, but, if so it will be unhelpful for someone not to find a prominent reference to it at head. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I have provided 3 cites for the heading/topic sense in citation space. There are abundant citations to be found for the promontory/headland sense using Subject:Pilot Guides at b.g.c. a harbor, bay, bight, or sound has two "heads", only one usually visible from each direction of coastwise navigation. I don't think headlands is really a synonym, because such a head could be relatively low, but still be usefully visible to a navigator. DCDuring TALK 16:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


This needs a proper definition writing. Thryduulf 21:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That any better? Conrad.Irwin 08:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

uncle, aunt, grandmother, grandfather

We have twice as many translation boxes as senses for each of these, because they have been split into maternal/paternal translations, even though those are nat the same meanings as the English words (there is no distinction). Some languages do differentiate, but this is a bad way of handling that, because then the other languages that don't distinguish and map onto English don't have a good place to go. People are adding translations to those sections for "paternal uncle" and "maternal uncle" now, instead of just "uncle;" it should just be tío in Spanish, for example, not "tío paterno" and "tío materno," and now Tbot has propagated these basically sums of parts into articles. If a language has two words for one English word, they should still both go in one translation box, rather than creating multiple ones for senses that don't exist in English. These translations need to be merged. Dmcdevit·t 08:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

After dredging this up I took the lead and merged the translation sections. I tried to throw out overly specific terms ("tío paterno" instead of just "tío") if they were obvious, but language experts will have to look too see. For all four, there existed seperate "maternal ..." and "paternal ..." entries. I integrated the specific translations from the base entry into those. Those that know more languages *please* look the translations sections over for mistakes. Some of the list items are a bit messy (noting paternal vs. maternal, by blood vs. by marriage, and in some cases elder vs. younger). --Bequw¢τ 19:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Seven meanings, one set of translations. Sorry, I've fogotten thte correct way to flag this.--Richardb 10:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've sorted the translation section. The markup may have changed since you were last active, but its done now for this entry. --EncycloPetey 14:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


I've never heard of this before, but it seems to exist. However, it also seems to be either an adjective or a preposition; I really can't see which. I see no indication of it being a noun, at least. \Mike 15:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be from Latin declivis (inclined downwards, sloping, steep), declive (slope, declivity), declivitas (declivity) from clivus (gradient). The Latin would be an adjective which can also be used as a noun. —Stephen 15:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


General formatting and templatisation needed, including in the pronunciation and etymology sections. Thryduulf 01:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the section order, added the inflection line template, and cleaned and expanded the Pronunciation section. --EncycloPetey 00:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Split the etymology, cleaned up ety, except Arabic. What about the "American Spanish alteration" of atun? It would seem to merit an entry in the Spanish section. DCDuring TALK 16:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

for the first time

Is this an adverb or an interjection? Thryduulf 13:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard this used in the sense it's defined. It sounds like a protologism based on "for the last time". Either way, it's still an adverbial phrase. --EncycloPetey 14:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


There seems to be disagreement about whether the first five definitions can be combined, and whether the two words are from the same etymology. Conrad.Irwin 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is already a discussion on Talk:cosmocrat, probably best to add comments there. - User:TheDaveRoss/sig 20:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


The verb definition was recently modified, and the result doesn't make sense to me. Firstly, I'm not convinced that "boast" is the right sense of "swagger" here; and secondly, I don't see what the "in association with elegance" part is referring to. —RuakhTALK 22:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

nephew, niece, grandson, granddaughter

Dmcdevit noted above about "uncle, aunt, grandmother, grandfather" having translation sections split for issues that don't effect the English definitions ("maternal" vs. "paternal" and "in-laws" vs. "blood relation"). Seeing that note I found that these four do it also. (FYI I did harmonized some of the definitions). Nephew and niece fall foul for distinguishing between sororal and fraternal cases. Grandson and granddaughter fall foul for differentiating between "child of a son" and "child of a daughter" (are there adjectives for those?). Some of the entries actually have 3x translation sections (e.g. a section for "sororal", "fraternal", and "either"). For the ones mentioned by Dmcdevit there existed separate entries for each "maternal ..." and "paternal..." variant so overly specific translations were moved out of the base entry and into those more specific ones. Currently, there exist no extra-specific variant entries for these terms. I'd merge these translations sections together but I just wanted to post before doing so in case someone had a big problem. --Bequw¢τ 20:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


This entry needs a proper definition. The current one is uninformative. --EncycloPetey 02:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Took a stab, please revise as needed. As far as I can tell, "X is behoveful for Y" is the same thing as "X behoves Y." That may be why this fell out of use so quickly. -- Visviva 09:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


this needs splitting into etymology sections and the pronunciation section needs formatting. Thryduulf 10:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been split and the pronunciation section cleaned up. All it needs now is the attention of an Arabic expert (...Stephen?) --EncycloPetey 12:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


User:Amgine added this tag to Peripatetic stating "Adjectival use is not proper noun/capitalized". Dictionaries here, here, etc. indicate that the word should be capitalized in both its noun and adjective forms.--T. Mazzei 18:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There might well also be non-capitalized use in this sense, but we have deemed the two-way "see"s at the tops of the entries to be enough. I think our users would be better off if we included sense-line references to the capitalized forms in each uncapitalized PoS. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
<nod> Actually I was requesting someone who knows more than I to clean that up, because I was not sure what was the correct response in that circumstance. Good to learn more! - Amgine/talk 22:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: your last sentence: I agree. I also think we should have sense-line pointers to forms that look regularly inflected but meaning-wise aren't. —RuakhTALK 23:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't grasp your last point. DCDuring TALK 00:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
For example, the word links (in the golf sense, I mean) looks like a regularly inflected form of link, such that readers coming across it in a text are likely to look up link. Our entry for link should have a sense line that directs such readers to links. —RuakhTALK 01:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Got it. I'm in full agreement. It would seem to be worth BP discussion and eventually, if consensus emerges, some kind of non-obligatory "guideline". It might be argued that it has implications for something like the Adjective PoS for attributive use of Noun, though that is a distinguishable situation. DCDuring TALK 02:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Hitchhiker’s quote. H. (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

May 2008


  1. Several of the senses in the adjective section appear to be adverbs (eg, "I feel it deep in my heart") - try changing "deep" to "deeply" to see which this is true for. They need to be removed and possibly added to the adverb section if they give senses not already in that section.
  2. Senses 13 onwards seem to duplicate senses given earlier or are adverbs. Is the American football sense the same as the sports sense?
  3. "Three deep" is not a helpful definition - does this have the same meaning as "in a number of rows or layers"?

—This unsigned comment was added by Paul G (talkcontribs) 09:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC).

vitamin R

Can the label "pejorative" be used for something that is not a person or animal? Ritalin is hardly likely to feel offended at being called vitamin R.

Take a look. DCDuring TALK 10:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, jocular instead of pejorative. —Stephen 15:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course, the person taking Ritalin (especially for true ADHD) could be very offended by the jocular use of "vitamin R", but I don't think that even merits mention in a usage note. The "jocular" tag includes usage in bad or insulting jokes. DCDuring TALK 16:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


This needs cleanup to the standards of other letter entries. Thryduulf 17:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

my condolences

I just want to make sure that this should indeed have been a redirect and not something else. -Oreo Priest talk 08:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is consistent with our practice.
We have extensive discussions on collocations that may be idioms and have many inflected and synonymous forms.
  1. Is it really an idiom (actually "Does it meet WT:CFI)?
  2. What is the right form for the main entry?
  3. Which synonymous forms merit entries?
  4. Which merit redirects?
  5. How can usage examples be used to lead searchers to the main entry?
We don't yet have a well-form guideline AFAIK, let alone a policy, let alone a policy that is consistently applied. It would be nice to have some facts about the impact of alternative approaches on users' success on Wiktionary under different approaches, but the metrics might be too hard. DCDuring TALK 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Another approach to my condolences would be to make it a real entry, defining it as short for "I would to like to [[offer one's condolences|offer my condolences]]. DCDuring TALK 09:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, google books:"you have my condolences" gets several times as many hits as google books:"I would like to offer my condolences" (and likewise on regular Google); I think it's fair to say there's not one specific expression it's always short for. The meaning (or lack thereof) is presumably the same, though. —RuakhTALK 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
condolences seems like a more logical target for a redirect; but should probably have its own entry per DCDuring above, since it is used in ways that "your condolences" and "our condolences" generally are not. -- Visviva 11:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Part of the reason the idiom needs its own page is that translations won't be obvious and logical (which is in fact the reason I created it). While I'm rocking the boat, I may as well suggest that WT:CFI for idioms be modified such that if the (near) does not have a clear translation target, it be included anyways (as with every translation dictionary). -Oreo Priest talk 18:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

does one

Was RFCed a while ago, never cleaned. Formatting is crap. - User:TheDaveRoss/sig 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


A user has requested dates for several quotations, and also notes that the glosses on the compound terms need to be moved to those entries. --EncycloPetey 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


This Yiddish entry is in the wrong script. --EncycloPetey 19:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It’s not even the infinitive form. It’s 3rd-person singular. The infinitive is שפּאַנען (shpanen). Moved to שפּאַנט. —Stephen 20:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
What? No transliteration? DCDuring TALK 22:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The transliteration is there...shpant. —Stephen 22:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I missed it when it was not bold. I don't know that you would need it on the inflection line if it is bold in a cite close to the inflection line, but I suppose that proximity is not something that can be relied on. DCDuring TALK 22:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Tagged but apparently not listed here. This needs a lot of work. Thryduulf 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


There's a lot of odd content here. I'm not sure what to keep or where to put it. --EncycloPetey 23:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

worse off

no structure Mutante 17:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Replaced with comparative of badly off and bad off. DCDuring TALK 20:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations:tidal wave/Karamazov

Does this need to be moved to Citations:tidal wave ? Mutante 17:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

At least it should be incorporated there somehow, I guess. It's linked there. -- Gauss 14:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

molisch's reagent

no structure Mutante 17:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Structure added. Moved to Molisch's reagent. —Stephen 18:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


no structure Mutante 17:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


no structure Mutante 17:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up. --EncycloPetey 13:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


no structure Mutante 17:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. DCDuring TALK 20:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


No part of speech and not sure which it would be.Mutante 21:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a pronoun (demonstrative). Cleaned up. --EncycloPetey 13:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


Neither the Arabic nor "Ottoman Turkish" sections has been correctly formatted. --EncycloPetey 13:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 13:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


Has two noun headers, neither has the meaning of "an unsteady gait". Should also have a verb sense meaning to move unsteadily. --Panda10 23:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


A comment on the image would be good. H. (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Categorized as Hindi, L2 is Persian, and the script is Latin (although there is some Arabic on the inflection line). Could someone double check this please? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

corpus vile

Lacking L2. While it claims to be a Latin phrase, I wonder if this should be marked English. I guess I don't know. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

hrm. It's a bad copy-and-paste move from the (now deleted) WP article of the same name. Dmcdevit·t 07:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If it's kept, it ought to be English. The Latin equivalent is merely sum of parts for "cheap body". Latin vilis means "cheap, mean, worthless". --EncycloPetey 13:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Inflection line says "sɬx̣ʷəm̕əy̕qsən". Not knowing Saanich, I have no way to know which is right. PierreAbbat 08:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The title of the page was right. However. All of the Saanich entries we have need to be corrected. They don't use the standard orthography which is all caps. I really should not have entered them without knowing the language. Sorry. Nadando 23:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


I doubt this is English as the heading suggests Mutante 13:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Mandarin. —Stephen 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


ACT = Australian Capital Territory This is listed as both an Initialism and an Abbreviation. To me it is only an initialism, but hardly my expertise. --Richardb 23:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But isn't an initialism a kind of abbreviation? —RuakhTALK 23:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


There are too many definitions - several of them really have the same meaning. Needs careful rationalisation.


Seems to be the same meaning to me in these two defintions.

  • (countable, uncountable) That which is captured or the amount which is captured, especially of fish.
    The fishermen took pictures of their catch.
  • (countable) A find, in particular a boyfriend/girlfriend.
    Did you see his latest catch?


  • (transitive) To detect; sense.
    He was caught on video robbing the bank.
Is this not the sense of capture? There is no sense or detect until someone looks at what is captured.
  • (transitive) To understand.
    Did you catch his name?
I'd question if this is the right defintion/meaning. It's not "did you understand his name", its more "did you capture his name". You can catch what someone says, without understanding the meaning of it.
------------- --Richardb 01:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Took a quick stab at this entry, but it still needs some work. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Richard, why does your outline not include the game? To "play catch" is not to "play (that which is captured)". It also makes no distinction between physical grasping senses and mental recognition senses. That's an important distinction. --EncycloPetey 07:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for removing definitions which were deemed necessary. However, after reading the definition, I'm under the honest impression that many people would have a hard time comprehending the definition, which is an issue to me. It's very convoluted. Macai 07:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Survey of verb definitions in various dictionaries now at Appendix:Dictionary notes/catch. Based on this I think the exclusion of sense/detect is plausible, but there is abundant precedent for some separate treatment of the "catch his name" sense. -- Visviva 10:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Having also surveyed noun definitions, I don't see any precedent for considering these two senses to be the same (particularly since the "find" sense is often used of a desirable future partner). On the other hand, there is plenty of precedent for splitting the countable (thing) and uncountable (quantity) senses, which I have now done. The survey process also made me keenly aware that the senses in the entry were actually far too few, a condition which I have tried to remedy. The entry now stands at 20 noun senses and 43 verb senses, all of which I believe to be clearly and verifiably distinct. I may of course be wrong. -- Visviva 13:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Luo is not a single language. Needs a more specific language. w:Luo languages. Nadando 16:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Luo is a single language, luo classed as [Individual] by ISO/SIL. It is part of a family or group also called Luo, and not coded. See w:Dholuo language and note that "Luo" occurs at two levels in the hierarchy; see also SIL classification, note it is the individual language that is coded. Robert Ullmann 17:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


Some Greek script and etymology needed. H. (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 12:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

lykklig, olykklig

I would guess either Danish, Bokmål or Nynorsk, but I don't know which. It is however *not* Swedish, as these words would be spelled with -ck- instead of -kk-. \Mike 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not Danish, which would be lykkelig, ulykkelig. I believe Norwegian also has u- instead of o- (at least Nynorsk). I suspect these are misspellings of the Swedish words. Delete. —Stephen 12:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Judging from other sources on the net, even Nynorsk uses the -e-. Deleting. \Mike 02:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Hamaryns has added an rfc tag to this template and to Template:en-verb with the note "HTML validator gives warnings in display table". I do not know what this means, since I have noticed no problem. However, this does mean that the queue will have to deal with every English noun and verb entry following the edit of these two templates. --EncycloPetey 13:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That should never have been placed on the templates themselves. Removing them will load the queue again.
He appears to be saying that the table is generating some kind of invalid HTML; however the templates use wikitables, so if there is a problem, it is in WM s/w, not in the templates. (Is also kinda useless: what warnings?) There is an HTML div wrapped around the table(s), but this is legit. In any case, we don't need to care about warnings (not errors) not generated by the template code itself. Robert Ullmann 14:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Validates fine for me (trying various pages that include {en-noun}). Looks fine in source too, nothing odd at all. Robert Ullmann 14:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The local validator that I have moans about the fractional width values, though I'm not au fait enough with the specs to know if this is allowed or not. Conrad.Irwin 12:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Fractional percents are a no-no. Some browsers compensate for them, but not necessarily in the same way for each browser. If we're going to specify percent widths, then they should be integral values to ensure proper and consistent page display. --EncycloPetey 17:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The odd thing is, while HTML 4.01 doesn't seem to allow fractional widths, CSS 1 and 2 do, so I can't see why a browser wouldn't just do for width="49.75%" what it does for style="width:49.75%". It's not like browsers have a tradition of enforcing the arcane constraints of HTML. :-P —RuakhTALK 00:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


Creole is not a language, but a type of language. Does anyone know what language this is? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Creole" as a proper noun usually (always?) refers to Haitian Creole, and google:mezanmi confirms that that's what this is. —RuakhTALK 01:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not know that. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Listed as Jurchen, but in Latin script. Is Jurchen script supported by Unicode? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Listed as a verb, but translated as "tired", which would be an adjective. What is it? Mutante 10:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't knwo Dutch, and maybe, as you suggest, this is wrong, but some languages have verbs for what are adjectives in English.—msh210 16:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This is probably a "participle". It doesn't have the characteristic ending of the verb lemma form (infinitive) for Dutch, but looks like an adjective or participle ending. I don't have access to my Dutch dictionaries at the moment, so I can't say whether the is a participial verb form or simply an adjective. --EncycloPetey 17:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It’s from the verb vermoeien. It’s a past participle, but it could also be called an adjective. —Stephen 06:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok,changed infl template to infl|nl|participle to reflect the changed heading and created Category:Dutch participles. Mutante 16:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Can someone look at the fomatting of Wikisaurus:body? Thank you. RJFJR 13:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

hast zu

This was added to Requests for cleanup by User:Atelaes today. IMO, it should be a request for deletion instead, because few people would look up this combination of words. hast should have an entry as an inflected form of haben, and haben should describe that in combination with the preposition zu, it has the meaning to have to (maybe with a stronger meaning). i think, that even in the base form (which is non obvious to me: zu haben? haben zu?) this word combination wouldn't be an entry in a German dictionary. --Zeitlupe 14:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this should be deleted, or at least moved to haben zu (to have to). hast is just the 2nd-person singular present tense of haben. —Stephen 06:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
hast du (do you have?) is much more common, almost sounds like a misspelling / typo of that one. Mutante 16:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Language code? --Connel MacKenzie 16:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 16:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The core question here is: Do we treat Alemannic German as a language or as a dialect. I've researched the issue and have not come to a definitive conclusion. The matter seems unsettled in the literature I've examined. --EncycloPetey 17:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of others which I switched to conform to {{gsw}}, which should also be affected by the decision reached here. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


fugit#English, more specifically. Badly worded, and I don't know enough about the meaning to word the definition correctly. Likewise for the etymology.—msh210 17:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You can find that term on [12] too. I can send you original article from Mark Garman too if you like, it was also published in the book "From Black Scholes to Black Holes - New frontiers in options" edited by Risk. This term is used in other finance articles, see for example article "Guiding Force" from Mark Rubinstein published in 1992 ("Fifth, for American options, it is interesting to calculate the risk-neutral expected life of the option, known as the "fugit". This can also be calculated by using a binomial tree :..."Lpele 08:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. I had trouble finding many actual uses, such as the Rubinstein article. DCDuring TALK 11:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you can find other reference [1] or [2]Lpele 08:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Mac Arthur

The etymology section needs reworking to make sense. Thryduulf 23:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is also inconsistent with the etymology of Arthur. If that etymology is verifiable it should be copied to the Mac Arthur article as it is derived from Arthur. 23:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Listed as marijuana, which is hemp, Cannabis sativa/Cannabis indica. Leonotis leonurus w:Leonotis leonurus aka. Wild Dagga, Lion's Tail or Lion's Ear is an entirely different plant. The only thing in common with marijuana is that its smoked. Mutante 09:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Not English- needs a definition and a correct language. Nadando 17:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Japanese--Hikui87 20:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Mostly the inclusion of alternative spelling within the sense. Not sure how this would be addressed - is this a UK spelling only for this sense, or for all senses? - Amgine/talk 03:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary:Requests for deletion

The page is getting very long and there are items that date from January. Jcwf 02:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Possible copyvio, but definitely in the wrong script. --EncycloPetey 04:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved to משוגעת and repaired. —Stephen 09:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Both adjective and noun on a capitalized page name? Mutante 10:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Many English adjectives that come from proper nouns are themselves capitalized. This one is too, at least in the few situations where I've ever seen it. --EncycloPetey 20:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


No structure. Mutante 10:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:German language

Before i inserted the {{rfc}}, the {{sisterlinks}} and {{wikipedia}} template boxes overlapped the upper right corner of the listing (P cont.), so "German prepositions" was unreadable. Also the pages in the category root should be moved to the right subcategories, maybe except the Index: pages. And why is Latin letters here? "phrases" and "phrasebook" seem redundant. Maybe more cleanup to make it look less chaotic. Mutante 10:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the overlap. Latin letters appears on Category:Language page of each language that uses that alphabet, in the same way that Cyrillic letters appears on languages that use that alphaet, and Arabic letters on languages that use that alphabet. Phrases and phrasebook could be combined, but the idea was that "phrases" could be used for phrases of all sorts (e.g., Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch), while "phrasebook" is for items needed in everyday conversation (which could even include a few single words such as ja and nein). In any case, some of the phrases under "Phrases" should be moved elsewhere. —Stephen 11:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the overlap. I also understand the "Latin letters" now, and i have removed some of the words from the root category into the subcategories. Now there is the alphabetical sorting left to do. Either all subcategories should be sorted by the part after de: or none of them. Mutante 08:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
My strong preference is "none of them". —Stephen 09:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


The usage note needs rewriting. Thryduulf 22:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


no structure. Mutante 16:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Added structure, but needs more work. —Stephen 05:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


no structure. Mutante 16:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

aborto spontaneo

no structure. Mutante 17:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No content either. deleted --EncycloPetey 17:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

trundle along

Is this a sum of parts, as in the example sentence given? Or is the example sentence wrong?—msh210 20:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Both. A proper example would omit "the path" from the sentence, but then it's still just use of along as an adverb. You can "travel along (singing a song)", and do many other actions along. The only one of these that I can think of to call idiomatic is run along, which is often used as a mild command to "go away". --EncycloPetey 14:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay; thanks. Moving to RFD.—msh210 15:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

for the love of

long-standing rfc. I have taken a stab at it and at for the love of God. DCDuring TALK 01:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


plural of Adnan (which could use cleanup too) or don't we take plurals of given names? Mutante 10:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the vanity of vanities, but there's a vote going on about the plurals of proper nouns.Better wait for the decision. The original user mistakenly used the en-noun template (I've cleaned it up) that created a red link for plural, and maybe (s)he thought it had to be added.--Makaokalani 12:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


needs structure and POS Mutante 10:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Appears to have been corrected. --EncycloPetey 18:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

active energy

Nonstandard headers, definition not concise, borders on encyclopedic. --EncycloPetey 02:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Meaningless tosh. active power by the same author has been converted into a proper entry. Not much hope for this one. Deleted. SemperBlotto 07:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


Symbol L2 L3 header seems confused. DCDuring TALK 12:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. —RuakhTALK 13:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Roman numeral

RuakhTALK 11:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, I think. otherwise retag, as I've removed it.—msh210 20:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) —RuakhTALK 01:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


So "Jumieka" is the language and the word here? Does it have a code? Mutante 20:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There is w:Jamaican Creole, coded jam in ISO 639-3 according to WP. That said, Books results for "Jumieka" number three, none clearly visible. Scholar results number 1, and that one is not useful for attestation. I smell a joke, but am not sure.—msh210 20:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then it sounds like "Jumieka" means "Jamaica" in Jamaican Creole, so it would be

== Jamaican Creole ==
===Proper noun===
{{infl|jam|proper noun}}
# [[Jamaica]]

i suppose. Mutante 23:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's assuming it's correct at all. Even if so, we don't know which sense of Jamaica it means: the island or the country. (We currently only have the "country" sense s.v. Jamaica#English, but should have both; the word has both meanings. Although it's not necessary to demonstrate a geographic difference between the country and the island in order to prove that the word has two senses — it does anyway — there is a geographical difference: the w:Port Royal Cays are part of the country of Jamaica but are not on the island of Jamaica. The other-language entries s.v. Jamaica should also specify which sense of the English word is meant.)—msh210 16:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The chances of any language not using the same word to refer to both the island and the country are virtually nil. Angr 14:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


rendition second verb sense.

Perfect as they are. See heckuva job. DCDuring TALK 02:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


I had created this as an RFV-sense, but really I'm just hoping to sort out how many senses there are here, so RFC is where this belongs. The sense in question is this one:

  1. to manage (something); to succeed with (something); to accomplish; to cope with (something)

That is supposed to capture the sense of successfully completing the action described by the predicate. Usually, it seems that there is an implication that the action would have been presumed difficult to accomplish, but that implication doesn't seem to be present in some uses of schaffen that get translated as "succeed" or "accomplish". Does that mean there are two different senses here or is this really just one sense with different contextual overtones? Rod (A. Smith) 16:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian H. (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You might ask Dijan directly for help with this one. --EncycloPetey 18:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. --Dijan 09:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
But now Croation has stûdio, that should come on its own page. H. (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


Does the sense of a bump (as on a shield) have a different etymology from the sense of a leader? The senses don't seem to be related in any way. — Paul G 09:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there are at least three different words here. Now duly separated. Widsith 07:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Billed as an adverb, defined as a noun. (IMHO probably actually a conjunction and a mention-y noun with high levels of attributive use, but I leave that to a cleaner-up to judge.) —RuakhTALK 18:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a swing at it and removed the rfc tag in these edits. Does it seem OK now? Rod (A. Smith) 19:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. :-) —RuakhTALK 18:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


Any ideas what's going on here? Conrad.Irwin 16:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have been copied and pasted, but with minor modifications, from la:Tag#Germanica Antiqua. —RuakhTALK 18:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


The formatting here is almost completely wrong, and I wouldn't be suprised if there are duplicate/overlapping definitions as well. I don't have time now to check. Thryduulf 22:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Zhùyīn fúhào

No headings, no language. Mutante 10:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Mandarin, headings added. —Stephen 13:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


No headings, language=Afrikaans? Mutante 10:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

fixed, and added Dutch. H. (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


Verb senses seem to overlap, and please give examples for translators. H. (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


Should Humphrey be referenced there? H. (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure; that provides a citation demonstrating use. --EncycloPetey 18:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Rephrased. H. (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

dobrý den

Is this supposed to signify that the phrase is identical in Czech and Slovak? \Mike 09:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, in Slovak is "dobrý deň". Maro 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


The Korean section is clearly in the wrong script. This section needs to be moved to the correct entry spelling, if it is correct. --EncycloPetey 00:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

KYPark added it; I don't know why, as he also added the correct-script . Funnily enough, he made link to sum, but not v.v. *shrug* —RuakhTALK 21:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


Greek L2 hdr, no grek script, no infl line, eng prop noun category. DCDuring TALK 20:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Ληξούριον. —Stephen 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

left bank and right bank

I would appreciate if someone could check these over for formatting and possibly add references. Thank you. --NE2 06:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


Probably contains valuable data but needs structure. Mutante 10:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up by User:Conrad.Irwin. Mutante 16:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


"==Expression==" ? Category:Swedish expressions? Mutante 10:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed to "Phrase". Created category. Done Mutante 16:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


How are those five senses distinct? These definitions are as entered upon the creation of this entry, in 2005.--Daniel Polansky 14:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My take: The first three seem virtually identical, all referring to the system (names + rules). One sense refers to all the names themselves (all the names within the system or of a given population). The other refers to the names associated with a particular entity and its attributes and parts, arguably combinable with the latter. Other senses include a document listing or cataloging the names and the entire process of naming or instances of it. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

July 2008


One of many recent additions by User:JackPotte that isn't quite formatted correctly. The definition is ungrammatical for English, and I am not quite sure how to fix it. --EncycloPetey 18:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 14:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


Scots: Many of the defining words seem to be in Scots. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorted. Widsith 13:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


The figurative sense of the German verb melken (to milk) is apparently transitive. Is the direct (accusative case) object supposed to be (a) that which is extracted or (b) the person or thing from which something is extracted? Also, I get the impression that the literal sense is still usually conjugated as a strong verb (i.e. with a vowel change for the past tense) while the figurative sense is usually conjugated as a weak verb (with -t, etc.). Can anyone confirm that? Rod (A. Smith) 07:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The direct object is the entity that is being drained (der Staat melkt uns wie Milchkühe). I think I would use either strong or weak in the literal sense, but I prefer the weak for the figurative sense. —Stephen 14:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Stephen. Your feedback is now incorporated into the entry. Rod (A. Smith) 16:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Needs declension table for irregular noun. DCDuring TALK 01:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 13:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


Not defined in English. DCDuring TALK 13:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 13:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


Partially defined in Swedish. DCDuring TALK 13:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 12:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


Swedish, relates to orienteer, orienteering, etc. orienteering is a participle, not a noun, btw. I have little experience formatting entries. --Una Smith 15:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Is it correct to list orienteering as a noun? --Una Smith 05:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it’s a noun. —Stephen 08:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


Has subsenses.—msh210 22:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


No POS, is it a symbol?, {{infl|mul|symbol}}? Mutante 13:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Fixed. —Stephen 16:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


No structure, rfc & rfv, whatever applies. sum of parts? Mutante 13:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


No structure. Valid abbreviation? Mutante 13:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


Is also nominated for deletion, but "Christmas elves" seems to be correct, if you look at [13]. Probably a Finnish noun, right? Mutante 14:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

< CK`> yeah santas elve is correct

Fixed. —Stephen 19:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


No headings. Mutante 14:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


No headings. Mutante 14:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Google says that it is an ancient form of , but unsure of the format or language. Nadando 03:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


Not defined in English DCDuring TALK 22:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 22:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


No definition. Uses non-existing templates. Mutante 22:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted by Dvortygirl. —RuakhTALK 23:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
"Anglificated"(?) spelling of name of (minor) Swedish place (in wrong caps) - keep deleted. \Mike 13:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


2nd software sense is way too wordy. DCDuring TALK 00:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up.RuakhTALK 23:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


Derived terms is more like an appendix. Possible new entries? DCDuring TALK 11:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


needs rel terms section for content. missing defs/abbreviations. DCDuring TALK 12:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Fallbeyging mannsnafn

Bad title, and bad id on the wikitable. (Fixing the bad title just takes someone who knows Icelandic; fixing the bad id will take a bit of work.) —RuakhTALK 23:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also {{fornöfn}}. —RuakhTALK 12:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


A Hebrew entry, but in the wrong script. --EncycloPetey 02:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A Hebrew section has been added to רשע, and this entry has been deleted.—msh210 16:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

non partant

This needs lots of work. In the verb, the example sentence does not use it as a verb. In the noun form the definition is a "reason" but the example uses it as a "person". See also hors delais by the same person. SemperBlotto 07:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

hors delais

Supposed to be a noun, but the first definitions are as verbs. See previous. SemperBlotto 07:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen it used in English, but surely it would be an adverb if it is English. —Stephen 19:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Spanish:Conjugated verb forms

Doesn’t follow naming scheme, and I think the title is ill-chosen, since it is totally uninformative. H. (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

These should all be changed to Category:Spanish verb forms. —Stephen 19:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's try not to be hasty, since these "all" cover more than 100k entries, which means at least 200k in the job queue plus a lengthy bot run, so it is worth it to make a decision correctly the first time. The "appropriate" name for this category, based on current conventions, is not what it was at the time the entries were generated, we ought to make sure the one that we change them to makes sense for now and for the future. These entries have been contentious all along, we don't have a standard format for inflected forms of verbs in foreign languages, nor even within the Spanish language. When I generated most of these entries two years ago I tried to use nothing but templates in the entries, so the formatting would be easily changeable, but that got shot down. Since then I have had to change them all with the bot at least twice, and I am not the only one who has had to run a bot on them. It generally takes a couple of days to change them all, so again I say let's make the right decision and not just a decision. - User:TheDaveRoss/sig 19:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, you were quite right to try and templatize them initially. It seems that this has now been accomplished. The current practice would indeed be to put them all in Category:Spanish verb forms, but honestly, there has been almost zero discussion on the best way to handle hundreds of thousands of inflected forms. So, we don't really have a long-term answer. Since the entries seem to be completely templatized (judging from a very small random sampling), making these kind of switches are fairly easy (just change the cat in {{esbot:conjugation}}). This happens rarely enough that the drain on the server is not of huge concern. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

caucus race

Self-nom: just created, probably a lot of formatting/templating/categorizing missing. 10:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


The definition does not fit with the Wikipedia article. H. (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

WP alone is not much to go on. is pretty handy for checking defs. I'd never heard of the coarse meal sense. It is not in MWOnline, but it was in older Websters as nearly synonymous with groat. There is a missing sense of lees. There could be some expansion or differentiation of the plaster/mortar sense. DCDuring TALK 15:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


Previously tagged, not listed. —RuakhTALK 02:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

hadaway and shite

A Geordie expression, but I'm not sure that the definition is correct. It could probably be improved. --EncycloPetey 21:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Right. What does "boundred" mean? It's not even a word, is it? And "cad" is a silly, old-fashioned word to use here.
  • The current definition is rubbish, I am a Geordie I should know. In clean terms it means "I don't believe you" or "The claim you are making is ridiculous". The vulgar side of the expression is as in most cases used to give the exclamation some conversational weight and relevance. In short: hadaway and shite, the definition is bollocks.

post meridiem

Latin entry, needs formatting. Pistachio 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Latinoid, yes. The problem is that, in Latin, it's purely sum of parts and not worth an entry. It's literally "after noon", which is not a single word and is not at all idiomatic any more than English "after dinner" or "before dawn" would be. On the other hand, it might merit inclusion as an English entry, if the un-abbreviated form can be found in English sources. --EncycloPetey 18:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It does occur in English texts, for example in these quotations from b.g.c.:
  • 1853, John Drew, Manual of Astronomy: A Popular Treatise on Descriptive, Physical, and Practical Astronomy, with a Familiar Explanation of Astronomical Instruments and the Best Methods of Using Them, Second Edition,[14] George Bell, page 237,
    The civil day begins at midnight, and reckons 12 hours ante meridiem, or before noon, and 12 hours post meridiem, or after noon.
  • 1923, Christopher Morley, The Powder of Sympathy,[15] Doubleday, Page & Company, page 84,
    We reached that amiable town around two hours post meridiem, exceedingly hungry from our anxieties en route.
A significant proportion of its English-language uses are as subheadings in parliamentary records, apparently separating the records of morning sessions from records of afternoon sessions.
RuakhTALK 01:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, then I'll clean this up an an English entry...though not right away, sinc eI have other things needing my attention for the next few hours. --EncycloPetey 03:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Now corrected. --EncycloPetey 20:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


A few things: Bad capitalisation, a TTBC, a definition which doesn't fit, an odd selection in the See Also section, no Wikipedia link and no usage note about (un)countable/plural/singular which would all be useful. --Felonia 14:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Converted to normal plural + 3rd person singular entry. Moved non-redundant dictionary material to hop. DCDuring TALK 16:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

a l'outrance

No language, no headings, Anglo-french? Mutante 17:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Supposedly an old form and spelling from ca. A.D. 1100. I don’t see any reason to have this page. Moved to the correct Modern French, which is à outrance. —Stephen 09:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


No language, no headings.. ¨Mutante 17:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up and added proper headings. Michae2109 19:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

credit crunch

The current definition is "A period of economic recession in which credit and investment capital is difficult to obtain causing a shortage of liquidity."

Does this mean "... in which credit capital and investment capital are difficult to obtain ..." (if that means anything), or "... in which investment capital and credit are difficult to obtain ..."? In other words, does "credit" modify "capital"? I'm no expert in economics, but if, as I suspect, it does not, then the "is" in the definition should be "are". There should also be a comma after "obtain", but I can add that. — Paul G 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the editor in question wrote is because he views "credit and investment capital" as a single, if bifarous (is that the word?), entity. (Alternatively, it may simply have been an error in editing.) I think we strive for a rather formal level of English, which I don't think allows this; so yes, I think it should be are. —RuakhTALK 16:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Should this be a determiner? This needs someone knowledgeable at grammar (ideally with some Norwegian) to look at it. Conrad.Irwin 21:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, I was not aware of it until I took a closer look at the grammar section of my dictionary. Mye belongs to the indefinite numerals (in my Norwegian dictionary they are called "kvantorer" and many of them were previously named "adjectival pronouns"), and is now considered a determiner. I'll change the header right away. Thanks for noticing it, and sorry for any troubles you had with the example sentences:).Michae2109 22:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
PS: I have now fused the headers "adjective" and "adverb" into "determiner" and moved all example sentences to this headline. What do you think? Michae2109 22:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Much better! Thanks, now we just need to change the "irregular usage" into a proper "usage notes" section, and the "idioms/proverbs" into a "derived terms" section (as at WT:ELE). Conrad.Irwin 23:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced "irregular usage" with "usage notes" and "idioms/proverbs" with "derived terms", as well cleaning up a bit in the Etymology sections (thanks to the WT:ELE link you provided). Hope it looks better:) Once again, thanks for pointing out these important issues. Michae2109


Mutante 22:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


Mutante 22:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


Mutante 22:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned it up a bit and added some referenced definitions, what do you think? Michae2109 18:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, good work. Mutante 18:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008


Mutante 18:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned it up and added some referenced definitions. How does it look? Michae2109 18:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. Mutante 18:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Michae2109 18:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


Seems to be copied directly from [16]. Nadando 00:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it; we don't want copyright violations even in our edit histories, since they're still publically accessible. (Off-topic: how come we don't have [[publically]], and how come Firefox thinks it's misspelled? I'll grant that publicly is apparently more common, but publically seems very decently attested.) —RuakhTALK 00:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


I don't know who added the Australian pronunciation, but it can't be right:

  • Is /a/ really used in Australian English?
  • Shouldn't the last /a/ be a schwa?
  • There is no stress mark. (It is obvious where this should go, but the lack of it suggests to me that the pronunciation was added by someone who doesn't understand IPA, which means that the pronunciation is probably wrong.) — 13:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. —Stephen 10:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


Mutante 21:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


No lang. Mutante 21:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Language headers added. —Stephen 21:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Entries for cardinal numbers

The entries for cardinal numbers are a mess. Here's the monstrosity (IMO) of a definition that was there before I edited it:

  1. Two plus three. One plus four. Six minus one. The typical number of fingers on a hand, including the thumb. This many: •••••. Ordinal: fifth.


The only thing I liked about that definition was the line of dots.

Unfortunately, it is not limited to "five"; "four" looks like this too. I haven't looked any further to see what the entries for other cardinal numbers look like.

There is a further problem... the words "five", etc, are nouns ("the number following four") and adjectives, or cardinal numbers, as we denote them ("as many as is denoted by the number five", or something like that). I think we should probably define the adjective/cardinal number in terms of the noun, as I don't think it is possible the other way round.

There are also two definitions in the cardinal number sections of these entries: "Describing a set or group with n components." defines an adjective (and isn't worded too well, IMO); "one plus three; two plus two; two times two" are duplicates of this adjective definition; and "The number after three and before five" and "The typical number of fingers, other than the thumb, on one hand." are definitions for the noun.

So let's lose the ugliness and keep just the "Describing ... components" definitions (perhaps changing the wording) for the adjective section.

I also fail to see the need for the "cardinal" label in brackets - we've already said this is a cardinal number, so why are we saying it again? (The "colo(u)r" label in the entries for colours is similarly redundant.)

Paul G 14:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a long-term, well-known, and often-discussed issue. What keeps us from fixing it is (in part) a deadlock disagreement on how numerical entries should be labelled, formatted, and categorized. Really, the adjectival and noun(al?) uses are both aspects of the same part of speech: Numeral (Number), since all such words in English are a special class of Determiners that may always function as either a noun or adjective. The "Describing a set with "n" components" falls under this as well. An extra problem here is that we can't agree on whether to use "Number", "Numeral", "Cardinal number", or "Cardinal numeral" as the official header for such entries. I put forward a vote some time ago that ended with no consensus, so we still have all four headers in use, often with more than one appearing among the entries of a single language. Any attempt to standardize the headers results in people reverting to whatever was there before, and I know of at least three people who who each have a strong prefernce that differs from the preference favored by the other two. The result is that we have a mix of headers in use. If we could at least agree that "Cardinal..." is wrong, then that would reduce the number of possible POS headers by half.
The purpose of the "cardinal" label is the same as "transitive" or "comparable"; it clarifies the grammar of the word. If we choose to use "Number" or "Numeral" as the standard header, then this information is not duplicated in the header. Why then not use "Cardinal number", "Cardinal numeral"? Because it proliferates headers and adds too much detail in the header, just as we used to have with "Transitive verb" or "Definite article". There are more kinds of numerals / numbers than just Cardinal and Ordinal. There are Fractional, Multiplicative, Distributive, and Adverbial ones as well, and this again would proliferate needless header variants if we allowed all the possible combinations. So, putting (cardinal) on the definition line allows us to (eventually) simplify the headers. I agree with you about the use of (colour) however, since that is not context information. --EncycloPetey 21:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


"Context": Northern Australian Aboriginal. same meaning as English. Originally it was shown as a separate Etymology of belong. Is this a separate Creole language? What language? There are cites of dialog. Is it eye dialect? DCDuring TALK 11:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted Kriol as the language line, but the etymology given conflicts with that, I think. DCDuring TALK 11:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Over-cited dated meanings, no current meanings. Looks like someone's notes for a part of a history paper. DCDuring TALK 10:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


Mutante 11:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

hasn't one

Put simply this looks a mess and needs some TLC. Thryduulf 17:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Just delete it, I'd say. Why does "hasn't one" merit a dictionary entry? —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
    • I've no strong opinion either way, but I've nominated it at WT:RFD on your behalf. Thryduulf 00:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


Definitions section seems to have sub-definitions which shouldn't occur. __meco 09:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


Mutante 11:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

manner clause

Mutante 11:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


The entry name is wrong, but more than that the entry is encyclopedic. -EncycloPetey 19:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Triple threat

Another user (see text below) has found some entries containing "-sss" as a result of {{en-noun}} gone wrong. The lemma pages need to have their inflection template corrected and the offending incorrect plurals need to be moved or deleted. --EncycloPetey 17:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete a few from This page too - no time for me to check them--Lethal Inspection 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


The noun sense needs to be rewritten. —RuakhTALK 23:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


tendentious definition. DCDuring TALK 20:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The spelling is incorrect. The correct spelling is pravopizdžija. "Z", and not "ž", is the audible counterpart of "s" (changes from "pravopis" to "pravopiz-"). "Ž" is the audible counterpart of "š". --Dijan 04:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Google pravopiždžija (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive) — Google pravopizdžija (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive) — deleted as a protologism. (By the way, Dijan, are you sure you mean audible and not voiced?) —RuakhTALK 16:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, voiced. "S" before "d" becomes voiced. —Stephen 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I meant "voiced". Sorry :) --Dijan 23:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually pravopiždžija is the correct spelling, because *zdž cluster is not allowed and abides by something called hr:jednačenje po mjestu tvorbe :) So *pravopisdžija > *pravopizdžija > pravopiždžija. This is a colloquial term that rarely occurrs even in spoken language, but is hardly a "protologosim" and is listed in at least 2 common Croatian dictionaries. I'll see to find some quotations. For the future, please don't just plainly delete terms like this on sight, use formal RfV/RfD procedure. --Ivan Štambuk 18:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Entry is for Hebrew Joshua, headword and L2 are Malay? DCDuring TALK 21:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither Hebrew nor Malay, it’s Malayalam. —Stephen 21:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
In any event, it is beyond my pay grade and looked to need to be sorted out. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


For Wiktionary heading purposes, can a collective noun be deemed a "hypernym" for the noun or the individual items in the collection? Even if we can, should we? This is somewhat analogous to deeming "abbreviations" "synonyms", a little bit of a stretch of the ordinary meaning of the term. The case in point: bunch and hand at banana. The Appendix on collective nouns does not seem to adequately provide convenient access to the relevant information to casual users. DCDuring TALK 16:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hypernym is the wrong word there: not all bananas are “bunches” or “hands”. Indeed, no bananas are. A closer term would be holonym. —RuakhTALK 17:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
For more, see WT:NYMS.—msh210 19:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I don’t see any relevance of these links at all. What’s the connection of “bunch” to “banana”? And how is “banana” to be a collective noun?
While we’re at it: What’s with the (overly concise) reference to Banana Boys? I’d delete it. H. (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I found out now. But the fact that I did not get the connection and had to look for it makes it clear that indeed something needs to be done there. I think it should just be put in a usage note. Note that at bunch, the reference to “banana” is missing. H. (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


Merge adjective and noun sense? H. (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what the inflection line indicated, the adjective is comparable (and gradable) and it can probably can be used as a predicate. Therefore, it ought to be shown as an adjective. I'll try to provide some citations for both kinds of usage. DCDuring TALK 09:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. H. (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


Split senses in synonyms. H. (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


Mutante 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 16:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I’ve made a few changes; please review them. BTW, is the masculine plural not curieuces?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Nope, it's as the entry says. —RuakhTALK 17:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


Mutante 15:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Added as a Tamil word, but in Latin script. --EncycloPetey 19:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be English. It has translations into other languages, such as Malayalam ഗുരുകുലം, but I believe it actually comes from Sanskrit (guru + kula, master’s family). —Stephen 14:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Mutante 15:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Done (by Goldenrowley). Now listed on RFV. —RuakhTALK 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

should be so lucky

Mutante 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

limited monarchy

Mutante 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

confessional debugging

Mutante 18:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, please take a look. —RuakhTALK 22:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008


This should be made a secondary entry, making nitpicking the main entry, per Googling, with major victory on the web and a minor one in the Google books. So it should better be moved to nitpicking by someone who was the rights to do so, moving the quotation from there over here before the move.--Dan Polansky 12:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but I expect that the hyphenated form is more often used as an adjective and the unhyphenated form used as a noun and verb form. A comparison of number of hits won't determine that. The search results have to be individually checked for grammar. --EncycloPetey 20:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


Mutante 20:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. It just needed to be translated from Portuguese. --EncycloPetey 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


How is driver related to germane?? H. (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean rider, not driver. It's a semantic relationship; in parliamentary procedure, it's often considered poor form (and sometimes forbidden outright) to attach a rider unless it's germane. It's certainly not a "related term", and I don't think it warrants a "see also" link, so I've removed it. —RuakhTALK 14:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


SOMEONE POSTED A BAD WORD ON THE ANTIC PAGE!!!! CLEAN IT UP!!!!! P.S. I'm not sure if the example was even correct.

Looks like its cleaned. Mutante 16:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


Mutante 11:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


Pronunciation for US has a "j", which is not common in US for verb or noun. DCDuring TALK 12:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


Yeah, so one of the usage notes says this should be hyphenated. I don't see how that's even possible (un-copyrightables? uncopy-rightables? uncopyright-ables? uncopyrightable-s? doesn't all...) Teh Rote 14:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I've removed it now. (The editor who added that note was also editing [[goddessship]] around that time; I'm guessing he intended the note for that or another such entry, or simply got confused.) —RuakhTALK 16:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it was meant to be unco-pyrigh-tables. I've adjusted the usage note accordingly.—msh210 17:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


What happened? This entry has three separate Translations sections, but only one POS section. --EncycloPetey 05:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Determinism. DCDuring TALK 06:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


Somebody was well meaning here but lacked the syntax. Please help to repair it, so we dont loose the new info he provided and is not simply reverted. Mutante 03:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sense removed, appears to be a protologism. --EncycloPetey 03:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


This entry needs a POS header and formatting. --EncycloPetey 03:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

last hurrah

Mutante 16:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicaraguan spanish

A Spanish-speaker should maybe just take a look at the following words. It seems they have all been created by User: but all were lacking part of speech. (See his talk page). I tried to insert the POSs with the infl-template to the best of my knowledge. Also some need wikification and maybe better templates and a category "Nicaraguan spanish" or something like that. Mutante 16:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

gallopinto guacamol entenada entenado desturcar descachimbar desmarimbar desguanguañar desguachipar chancho culero chiclan chaparro chaparra cerote turquear


Needs a 'lot of cleanup. --EncycloPetey 23:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


User:Xtv has been creating many non-standard categories and templates for Catalan. This is one of them. This inflection line template generates not only the inflection line, but the definition line as well. As a result, AF tags all these entries as lacking a definition. This template needs to be cleaned up at the least, and probably replaced with a {{ca-noun-form}}. --EncycloPetey 20:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


I think this is English. H. (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

All articles by Chuletadechancho (talkcontribs)

Bad formatting. Wrong part of speech. Some questionable definitions. SemperBlotto 07:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

To wit:

  • baja, Spanish noun and verb — Cleaned up by EP; still missing a bunch of noun senses, as well as the various form-of-bajar verb senses, if anyone wants to add them.
  • scissoring, English verb #2 and example sentence for #1 — Noun definition added to verb section; if this is real, I'm not sure if this is really a noun, or if we're missing a verb sense at scissor, or what. (The example sentence does suggest it's a noun, since it has "we do scissoring" rather than simply "we scissor", but it needs RFV.) Also, minor formatting problems.
  • mud, English noun #4, re-added after anonymous deletion as protologism; minor formatting problems; needs RFV.
  • fango, Spanish translation of English noun #1 — Seems to be erroneous; fango is a fairly general word for mud (though not as general as lodo), and it's hard to believe that it can have this additional specific sense. Also, minor formatting problems.
  • skull fucking, entire entry — Has received help from Widsith, but still needs work: the definition is not the one that I've heard (and that can be found on b.g.c.), which BTW is a form of skull-fuck, and even if it's right, it's roughly backward (in that it portrays the patient as the agent), and to top it off, there are minor formatting problems.
  • face fucking, entire entry — Various issues, starting with the inflection-line headword.
  • throat fucking, entire entry — Various issues.
  • google bomb, entire entry — Various issues, starting with the inflection-line headword. | Moved to Google bomb.Mutante 07:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • irrumatio, entire entry — Mostly O.K.; needs Latin; going by the b.g.c. hits, "as a receiver" is misleading.
  • deepthroat, last phrase in definition — seems fine to me.
  • tribbing, entire entry — Has received help from Mutante, is mostly O.K. now, but might warrant RFV (one relevant b.g.c. hit, and it's a mention — and is this really a noun rather than a form of a verb trib or tribb?).

RuakhTALK 17:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


Should use the form-of CSS classes. H. (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And while we’re at it, maybe also make it conform to Dictionary:Form-of templates? H. (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained inclusion of Old English and other Germanic material as "Notes". Odd entry structure. DCDuring TALK 09:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that’s just User:KYPark. He’s busy trying to prove that Korean is an Indo-European language. Germanic material removed, revised Romanization implemented. —Stephen 14:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
It still looks odd. One definition, five sets of synonyms, etc. DCDuring TALK 15:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


There's no indication of which of the audio pronunciations is which. They need to be separated and put under the respective written pronunciations (I can't do this as I don't have speakers on my machine). — Paul G 17:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

They've all been sorted now, with each Etymology now having a pronunciation section. There were also two etymology sections that belonged togather, and these have been combined. --EncycloPetey 19:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


This is a strange verb - sightsees sounds OK, but sightsaw and sightseed and sightseen all sound wrong to me as the past tenses. --Jackofclubs 10:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

All but "sightseed" seem to exist. Added ety (back-form) and usage note referring to "go sightseeing" as preferred by some. DCDuring TALK 11:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


There is an audio pronunciation here, but which sense (verb/noun) is it for? — Paul G 08:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, it's for the noun, even though the verb is much more common. *shrug* —RuakhTALK 19:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


Needs structure. Mutante 06:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Does not seem to be a word. Caps would be wrong anyway. Simpler to delete. SemperBlotto 07:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


Use of non-existing templates, needs structure. Mutante 06:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Does not seem to be a word. We have biblio-. Deleted. SemperBlotto 07:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


The headword used in the page is belonging, not belongings. I know there are issues with the use of singular of this word, but I guess the entry should address them explicitly. \Mike 10:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please inspect. Compare with belonging. DCDuring TALK 11:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - makes more sense now, I think :) \Mike 12:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


The English section needs cleaning up (transwikied). --EncycloPetey 19:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --EncycloPetey 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

felix culpa

The English section of this Transwikied entry needs to be cleaned up. --EncycloPetey 00:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --EncycloPetey 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

wear off & worn off

Wrong present & participle forms on wear off and worn off has been started but then emptied for some reason. Mutante 09:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User may have realized that default template use wasn't going to do the job, wasn't sure how to do it right, and tried to clean up after himself without admin powers. Simple past and past part added, though we don't always inflect verbs like "wear off". DCDuring TALK 10:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


The etymology of the Hungarian müezzin suggests muezzin more specifically is from Ottoman Turkish. If so muezzin also needs Ottoman Turkish script. Pistachio 11:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


This is certainly a problem I've never seen before... --EncycloPetey 17:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I put it through a ten-step program, I think it's good now. :-) —RuakhTALK 02:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


Translation section needs to be split into 2: the state and the island. --Borganised 10:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've set up the table sections, but the Translation still need to be checked and moved. --EncycloPetey 19:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


  1. 2 pronunciations shown without accent indication;
  2. def. seems tendentious. DCDuring TALK 23:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I’ve fixed and ref.’d the prons.; def. looks fine to me…  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I've added the American pronuns. The defn. looks fine to me too; it's very close to the AHD's definition. Angr 10:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


No structure. Mutante 09:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Back when Moldovan was considered a separate language from Romanian, this was the Moldovan word for "Moldovan" (as a feminine singular adjective). Nowadays it's spelled moldovenească. I don't know what our policy is regarding Moldovan in the Cyrillic alphabet. Should we label this ==Romanian== and call it a "Variant spelling of moldovenească"? Should we label it ==Moldovan==? Angr 09:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Update: I found the masculine at молдовенеск. It's labeled ==Romanian== but it's in Category:Moldavian adjectives. I don't have time to clean this up myself right now, but whoever does can follow the precedent of молдовенеск. Angr 09:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Added structure. —Stephen 09:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I changed the ==Romanian== label to Moldavian, because we also use "{{infl|mo|.." and Category:Moldavian language existed. Mutante 06:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


Is this really Mandarin? It just said Chinese, and i put in "zh" then. Mutante 09:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Japanese and Mandarin. —Stephen 09:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


This page, Category:Sciences, has been vandalised severely. I don't know how to revert it on my own, can someone help? Minor Editor 09:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed; thanks for pointing it out! Angr 09:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


Need POS and formatting. I'm not sure whether it's an adjective (participle) or verb. --EncycloPetey 19:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 17:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

could do with

could do without

could do with is a subjunctive of a defective verb. This entry does not show the relationship. The form including without trivially has the same problem since it is virtually SoP. I am not grammarian enough to be confident in the correct way to present this, but enshrining subjunctive forms because of the meaning associated with being subjunctive seems like a poor direction. DCDuring TALK 19:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Italic text

The problem arises with the idiomatic meaning encased in the phrase could do with. can do with does not have the same meaning, neither does do with. Furthermore, there is no infinitive lemma form possible. Add to that the problem of the past form, which is obliged to use the perfect modal. Finally, the negative couldn't do with does not imply the opposite of could do with. could do without and can do without are the only possibilities. -- ALGRIF talk 13:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The whole thing seems quite complicated to me. Could do with (want/need/would like) definitely seems to be alone, as you say; can do with, did with, etc. are all grammatical, but without the idiomatic sense of. However, I think do without (get by without, manage despite the lack of) is indeed an idiom, with all its forms. In theory, therefore, could do without has two idiomatic senses: the normal idiomatic sense of do without, just wrapped in the normal uses of could, *and* a special idiomatic sense that's the reverse of could do with. However, the problem is that the two aren't totally distinct. I'd gloss one as “I could deal with not having” and the other as “I’d rather not have”, which sound distinct when phrased that way, except that the former could definitely be used as a form of understatement and in fact mean the latter. What's more, I have a feeling (which quite possibly is wrong) that a reversal of this understatement is actually the origin of could do with. I'm pretty sure we should have [[do without]] and [[could do with]], but I'm not sure about [[could do without]]. —RuakhTALK 21:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Please bear with me as I try to get my arms around this. I may well end by agreeing with what you had done and disagreeing with my disagreeing self. It will probably take me a couple of days to get comfortable with it. I respect the judgment and knowledge of both of you, but still would like to get comfortable with the presentation of this for the benefit of users. I'm not at all sure that this wouldn't best be done with a long usage note at "do with" to facilitate comparisons of the forms/terms. Each of the forms or terms would need essentially the same usage note. conDCDuring TALK 00:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for putting in fairly clear language the doubts that prompted my initial RFD entry. I am also bothered by my inability to get this entry into a user friendly, Wiki agreeable and generally all-round acceptable shape. I can take on-board your objections to could do without. Perhaps do without + usage notes would be the correct solution there. But I still cannot see any alternative to the entries could do with and could have done with, due to their special case idiomatic meanings. -- ALGRIF talk 13:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The various entries revolving around these expressions seem to be taking on some kind of reasonable shape now. -- ALGRIF talk 16:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


No part of speech and hard to tell which one it is. Mutante 08:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Adverb. Cleaned up. —Stephen 16:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


No structure. If it's valid Internet laughter slang enhance and move to PMPL? If not, delete. Mutante 08:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


need to be split by accent, preferably also reducing space. Are PoS headers needed (2 lines taken up)? DCDuring TALK 17:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Current BP discussion favors using ===Pronunciation 1=== and ===Pronunciation 2=== as section headers. --EncycloPetey 20:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Same split by accent, not phonetic alphabet as above. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Extreme space problem. I'm not sure there is any solution within the existing rules other than show-hide. DCDuring TALK 18:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did you create 5 sections? Nadando 19:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Not intentionally. The question I ask myself is: "How did I create 5 sections?" It must have been impatient keyboarding (back button?) during a period when the WMF servers were unavailable to me. I'll go clean up. DCDuring TALK 20:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


The inflection line is a complete mess, the rest of the noun section could do with a looking over too. Thryduulf 21:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've met you halfway- following most of the -ics, I marked it as an uncountable. Teh Rote 22:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Simple raw counts of b.g.c. hits for "linguistics-is" and "linguistics-are" gives roughly equal results. This might be invariant rather than uncountable. It needs some analysis to confirm that conclusion. It wouldn't surprise me if something similar turned out to be true for many of the other "-ics". It would certainly seem to fits physics, economics and mathematics. As overall fields of study they are singular only. "Physics is more popular than chemistry." But when applied to something specific, the words are countable, but invariant. "The physics of a pendulum is simple." "The physics of various abstract simple machines are the objects of mechanics." DCDuring TALK 01:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
O.K., but of the first twenty hits at google books:"linguistics are", only one is actually treating it as a plural subject. (In the rest it's "X and linguistics are" or "Xes of linguistics are" or the like, or in one case "generative and cognitive linguistics are", which I believe is elliptical for "generative [linguistics] and cognitive linguistics are".) By contrast, of the first twenty hits at google books:"linguistics is", twelve are treating either "linguistics" or "[adjective] linguistics" (e.g. "human linguistics", "historical linguistics", etc.) as a singular subject. Also, even if you accept physics as a countable plural, do you accept it as a countable singular? How does "A pendulum has a simple physics" sound to you? —RuakhTALK 01:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
You cannot say "five linguistics", so the noun is uncountable. Whether the noun is treated grammatically as singular and/or plural is a separate issue from countability. --EncycloPetey 20:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


This seems a bit messy compared to various other Latin entries I've encountered, but not knowing Latin I don't quite know how to fix it. Teh Rote 22:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --EncycloPetey 20:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Etym.—msh210 18:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

for the loss

Cleanup requested, but not listed here. --EncycloPetey 20:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Various from Special:UncategorizedPages

madam(s), house styles, nominalism, pervy, wererat, weretiger, word scale, vad för en, radicant, subsverience, upcomming, wage moderation, all present and correct, teky, 改寤, 美術, slowpoke town

Mutante 22:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

in a very good mood, iquest, time line, vegs Mutante 07:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


Lower case adjective but definition is "pertaining to Antarctica" which belongs to Antarctic. What is the definition then instead? Compare arctic and Arctic. Mutante 00:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Other dictionaries have it, MW Online says usually capitalized. Alt spelling? Merge with cap to save any translations or move this one to uppercase? DCDuring TALK 18:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Actual meaning seems to be about the same as arctic. And its comparative form exists. DCDuring TALK 18:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


Can this be rescued? Presumably a shortening of congratulations. SemperBlotto 16:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's O.K. now. —RuakhTALK 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


Two noun sections under one etymology. Also has a few other problems.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

tinker trade

help —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 21:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC).


Many things wrong. DCDuring TALK 04:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


See also’s contain a lot of (unnecessary stuff) (← damn, couldn’t find the proper word here). H. (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


The rfc asks "translations or related?" for the "See also" list in the entry of selected abbreviations of legal entity names for various countries. It seems to me that we should have an appendix for these that each individual entry could refer to in its "See also" section. I would also think we should have Latin/Roman spellings, whatever the original script, whatever the result of the more general decision about romanizations and transliterations. There are likely to be standard romanizations that are broadly agreed/accepted in international commerce. DCDuring TALK 16:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

See relatedly User:Msh210/Sandbox.—msh210 17:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
You motivated me to find w:Types of business entity. DCDuring TALK 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

bon à rien

Someone has added content (apparently from fr.wikt), but it is not formatted or fully translated. --EncycloPetey 02:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Content useless, removed hence and from fr.wikt. —RuakhTALK 03:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

tell me about it

A sloppy page, the definition is awkward, and the usage notes are rather sketchy too, e.g.

  1. Old man who has lost his hair and hearing and use of his legs 1: "I've just lost my hair and hearing and use of my legs"
  2. Old man who has lost his hair and hearing and use of his legs 2: Yeah? Tell me about i

—This unsigned comment was added by Jackofclubs (talkcontribs) 14:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

Mostly needs usage example/citation, perhaps from fiction. Can then drop existing usage note, possibly add a better one, if necessary. DCDuring TALK 12:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I have inserted 3 citations of the type I mentioned just above, edited the definition, and deleted the usage notes. Please review and make further changes, especially to definition, and add any usage note that might be appropriate. The notion that "tell me about it" often means "don't tell me about it" or "you don't have to tell me about it" might be worth including. DCDuring TALK 16:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

non sequitur

The article gives some examples of the phenomenon. This happens regularly at linguistic or stylistic words. I am unsure how these should be formatted. Maybe we should start a discussion on WT:BP about this. H. (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As linguistics experts, mavens, and fans, we often seem tempted to exempt linguistics-related entries from our general rules. Adding non-standard headings and materials is one of the prime surviving examples. One of the best approach to finessing this is to be a little creative in the use of citations. Appendices referenced in "See also" would also do, especially to provide longer lists. But Wikipedia articles are often better. DCDuring TALK 12:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the current approach at [[non sequitur]] (having example sentences that use the term in describing an example of its referent) is fine, though sometimes it's a bit contrived. Another option is an example-box like Wikipedia has (see e.g. [[w:Adjective]]); the problem there is that Wikipedia articles are about concepts, so can easily present examples of a given concept, whereas our entries are about words, and examples are typically sense-specific. (We already handle this for images, though, so we could apply that approach to example-boxes. It's not as smooth for example-boxes as for images, but it would work.) —RuakhTALK 12:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The existing approach is not in accord with what a usage example is. It allows encyclopedic content for certain entries. It squeezes out true usage examples. It shows a contempt for the rules that are applied to non-linguistic entries. DCDuring TALK 12:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
How is it not in accord with what a usage example is? What kind of "true" usage examples get squeezed out? What rules does it contemn that we apply to non-linguistic entries? It seems like we always try to show something in our example sentences. (Admittedly, I do have some sort of sense that there's something off about this, but I can't identify what it is.) —RuakhTALK 15:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The three purported usage examples for the third "humor" sense of [[non-sequitur]] do not contain the words "non sequitur". They are examples of non-sequiturs. It would not surprise me if they formerly appeared under the "illegal" Examples header. That is the "rule" I was thinking about is that we not have "Examples" as a header, it not being in WT:ELE. I had the same perception problem for the first few times I saw these things because it is natural to want to illustrate linguistic phenomona in their entry and the space occupied by usage examples and usage notes is natural. I actually thought it was you who had recommended the idea of creative use of citations to get around the problem. Maybe it was Visviva or EP or DAVilla. Whoever it was, thanks. The idea would be to find a citation that used the headword in a passage that also included one or more examples of the linguistic phenomenon. That would respect the primary purpose of a usage example and also provide the illustration that we need.
An example box would be a desirable format. Do we already have a template or a format for such? DCDuring TALK 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh! Yeah, I totally agree that the quotations under sense #3 are a problem. Somehow I didn't notice them earlier; my comment above was about the example sentences under senses #1 and #2. I've just created {{examples-right}}, which is like ExamplesSidebar but with some improvements, and tried it out at [[non sequitur]]. I'm sure it's not very good, but it's a start. —RuakhTALK 17:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Perhaps an even paler yellow background, because the box itself is already distracting, because it breaks with the appearance of most of our entries. Also we should have glosses not sense numbers, in accordance with our practice in trans-top and rel-top, no? DCDuring TALK 18:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Now that we've got a good format, we can face the substance problem. The bgc hits for non-sequitur (humor OR humour) take pains to say that humor requires something more than a non-sequitur and do not use [[non-sequitur]] in sense 3. They use it in the other senses, AFAICT. The examples illustrate a humorous "surprise", something humorously unexpected. Using non sequitur for that doesn't seem accurate. Does it need an RfV-sense? DCDuring TALK 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The point about the examples is that the endings do follow from the preceding words, but not the first construction that comes to mind. Although we may find some evidence for this usage, it seems confused, confusing, and erroneous. I have yet to find it in another dictionary (OneLook). DCDuring TALK 18:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Need to recover from a well-meaning PoV push edit. Wheat needs to be separated from chaff. I began, but was starting to lose patience. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

carbon literacy

WP article deleted. There is some bgc and scholar use of the term, but not enough to support the three definitions given. If it can't be cleaned up, then it should be RfVd to collect some citations so we can figure out what it means. Or someone could get the WP article and use that to provide one (or two) definition. DCDuring TALK 02:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


Tagged, but not listed. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Wikified, simplified, moved to lowercase. SemperBlotto 07:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

free software

Another user wrote "nothing about this article conforms to Wiktionary standards" --Jackofclubs 10:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

For a start it should never have had an entry anyway... This is nothing more than free software. Conrad.Irwin 11:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
free software would just mean "without having to pay" (free beer), but there is a big difference to w:Free software as in the w:Free software movement. Also see w:Free beer & w:Gratis versus Libre. Mutante 07:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


This etymology section needs lots of references --Jackofclubs 11:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


The usage notes section is pretty long, and has some unverified comments too. --Jackofclubs 11:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


Huh? ALTON .ıl 06:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


Nemzag is doing weird things with a number of languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic. Someone who knows Hebrew or Aramaic should check. —Stephen 20:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


Missing definitions, etc. DCDuring TALK 02:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


Recently spun out of n. No inflection line missing def. DCDuring TALK 02:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Added definition. --Jackofclubs 17:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


Unclean formatting. Uncategorized. Mutante 07:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 21:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


I somehow messed up the formatting so that both definitions are listed as def. # 1. sewnmouthsecret 20:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. You have to have the # symbol on each line. —Stephen 21:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Contributions of new user User:Rising Sun

French words. No use of templates. Some English translation is bad. SemperBlotto 11:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


This is a Noun? No category, external link to some website. Mutante 09:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —RuakhTALK 14:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


Etymology questionable. Usage note on pronunciation seems encyclopedic. Adverb section seems wrong in part. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Etymology section changed. Nadando 00:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


Definition line needs an accuracy check, please.—msh210 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


First adj. defn. needs rewrite.—msh210 19:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


Multiple definitions, most of which seem to be the same to me. Contents of Citations page is actually references. SemperBlotto 08:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008


Norwegian entry had/has a combined adj & adverb section. Some of the content should be split off into and independent adverb section. --Bequw¢τ 09:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


Prescriptivist, judgmental, and unreferenced. —RuakhTALK 17:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the problem. It could use references, certainly (a not quite on one is at [17]), but gee, grammar is "prescriptivist". "Judgmental" seems a stretch-- does it say "people who use "different from" are cretins? Not that I can see. -- 18:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


Heading for a noun instead of an initialism, could use some more explanation of what QEX actually stands for. Nadando 23:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Characters from the Bengali alphabet. Needs a radical overhaul before user can add all the rest. SemperBlotto 15:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a lot of work on . It needs some transliteration and definition of the examples, but otherwise it should be in good shape. —Stephen 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


Needs an inflection line and Conjugation section. New user Verbo could probbably use some guidance from experienced Dutch editors. --EncycloPetey 18:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

frugging (+ sugging)

Categories: Entries with level or structure problems | English words needing attention Mutante 23:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC). Also see sugging please.


No headings, POS, categories.. Mutante 23:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

eat like a sparrow

This is a form of eat like a bird, but I can't remember what we normally do in a situation like this. --EncycloPetey 01:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I ran across this: WT:REDIR#Redirecting between different forms of idioms. Redirect or full entry. If redirecting from entry not merely differing by a pronoun, I would guess it might make sense to include the term in "Alternative forms" at the redirect target. DCDuring TALK 08:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


The definition smells like a copyvio, but I don't have the source to check. In any case, the definition is overly complex and not written in the style of a dictionary. --EncycloPetey 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


Needs formating, --Borganised 13:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Formatted.--50 Xylophone Players talk 19:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

thousand one

I have no idea what such an entry is supposed to look like, but, as is, deleting this would be better than keeping it. DCDuring TALK 03:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussions I've seen disfavored the inclusion of these sum-of-parts numerical entries. The information could be better handled with an appendix on constructing and using such numbers in English. --EncycloPetey 19:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


The translations sections here is considerably less developed than many other of our entries of this importance. Maybe we could have a translation collaboation here, and get [[feel]] up to the standard of [[hinder]]. --Jackofclubs 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


Needs a few things as outlined in the tag in the entry. Also needs some wikilinks if it is to be counted by the software so when you fix it be sure to remove it from Articles not counted as "good" by the wiki software --50 Xylophone Players talk 19:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


Could someone take a look at this? The headword looks a little odd and so does some of the linking. RJFJR 16:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found