Last modified on 29 June 2014, at 18:00

Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2010

January 2007Edit

Category:100 English basic wordsEdit

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)
Duly copied to RFDO. — Beobach 07:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Reportedly previously discussed on RFDO and kept despite copyright concerns. — Beobach 09:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
NB the RFD discussion. — Beobach 02:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

tidal waveEdit

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

Cleaned. — Beobach 07:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

February 2007Edit

Appendix:List of dialect-dependent homophonesEdit

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)

nice has extra translationsEdit

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)

March 2007Edit


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)
Cleaned. — Beobach 07:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

dumpster divingEdit

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)
Cleaned. — Beobach 07:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


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

May 2007Edit

Korean entries with etymological nonsenseEdit

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)
A lot of KYP's contributions still need to be checked and corrected. — Beobach 05:13, 28 November 2010 (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)
Which summer? (;-)) DCDuring TALK 16:05, 13 June 2010 (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)


  • 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)
Dealt with. — Beobach 18:13, 28 November 2010 (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)
I have added {{webster}} as the wording of senses still needs work. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Cleaned up. — Beobach 21:22, 1 December 2010 (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)
Someone has dealt with this, so that the "hair" sense is under the "hair" etymology. — Beobach 21:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Intensifiers by languageEdit

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)

June 2007Edit


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)


Dealt with. — Beobach 22:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


Dealt with. — Beobach 22:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

leather leafEdit

Dealt with. — Beobach 22:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


Dealth with, as far as the plural is concerned. the RFV remains. — Beobach 23:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


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)
Dealt with. I compared Google Books hits. — Beobach 22:59, 1 December 2010 (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)
Dealt with. — Beobach 22:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


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

I have started working on this in hopes of updating it enough to remove both the rfc and the webster's warning tag. I would appreciate any advice or thoughts or evaluation here or on Talk:leader. DCDuring TALK 20:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Please inspect. DCDuring TALK 15:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Well done! :) — Beobach 00:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Cleaned. — Beobach 01:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Needs more definitions --Volants 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Has been dealt with. — Beobach 01:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Seems to have been dealt with. — Beobach 01:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


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

The example sentence should be moved and checked. --Volants 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems to have been dealt with. — Beobach 01:41, 2 December 2010 (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)

bonga masoEdit

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

Tagged as anlternative spelling. Maybe we need a Malagasy speaker to help? --Volants 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


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

Odd punctuation in the definitions, pronunciation unclear --Volants 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


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

Seems to have been dealt with. — Beobach 02:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

bent as a two bobEdit

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

Dealt with. — Beobach 02:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

ratepayers groupEdit

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)
The entry is clean. If it should be sent to RFD, that is a separate issue. — Beobach 01:43, 2 December 2010 (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)

Cleaned. — Beobach 02:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


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

The definition may or may not be understandable for mechanics --Volants 16:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)0


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)

Still Websterian. Added webster tag. DCDuring TALK 17:22, 13 June 2010 (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)


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)

July 2007Edit

economy class syndromeEdit

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

Looks alright. — Beobach 03:04, 2 December 2010 (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)
I've cleaned it up, but with no knowledge of OE. I can't reinsert the conjugation. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Cleaned. — Beobach 03:04, 2 December 2010 (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)

media whoreEdit

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 (talk).

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)
I think you may be right, though "A person who is unscrupulous, especially one who compromises their principles for gain" doesn't quite nail the media whore (so to speak), so rewording or an additional sense might be necessary. Peptonized 20:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Cleaned. RFD is a separate matter. — Beobach 03:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

look likeEdit

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)
Idiom dictionaries have look like, feel like, sound like, seem like, all meaning "appear". Expressions of the form "it '[verb] like' trouble" are like sense 2. Though the expressions is not directly obvious in meaning the problem seems to stem from the "it" construction rather than from the phrasal verb. DCDuring TALK 03:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

look alikeEdit

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)


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)

vertical barEdit

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)

air displayEdit

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)
Looks alright. — Beobach 22:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

August 2007Edit

time-span reductionEdit

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)

I deleted it with this summary: "opaque term, seems most uses are by Lerdahl (may fail RFV independence test); copyright violation has not been corrected in three years". I forgot to add: "may also be SoP". — Beobach 22:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

DeLone copyright definitionsEdit


(I did not nominate this term; I am commenting years later.) Appears to have been corrected? — Beobach 22:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

all-interval setEdit

(As above, I did not nominate this term; I am commenting years later.) I deleted it with this summary: "opaque term, seems most uses are by Lerdahl (may fail RFV independence test); possibly also SoP; copyright violation has not been corrected in three years". — Beobach 22:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

beat levelEdit

(I did not nominate this term; I am commenting years later.) Has since been corrected. — Beobach 22:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


(I did not nominate this term; I am commenting years later.) Has since been corrected. — Beobach 22:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


(I did not nominate this term; I am commenting years later.) Has since been corrected. — Beobach 22:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

division levelEdit

(I did not nominate this term; I am commenting years later.) Has since been corrected. — Beobach 22:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

durational patternEdit

(I did not nominate this term; I am commenting years later.) The copyrighted sense has since been removed and replaced. The entry likely still needs cleanup, but that will be solved by re-listing. — Beobach 22:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

equal-interval chordEdit

(I did not nominate this term; I am commenting years later.) Has since been corrected. — Beobach 22:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


(I did not nominate this term; I am commenting years later.) Has since been corrected. — Beobach 22:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


(I did not nominate this term; I am commenting years later.) Has since been corrected. — Beobach 22:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


(I did not nominate this term; I am commenting years later.) The copyrighted sense has since been tweaked. The entry still needs cleanup, but that will be solved by re-listing. — Beobach 22:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


(I did not nominate this term; I am commenting years later.) The copyrighted sense has since been removed and replaced. The entry may still need cleanup, but that will be solved by re-listing. — Beobach 22:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


(I did not nominate this term; I am commenting years later.) The copyrighted sense has since been removed and replaced. The entry may still need cleanup, but that will be solved by re-listing. — Beobach 22:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


(I did not nominate this term; I am commenting years later.) Has since been corrected. — Beobach 22:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

metric levelEdit

(I did not nominate this term; I am commenting years later.) The copyrighted sense has since been removed and replaced. The entry still needs cleanup, but that will be solved by re-listing. — Beobach 22:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

mixed-interval chordEdit

(I did not nominate this term; I am commenting years later.) The copyrighted sense has since been removed and replaced. The entry still needs cleanup, and maybe SoP, but that will be solved by re-listing. — Beobach 22:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

multiple levelEdit

(I did not nominate this term; I am commenting years later.) The copyrighted sense has since been removed and replaced. The entry may still need cleanup, but that will be solved by re-listing. — Beobach 22:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


(I did not nominate this term; I am commenting years later.) The copyrighted sense has since been removed and replaced. The entry still needs cleanup, but that will be solved by re-listing. — Beobach 22:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


(I did not nominate this term; I am commenting years later.) Has since been corrected. — Beobach 22:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

rhythmic gestureEdit

As with permutation. — Beobach 22:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

rhythmic unitEdit

As with permutation. — Beobach 22:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


As with permutation. — Beobach 22:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Lerdahl copyright definitionsEdit

artificial grammarEdit

(I did not nominate this term, I am commenting years later.) This has since been deleted. — Beobach 22:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

grouping structureEdit

(I did not nominate this term, I am commenting years later.) I deleted this with the following summary: "opaque term's copyright violation has not been corrected in three years; if term is valid, create new entry with non-copyrighted definition". — Beobach 22:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

metrical structureEdit

(I did not nominate this term, I am commenting years later.) This has since been cleaned up, but may be SoP. — Beobach 22:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

musical grammarEdit

(I did not nominate this term, I am commenting years later.) I deleted this with the following summary: "copyright violation has not been corrected in three years; if term is valid, create new entry with non-copyrighted definition". — Beobach 22:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

natural grammarEdit

(I did not nominate this term, I am commenting years later.) This has since been cleaned up, at least as far as copyrights are concerned. — Beobach 22:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

preference rulesEdit

(I did not nominate this term, I am commenting years later.) I deleted this with the following summary: "opaque term's copyright violation has not been corrected in three years; if term is valid, create new entry with non-copyrighted definition". — Beobach 22:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

prolongational reductionEdit

As with permutation. — Beobach 22:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

stability conditionsEdit

As with permutation. — Beobach 22:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

time-span reductionEdit

(I did not nominate this term, I am commenting years later.) I deleted this, as noted above. — Beobach 22:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

time-span segmentationEdit

The copyright violation has been cleaned up, but the entry remains SoP. I will RFD. — Beobach 22:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

transformational rulesEdit

As with permutation. — Beobach 22:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

well-formedness rulesEdit

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)

These have now all been dealt with. When I archive this discussion, I will place a link to the oldid of this page, where all of these can be seen (rather than merely archiving the individual section). — Beobach 22:36, 3 December 2010 (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)


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 Template:ARchar as well as to Latin or French. Arabic Template:ARchar has two distinct meanings, climate and way station, presumably both from Template:ARchar (náwwaxa, to stop for a rest)...since the meaning of climate is quite a stretch, it is possible that this meaning of Template:ARchar is unrelated to the other, but was borrowed from Hispano-Arabic and associated with Template:ARchar by backformation. —Stephen 12:55, 17 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 (talk) at 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)]

information technologyEdit

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)

All the cats added by User:WritersCrampEdit

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)

There are about 30 of these - see contributions --Volants 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)]


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

Misc. templatesEdit

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)
The Category:Elementary particles and its templates are a bit of a problem, since some of the particles listed aren't actually elementary. A new user has suggested we rename the category Category:Particle physics, which I agree with. --EncycloPetey 05:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

September 2007Edit


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

Has since been corrected. — Beobach 21:32, 1 December 2010 (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.

I have re-ordered the definitions. Further cleanup (of redundant senses) may follow. — Beobach 21:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


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)

The words which do not end in -eous have since been removed from the mammoth list. — Beobach 21:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

pinch and a punch for the first of the monthEdit

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)
I've cleaned it up. I may RFV it. — Beobach 21:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Do you feel qualified to start Wiktionary: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 Wiktionary: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)
Cleaned up. — Beobach 21:30, 1 December 2010 (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)
Duly changed. — Beobach 21:50, 1 December 2010 (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)
I've reclassified it as a verb. — Beobach 21:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Reclassified. — Beobach 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Reclassified. — Beobach 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Reclassified. — Beobach 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Reclassified. — Beobach 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Reclassified. — Beobach 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Reclassified. — Beobach 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Reclassified. — Beobach 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Dealt with. — Beobach 22:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Dealt with. — Beobach 22:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Has since been reclassified. — Beobach 22:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Reclassified. — Beobach 22:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Reclassified, cleaned up. — Beobach 22:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


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)
Struck. Left in a Category for Albanian terms needing attention. — Beobach 06:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


These[1] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


These[2] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

French, Basque, Irish, …Edit

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)


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)

Hmm… I think English does distinguish the subject, object, and possessive forms of one; consider the existence of one’s and oneself, as well as the fact that the subject and object cases of it and the object and possessive cases of she (her) are homographs, yet we still say that the cases are distinct for those pronouns.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
That seems done.
Had another shot at it, still work to do, but it’s starting to look good. H. (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


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

October 2007Edit


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)


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)


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)

mass nounEdit

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


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 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagged with {{attention|la}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


--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)


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)


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)

November 2007Edit


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)
How about now? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


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

Needs a definition gloss. --Volants 15:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Has since been fixed. — Beobach 01:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


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

It's extensive, but it looks alright. ? — Beobach 01:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


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

It's extensive, but it looks alright. ? — Beobach 01:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Has since been fixed. — Beobach 01:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2007Edit


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)

NE's dictionary defines it as "träget arbete", i.e. something like "strenuous work", and lists it as archaic. The examples given in SAOB either refers to labourious work or occupation, activity etc. Both definitions are marked as "numera bl. i högre stil l. arkaiserande" ("nowadays only in archaizing or higher style"), and that part of SAOB was printed 1933. I would say that the word in that sense is unknown by a vast majority of the Swedish population, and if it has any place in Wiktionary, it must be clearly noted that it's largely dated and effectively unusable today. The verb "att idas" however exists in some dialects today and I assume that it's related to the word "id", since it means something like "being (physically or mentally) able to undertake a task" (i.e. orka, gita etc). HannesP 19:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems to have been dealt with. — Beobach 05:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Cleaner. Would probably meet RfV, IMHO. DCDuring 23:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sent to WT:RFD --Volants 15:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Clean. Struck. RFD is a separate matter. — Beobach 05:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Sent to RFV --Volants 15:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Has been dealt with. — Beobach 04:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

conscious parallelismEdit

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)
Has been dealt with. — Beobach 04:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

you knowEdit

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)
Pronoun? Creative. Struck as dealt with. — Beobach 05:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

my badEdit

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 [3] and [4] — 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 (talk) at 09:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC).

The entry is clean. If it should be deleted, that is a separate issue. — Beobach 05:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

February 2008Edit


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)
Has since been dealt with. — Beobach 06:14, 5 December 2010 (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 been dealt with. — Beobach 06:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

March 2008Edit

như thiết như tha, như trác như maEdit

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

Luckily, he seems to have stopped contributing, I’ll just assume this will solve itself in due time. H. (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2010 (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)
Striking. I have removed frc from the entry, as there is no formatting issue; I have entered plural with quotation mark, so anyone feel free to indicate the right plural. A missing plural seems insufficient for a largish rfc box. --Dan Polansky 09:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

April 2008Edit

uncle, aunt, grandmother, grandfatherEdit

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)





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)

May 2008Edit


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


  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) at 09:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC).

does oneEdit

Was RFCed a while ago, never cleaned. Formatting is crap. - TheDaveRoss 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)

corpus vileEdit

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)
Seems alright now.


Can someone look at the fomatting of Wikisaurus:body? Thank you. RJFJR 13:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:German languageEdit

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)
Would I be correct in thinking that this discussion is no longer relevant due to langcatboiler and topic cat? --Yair rand (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


There are too many definitions - several of them really have the same meaning. Needs careful rationalisation. NOUN 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)


Listed as Jurchen, but in Latin script. Is Jurchen script supported by Unicode? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. In all honesty, I have no idea how to deal with this. We've had a similar problem with water. -- Prince Kassad 10:41, 14 December 2010 (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)

Appears to have been dealt with, may soon lose its senses. Striking.​—msh210 (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

August 2008Edit


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)


"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)
I've put it as dialectal English, based on the quotations and etymology. — Beobach 18:23, 5 December 2010 (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)

Entries for cardinal numbersEdit

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)


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)

Cleaned. — Beobach 02:44, 15 December 2010 (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)
Seems to have been fixed. — Beobach 02:47, 15 December 2010 (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)

September 2008Edit


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)


Pronunciation for US has a "j", which is not common in US for verb or noun. DCDuring TALK 12:59, 5 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)


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)


  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)


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)


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)


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)

November 2008Edit


No headings, POS, categories.. Mutante 23:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Have been dealt with. — Beobach 05:23, 5 December 2010 (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)

Cleaned. — Beobach 05:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2008Edit


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)


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)
Restored Webster tag. DCDuring TALK 15:50, 13 June 2010 (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)


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)


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)
Not striked, still definitions missing --Volants 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

March 2008Edit


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

How about now? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2010 (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)
drink is incorrectly listed as an antonym. --Volants 15:47, 26 January 2010 (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)

Is this OK now? DCDuring TALK 15:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

April 2008Edit


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)


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)


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. - TheDaveRoss 20:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This has been through WT:RFD, and many problems were solved. Not quite enough to de-list it here --Volants 15:52, 26 January 2010 (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)

Cleaned up. — Beobach 19:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

May 2008Edit


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

my condolencesEdit

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)

left bank and right bankEdit

I would appreciate if someone could check these over for formatting and possibly add references. Thank you. --NE2 06:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


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

July 2008Edit


needs rel terms section for content. missing defs/abbreviations. DCDuring TALK 12:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

non partantEdit

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)


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)

hadaway and shiteEdit

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. —This comment was unsigned.


Google says that it is an ancient form of , but unsure of the format or language. Nadando 03:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

hors delaisEdit

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)

caucus raceEdit

Self-nom: just created, probably a lot of formatting/templating/categorizing missing. 10:22, 17 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

January 2009Edit


Definition is much too restrictive. Several senses missing. (and I'm too busy with Italian) SemperBlotto 11:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


Our definition is a possible copyvio of the OED’s.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Replaced with Webster's 1828. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 20:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was against WMF policy to have links to pay sites. Does en.wikt have its own policy on this? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
IMO such links should certainly be avoided and replaced with alternative resources where possible, but I'm not aware of any fixed policy. Where they are useful or necessary for referencing, we should have them. And the OED is, well, the OED; we can't replace it with an equivalent resource in most cases because there aren't any equivalent sources. -- Visviva 01:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the entry is coming along nicely, but I should note that the original entry was not copyvio, in my estimation, since it was also verbatim from the 1st edition (volume 9 part II, page 255), published 1919.[5] I've been daydreaming of an OED1 import project...-- Visviva 01:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Better than the average daydream! A citation to any OED print edition or free online would be fine with the pay OED online link as an optional substitute for the fortunate or deserving few. The 1919 isn't fully scanned yet, is it? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Go hither and enter the card number GWP3230000X; my gift to you and whomever else: free access to the OED.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Worked once. Thanks for the try. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 00:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
You’re welcome.   *shrug*   It’s funny — it still works for me…  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

China's SorrowEdit

Looks like a valid entry with many b.g.c. hits, but enough outside my area of knowledge to properly clean this entry up and write a decent definiiton. --EncycloPetey 01:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


I can't marry this properly to our entry structure. 1 Pronunciation spans 2 etymologies; another applies to just one. Don't see how to properly label pronunciations in single pronunciation section. Alternative spelling only applies to one PoS. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 06:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is one reason I've advocated numbered Pronunciation sections. --EncycloPetey 18:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


Needs some love, I would copy or move some examples to the main page. H. (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


move explanation for sense 1 to usage notes and/or related/see also/whatever. Please also put one representative citation for each sense on this page H. (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It would also help it the citations made clear the meaning. DCDuring TALK 13:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
You’re right. In that case, I’d plead for someone giving it some love and providing more quotations, as I have done. H. (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added the pronunciation in IPA and also removed the Adjective section since it was merely attributive use of the noun (no b.g.c. hits at all for the comparative or superlative). --EncycloPetey 19:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Citations:cuckold page needs format --Volants 13:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


Etymology needs a lot of crap removed- non IE cognates, etc. Nadando 07:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Take a look now please. Leasnam 20:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

May 2009Edit


Yuk... since when do we capitalise animal names and include taxonomical names in derived terms? The taxonomical names belong in the entries themselves. — Paul G 09:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


Is this all right? --Duncan 12:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, except for not being a prefix. And there are not very many adjectives, nouns, or adverbs that don't appear with hyphens before and/or after. We could soon break 2MM entries by including similar terms. See head and -head for an interesting case of not including a combining form. DCDuring TALK 14:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The entry has been deleted.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


An adjective definition:

(linguistics) A term sometimes used as a translation of the word used for both "green" and "blue" in certain languages, such as Welsh, that do not distinguish between certain shades of the two colors.

Is it a description rather than gloss, to be marked within {{non-gloss definition}}? Or should it be moved to the noun heading? An example sentence would help I think. --Dan Polansky 15:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The former, I believe. Not sure whether it sees use (as opposed to mentions) though.—msh210 15:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It does have use. I first encountered it in a discussion with a linguist who specializes in Welsh, who was explaining the concept of color in medieval Wales. (I have unusual friends.) The definition is a bit clunky, but I'm not sure how to improve it. It is indeed an adjecitve, along the lines of other such color words, and although it might also be a noun (as are many color words) I've not seen it used as such. --EncycloPetey 00:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

mauvaise honteEdit

Needs wikification --Jackofclubs 11:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


The current definition is constrained to video games, which seems suspect to me. I would expect the third-party entry to closely follow the third party entry: if I understand it correctly, "third-party" is not much more than an attributive use of third party. --Dan Polansky 08:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought this was quite straightforward, but MWOnline has a very particularistic software-context definition. [[third party]] needs work too. I had always assumed that "third party" arose in a legal context but was very general in its application. DCDuring TALK 11:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


Needs a better definition, but I'm not sure what that is.—msh210


This needs some sort of cleanup, and may need to be moved to a Cyrillic spelling. --EncycloPetey 17:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That’s Greek, but I don’t know whether it’s also used in English. The dance is named for the Bulgarian village of Пайдушко, so I would think the capitalization is okay in any case. —Stephen 21:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009Edit


Definitions in derived terms. DCDuring TALK 02:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


Highly doubtful IPA, since the vowel shown is actually a Cyrillic character and, even were it Latin, IPA doesn't AFAICT use grave accents.—msh210 00:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I can find the dictionary entry, but it doesn’t show pronunciation. The only material I could find on pronunciation suggests that the vowels are close to those in Spanish. So it probably closer to /bdaˀʃχ/. No idea where User:Ptcamn came up with that IPA. —Stephen 03:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That IPA was actually not in the original entry; Amador (talkcontribs) added it. —RuakhTALK 15:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the grave accent is to indicate a falling tone. I don't know anything about this language, but its Ethnologue report confirms that it's tonal. —RuakhTALK 15:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


Should that be called a definition? lol — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we've got a bunch of those. They're mostly useless — they lump together the meanings of every binyan without any clarification, and often add in the contributor's unreferenced theories about the underlying meaning (without given any indication that this underlying meaning is unattested). And to top it off, they use punctuation (and not-quite-punctuation, such as plus signs and "X"-s) that I, for one, have never managed to decipher. We should probably just delete them; I've been reticent about doing that, since there is good information there … it's just not in a form that a reader could make use of. :-/   This one, I've cleaned up by cheating: it's not the lemma page, so I replaced it with a form-of-redlink. (Usually I move non-lemma definitions to the lemma page, but when the definitions are this unhelpful, it seems perverse to copy them to a new entry.) —RuakhTALK 17:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I assumed looking at them that they were dumped from some old dictionary. Am I wrong?msh210 16:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. They all list the Strong's number as their only reference, but their text doesn't follow Strong's. I suppose they could be plagiarizing a different dictionary, but why? —RuakhTALK 17:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


This needs to be split up by etymologyies. Also, the "abbreviation" and "interjection" are largely identical. We usually don't assign POS to abbreviations, initialisms, etc. --EncycloPetey 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi EP-
I split up the Acronym/Interjection as per my understanding of this discussion:
following the model at SMS – my understanding is that Abb/Acr/Init do not replace Parts of Speech – for example, LOL in the internet slang sense is an interjection, which should presumably be reflected somewhere.
Regarding “splitting up by etymology”, I’m not clear on Abbreviation policy generally – you’re right, following “Break up by etymology”, each expansion of an acronym needs a separate L2 header, but that doesn’t seem to be how entries are formatted (see SMS again, which seems a model).
Perhaps we should take this to Beer Parlour, since it seems an under-standardized/policied/discussed point?
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
We might. I think putting it here first might garner more useful attention, but if there is disagreement in the conversation, then a move would certainly be appropriate. --EncycloPetey 21:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This might need to go to BP. Our existing approach doesn't work too well for abbreviations of certain types. It is adequate for nouns and proper nouns, IMO. The various pseudo-PoS headers give "pronunciation" information and the sense line effectively gives the etymology, so we dispense with those headings without harm, except to consistency.
If an abbreviation is used as a verb ("to SMS"), we would seem to need an inflection line. I don't know about interjections.
I would think this one works differently in unabbreviated form than it does spelled out, where it doesn't seem idiomatic. That seems to argue for a different PoS, whatever that should be. DCDuring TALK 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Reflecting on this, as DC points out, this gets pretty complicated.
I’ve accordingly started a discussion at WT:BP#Entry Layout for Abbrevations etc.? with some thoughts – LOL might be resolved here, but there are many other issues, which deserve wider attention.
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

lol is still very much used as lots of love, particularly on facebook

corporate monsterEdit

Tendentious entry. DCDuring TALK 15:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


See the citations page, where this term is used to mean a specific kind of photograph, not a photograph in general, in at least one citation, possible all of the photograph-sense citations. Needs a good definition, then.msh210 16:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


Adverb PoS? Really? Also: Synonyms section needs help.msh210 22:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

lightning mapperEdit

Five-line definition. DCDuring TALK 00:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


...and -orian#Old English both need an ang expert to clean up the content added. --EncycloPetey 01:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

July 2009Edit


See Talk:teloor Jcwf 05:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


User is creating Ancient Greek entries with no definition. Has not responded to first message. --EncycloPetey 19:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


Are there two senses, separated by a semicolon, or just one? Note that the synonyms and translations are split.​—msh210 20:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


Sort nyms by senses. H. (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


Translingual etymology 2: isn't it English rather than trnaslingual?​—msh210 23:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it. Moved. --Yair rand 06:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


Part of speech, usage examples? DCDuring TALK 00:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My first reaction is delete as encyclopedic only. This isn't a "word" in English. But then we have 911, 999 and 112, so I guess they do meet CFI (or just haven't been nominated yet). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
(We also have 000.) My first reaction, too, was delete as not dictionary material. But I suppose we can subject it to the rigors of verification: It would seem that there are uses, as opposed to mentions, of a phone number in durably archived works: If someone dials the number (uses it) in a movie, or even in a book, I think that'd count. Some passage like "John saw her gagging and called 911": the "911" in that sentence is a mention of the phone number, but the use of the number by John is a use of the phone number and should do. No?​—msh210 16:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm just looking for the basic 411 on this. I think it needs realistic usage examples from someone who knows the term so someone could cite it. I wouldn't want to try without some plausible collocations to get at least 5% likely hits from my searches. If it can't be cleaned up, then it should be RfVed. If no one can bother or figure it out, it must not be that important. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I think 911 can be used figuratively (from watching too many US films). For the others, not as sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Surely 911, 999 et al. are translingual. That doesn't particular mean that the English has to be deleted, but whatever language you speak, 999 is the emergency number in the UK. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

September 2009Edit

expanded formEdit

Assuming this is a specific mathematics term as it says, I can't clean it up as I'm not a mathematically minded person. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, I think: please check. That said, I'm not sure it's not SoP.​—msh210 19:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


entry ratherchaotic+adv.>ex.?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 05:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


layout-interj?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 05:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2009Edit

Category:Arabic numeralsEdit

Clearly, this is a translingual category, not an Arabic language one. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Any better? L☺g☺maniac chat? 18:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mexican standoffEdit

definitions need to be split, or moved to Etymology: quote from entry "In popular culture, the Mexican standoff is usually portrayed as three or more opposing men with guns drawn and ready, creating a very tense situation. Exacerbating the tension is that neither side wants to put down its weapons for fear that its opponents will shoot them. The term is considered derogatory by some, but its widespread use in a non-derogatory sense indicates that it is generally not meant to be offensive by most contemporary English speakers." --Volants 15:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


The first Scottish sense is given as "cunt". Wiktionary definitions should use standard language, not slang. (My objection is not to the word itself, by the way.) So should this be "vagina" or "vulva"? — Paul G 08:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with this one. If we put (vulgar) vagina [] that just looks a bit silly, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

double dog dareEdit

Borderline delete candidate. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of playground expression that kids construct using a kind of specialized grammar: "I dare you" / "I double dare you" / "Well, I double dog dare you" / "Well, I triple dare you" / "That's so lame". dog has a long history of use as an intensifier, eg dog-tired. Accordingly, to me it seems SoP and ergo: delete. DCDuring TALK 15:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I cleaned it up and is now rfv'd. or should it be rfd? L☺g☺maniac chat? 15:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

November 2009Edit

used toEdit

Verb defined as adverb. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this properly used to or used to be? --EncycloPetey 04:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


Category:Units of measureEdit

Should Category:Units of measure be a second parent to Category:Currency? Or do we want to keep that category solely for units of measure of physical quantities? I'm inclined to add the second parent as currency certainly is used in English the same as if it were a unit of measure. However, if we do, we may want to either add a second parent to Category:Units of measure to go with its single parent of Category:Physics, switch the parent to Category:Sciences, or add another category, say Category:Units of physical measure that would take the current members of Category:Units of measure and its current parent while making Category:Units of measure a top-level topical category.

My own preference is to add Category:Units of measure as a parent of Category:Currency and change its parentage to something broader, but I'd like input before making the change. — Carolina wren discussió 21:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I would avoid making Category:Units of measure a parent of Category:Currency.
While I see certain analogy between units of measure and currencies, I do not think that currencies are really units of measure. I suppose that a unit of currency could be taken as a unit of measure of economic worth or market price of an object. But the market price of a class of objects is a quantity that is constantly changing in a ragged manner, and the action of measuring of that worth by purchasing the item gives different results at different places, because of varying transaction costs and differences in the place-specific supply and demand curves. There are, I admit, also physical quantities that are constantly changing, such as the room temperature, so the raggedness of change is not probably the key difference. While conversion rates between units of measure such as inch and meter are constant, the conversion rates between currencies change in time. There is something non-objective about prices. It's like, if all the humans disappeared, there would still be physical quantities, although there would be no one to measure them, while if all the humans disappeared, the market worth would disappear with them. Anyway, perhaps someone else can give a better account, one that explains how units of measure differ from currencies. --Dan Polansky 17:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Outcome: completed without adding any parents. No one seconded the proposal, and the proposal was not realized, so the proposal can be considered rejected. --Dan Polansky 09:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


Is this English, or Translingual, or what?? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Translingual, definitely. Pronunciations may differ, so I would suggest ignoring them. As well as any inclination to distinguish "acronym" from "initialization". Pingku 15:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, we should add what this organisation does--Volants 15:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


This (and other recent contributions by the same user) need cleanup from someone who can handle Modern Greek. --EncycloPetey 23:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


Another one - labelled "English", lacking inflection line, etc. --EncycloPetey 23:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the corresponding Wikipedia article. It definitely exists, but I'm not sure about the gender. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Derived terms should have their own page, or be reduced to links without no definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I at least made the related terms section formatted properly and put their definitions in comments. —Internoob (DiscCont) 17:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

December 2009Edit


Created with "in a bending manner"; this definition says absolutely nothing about the word. Could someone please provide a meaningful definition? --EncycloPetey 03:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Added two 19th century citations (not much after 1900 tbh) and slightly changed the definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


I'd have speedy deleted this, but since it has a Turkish interwiki I guess it exists. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


Inflection lines are a mess. Could use an RFV as well; I don't see much evidence for ploop=excrement. It's mainly just a plopping sound. Equinox 12:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sent to RFV --Volants 15:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


Per RFV discussion. —RuakhTALK 16:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Good now?​—msh210 00:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


Some confusion over the last sense, which I don't really understand. At the least, it needs some examples. Note that until I edited the entry, it didn't appear in any English language categories. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


Polish noun entry that needs cleanup, and possibly an inflection table. --EncycloPetey 21:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous 2010Edit


I think this is translingual and hence needs redoing entirely. I don't think Modern English has been around long enough to influence Latin, has it? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not Translingual; it's Latin. This word is not used on its own in any language but Latin. Where it appears in Translingual contexts, it is only as a component of a proper name. So, in the same way that Faso is not Translingual by virtue of being part of Burkina Faso, so benthamianus is not Translingual. Latin is still in existence, and is still being used. --EncycloPetey 22:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
To put it another way, would it be attestable per CFI in Latin? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Striking as whatever it is, it's not a cleanup issue. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


Dari: the definition is Meanings: See Persian section below.

Mglovesfun (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Cleaned up. —Stephen 16:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Striking. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 16:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Striking. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


bit of a mess. Conrad.Irwin 02:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made a start; the obvious question is, what does it mean in English? It's the name of the Buddha, or at least part of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
A name, a name...--Makaokalani 16:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:usage less fewerEdit

This passed RFD on the grounds it was better to improve it than delete it. I have orphaned it from the one page that used it so the cleanup won't be visible on the article itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't really get this one at all :p. The reason behind templates like this is so that improving them improves the entry (or entries) they are included on. That said, the usage notes of both less and fewer do need cleaning, the person doing the cleanup can decide whether to use the template or not. (I've undone your orphaning as it broke the link on less). Conrad.Irwin 20:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The header ====Usage notes==== is in the template itself, meaning that when you click 'edit' on less, it edits this template, not the article. So that's the first thing to fix. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Done, any complaints? Mglovesfun (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


Definition rambles a bit.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay now?​—msh210 16:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Yup, that looks great.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Struck out. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

May 2010Edit


  1. (slang) "A person who keeps the secrets entrusted to him."
  • Badly worded. Could have rfv'ed. Anyone ever heard of this? If not, move to rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
MWOnline has: "an extremely taciturn person". Undoubtedly derived from the difficulty of opening one without heat. See clam up. DCDuring TALK 12:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
"Close as a Kentish oyster" means absolutely secret, while "fast as a Kentish oyster" means fast shut. Supposedly because an oyster, once out of water, is tight shut. Pingku 13:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I think the words above sounds like non-native speaker English. It shouldn't use "him". Consider it fixed. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyone still not happy? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


The definition is a sprawling etymology peppered with Web links. Equinox 13:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Please reinstate tag if you're not satisfied. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


Full screen of Pronunciation. DCDuring TALK 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So you want the homophones added?  :P --EncycloPetey 19:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


This was tagged by someone else. Needs the ===Verbal noun===, ===Verb===, and ===Noun=== headings dealing with. Conrad.Irwin 01:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


the category introduction is "The following is a list of words related to literary" - wtf does that mean? I'd try to change it, but these topiccat templates are mighty confusing. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 14:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's an artifact of the grand design of the template system for categories. Either put in a petition to get it fixed or remove the offending template. DCDuring TALK 11:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Those make me crazy too. How the heck is an editor supposed to edit parts of an open dictionary if they're hidden away? What is accomplished by removing text from the page it appears on?
If the system's broken, just ignore it. I suggest you just edit the category page in question, surround the bad template with <del> ... <del>, and type the correct text in place. Michael Z. 2010-05-17 13:21 z
I've made a start. Feel free to improve my description. Michael Z. 2010-05-17 13:23 z
Topic cat is pretty recondite, I should be able to fix it using topic cat helper and parents, although it's very very complicated even by wiki markup standards. 10:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


Def. given is an etym.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The same holds IMHO for almost all definition lines of verb-forms, e.g. the definition of gave is Simple past of give, which also could be considered an etymology rather than a definition. Matthias Buchmeier 13:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah nothing to clean up. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
But is this not a lemma?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I would argue that this should be deleted as SOP, as it's simply defender + nos. Any pronoun can be attached to basically any verb to indicate its object. My Spanish is a bit rusty, so if I'm wrong here, please let me know. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
You are correct: in Spanish, a personal-pronoun direct or indirect object of an infinitive, gerundive, or imperative is attached to it as an enclitic. The only tricky part is that it's written without any space or hyphen or anything, so the verb-form takes an accent mark if necessary (so, for example, háblame = habla + me). —RuakhTALK 02:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I've always wanted to see these deleted. I don't consider these words, so they don't pass under line 1 'all words in all languages' and they're not idiomatic, far from it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I you plan to remove them, then probably all other non-idiomatic compound-words will have to be removed too. That means a huge number of non-idiomatic compounds (e.g. a large number of noun-noun-compounds in English, German etc.), including words like farmhouse, doghouse and so on. Matthias Buchmeier 12:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that's the case. (PS, this should be at RFD, not here). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, let's not be too hasty, here. Each language has its own quirks, which merit being assessed individually. Deleting defendernos, or even all Spanish verbs with pronouns attached to them does not mean that we're going to delete every word which is SOP. With the houses you mentioned, there is a rather small, finite set of words like them. One could well say cathouse, and it would arguably be sensible, and yet no one does. A doghouse is an item with a distinct size, shape, and purpose, and metaphoric meanings as well. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


Should be adverb and noun. reshuffled --Rising Sun talk? contributions 23:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not really Internet slang as stated — just dialect. I've glossed it as such, changed it to an adverb (I can't imagine the noun exists in this form), and added two citations. That'll be £19.99. Equinox 21:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


There is no reason for this entry to be deleted. Everything is correct, including the declension. I am a Romanian and I am sure of it.

Removed, it says to cleanup the translations, and there aren't any. Maybe it was cleaned up but the tag was left on. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It was originally added to the Scots section. I'll add an {{attention|sco}} to it, as I don't think it merits an rfc. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010Edit


Needs basic formatting. --EncycloPetey 00:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Striking. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


The translingual section has a translation section. I thought this was against policy or practice. There are so many symbols that have structure problems that I suspect there is a serious need for rethinking what translingual symbol entries are supposed/meant to be. In any event, it is beyond my pay grade. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this page began as a Russian-only entry, but someone changed it to English (I don’t think this symbol is used by any language that uses the Roman alphabet, but is restricted to Cyrillic). So the translation section was added and Russian was re-added below it. Then it got switched to translingual. I don’t really see the purpose of translingual most of the time...I suppose it is translingual, strictly speaking, since Serbian and Bulgarian use it, but if any Roman-using language uses it, it is only since Unicode came into being. The Cyrillic languages have used it for centuries, since they do not have the Roman letter N. —Stephen 17:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Zapped; was going to add the translations to no.#Translations, but they were all there already. No opinion on translinguality; if someone can find the original proposal for adding this symbol to Unicode, that might contain useful info on the known scope of use. Certainly Roman scripts were using No as an abbreviation for "number" long before Unicode, but in a pre-digital text, I'm not sure how one would distinguish the symbol as such from a mere N followed by a superscript underlined lowercase O. -- Visviva 17:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
RE: "if someone can find the original proposal for adding this symbol to Unicode": It's in ISO-8859-5, so I doubt there was any specific proposal, per se: I assume that Unicode was intended from the very beginning, to be a superset of every ISO 8859 code-page. At the very least, even if they didn't originally intend to enable round-trip compatibility with all widely-used existing character sets, at some point they did make that decision, so they would have added it because of ISO-8859-9 or because of the more widely-used Windows code-page 1251, which also contains it. —RuakhTALK 04:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

toll slittingEdit

Assuming it does exist, it needs some formatting. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Wikified and simplified. Seems to be US term. SemperBlotto 16:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This is obviously an SoP term. "Toll" processing (slitting, crushing, refining, smelting, etc) is a reasonable common B-to-B contractual arrangement in which a processor charges a fee (toll) for processing material provided by someone else and provides the output of the process as stipulated by the provider. DCDuring TALK 13:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


Header says adjective, definition says noun. Maybe both? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a noun. The adjective is non(-)integral, though the noun sees attributive use also. I've switched the header and inflection template to noun. Good?​—msh210 (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Without looking, yes of course. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010Edit


The phrase-oriented linguistics definition depends on the reader having knowledge of foreign languages, an unreasonable expectation for a large segment of our users. It is arguably a criterion, rather than a definition and may have been intended to be POV. As a definition it does not correspond to what SIL offers. DCDuring TALK 13:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the definition is ok, we just lack the one that you've cited. In class at uni we'd talk about "idiomatic translations" referring to this sort of thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Only a polyglot or a linguist would find it OK. Operational criteria rarely serve well as a definition, however important they are for a dictionary. We do not define "adjective" as a word that satisfies more than one of a some set of conditions. Still worse is a definition based on a single criterion, let alone one whose illustration cannot be accomplished without using foreign languages. Perhaps we need to RfV the sense. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. Literal translateability is a good (though not perfect) test for idiom-ness, and it may be a major reason that people care about idiom-ness, but it's not what idiom-ness actually means. Even if there existed only one language, that language could still have idioms. What would you think of a definition like this? :
An expression whose meaning is separate from the meanings of its component words.
  • 2008, Patricia Hampl, “You’re History”, in Patricia Hampl and Elaine Tyler May (editors), Tell Me True: Memoir, History, and Writing a Life, Minnesota Historical Society, ISBN 9780873516303, page 134:
    You’re history, we say [] . Surely it is an American idiom. Impossible to imagine a postwar European saying, “You’re history. . . . That’s history,” meaning fuhgeddaboudit, pal.
RuakhTALK 21:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that is fine. I am aware of the incredible difficulty in getting more specific than that definition. The literal translatability criterion must mean "over several languages" as it may be that one or more of French, German, Latin, Spanish, Italian, Yiddish, and Latin may have the same expression. I am very skeptical of a definition that implies that one needs to consult a committee of polyglots (or other experts) who are also expert in English (say en-4) to know something about an aspect of English.
I have been reading Lexical Semantics, D. A. Cruse, 1986. I did not find any improvement on the definition you offer. But, based on my reading I have been thinking of classifying the terms in Category:English idioms as "set phrases", "inflecting true idioms", "bound collocations", and "dead metaphors" to see which ones don't fit in those categories, revisit their appropriateness, and develop additional categories. I am hoping to develop an adequate scheme for reducing controversy over the multi-word terms we include. DCDuring TALK 22:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Striking. I've implemented my proposal. (Of course, y'all are welcome to make any improvements.) I look forward to your scheme, DCDuring, if and when you've developed it. —RuakhTALK 22:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

upas Edit

This entry needs lots of templates. --Volants 08:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. DCDuring TALK 11:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


The adjective def comes first but references the noun def, and so cannot be understood on it's own. I don't have time to fix this myself atm. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Dealt with, I think. — Beobach 08:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


This needs fully converting to a modern Wiktionary entry, I'm too tired atm to fully work out what some of it is trying to say. I suspect some things need moving to other entries as well. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've given it a bit of a once-over. Ƿidsiþ 12:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


First Drago nomination. Old High German feminine noun meaning with. So what's a with? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


Head word does not match entry title. Not even close. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


Noun meaning 'to churn'. No gender, but category and header both say noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Converted to noun. Listed as 'noun' in the first revision of the page history. Also Old English verbs don't end in -in (or do they?). Still no gender, mind you. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


I'm assuming that the etymology should be in the etymology. It almost looks like a mistake, a copy-and-paste error. Is it saying this Korean was is from Latin? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a KYPark (talkcontribs) entry. S/he is known for crackpot etymologies. Removed the stuff. —Internoob (DiscCont) 02:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hornsby Edit

Old English: Village or farm of the horns. See -by. WTF? Reads like an etymology. Delete if we can't clean it up. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

English place name, not Old English, and even as an etymology the first part was wrong. --Makaokalani 15:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


If there are indeed two separate etymologies, then the sense need to be split up between them. Right now, all the senses are listed under "Etymology 2", and nothing under "Etymology 1". --EncycloPetey 16:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Yeah, it was rubbish. I put it all together and cleaned the entry up a bit. Ƿidsiþ 10:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


The etymology section for this entry is wordy, and possibly a copyvio. --EncycloPetey 21:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I added that etymology. I also added a reference to the source. I'll try to improve it. Suggestions are welcome. GiuseppeMassimo 01:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
There, I believe I fixed the wordiness and removed any possibility of a copyvio. This is the first time I deal with a {{rfc}} situation and am not sure what is the protocol, so I'll wait a few days for feedback before removing the {{rfc}} from the entry (or feel free to remove it if you are satisfied with the changes). GiuseppeMassimo 02:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I adjusted the entry to use {{compound}}. DCDuring TALK 11:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
If there are no more comments, I'll remove the {{rfc}} today. Let me know if I am jumping the gun. GiuseppeMassimo 15:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
For {{rfc}} the original contributor should not be the one to remove the tag. For the {{rfv}} and {{rfd}}, the challenger should not delete the challenged entry or part and the contributor or attester should generally not remove the tag. It's an easily enforced practice intended to make sure that multiple people (at least two or three) have taken a look at the issue. It works well for English. Languages with fewer contributors depend more on the restraint and good judgment of the veteran contributors. DCDuring TALK 15:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! I think the issue is solved, so who should remove the rfc tag then? GiuseppeMassimo 19:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
So do I. Striking. Thanks to those who worked on this.​—msh210 (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)



# ''(obscure or slang):'' [[wayward|Wayward]], [[opposed]].
#: ''Note: Nowadays we refer to people being [[flighty]] instead.''

It it perhaps archaic or obsolete? Anyway, usage notes go under ====Usage notes====. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I couldn't find this anywhere, so took an executive decision and simply replaced it with the more familiar obsolete sense. Ƿidsiþ 10:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

August 2010Edit

cannelure Edit

I think we can deduce that it is a ringlike groove. Surely we don't need to say that half a dozen times. SemperBlotto 16:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, made it so, feel free to check. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

frankalmoign Edit

I'm seeing hits for it, but what is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

mein Name ist HaseEdit

Probably need amending: the POS header; the categories; the inflection line.​—msh210 (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


Inflection shouldn't be written out by hand, but in a table. Also synonyms are very messy, especially for a word with one meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


Same as above. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Duly cleaned. Ƿidsiþ 10:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

power gamerEdit

Definition needs to be worded so it's understandable.​—msh210 (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Now rephrased and split into two senses per Wikipedia. Equinox 18:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, striking.​—msh210 (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


US pronunciations of non-US wordsEdit

Please see the list at User:Msh210/US pronunciations: it has 33 entries on it, and I thank CI for generating it. These words are listed as non-US but have pronunciations labeled as US. Are the words in fact used in the US (so the context tags are wrong), or are the pronunciations actually non-US? If neither — that is, all current labels are correct — then pronunciations should be removed (as they are foreign pronunciations, like a US pronunciation of an Estonian word, which we surely shouldn't have). Please feel free to remove items from the list as they're fixed.​—msh210 22:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see what the big deal is - they are, after all, the same language! (And thus cannot be compared to English and Estonian!) But if it encourages more non-US people to add pronunciations, then more power to you. Although the dominance of US English pronunciations on Wiktionary can be annoying (I should know - I added the Australian pronunciation of Australia quite some time ago), it is a reality we have to live with, and sometimes having both US and non-US pronunciations can be very interesting and helpful for users IMO. Tooironic 06:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
But a word like millilitre, which is simply not used in the US, is therefore not pronounced in the US except by someone deliberately saying a Briticism. So it is like an American's speaking Estonian. (Anyone else, feel free to chime in.) The words remaining on the list are listed above now.​—msh210 15:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I've now commented out all the US pronunciations of these words. (And removed the space-taking list of entries from this section; it remains, for now, at User:Msh210/US pronunciations.) Striking.​—msh210 16:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Unstriking, I completely object to the removal of these pronunciations. People who share a language have cause to use each other's words, and there is no contradiction in having a US pronunciation for a word associated with Scotland or England or Canada. A word like trifecta may not be used much in the UK but we are still likely to come across it in books or elsewhere and have a pronunciation associated with it, whether internally or used in speech. Ƿidsiþ 17:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course millilitre is used in the states (although it's spelled differently there). And what would an American call a bonspiel, for example w:The Bonspiel, except bonspiel?

Even real regionalisms get used outside their home region. Canadian English is not Estonian. Ideally, we'd base our “foreign” regional pronunciations on attested usage, but most of us know how our varieties of English are pronounced. Michael Z. 2010-03-18 03:09 z

Note concurrent conversation on this topic at [[User talk:Msh210#Removing_.22foreign.22_pronunciations]].​—msh210 15:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC) at User talk:Msh210/Archive/foreign pronunciations.​—msh210 (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)