Open main menu



ubersexual / including non-durable citationsEdit

Translations of attributive use of nounsEdit

Add replacements to edit summaryEdit

In AWB Options > Normal setting uncheck 'Add replacements to edit summary' and it'll make the edit summaries only what you put in the 'Default Summary' box. Makes edit summaries shorter and more 'human'. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks for the tip. :) - -sche (discuss) 18:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


I'd like to take over WOTD — at least for now. I've already set up new words for October 28-31 to get the ball rolling again. Looking over diffs to see what others had done allowed me to figure out the basics, but there's still many other things I need to know about the process, especially what I need to do to create an archive, set up a new month, and polish the entry pages for words before they appear. Thanks! Astral (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you're interested!
The front-end part is simple—pick words and plug them into the templates. You're already doing a good job of that; I like your Halloween pick. As you seem to have gathered, the last definition doesn't end with a full stop/period (though if a word has multiple definitions, the preceding definitions do), because the template already adds one: double-dotted vs fixed. Featured words should have pronunciation info (either IPA or audio); the template will automatically notice and include an audio pronunciation if one is present.
The more additional info an entry has, like etymology, illustration or examples of usage, the more interesting it is likely to be to users who click through to it; on the other hand, trying to cite and find a picture for every word you feature on WOTD is a recipe for burning out. Strategise.
Once you've set a word, add the was-wotd template to the entry, so that it won't be featured again (mostly).
To create an archive, do what Ruakh did here, changing {{wotd archive|PREVIOUS|NEXT|YEAR|DAYS}} to the previous month, the next month, the year (four digits) and the number of days in the month (28, 29, 30, 31), and updating the pagename to the relevant month and year. An easy way of creating an archive is to copy-and-paste the relevant month's Recycled Page, e.g. Wiktionary:Word of the day/Recycled pages/October, simply changing {{wotd recycled}} to {{wotd archive}} and adding the YEAR and DAYS parameters.
At the end of the month, subst: all of the templates by changing each day's {{Wiktionary:Word of the day to {{subst:Wiktionary:Word of the day. The reason for not subst:ing a day before it's done is that someone might tweak the definition or fix a typo, etc.
- -sche (discuss) 04:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. This is very helpful. I've got a couple of questions. First, I'm not good with IPA, so is there a way I could arrange for someone who is to add pronunciation data to entries before they appear? Second, is it okay to occasionally select words I've nominated myself? I already did this with trainiac, because I wanted something "fun" between mulct and peri-urban, but I don't want to do it again if it's something that should be avoided. Astral (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, exactly how far back does the prohibition against using words featured as WOTDs on other sites go? It makes sense not to copy words other sites have featured recently, but three, four, five years back seems like a another matter. I need a verb, and wanted to use photobomb, but it was featured on Urban Dictionary in 2009, and more recently as a noun on September 28 of this year. Astral (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
So, I chose ambuscade instead, only to discover it was a Merriam Webster WOTD in 2010. Can't win. :( Astral (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I'm not Sche (@Sche: feel free to correct me on anything I say). Anyway, I think that choosing words that you nominate is fine, and that if you find a concise way to list all the entries you want IPA for pronto (on a subpage, maybe?) I would be happy to help out, as would Sche, Angr, et al. (probably) given their past contributions in that regard (and they're probably more trustworthy than I am). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you can just comment that you'd like to feature a word but it lacks pronunciation info. Many users watch that page, and someone should take care of it. And yes, you can feature words you've nominated—at least, I did. It's probably best to let a couple days pass between when you nominate a word and when you use it, in case anyone comments with objections, but I doubt anything you nominate will be objectionable (you know not to nominate redlinks or offensive words). As for other sites' words of the day: personally, I never paid much attention to that rule; I checked if a word had been featured on another site in the past few months, and if not, looked no further. Sometimes, people would strike words that had been featured by other sites years ago, and in those cases, I respected the strikings and didn't use those words, but I didn't strike words that had been featured by other sites years ago myself. - -sche (discuss) 05:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Inscriptions and whatnotEdit

Discussion moved to WT:T:ALA.

Data consistency checking moduleEdit

Kephir wrote Module:data consistency check which performs a check on all the data modules, and makes sure there aren't any discrepancies. There are some, so I thought you might like to know. —CodeCat 23:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Among other things, aus, sai, and cai ought to go, stupid geographic categories that they are. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
@CodeCat: thank you for the link. (And @Kephir, if you're reading this, thanks for designing that module!) @Metaknowledge: Indeed, and nai (which several things currently list as their family!). qfa-ame should also go, IMO, or at least be voted upon like Altaic and Zuni needs to be updated not to list qfa-ame as its family even if it is kept. (If qfa-ame is kept, we should reconsider having deleted Penutian.) I've been meaning to start Requests for Deletion, but I've been busy. Feel free to beat me to it. - -sche (discuss) 09:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Certain_geographic_language_families. - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

For your continuous work to improve coverage and consistency of languages, families and such. —CodeCat 03:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! :) - -sche (discuss) 06:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: jewing / using labels on inflected formsEdit

Haida languagesEdit

Have we thought out the treatment of these yet? We have both the macrolanguage code hai (and a category for terms derived from it, including the entry gwaai that I think I'll go and RFV) as well as the two sublects, hdn and hax, the latter of which I just unwittingly made a terms derived from category for. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I recall looking into the Haida lects, but it seems from my "Note 2" in this RFM that I held off on posting about them for some reason, and then got distracted by events in real life. WT:LANGTREAT says to treat only the macrolanguage as a language, but like the pronouncements I mentioned in that RFM, it seems there was never discussion about that. There are noticeable phonological differences between the Northern and Southern lects. Each of those lects is in turn made up of its own (sub-)dialects, but the sub-dialects within each group are mutually intelligible, so it doesn't seem to be a problem to merge those (into hax and into hdn), and it seems most references do. I looked at a number of North Haida, South Haida and plain "Haida" materials (Enrico's Northern Haida Songs, etc) and references before I posted the above-linked RFM last year and planned to comment about Haida; I'll see if I can find the notes I made then. - -sche (discuss) 22:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
A tad more research on the matter suggests to me that we should deprecate the use of the macrolanguage and reassign it, then create categories for the sublects. If you've notes on it, though, I'll wait for you to start the RFM instead of blowing ahead myself. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, here are my notes, which I'd be happy to summarize in any RFM on the subject, or which you can feel free to pull from.
- -sche (discuss) 05:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, for entries I would suggest using Enrico's orthography (or maybe Bringhurst's), so as to avoid characters like that are hard to input and liable to display incorrectly. - -sche (discuss) 06:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
All sounds good, and you can feel free to copy my Support over to the RFM for splitting and deprecating hai, but I'm not on board with the orthography. In British Columbia, I've only seen the orthography with x̱ used, so I would presume it is standard among speakers and linguists. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia says SHIP's orthography "is the usual orthography used in Skidegate", while Enrico's is what I saw in my (limited) review for Northern Haida—but perhaps the set of materials I have access to is not representative of all materials. Are the texts you see in British Columbia Southern Haida, or are some Northern Haida? Meh, it would be undesirable to use two different orthographies... I suppose we can normalize both (South and North) on the SHIP spellings and mention the other spellings as alternative forms. (Cf this subthread, if you're bored.) - -sche (discuss) 23:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, after waiting a few days for some other discussions to settle down, I started Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/August#Haida_lects. - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


Can we change the primary name of tmh (in Module:languages/data3/t) from "Tamashek" to "Tuareg"? tmh is the macrolanguage containing thv ("Tahaggart Tamahaq"), taq ("Tamasheq"), ttq ("Tawallammat Tamajaq"), and thz ("Tayart Tamajeq"). "Tamashek" is just an alternative spelling of "Tamasheq" and makes it very confusing. Also, "Tuareg" is simply a much more widely used name for these languages. --WikiTiki89 15:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "Tuareg" would be a clearer name for it. Should we even have tmh at all, though, if we include its subvarieties as separate languages? (I note that ber, the macro-macro-language code containing tmh, was deprecated in favour of its subdivisions.) - -sche (discuss) 19:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I personally feel that Berber is overdivided. I'm not an expert, but it seems Tuareg languages are all relatively mutually intelligible (see here, for example) even if they have different realizations of some consonants (evident in the language names I listed above). So maybe we should merge all of Tuareg into one? The simplest thing for now, though, is to just rename tmh to Tuareg. --WikiTiki89 19:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, deprecating the sub-dialect codes in favour of tmh would also work. (And yes, Berber is quite over-divided...) - -sche (discuss) 19:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

northern fur seal translations for WOTD?Edit

k'oon is soon (10 August) to be a foreign WOTD. I have added entries for Callorhinus ursinus and northern fur seal. Could you take a look? Also, if you can find any Native American translations, they would make northern fur seal more interesting. The seals apparently ranged as far south as Baja. I've also left a note for Chuck Entz, as this might really be in his wheelhouse. DCDuring TALK 16:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I tend to know more about the languages on the other (Atlantic) coast, but I'll see what I can do. - -sche (discuss) 19:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
We are lucky if we get folks to click through at all, let alone look at translations, let alone be impressed. So only modest effort, with high likelihood of success, is worthwhile. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 19:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
There's a Tlingit translation here, which I think might be x̲'ún or x'ún in the orthography used by the current entries. Also, I wonder about the "hair seal" and "big seal" in this Yurok reference- could one of those be the northern fur seal]? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I made an assumption, based on the distribution of fur seal species, that in any native northern Pacific language a word for fur seal had as its original referent the northern fur seal, whatever else might now be covered by the word. Hair seal seems likely. I could not venture a guess about big seal, as I don't know what seals have been extant on the Pacific coast of North America. DCDuring TALK 21:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The northern elephant seal could easily be the referent for a term that glosses as "big seal". DCDuring TALK 21:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Yurok, since it is Algic, I know a bit about: chkweges, which that work translates as "hair seal", is indeed the northern fur seal, Callorhinus ursinus. As for Tlingit, we do seem to use x̱ in pagetitles, so I think x̱'ún is the orthography to go with (some of our entries currently use , but this strikes me as wrong). - -sche (discuss) 21:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at our entry for hair seal, and my revision of it. It is confusing that several references (not just the Yurok one) gloss as "hair seal" words that mean "fur seal". - -sche (discuss) 21:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I was too hasty on hair seal. I can't imagine that any people that depended on seals for food, clothing, etc could fail to make a distinction between seals with fur and those with only hair, the latter being good for storage, portage, kayaks etc, more than for clothing, where animal fur would be valued for warmth. But I couldn't find in the Yurok reference a distinction between "hair" and "fur". Human hair, at least, seems to be the referent for words that included the morpheme "lep". It may be that the Yurok "big seal"/"sea lion" vs "hair seal" distinction (or at least that of the author of the lexicon) is close to ours between eared seals (Otaridae, which include the fur seals, but also include sea lions, which do not have fur) and earless seals (Phocidae). DCDuring TALK 23:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Whitelist nominationsEdit

(tried responding back at the Whitelist, but I apparently don't have permission to do so – I apologise for posting here)

I checked Redboywild's edits and they seem to be ok – formatting is correct and I couldn't find a single mistake or bad translation. So I see no reason why he shouldn't be whitelisted. Thank you for consulting me about it :-)

PS: Just found out that this user has been warned a couple of times in the Romanian Wikipedia and blocked once for introducing obscenities. This happened some time ago and he hasn't done it since. He has probably – and hopefully – matured, but I'll keep an eye on his edits so they're up to par. --Robbie SWE (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, apologies, I forgot you were only a sysop on ro.Wikt and not here. Thanks for the input. - -sche (discuss) 17:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Two spellingsEdit

I have a question: Are außlegen and meßen pre-1996 spellings? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

In one sense, yes — they were used in the 1600s, and the 1600s are before 1996. But in practical terms, no — when it comes to categorization or the like, "pre-1996" refers to spellings which were still standard right up until 1996, which these weren't. - -sche (discuss) 07:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sardinian translationsEdit

If you weren't already (painfully) aware of this: see Category:Pages with module errors, which seem to be all translation and descendents sections. I've cleared a few, but it's slow going with the translation sections hidden. Also, I noticed that there were also a couple of minor Sardinian lects that weren't affected. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. As I lamented about Frisian, these translations went un-updated because good translations have been invisible (short of searching a database dump) ever since we switched from templates to Module:languages, as opposed to ttbc and t-check translations, which are categorized. Perhaps all {{t}}s should put entries into hidden categories like "Entries with Sardinian translations".
Now that they're all in Category:Pages with module errors, I'll just plug that into AWB and go through them.
If you're referring to Gallurese and Sassarese, I didn't merge them because (as I wrote here) they are despite their names not unequivocally considered dialects of Sardinian; rather, they're often considered dialects of Corsican (co) or transitional between Sardinian and Corsican. I'll propose renaming them soon for that reason, and move any I find nested below Sardinian.
- -sche (discuss) 17:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
In the recent reclassification of Kölsch, I used a database dump to find and fix entries in translations tables before deprecating the code, so only a half dozen residual things made their way into Category:Pages with module errors. Progress! - -sche (discuss) 01:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Great! I would also suggest using "insource:{{t|xxx" in the search box to find any that weren't in the dumps. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Talossan (tzl)Edit

I see you edited this file many times before. Could you update the variable for Talossan (tzl) here and replace it with the following:

m["tzl"] = {
	canonicalName = "Talossan",
	type = "appendix-constructed",
	scripts = {"Latn"},
	family = "art",
	sort_key = {
		from = {"[àáâäå]", "ç", "ð", "[ëèéê]", "[ìíîï]", "ñ", "[öòóô]", "ß", "[üùúû]", "þ"},
		to   = {"a", "c", "d", "e", "i", "n", "o", "s", "u", "z"}} ,  -- the copyright sign is used to guarantee that ð and þ will always be sorted after all other words with respectively d and z


¡Graschcias, Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)!

  Done. Are publications like the Guizua Compläts àl Glheþ Talossan copyrighted? If so, I would caution you not to add more than a couple dozen words in the language, because including too much of a copyrighted language (like Klingon) poses legal problems/risks for Wiktionary (for which reason the Klingon appendix was greatly condensed by me a while ago, following this BP thread). - -sche (discuss) 01:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Ün Guizua Compläts àl Glheþ Talossan is (as far as I can tell) a copyrighted book, but it is not the source of the language. I am also not sure if the Talossan language is copyrighted and if languages can be copyrighted in the first place, as a language is a gigantic list of facts and facts can not be copyrighted. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Individual facts, no. A compilation of facts can be copyrighted, though. With a bit of work, any creative work can be analyzed as a collection of facts, but the way the facts are assembled by the creator of the work makes them copyrightable. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Updates to Template:WOTDEdit

Hi, I updated Template:WOTD at Template:WOTD/sandbox, essentially adding a new parameter |comment= (or {{{6}}}) which allows editors to add a comment: see Template:WOTD/testcases. If that is all right, could you update Template:WOTD? I can't do it myself as I'm not an administrator. If this isn't the correct procedure for proposing changes to the template, please advise. Thanks. Smuconlaw (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done. Neat idea; I had noticed your addition of it to manumission (28 August). - -sche (discuss) 16:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Great! Thanks. Smuconlaw (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Preventing long tagsEdit

In the unlikely case that you haven't noticed my edit at mir#German_Low_German, have a look. With something as splintered as Low German, do you think it would make sense to install an L4 for "Dialects using this word" or something instead of context labels? The pronunciation sections can simply go into a collapse. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Korn: thanks for bringing this up. I thought about it a while ago when I saw anguañu, which specifies twenty different dialects that the term is used in. Perhaps in such cases the individual dialects can be specified under ====Usage notes=====, leaving the definition line to just say "many|_|dialects". (According to templatetiger, there are three other entries which use 9 or more parameters of {{label}}: recondite, quindecillion, and tu; and there are also a few entries which use 10 or more parameters of {{context}}: pardı and Mischief Night.) - -sche (discuss) 00:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
However, {{label}} adds categories which would need to be added manually or in another way if we moved away from using {{label}} on the definition lines of such terms... - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Unprotection of Word of the Day pagesEdit

Could you please unprotect "Wiktionary:Word of the day/September 29" and "Wiktionary:Word of the day/September 30" so I can update them? Thanks. (If you have time, perhaps you can also go through other days of the year and unprotect them as well.) Smuconlaw (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done. I wonder why some, but only some, of the pages were protected in the first place. - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. No idea why this was done. Perhaps it was before there was cascading CSS protection of material on the Home Page? Smuconlaw (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Updating of Template:quote-book/sourceEdit

I have created an updated version of {{quote-book/source}} at {{quote-book/source/sandbox}} to address the three issues mentioned at "Template talk:quote-book#Some suggested changes". Could you replace the contents of {{quote-book/source}} at {{quote-book/source/sandbox}}? Thanks. Smuconlaw (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done and I left a slightly longer comment on that talk page. - -sche (discuss) 23:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


This is actually wrong. See the documentation for {{pl-decl-phrase}}. I realize that this interface is somewhat hacky, but I could not find a different way to pass keyword parameters to the declension patterns. --Tweenk (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, OK. At the time I made that edit, the template was just a big module error, and my edit (upon preview) made it resolve into a normal-looking table, so I figured the exclamation marks were an odd typo. - -sche (discuss) 23:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

German capitalisationEdit

Isn’t it about time for some archiving?

Anyway, could you please tell me if German always had the ‘capitalise all nouns’ rule? --Romanophile (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, I need to archive.
No, German and its predecessors (Old/Middle High German) didn't always capitalize nouns. In the medieval period, capitals were generally only used at the beginning of sentences. Even after capitalization of nouns and names became standard in the Baroque period, some authorities (such as the Brothers Grimm, authors of the major Deutsches Wörterbuch) were opposed to it and persisted in writing in minuscule.
- -sche (discuss) 20:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
So, would it be permitted to include minuscule forms as obsolete forms? --Romanophile (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that would be a bad idea, since the difference isn't specific to the word, but a general rule. You would end up with a lowercase entry for just about every noun attested before a certain date, which would be about as useful as a entries for italicized or underlined forms. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. But what if the word is not attested in a capital form? Do we capitalise it anyway? --Romanophile (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I would. Otherwise, you imply that there's some inherent difference from all the other nouns which were also lowercase back then. Of course, Middle High German and Old High German would be uppercase or lowercase by their own rules, since we consider them separate languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Chuck. We do similarly for English: old capitalized Nouns don't have Entries, and we've tended not to capitalize common Nouns even if they're more common in old Works in capitalized Form, although there are a few Exceptions (like Admiraless, which I only just moved). - -sche (discuss) 22:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
"We do similarly for English: old capitalized Nouns don't have Entries" -- Does that mean there shouldn't be capitalized entries or does it simply mean that they're missing? Also what's in case of other European languages, like Latin and Danish in which nouns were also (sometimes) capitalized? If capitalized spellings are discrimited against, shouldn't there at least be some note somewhere? For example, there could be a page somewhere explaining English habits, like explainining differences between US English and UK English and explaining English capitalization habits. If a single page would be too long, there could be sub-pages like "English habits/Dialects" and "English habits/Capitalisation". - 12:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Wiktionary has decided to exclude old Capitalizations of ordinary Nouns as a Matter of Course, along with sentence-initial Capitals and all-caps (the usual Examples cited in Discussions are "The" and "THE", Variants of "the"), long-s, and various typographic Literatures (e.g. Talk:fisherwoman). I proposed last Year that we should write these Exclusions down in some central Place, but nothing happened; perhaps I'll suggest it anew.
Wiktionary:About Latin#Orthography_for_Latin_entries documents how we handle Latin, although some Things (like that we don't include "EQVVS") seem to be so basic that they're not spelled out but only implied by e.g. the Note that the Form which we do have an Entry for is "equus".
I don't recall if we've discussed old Danish Capitalization or not, but I see no Reason it wouldn't be handled like old English Capitalization. - -sche (discuss) 19:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Can the descisions be found somewhere? The exclusion of sentence-inital capitals and modern all-caps and typographic ligatures makes sense. But in case of capitalised nouns and normal antique Latin forms in all caps the exclusion is doubtful.
In case of long-s the exclusion would even be against Wiktionary's aim "to describe all words". While it's easy to change "winter" into "Winter" when one knows that "winter"/"Winter" is noun, it's not easy to change some s into long-s. In some cases, it's more like impossible to know where long-s's are put, if one doesn't know the rules concerning long-s's. (Simplified basic rules like "s" is used at a word's end and long-s is used elsewhere often are incorrect.)
Also old Latin abbreviations like "IMP" for "IMPERATOR" can be found in (special) dictionaries and can't be changed into a pseudo-modern spelling like "Imp" or "imp", because a modern abbreviation would be "imp." or "Imp." which is another word as it's written with a dot.
And in some of these cases, I have doubts whether descisions were made or not, or whether they were real descisions and not just some uttered opinions somewhere. For example, it's possible that nobody thought of old Latin abbreviations like "IMP" and thus no descision was made.
Also, what's in case of Modern Greek? The about page clearly states "This is a draft under discussion.". On the discussion page Katharevousa forms (Modern Greek spelled with diacritics etc.) are mentioned and some Katharevousa words have own entries (e.g. καρβονικόν). But the about page and the discussions don't clearify where to mention Katharevousa forms. Is e.g. καρβονικόν a related word, a synonym or an alternative form of καρβονικό? (Comparing it with other languages, like English prae- and pre-, Katharevousa forms should be alternative forms.) What about καρβονικός and it's declension, where should the neuter Katharevousa form καρβονικόν be mentioned? Under alternative forms with the addition "neuter", in the declension section, in the header?
Other questions in some way related to this:
* In case of Wiktionary:About Latin it seems that some things weren't discussed - at least not at Wiktionary talk:About Latin - but rather made up by some authors. E.g. in case of the edit from 27 November 2011 with the comment "→‎Quotations: Adds rule for marks over final a for disambiguation of ablatives from nominatives", it doesn't seem that there was a discussion. On the talk page there was no edit around that time and the author of that change didn't make a change which would indicate a discussion about it. (There was a discussion with another topic at "Wiktionary:Grease pit" and a discussion on his talk page which he commented. But both wouldn't be fair places for a discussions of his edit.)
* The About Latin page states that words with j should point to word with i. But what's if only a form with j is attested? Well, that doesn't mean that the form with i is not attestable, but when it's not attested (no one found a quote), then the word with j can't point to a form with i. Well, at least not, if one doesn't make up words and words forms.
* What's if there is a term without an English translation? E.g. Swedish "tankstreck" and German "Gedankenstrich" refer to the mark "–", but usually just when used in certain contexts and sometimes not it's not restricted to that smaller dash but might also refer to "—". Thus, both terms do not belong into a translations of "dash" or "en dash". But still it would be nice to see translations for these terms. The current practice is like this: The words are incorrectly given as translations of an English word or there is no translation section with words like that. Possible 'solutions' which should be better: (a) One could mention "tankstreck" under the Etymology of German "Gedankenstrich" and vice verse, as they are formed similary. (b) One could create an translation template like "template:translation - thoughts stroke" which than can be embedded in the entries of the foreign words.
So regarding your old, unanswered question at "Beer parlour": Those descisions should be collected somewhere. Also, maybe those descisions should be checked whether they still make sense or not. One could also check if all so-called descisions really were descisions. E.g. a user once wrote that as far as he knows About Latin is rather a collections of ideas than of actual rules. The part, "... think tank, working to develop a formal policy.", should support his attitude.
- 20:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Questions about Wiktionary's policies towards Latin should be directed towards Latin-speaking and Latin-editing editors on WT:T:ALA. Likewise, questions about Ancient Greek should be directed to WT:T:AGRC; people there are more qualified than I am to tell you about Katharevousa. I've started a BP thread about long s and ligatures: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/October#Documenting_how_to_handle_long_s_and_ligatures. - -sche (discuss) 02:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Broken usage tracking in MediaWiki:Gadget-RegexMenuFramework.jsEdit

Hello -sche. You changed a link in MediaWiki:Gadget-RegexMenuFramework.js to remove it from Category:Pages with broken file links. The broken page links are a common hack to track global usage via Special:GlobalUsage or the usage tool. Unfortunately your change broke the tracking, so the page will no longer receive maintenance updates as needed. Would you consider excluding JavaScript pages from Category:Pages with broken file links instead? (I can put together the code to do that via MediaWiki:Broken-file-category for you.) Pathoschild (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

fickern seems to have become an autonym...Edit

Rather than create Category:Palatine German and Category:Kölsch German, I wanted to instead fix this entry, which is the sole entry in both of those- but I don't know enough about either language to do it even half right. I suspect you'll also want to remove some things from Module:labels/data. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The labels in the module are largely OK, because there are (almost certainly) terms used in standard German which are specific to the Palatinate / Köln, although the details of labels like those are under discussion on the module's talk page. This entry, on the other hand, is odd... the Pfälzisches Wörterbuch only has "fickeln" and "ficken"; the Rheinisches Wörterbuch doesn't have this sense; and Google Books hits all seem to be scannos or the noun. Even raw Google hits for "zu fickern" are mostly Google Books scannos. - -sche (discuss) 21:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


Could you take a look at Talk:Knabe. DCDuring TALK 12:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me with this sweet memory of my deceased parents. DCDuring TALK 06:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

American black bearEdit

Do you know what language "Dene" refers to here? DTLHS (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If you go to WT:LOL and press Ctrl+F and type "Dene", you will find that the Chipewyan language (code chp) has "Dene" as one of its alternative names. --WikiTiki89 18:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
That's true, but "Dene" can also refer to a whole family of languages, so I don't know what was meant. DTLHS (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be right. In WT:LOF, all I see is "Na-Dene", not "Dene", but the Wikipedia page on Na-Dene languages mentions that there the "Athabaskan" family can also be called "Dene". Anyway, the Chipewyan language is in the North Athabaskan family, which is in the Athabaskan family. Anyway, Chipewyan is the only single language I can find that goes by the name "Dene" and the Wikipedia page on the Chipewyan language says "Most Chipewyan people now use Dene and Dënesųłiné to refer to themselves and their language, respectively." Based on all this, I think Chipewyan is the correct choice. If it turns out to be wrong, it would be within our expected margin of error and we would know it's in the same family of languages anyway, so the actual Chipewyan would be similar enough. --WikiTiki89 18:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a reasonable assumption, although in this case I think the rug is pulled out from under it because the gloss (=the claim that tsah means "black bear") seems to be mistaken. Desjarlais gives sas as the Dënesųłiné (Chipewyan) word for "bear", and an old article in the Transactions of the Canadian Institute clarifies the species by saying [in old orthography] "the "Déné word for Black Bear is s̀əs or s̀as according to the dialect". For comparison, Hargus gives səs as the word for "black bear" in either Sekani or Babine-Witsuwit'en — without reading her whole chapter I can't tell which — and Krauss gives x̯ešʷ as the Proto-Athabaskan word for "black bear". Whereas, Desjarlais says tsá is the word for "beaver", and Morritt citing Haas agrees (compare Sekani tsàʔ and Slave tsáʔ, both "beaver"). - -sche (discuss) 21:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Historically, brown bear species almost certainly ranged over the lands of the Chipewyans. Is there a term that included brown bear? DCDuring TALK 00:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't find a Chipewyan term for "brown bear", although I can find sources which gloss sas as just "bear", so it may have functioned as a generic term. I can find the term in other languages: Ruhlen has Haida xúuts "brown bear", Tlingit xúts (= /xúːc/, also written xoots) "brown bear" (/"grizzly bear"), Tsetsaut "grizzly bear". Athabaskan languages and the schools: a handbook for teachers (1984) notes "in Kutchin, shih means 'brown bear' but shìh (with lowered tone) means 'food', and these words are not grammatically or etymologically related." The Proto-Athabaskan term for "brown bear" was x̯...c per Krauss (he is unsure of the middle vowel). - -sche (discuss) 01:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that the w:Na-Dene languages are called that because some variation of "dene" means "people" in the vast majority of at least the Athabaskan languages. More often than not, the word for "people" gets used in the language name (at least the one native speakers use for their own language), so there could be a number of candidates. The Chipewyan term is pretty close, so it would make sense to concentrate on that part of Northern Athabaskan. Or, better yet, get @DCDuring to tell us what source he used for his mass addition of American Indian translations to that page, and we might be able to figure it out that way. Given the rather poor understanding of American Indian languages and their orthography in most general sources, I'm not so sure that was a good idea. Off the top of my head, the Hopi looks plausible based on what I know of other Northern Uto-Aztecan languages, and the Southern Uto-Aztecan ones all seem to use reflexes of the same ancestral form, which is a good sign, but "close" isn't close enough for dictionary purposes. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Why is that a "problem"? --WikiTiki89 19:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
It makes it difficult to tell which language a work that refers to "Dene" is referring to. Indeed, older generalist works (as they tend to do with a lot of languages, e.g. also Great Russian) often impressionistically consider whole swathes of the Dene family to be a "Dene" language divided into e.g. Northern and Southern dialects. - -sche (discuss) 20:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


You removed "songster" from Sänger. But than shouldn't "songstress" be removed from Sängerin too, or shouldn't it be replaced with "singeress" ("female person who sings" instead of "female person who sings (songs)")? - 12:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Yes, it's sufficient for Sängerin to say "female singer", IMO. If I heard someone say "singeress" it'd be a dead giveaway that English wasn't their native language. - -sche (discuss) 18:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for Zipser German GrantedEdit

User -sche, þy wish haþ been granted. See here. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Þanks! - -sche (discuss) 19:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I also added few words of Sathmar Swabian and Silesian German. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Great! Wiktionary's coverage of Germanic languages is slowly increasing. - -sche (discuss) 08:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I added the white and yellow flag for the language header of Silesian German. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


If that's "nonstandard", then please fix it. It's simply a fact, that there are two opinions about the part of speech:

  • Some say that Berliner and similar words are adjectives. This is also supported by dated spellings like berliner.
  • Some say that Berliner etc. are nouns in gentive plural: der Berliner, gen. pl. der Berliner - so Berliner Mauer literally means "Wall of the Berliners". This is also supported by German spelling rules: nouns begin with a capital letter, adjectives not (nominalised adjectives aren't adjectives anymore, but nouns too).

- 18:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


What’s wrong with the samples on Google Groups? --Romanophile (contributions) 20:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, there are some, that's great! They weren't there when I searched back in 2013, which is odd, since the posts were made before 2013... but Cloodcuckoolander (I think) has remarked upon how oddly unreliable Google's Groups search is. Thanks for revisiting the entry / noticing. (I have a short list of entries that just need one more citation that I check up on periodically, but it's woefully incomplete.) I'll turn it into an entry. - -sche (discuss) 05:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


This rollback is in error. As said before (cf. revision history): google doesn't differ between ſ and s, so antiqua "daſs" (around 1871-1902) incorrectly becomes "dass" by google and thus ngram is no reliable source. Maybe in case you don't know: daſs is not the same as dass, but an alternative form of daß used in antiqua when ß was not available (this usage was deprecated in some spelling rules). daſs could also be a Heyse spelling of daß, but then Heyse's spellings (including his antiqua spellings) are (said to be) different from 20th/21st century spellings as Heyse also used ſ in antiqua (rules from 1902 should deprecate the use of ſ in antiqua and only allow s and ß, which also holds for the 1996 reform though the use of ß and s were changed).
Also: daſs is an alternative form of daß/dass, older (antiqua) spellings with ſ can't easily be derived from modern antiqua spellings and there's no bijection between older (antiqua) spellings and modern antiqua spellings, e.g. both Wachſtube (Wach-stube) and Wachstube (Wachs-tube) become Wachstube in antiqua without long s. Thus it makes sense to add spellings with ſ. (It maybe makes no sense to have an own entry for it as it's not easy to input the character ſ, as most users don't know the difference between ſ and s, and as ſ and s might be similar in case of encoding etc., but there was no link anyway.)
P.S.: In the German spelling rules (Berlin, 1908) it is: "In lateiniſcher Schrift ſteht s für ſ und s, ss für ſſ, ß (besser als ſs) für ß, für ß tritt in großer Schrift sz ein, z. B. MASZE (Maße), aber MASSE (Masse)." (antiqua ß and fraktur ß actually look differently in the text and the text itself is printed in fraktur). In early Duden editions (late 19th century) it was: "Zu merken iſt, daß man in lateiniſscher Schrift s für ſ und s ohne Unterschied, ss für ſſ und ſs für ß anwendet. Statt ſs ist auch ß zulässig." So, daſs which can be found in antiqua texts from ca. 1871 till 1902 and is OCRed as "dass" by google is an alternative form of "daß" which was more common in antiqua after 1902.
daſs was also a real Heyse spelling. But I'm not sure whether it was used in fraktur or in antiqua. If it was used in antiua than it's obviously different from dass. If it was used in fraktur, then the traditional fraktur-antiqua transcription rules from early Duden editions and the rules from 1902 could say that it has to be transcribed as dass, but even than it's a different form as it's transcribed. But it's very likely that Heyse's spellings were not as common as Adelung's spellings.
Anyway, as google doesn't differ between ſ and s (and between fraktur and antiqua), it can't be used to cite a statement like "dass was more common than daß in 1871-1902". In case of 1950 till nowaydays, ngram maybe can be used as the nazis banned fraktur and it never became popular again and as ſ became unpopular in antiqua (cf. traditional spelling rules from 1902 and reformed spellings rules from 1996).
- 14:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC) and 14:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC), P.S. 17:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that daſs should count as daß and not "dass"? To the extent that "ess-zett" is treated as a separate thing from "two esses", "ſs" is two unligatured esses, one long and one short according to the usual (translingual) rule of long- vs short-s placement. - -sche (discuss) 21:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Older Duden editions and German spelling rules from 1902 (see above). Both state that fraktur ß (actually more like a ligature of ſz) can be written as ſs in antiqua ("ſs für ß" and "ß (besser als ſs) für ß"). So antiqua daſs can be and often was an alternative form of daß and not of dass.
Without Duden and the German spelling rules (which say that in antiqua s is used instead of single fraktur ſ), antiqua daſs would still be another form than dass. That is, one would have to differ between three forms in antiqua: daß (traditional spelling, also prefered by the 1902 orthography), daſs (older antiqua spelling), dass (1996 reform spelling). It could be, and shouldn't be unlikely, that authors who used daſs (which could also be a Heyse spelling used in antiqua) would prefer daß over dass if they could only choose between these two forms. In case of the real Heyse spelling, at least the one used in fraktur, many arguments used against the 1996 reform spelling are invalid, e.g. sss shouldn't occur in a real Heyse spelling used in fraktur, and maybe in antiqua too.
daſs (not daſz (= daß)) in fraktur by Heyse could be dass in antiqua. But: 1. The older Duden and the spelling rules from 1902 can't be used to derive that spelling, as fraktur daſs is an incorrect form in the beginning. So, some other source is needed that says that Heyses fraktur daſs can be an antiqua dass, as it could also be that his correct antiqua form would be daſs too or that he proscribed the use of antiqua. 2. It's more likely that Heyse's spelling was rarer anway, as it was younger (Adelung came before him), was depracted in several German countries (e.g. in Prussia) and as it wasn't used in the 1902 orthography (if dass was prefered in 1871-1902, than it should be more likely that that spelling would be used in the 1902 orthography). 3. As google doesn't differ between ſ and s and between fraktur and antiqua, it is no reliable source. And to interpret google's ngram or google's books would be OR too.
(Regarding the quotes: It's hard to quote a fraktur text which differs between fraktur and antiqua in an antiqua text. Maybe it would be better with pseudo-HTML like "<antiqua>ſs</antiqua> can be used for <fraktur>ß</fraktur>", but maybe that would be harder to read.)
- 12:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Tea room/2015/November#Neger.
(let's try to keep the discussion in one or two places rather than three)

Dative -e in German strong declensionsEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:de-decl-noun-n.

German ordinal numbersEdit

Presently their lemmas are the forms in -e. Our general practice, I think, is to put adjectives without a bare form at -er. The ordinal numbers do have a bare form, which is used with zu: zu siebt, zu acht. But these seems to be separate idioms. So I guess -er would be the right place. And if you agree: Should I move them manually, or is there a better way? Kolmiel (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you are correct about the general practice (or more accurately, the general desire — in practice a lot of entries were created at the wrong title and still need to be moved), which also applies to substantivized adjectives. But about this particular set of entries... why do de.Wikt and the Duden, which do lemmatize e.g. Verletzter m rather than Verletzte m (cf. this thread), both lemmatize siebte ([1]) rather than siebter ([2])? (The DWDS seems divided on the matter; there's no entry found if you search for "siebter", but if you search for "siebte", the DWDS-Wörterbuch entry lemmatizes that form, while the Etymologisches Wörterbuch entry that comes up lemmatizes the form that ends in r.) Do you know if there's any logic behind lemmatizing the -e forms? If not, then yes, for consistency they could be moved. I suppose AutoWikiBrowser could be used to speed up the process somewhat. - -sche (discuss) 01:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I think Duden might lemmatize the er-form only in nouns, but the e-form in adjectives. For example "oberer" is given "obere, oberer, oberes" at Otherwise I don't think there's a special reason concerning ordinal numbers, except possibly that these are often preceded by the definite article. But that's true of others as well, and the er-forms of ordinal numbers do occur and aren't particularly rare at all (ein zweiter Versuch, zehnter Dezember). So I think they should be moved. Kolmiel (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, I will find time to move and standardize most of them in AWB if there are too many for us to do by hand. AFAICT (from the category and the bluelinks in siebte) we're dealing with <50 entries, right? There's a lot of inconsistency in what part of speech the lemmas and non-lemmas use in their headers and headword-lines; achtzehnte uses 'ordinal number' and zweiter uses 'numeral', but siebte uses 'adjective'; siebtes uses 'adjective form', so I tentatively just appended 'form' to the headword line of neunzehnte and got 'numeral form'. They should all be 'adjectives' (the lemmas) and 'adjective forms' (the inflected forms), right? (This needs to be sorted out regardless of which forms we lemmatize.) Also pinging @CodeCat, who has helped sort out Wiktionary's labelling of numerals vs numbers vs adjectives. (The Duden goes with "Zahlwort"; de.Wikt with the double header "Adjektiv, Numerale".) - -sche (discuss) 22:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
These are straightforwardly adjectives. "Numeral" is a special kind of part of speech whose definition I'm still not sure of, but see w:Numeral (linguistics). That page mentions in particular that "not all words for cardinal numbers are necessarily numerals", so not everything with a number meaning is, part-of-speech wise, a numeral. That's why we have Category:German numbers, which exists outside the POS category tree. In fact, I believe numerals are a kind of determiner, closely allied to non-cardinal quantifiers like "all", "some" or "no". —CodeCat 22:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Old PicardEdit

Should we have a language code, or at least an etymology-only code, for Old Picard? Otherwise, I assume it is currently treated as a dialect of Old French, and without an etymology code, I had to use some awkward phrasing at Rosine#Etymology. --WikiTiki89 19:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I do find references (more than to "Old Italian"!) to Old Picard translations of texts, and to Old Picard words — including in dictionaries that give Old Picard words as etyma. Let's give it an etymology-only code, so that those etymologies which need to can cite it. Distinguishing it in general from Old French and Old Northern French might be messy, so I wouldn't grant it a full code and its own language sections until such time as someone makes a case that it needs/merits that. Based on "fro-nor", I guess the thing to add to Module:etymology languages/data would be "fro-opc". - -sche (discuss) 03:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe "fro-pic" instead? The oldness is already implied by "fro-", and we do have "fro-nor" rather than "fro-onr". --WikiTiki89 16:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Sure. - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we should be consistent and use the language code for modern Picard: fro-pcd. Of course, we have fro-nor, instead of fro-nrf, so maybe I'm just playing host to the "hobgoblin of little minds". Chuck Entz (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought about that, but then I wondered if using the modern language's code for that element would suggest that this was another code for the same thing. "de-AT" is (a variety of) the same language as "de", whereas "fro-pic" is not "pcd" but rather (a variety of) "fro". - -sche (discuss) 05:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I already went with "fro-pic", I figured if there was a strong enough argument to change it, I would, but I don't see such a strong enough argument. --WikiTiki89 17:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Gosh! And here I was expecting a discussion of one of the roles Patrick Stewart played in the Star Trek: The Next Generation series finale. We could have split up into Team Middle-Aged Picard and Team Old Picard a la the Twilight Saga. Oh well...
Seriously, though, I seem to remember reading somewhere that a few of the "Normans" that invaded England were really Picards, and that there are traces of Old Picard in English. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Source accessEdit

I have no access to the PDF documents of Cambridge Ancient History. Do you know how to get access to it? --UK.Akma (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't; I'm sorry. I just took the text that had been added to Subarian and trimmed out the speculation on ethnic identity and other things that belonged in Wikipedia rather than in a dictionary. - -sche (discuss) 21:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
See the discussion on the talk page of w:Subartu about what seem to be the same set of references. I have my doubts whether any of this should be allowed in the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

all heartEdit

Why did you delete that page? Do you think that it’s sum‐of‐parts? --Romanophile (contributions) 00:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Romanophile: Because it was just nonsense, the page contained only the text "i love my family and everybody else around me". --WikiTiki89 00:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89 Ah! All right. Still, do you think that this entry would be acceptable if it were properly designed? --Romanophile (contributions) 00:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Depends on what meaning you have in mind. --WikiTiki89 00:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm familiar with the collocation in sayings like "She was all heart" (=was very loving and/or compassionate, that kind of thing), but it does seem like it might just be "all" + "heart", and one can also say things like "She was all brain(s)" (=was very smart, perhaps without things like social awareness, hence the "all"), or "She was all legs" (=had long legs). - -sche (discuss) 00:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
"Definitions" 2 and 4 of heart#Noun cover the range of meanings of heart as used in "all heart" in my experience and in a review of the phrase at COCA. DCDuring TALK 02:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

For finishing cleaning out RFV, especially given that it had become too large to archive. The page that really needs your help, though, is WT:RFM (and I suppose to a lesser extent WT:RFDO), because I simply can't close many of those. Some of them are language mergers etc.; the ones that you haven't looked at need some expert attention, and even those upon which we've come to a consensus need to be executed. I still don't know all the steps one ought to go through to handle mergers and name changes (is there a manual somewhere?). The other hitch is that I don't have AWB, so it's a lot harder to find all the uses of a language's name or go through every page in a category to change it, which especially slows down requests at RFDO. Anyway, I appreciate the help! Cheers —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I will take a look. As for AWB, you could download it; it's not that hard to learn. There is Wiktionary:Guide to adding and removing languages; changing a language's name is not handled too differently from removing a language (you have to find the same things — old uses). - -sche (discuss) 00:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I have a Mac, so using AWB would require virtual Windows AFAICT. In any case, I should've known about that guide — thanks. I'm not always sure where to archive the discussions, though. In any case, I guess all that I really need is for you to weigh in on long-ignored discussions. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Update of "Template:quote-book/source"Edit

Hi! I have done an update of {{quote-book/source}}, which is at {{quote-book/source/sandbox}} (see {{quote-book/testcases}} for sample uses). The main changes are these:

  • Improved handling of |format=, |genre=, |language= and |doi=.
  • Addition of |archiveurl= and |archivedate=.

If it looks all right, could you please replace {{quote-book/source}} with the contents of the sandbox? Thanks. Smuconlaw (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  Done. I'm monitoring Category:ParserFunction errors to see if errors arise, and actually, it looks like the category is losing a few pages, though that may be due to Kenny's edits. :) Still, thanks for all your hard work sorting out these quotation templates! - -sche (discuss) 17:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, and you're most welcome. Let me know if anything in the template needs fixing. Smuconlaw (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Whoops, there seems to be a space missing if |title= and |publisher= are specified, but |location= is not: see "freedom of speech". (I don't think this was an issue created by me.) Fixed it at {{quote-book/source/sandbox}}. Smuconlaw (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Cool BeansEdit

Have added a recording of the phrase at the discussion page below, can it be added to the actual page? —This comment was unsigned.

Collocations dataEdit

I don't think our discussions of collocation space included anything about what the data might actually look like. I have a 1.7Mb file of sample (free) data from COCA. We could try using it for a few polysemic words for a demo, to determine its actual value to us, etc. The cost of getting more complete sets would not be prohibitive. I don't think it could be part of Wiktionary because of licensing. There are really only a handful or two of Wiktionarians that could and would make good use of the data anyway. DCDuring TALK 02:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The mock up that you provided would add little value to English, for which we would want frequency data at the very least. I guess I am thinking principally of improving the quality of English definitions, not just of providing a home for translation targets out of principal namespace. Perhaps I should add the kind of table I am thinking of. DCDuring TALK 21:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, that would help me to understand what you're thinking of. Recording which collocations are most common? (Some usage notes already do that — added by you, I think; thanks!) - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:goods. DCDuring TALK 22:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Is "frequency of collocation" how often that collocation occurs in the corpus? Then what are "total frequency" and "mutual info"?
Access to this kind of information seems like it would be helpful to Wiktionary in determining which collocations to list (and in what order). The frequencies of the different collocations might also be of interest to some readers. Is COCA copyrighted? Wiktionary should consider whether it would be infringing COCA's copyright to repeat such information in a large number of entries.
The table is quite large; obviously, it could be made collapsible. Another possibility would be condensing it radically into the list format a few entries (usage notes) already use: Words which collocate with goods: (goods and) services ([data from whichever field best indicates how often this collocation is relative to other collocations goes here]), consumer (goods) ([data]), [...]. It would also be possible to combine the table's data with translation tables, by putting the information from each row of the table into the "gloss" atop each translation table.
- -sche (discuss) 08:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
"Frequency of collocation" is frequency of the collocation (occurrence within 4 words of the main term, before or after) in the corpus, "total frequency" is the frequency of the individual term (eg, services) in the corpus. "w:Mutual information" is a measure of the strength of the association between the terms (ie, between goods and services)
I've started using this. (See sheer.) It is most helpful for polysemic words, but also helps determine whether a term is polysemic. I have had a brief e-mail discussion with Mark Davies at BYU who has pulled this together. I think we can experiment with this for quite a while before we would have to consider our options. I know that he would not be happy with our license terms.
Ultimately the presentation would probably be most useful if we grouped the collocates by the definition(s) most appropriate for them and their part of speech and presented them in decreasing order of frequency, first by PoS, then by term.
But the table that would be most useful for a contributor is one exactly like what is in [[goods]], but with a fuller list of collocates of the headword. We need such a voluminous table if we hope to cover all (well, most, actually) of the definitions in some of our polysemic entries. So I don't think they could fit in translation table headers. DCDuring TALK 00:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

adverbs Monday, Tuesday etc.Edit

Yep, that's fine what you have done. I considered doing that, but I thought some "wise guy" would come along and revert my edits denying the truth, hence the wording I used. Cheers! Donnanz (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Do Brits not say that? --WikiTiki89 23:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Nope. On Tuesday, on Tuesdays etc. It's not the same as on the west side of the pond. Donnanz (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I mean, we also say "on Tuesday", but not always. In fact I would probably say that "on Tuesday" is more common than just "Tuesday" adverbially. I'm trying to think whether there is a pattern to when the "on" is dropped. --WikiTiki89 23:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I have heard it minus "on" on American media, also read it in American literature. I tend to notice the usage when I see or hear it. There are also entries in Oxford saying this. Donnanz (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not saying it doesn't exist. It is pretty common, but what I'm saying is that I don't think it is the primary usage. And I'm wondering whether there's a pattern to how it's used. --WikiTiki89 01:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
FWIW I ran the numbers and ngrams confirm the regional divide; it's about twice as common to say "work on Tuesday(s)" than "work Tuesday(s)" in US books, whereas in UK books the "on"-less forms are too rare to register. - -sche (discuss) 06:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


Could you look at the IPA for Michäas? This is just my guess. —JohnC5 03:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I've actually never encountered this form. In Ngrams, it seems to have been about 1/20th as common as Micha until the 1870s, thereafter about 1/50th as common (with a spike in 1952) until the 1980s, and thereafter trending sharply downwards towards about 1/1000th as common by 2008. I would pronounce it the way you noted. - -sche (discuss) 04:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! —JohnC5 05:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


So the term girl can't be used in a platonic context, but only in a romantic? Ubuntuuser13 (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Nvm, I've opened up an RfV for it. Ubuntuuser13 (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Definition one ("A young female human") and two ("Any woman, regardless of her age") and five cover non-romantic use, do they not? Are there citations where "girl" means "a female friend" as opposed to "a [young] female (who may or may not be a friend)"? That might clarify matters. As it is, it seems like someone calling a female friend a "girl" is comparable to someone calling a blond-haired friend a "blond" — it doesn't cause "blond" to mean "a blond-haired friend", it's just the general definition. Usage like "girl, let's go see Andy!" is sense 5, the term of endearment. - -sche (discuss) 03:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Just so you know I've opened up an RfV. Ubuntuuser13 (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. - -sche (discuss) 02:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:French TranslingualEdit

Category:Regional Translingual --Romanophile (contributions) 13:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing those. - -sche (discuss) 02:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

ISO codesEdit

Hey thanks for updating according to the new ISO standards. I was noticing when adding ancestors that we are missing some of the more newly added ISO codes. Is there anywhere I could look for a list of the new, merged, and deleted codes? —JohnC5 05:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Changes to the standard are published here. :) I'm going through the 2015 changes now. - -sche (discuss) 05:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll let you do it then! Tell me if you need any help. I'm a little terrified of sorting Austronesian. —JohnC5 05:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The key to understanding the structure of the Austronesian languages is admitting that there isn't much: you have Malayo-Polynesian and the various Formosan branches, but within Malayo-Polynesian there are no widely accepted proto-languages outside of Oceanic and an assortment of local groupings. There are areal phenomena and substrata that let you classify Malayo-Polynesian into major subgroups, but those subgroups aren't genetic at all. Blust reconstructs all kinds of things, but his approach is to plug word lists into cladistics software designed for plant and animal taxonomy to produce trees, then use comparative reconstruction on the branches. His Austronesian Comparative Dictionary has an extremely impressive amount of data, but he regularizes the orthography, so you need to check the spelling against other sources, and you can't trust the comparative stuff due to his methodology. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
...So we're doomed until better research is done? :(JohnC5 15:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


You added the entry for "woman" here for Makalero, which is incorrect. Huber, the source you cited, simply states that it is Tongan, and that entry already existed there. I think that in your haste to create entries in a maximal number of languages, you may have made more errors that won't be caught for quite a while (you got lucky in that this one happened to turn up on my watchlist, and I felt it very unlikely that Makalero would borrow a vocabulary item like that from Polynesian, so I checked). In any case, I appreciate your project, but I think you need to take a lot more precaution to avoid these kinds of mistakes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you're right about Huber; I'm glad you caught that. I've been going through and checking my previous additions ever since Chuck's caution in the previous section that the Comparative Austronesian Dictionary (which had been recommended to me as a valid reference on Talk:water, when I was trying to verify the translations people had added there) normalizes orthography and so has to be checked against other sources. So, I hope to uncover any other errors. - -sche (discuss) 16:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I see, Liliana should not have said that. Yeah, you can't really use Blust as a primary source for something serious, although the orthographic concerns run deeper; some of these languages are well nigh unwritten, and linguists might just put them in IPA. Thanks for going through them, anyhow. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Looking at diffs of all my edits to water and woman, and so checking not only anything I added but any word I changed the spelling of and any language I updated the name of, and sometimes spot-checking things I had nothing to do with, I've found other references for the translations of water and woman into Äiwoo, Aklanon, Alaba, Alune, Antillean Creole (and added Guianese Creole and a usex to Haitian Creole), Anuta[n] (and Tikopia), and Arosi, Batad Ifugao, [Palawan] Batak (which we should possibly rename to avoid confusion with the Batak languages like Karo Batak), Bauro, Biak, Biloxi, Binukid, Bontoc (we probably shouldn't have both the macrolanguage code and the dialect codes there), Bughotu, Buli, Casiguran Dumagat Agta, Cebuano, Chewong, Dobu, Dupaninan Agta, Futuna, Fuyug, Gapapaiwa, Gedaged, and Gilbertese (should that language be renamed?). I had to fix Blust's spelling of several things, and fix Arosi and Bauro where he had the 'wrong' word, but the only translations for which I couldn't find any more-reliable references are Bukitan, Embaloh or Ende.
Several days ago, I removed the Ajië and Amurdag translations (not added by me — removed as part of the original project of checking the translations at water) because I couldn't find any references for them.
Abua and Abung things would benefit from more references: the only ref I find for the Abua translation of water (added by someone long ago) and of woman is R. Blench's work on the Central Delta languages; I'd prefer if there were additional sources. The Abung translation of water (likewise added long ago) is only in the Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database (and in placenames, but ABVD is the only reference to define it as a common noun); likewise the translation of woman.
That's all the languages that start with A through G; I'll be going through the rest.
PS other people long ago added translations into several of these languages to the tables of a handful of other entries such as dog, which it may also be useful to check (in case they were working from Blust).
- -sche (discuss) 08:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I've found other references for Hiligaynon (in several spellings, some dated), Isnag, Itawit, Jarai, Jola-Fonyi; Kambera, Kankanaey and Kapampangan (both even with citations of use), Kala Lagaw Ya (the spellings are all attested in dead-tree references, but the division into different dialects is per WP), Kedang and Kumak, Lamaholot, Lamboya, Lavukaleve and Lou; likewise Wandamen, Waray, Waropean, Wedau, Western Bukidnon Manobo, Wogeo, Woleaian, Wuvulu-Aua, Yami, Zaghawa, Zangskari, Zangwal. The Kua-nsi and Kuamasi and Sonaga translations are from the scholar who recently documented those languages and sucessfully petitioned for them to have ISO codes.
The K. Blaan translation is in ABVD and the word itself is used in Kibo Kbulung dad Fdas, but not glossed there (it might mean "sister" in addition to "woman", like a few other languages' words do).
I can't find [better] references for Kanowit (not added to the table by me).
The Komodo translation I can find a reference for, but it's in Indonesian and only glosses the term as part of longer sentences; likewise Waropean; it would be nice to find a better reference than Blust confirming or denying the spelling. Li'o is only in ABVD. Lawangan and Loniu I find only general references mentioning.
That's all the languages H through L (postscript: through R) and U through Z. - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • You are so wonderfully diligent. If this were Wikipedia, I'd give you some annoying barnstar, but since it's here, you just get my gratitude. As for the points you've raised: the languages you've bolded are obscure enough that it may not be possible to do better for now; I see that Ende is discussed in a book called Deskripsi naskah dan sejarah perkembangan aksara Ende, Flores, Nusa Tenggara Timur, but finding that online appears to be no easy feat. As for the renames, it makes sense not to have a language called "Batak" alone. Google Ngrams show "speak Kiribati" as being insignificant as compared to "speak Gilbertese", but Google Books show more results for "speak Kiribati"; I for one have always called it Gilbertese, and it does seem that the switch has only happened in perhaps the last decade. On the whole, it doesn't seem worth changing. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I'll second the gratitude. As for Kiribati, the name isn't any more aboriginal than Gilbertese- it actually is Gilbertese (or Gilbert, anyway) modified by the phonotactics of the language. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
      •  :)
        I learned the other day about the etymology of Kiribati — it makes me wonder what the language was called before its speakers met Gilbert!
        Plain "Kiribati" is considerably more common than "Gilbertese", but I suppose that's due to the fact that the former is also an often-mentioned placename. I'm fine with leaving the language name as is. By the way, I didn't keep a count, but I think (ignoring the hyphens he adds) Blust's spellings turned out more often than not to be the spellings other scholars used. - -sche (discuss) 07:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:fr:Mythological locationsEdit

I noticed you added this to Champs-Élysées, while removing the entry from Category:fr:Fictional locations. Just thought I'd let you know that no such category currently exists. Purplebackpack89 19:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've created it. - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


Discussion moved to WT:LTD.

zerkreuzen and other thingsEdit

Thanks for the catch! I am indeed aware of the fact that we don't use the IPA ligature, and I do indeed copypaste from de.Wikt. I normally will catch those, but I also forget, as you saw. By the way, if you'd like to take a break from your wonderful work updating the mod:languages data, I could use the help of some more German editors. Kenny and I have written a new mod:de-headword that is already running the nouns, proper nouns, and adjectives, and has the verb logic written but not in use. The new logic allows us to detected the inflection type (strong, weak, irregular, etc.) of verbs automatically, which means that they may all be merged under {{de-verb}}. It also means, however, that we need to manually sort the current trnasclusions of de-verb into either {{de-verb-weak}}, {{de-verb-strong}}, and {{de-verb-irregular}}. Once that is done, we'll switch {{de-verb}} to the new module then have a bot merge all the other templates into it. If you'd be willing to help move the remainder of de-verb's tranclusions, I would appreciate the help, but only if you have the time. Regardless, thanks for the IPA fix! :)JohnC5 06:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It's been a while since I used the de-verb templates, so I'll have to refresh myself on all the parameters, but I'll try to help out. - -sche (discuss) 08:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


You wrote "as you have been told previously, such obsolete invariant forms aren't listed in entries' tables". Where have I been told that? -Random187056 (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

When you've added RFCs to other entries requesting that such invariant forms be added to the tables. - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Languages that use the IPAEdit

Are there seriously languages that adopted the international phonetic alphabet? I know that it’s possible, but I thought that every language with writers simply had its own alphabet. --Romanophile (contributions) 05:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It’s not that they adopt IPA, it’s that the only documentation available for a lot of languages is articles published by linguists. These tend to use IPA out of convenience, without any intention of establishing it as the language’s official writing system. — Ungoliant (falai) 05:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Right. That said, a few languages have adopted IPA or IPA-like alphabets. `- -sche (discuss)


Hi -sche. I'm not sure whether the ping on Talk:sy³³ worked properly - I'm having doubts about the use of IPA to write languages mostly unwritten or lacking a writing system. Could you point me to the policy on this? Wyang (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Holy shit! We both made the same topic simultaneously! --Romanophile (contributions) 05:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
As a side note, Bai language has a Latin-based writing system: see for example *g-sum, *ts(j)i(j) ~ tsjaj, *(s/r)-ma(ŋ/k) and *k-m-raŋ ~ s-raŋ. Wyang (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
In the general case: if we are to include words from languages which have been written down using IPA and which have not been written down in another way -- and they meet the criteria for inclusion, so I don't see a basis for excluding them -- how else would you suggest including them, if not in the way that other references do? (That's not a rhetorical question.)
I don't know that we have (m)any policy pages spelling out which scripts to include languages in (except some language-specific policies allowing multiple scripts, e.g. allowing Cyrillic Romanian). De facto we've had entries like this for years, e.g. naːnʔ³³, paʔ²⁴, and wã³nũ³tũ̱³ka̱³txi³su².
In this particular case, if there is another script we can match these entries to (either Chinese, or a Latin script), and you want to make the argument that these should be mapped to and moved to that script even if it's not the one they're attested in, that's OK by me.
- -sche (discuss) 05:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
For the first question, I think it would be best to hold off on creating entries in that language, until a substantial amount of studies have been done on that language. The status of having a writing system, or at least achieving transcriptional consistency in scholarly studies, should be used to assess whether transcriptions for a rarely attested language have become relatively stable. I don't have a strong opinion on this, however.
Regarding Bai language, here is a picture of the word "water" in Latin-scripted Bai: I think the Bai languages should be grouped together, and recorded using this writing system. Wyang (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
We can't exactly "hold off"; that's antithetical to "all words in all languages". As for the Bai lects, do you have a source that supports grouping them? I'm inclined to agree with you just because you are so much more knowledgeable about that part of the world, but evidence helps. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
This suggests that though they grade into one another, there are enough differences across the groups of lects that there is unintelligibility. That suggests that multiple centres of intelligibility may be a better way to capture what's going on, even if the ones the ISO uses are slightly arbitrary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
"All words in all languages" is a simple enough catchline that summarises this project reasonably succinctly. We, however, do not aim to record all words in all languages, for example all the words in agglutinative languages, or transcribing words in a previously-undocumented language singlehandedly. We record lemmata and certain non-lemmata in as many languages, in forms these words are usually recorded in. (cf. the policy on neologisms)
Bai languages have a fairly well-conserved set of basic vocabulary across varieties, and are perceived by speakers and usually handled in studies and dictionaries as varieties of a single Bai language, which is the reason I'm in favour of the amalgamation. Wyang (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Like Metaknowledge, I'm disinclined to exclude some languages, especially ones about which we have modern (often detailed and careful) documentation, sometimes in the form of entire dictionaries, grammars, and compendia of transcribed stories. We include some old languages from which only one old text or even only one word survives; that is arguably less useful or more prone to error: maybe it happens that the one word was spelled lazily; whereas, ɕy³³ was carefully recorded as the exact word used in 8 of 9 places. We can always move the content later if the community settles on a certain orthography; we do that even when a community of speakers changes from one established, non-IPA orthography to another (e.g. German entries use the currently-used currently-prescribed spellings — not the spellings from a mere 20 years ago — as the lemmas).
I find some PDFs that say they are examples of Bai, and that use xuix (27, 32); the difficulty they pose is that they don't contain glosses/translations, so it's difficult to figure out how to map the scholarly transcriptions into that orthography, or tell what the words in the texts mean.
Most references I can find do speak of "Bai" or "the Bai language" (or "Bai Dialect[s]") as if it were a unitary thing, so I'm not opposed to merging and making liberal use of {{label}}s and {{a}}s. I would have entered the words as only one language if there had been a single code for that. (Interestingly, a lot of its "fairly well-conserved set of basic vocabulary across varieties" is borrowed from Chinese — 47 of 100 Swadesh items.)
If we merge the Bai varieties, do you think it's better to repurpose one of the varieties' codes as the code for the whole language (as we tended to do in the past, e.g. with acf/gcf), or create a new (longer) code from scratch (as we've tended to do recently)? - -sche (discuss) 08:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


We've already blocked Willy2000 (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks) for mass creation of entries in languages they don't know based on non-English Wikipedia entries. They just created some more as an IP ( (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks), at least some in languages you've worked with. Could you check those entries? I would also appreciate your opinion on whether to start mass-deleting their entries in an attempt to get them to stop. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

He could also just nuke his work, but that’s kind of a lazy thing to do (in my view). Still, I can understand why he’d prefer that. --Romanophile (contributions) 13:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
By "mass-deleting", I was referring to what we call nuking. As for laziness: volunteer time from people who are knowledgeable enough to check Willy200's edits is a precious resource that shouldn't be wasted on following people around to clean up their messes- unless those volunteers want to do it. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The Pennsylvania German words were correct. @Kolmiel can probably shed light on which Central Franconian spellings should be made the lemmas and which should be alternative forms, but the spellings this user entered are at least correct as alternative forms. Entries created based on Wikipedia articles could be wrong (in the BP we're discussing how some Wikipedias make up words), but when it comes to basic concepts like these, they're probably correct (which is probably why the user thinks it's OK). At least, it will normally be possible to find out what the correct terms are and move the entries (for well-documented languages, anyway; I'm having trouble finding out about Lombard), so I wouldn't nuke all the entries, but maybe the ones that it's not possible to find independent confirmation of (like Lombard). - -sche (discuss) 16:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The days of the week? They look okay. Only in Sambsdaach I don't see any need for the -b-; the normal spelling would be Samsdaach, but Ripuarian wikipedia seems to use Sambsdaach, too, for whatever reason. Kolmiel (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and Freidaach is Moselle Franconian, while all the other forms entered are Kölsch. Kölsch for Friday would be Friedaach. Kolmiel (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


Hi. What prompted my removal of my edit to the homoflexible page? You asked me to move it to the homoflexible page from the homofelxibility page, and I did, yet you took it down again. What, may I ask was wrong with it? I very much want my edit to stay, so if there is anything I can do to, to make it right, please let me know.

Amuzgo entriesEdit

These need some cleanup after your rename of the language. DTLHS (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I tried to go through them with AWB yesterday but I couldn't log in (perhaps the same problem Semper mentions that his bot is having). - -sche (discuss) 06:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
(Now that AWB is working again,) I think I've fixed all the Amuzgo entries, and now only have to fix a couple dozen translations-table entries. - -sche (discuss) 16:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


Did you mean to add this word to the translation table of woman or water? The definition you put says water and I was curious as to whether something had gone wrong. Tulros (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tulros Thanks for catching that! I added the Yanomamö translation of water and an entry for it, and then copied and pasted that to create this entry, but forgot to change the gloss (despite updating the references!). - -sche (discuss) 16:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


Currently the Russian Wiktionary has a mixed use of lowercase (20%) and uppercase (80%) Palochka. I'm trying to understand what is right. In this discussion on en.wiktionary in August 2012, you stated that "we should use the lower case", but was there any reason or documentation behind this recommendation? I think the Wikimedia project that uses this character the most is the Chechen Wikipedia, and it is totally dominated by the uppercase Palochka. I found 2.7 million occurrences in the latest XML dump. It would be nice if we could find a consensus covering all WMF projects on how to handle this special character. --LA2 (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion at User talk:Stephen G. Brown#Palochka. @LA2: It would make things easier if we didn't have millions of discussions in different places on the same topic. If you feel that someone's input is needed, it's better to direct them to an existing discussion than to start a new one on their talk page. --WikiTiki89 21:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Leftovers from Zarphatic mergeEdit

Just on the off chance these were overlooked: see CAT:E. If you just haven't gotten around to fixing them, never mind. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I had searched for pages containing the language code, but I got the impression that the site was in the middle of updating (to reflect the removal of the code) at the time, which apparently means those few pages were in limbo and didn't show up. - -sche (discuss) 16:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
son got missed, probably because I said Zarphatic and the translation in question is Shuadit... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


Hello, -sche.

  • Just removing ik from the "German Low German" section is not justified and not sufficient as long as there is ik#Plautdietsch. And the proper way to get that entry removed should be to use WT:RfV. Dit un jant opp Plautdietsch has the form ik (e.g. in "Ut de Nacht bün ik kamen") besides ekj. So maybe it's a valid Plautdietsch form.
    Please use WT:RfV if you think that it is not a Plautdietsch word.
  • Wikipedia says that Plautdietsch is an East Low German dialect. So it should be a dialect and not "a separate language". As the German East isn't next to the Netherlands, it should rather be a German Low German dialect and not a Dutch Low German dialect. But well, as the dialect spread through the world, one maybe could argue that it's not German anymore but a (World) Low German dialect.

Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

==Plautdietsch== (pdt) and ==German Low German== (nds-de) are currently treated as separate languages which are related, like Danish and Norwegian, and for that matter ==Norwegian== and ==Norwegian Nynorsk== and ==Norwegian Bokmal==. Separate languages are not obliged to be linked to each other, and are not supposed to be linked as ===Alternative forms===; they are often mentioned in etymology sections, and sometimes linked in ===See also===.
If you think Plautdietsch should not be considered a separate language, that's another matter; you can see my comments on WT:T:ANDS and Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2016/April#Let.27s_kill_nds-de.2Fnds-nl. about it.
If you can find Plautdietsch works which use ik, that's great, and means ik#Plautdietsch doesn't need to be RFVed.
I can find German Low German works from Oldenburg and Münsterland which use ik, so ik#German_Low_German is fine, too (and was never removed, despite your comment).
- -sche (discuss) 19:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • So it rather was "is treated by the English Wiktionary as a separate language" than "is a separate language". Ok, that's a different thing.
    — Although, I have the impression that the German Low German label "in most dialects, including Low Prussian" includes Plautdietsch as a Low Prussian variety. But well, maybe there are no German Low German labels which clearly include Plautdietsch.
  • In this edit you moved Plautdietsch from "Alternative forms" into "See also" (I don't object to this), and also removed the mentioning of the (purportedly) Plautdietsch form ik. But the removal is not justified and not sufficient as long as there is ik#Plautdietsch.
    Well, Dit un jant opp Plautdietsch is just one book, so it wouldn't give three cites which usually are needed to attest a word. Also I can't read the whole book, so the usages of ik could be dated or maybe aren't Plautdietsch as the book could also include German Low German. That is, I don't say Plautdietsch ik is attestable or exists. I'm just saying that it might exist and that Wiktionary says it exists (ik#Plautdietsch).
  • ik occurs in many dialects. But I can't say in which dialects it is attestable for the English Wiktionary (three durably archived cites). For example, this poem has ik too and is from Ravensberg which is in the East of Westphalia. So ik should also appear in East Westphalian. "Niu lustert mol! Plattdeutsche Erzählungen und Anekdoten im Paderborner Dialekt" (1870) from ein Sohn der rothen Erde (a son of the red earth) has ik too, and maybe also ick. But it's just one book, which usually is not sufficient to attest the Paderbornish form.
Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Minor note @Ikiaika: Some of this issue stems from your misunderstanding of CFI. We only need one cite to attest a word in a Low German lect, and it can be in a dictionary, not necessarily a use. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
"Low Prussian" is the variety which was spoken inside Prussia. (It seems to be mentioned frequently because comprehensive references on it are readily available, probably in turn because it had some prestige as the variety of a large leading state.) Plautdietsch is the variety developed outside Prussia among certain (largely Mennonite) emigrants. Wiktionary has tended to keep lects with such different geographic and hence historical development separate, especially among Germanic languages (as I note on WT:T:ANDS) — indeed, we even keep cases spoken in the same place separate (as we keep Nynorsk, Bokmal, Riksmal, and other rural dialects of Norwegian separate under three codes). Merger proposals often prove controversial and get squicky fast; e.g., what would be the rationale for merging the separate(d) lects of GLG and Plautdietsch, but keeping Luxembourgish and T Saxon separate from not only other Moselle Franconian but also all the other varied things we group under gmw-cfr? But what would be the rationale for merging Luxembourgish? The rationale for keeping them all separate is of course the separate geographic/national linguistic development. - -sche (discuss) 15:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Yes, I didn't know how many cites where needed for Low German, and "usually" above refered to the practice of e.g. English and German, not to e.g. Latin and dead languages like Gothic and Old High German. Thanks for the info! That makes many things much easier.
@-sche: (1.) Well, I didn't have the impression that Low Prussian has any more prestige or was or is more common than other dialects (though that might be a wrong impression), and one one can find statements like this:
  • "Plautdietsch, das Niederdeutsch aus Westpreußen mit einer über 200 Jahre alten Migrationsgeschichte" (Plautdietsch, the Low German from West Prussia ...)
  • "Plautdietsch ist [...] eine niederpreußische Mundart" (Plautdietsch is [...] a Low Prussian dialect)
  • German Wikipedia: "Plautdietsch ist [...] eine niederpreußische Varietät" (Plautdietsch is [...] a Low Prussian variety), "den ostniederdeutschen Dialekt Plautdietsch" (the East Low German dialect Plautdietsch)
  • English Wikipedia: "Plautdietsch, a Low German variety, is included within Low Prussian by some observers"
That's why I (incorrectly) added Plautdietsch forms as German Low German alternative forms. Similary some sources or some user could have labeled Plautdietsch terms East Low German or Low Prussian. Here at Wiktionary this label would be incorrect as Plautdietsch is not treated as a part of German Low German or Low German (like you said, thanks for that!), but nevertheless it could be present in some entries. For me that seemed more plausible (again, it might just be a wrong impression).
Just for clarification: It might just a wrong impression, and I'm not saying that there is any error in an entry and I'm not saying that any or even all Low Prussian labels here should be checked.
(2.) Well, Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian here are merged into Serbo-Croatian. The rationale for this surely was the linguistic similarity, even though there are different nations. So maybe for the same reason Plautdietsch could be merged into Low German as a Low German dialect. I don't have enough knowledge of Luxembourgish, Serbo-Croation, Low Prussian and Plautdietsch to argue for or against any of this, and I have no intention of making a split or merger proposal.
(3.) I re-added Plautdietsch ik next to the qualifier Plautdietsch in diff as there is the Plautdietsch entry ik (ik#Plautdietsch). I'm okay with a re-removal of it, but please use WT:RfV first. Than both, the mentiong next to the qualifier and the entry ik#Plautdietsch, can either stay or be removed.
Thanks, and greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, yes, mislabelling certainly could be present in some entries. Ideally, all nds, nds-de and nds-nl entries' labels would be checked and expanded (and perhaps replaced with a table as discussed on WT:T:ANDS), because many are far too short even when they contain only correct things and no incorrect things: the people who added them apparently weren't sure which dialects besides their own a word or spelling was found in, and so only listed the few dialects they were sure of, which is not entirely unhelpful, but is insufficient.
It is possible that some Plautdietsch-only things have been entered under a wrong header; we've certainly had a few Kashubian words entered as Polish because older dictionaries treat Kashubian as Polish. And quite a few apparently Middle-English- and/or Scots-only words have been entered as English, because some dictionaries (including the OED) don't distinguish those three languages.
Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are copies of the same Eastern Herzegovinian subdialect of the same Shtokavian dialect, and are so identical that their mutual intelligibility "exceeds that between the standard variants of English, French, German, or Spanish" (per WP, quoting Paul-Louis Thomas). I don't think they provide an argument for merging anything else, heh. :-p
I'll assume that ik is used in Plautdietsch based on the book you found above. It'd be nice to figure out more specifically who uses it, because standard references all seem to have only ekj / etj, but it's not a pressing concern. - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I only saw a snippet of the book, and the book could have a Low German text in it (maybe similar to this, which has Plautdietsch with a Dutch translation) or an older Plautdietsch text, like from some kind of *Proto-Plautdietsch when Dutch and Low German where mixing and creating Plautdietsch.
In diff the Plautdietsch entry ik got extracted from the Low German entry. In older versions, like from 25th December 2010, there is no Low German entry but a Low Saxon entry. There it was "Ik kwam, ik zag, ik overwon (nl), Ik keem, ik keek, ik wun (pd)". In diff the nl example got replaced by nds. pd could have meant Low German (Plautdeutsch or Plattdütsch/Plattdüütsch), including both Dutch and German Low German. So it once could have been an Dutch or German Low German example, while later someone misinterpreted the abbreviation and it developed into an Plautdietsch entry. nl:ik#Nedersaksisch has the example as Nedersaksisch.
Based on this I'm using WT:RfV, see WT:RFV#ik.23Plautdietsch.
Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Old Italian module errorsEdit

Hi, -sche. It seems your edit to roa-oit in the modules caused a bunch of module errors. Please see CAT:E. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I've fixed them all. - -sche (discuss) 02:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

All those languagesEdit

I've added another stack of them to RFM, which is now positively flooded. I'll probably stop adding anything for some time now; I've a planned wikibreak coming up somewhat soon. I'm happy to help add them, but for the most part, a) it's good to have another set of eyes check things and b) it's even better when that set of eyes is as good at being scholarly as yours are. Please ping me whenever you want an opinion or need access to any research materials, etc.

On a related topic, I remembered that I'm still responsible for FWOTD for an indefinite period of time. I set a "barely attested languages" focus week recently and I was annoyed how Eurocentric it turned out to be, especially considering how many barely attested languages there are around the world. I think this merits focus weeks for the barely attested languages of North America, South America, and Australia respectively, probably spaced out over the next 6 months or so. Considering you're making the entries now, I'd really appreciate if you could keep a list of words with particularly interesting meanings (i.e. not just your typical "boy" or "fire") from such languages, either here or at WT:FWOTD/FW or on a userpage, so they can become focus weeks in the future. Thank you so much for all your hard work! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

auto catEdit

I don't know if you are aware, but it may make your life easier just using "{{auto cat}}", without the need to use a language code. See diff for example.

The auto cat should be able to work in all POS and derivation categories, but it does not work in categories that use {{langcatboiler}}, like Category:English language. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just running a script that replaced the deprecated codes one-to-one with the modern codes, though. I figure replacing explicit templates/parameters with auto-cat can be done by a bot whenever desired. - -sche (discuss) 18:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The nice thing about auto cat is that you can move categories using it without editing them, since it gets the codes from the page name. Changing it to auto cat now means you won't ever have to mess with the wikitext ever again. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


Just curious, why did you have to do a bunch of fancy deletions and moving rather than just editing the page? --WikiTiki89 17:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

When I tried to save the page with updated content, it had no effect - it brought me back to the edit window and hadn't changed the page (and hadn't given an error message, either — and if you look at the content I was trying to add, it was well-formed, AFAICT). This persisted in two browsers and after logging out, but didn't effect my ability to edit other pages or even other modules(!), hence I could tell it wasn't the result of the database being locked. I tried a workaround, and along the way learned that pages have 'types' set, and when moving a non-Module-space page to Module-space, it retains its classification as a non-module... :/ - -sche (discuss) 17:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... Very strange. Our practice has been to create userspace modules as Module:User:-sche/x, that way it's in the module namespace and still works as a module. --WikiTiki89 18:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Btw I'm making a run of null edits to the pages in CAT:E to clear them. - -sche (discuss) 18:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Smuconlaw vote indentationEdit

Ah, I see what you mean. My issue was that indenting WF's vote under mine made it look somehow "attached" to mine, like a child or subsidiary vote. Not a big deal, though; we can leave it as it is. Equinox 23:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it has that negative side-effect, but it seems to be the usual way of handling ineligible votes. I'm not aware of any other way of doing it, unfortunately, short of entirely removing the vote or separating it at the end of all the other votes. - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


Do you think there is enough evidence for it? I've found some scholarly references for this, but I don't believe the language itself has been reconstructed, only elements. —JohnC5 21:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

LaPolla reconstructs a Proto-Qiangic first-person actor suffix *-ŋa and second-person suffix *-na and some other things; other references mention other words, like *pram "white" (whence the Prinmi / Pimi / Pumi name, apparently); but several scholars such as Matisoff note that a systematic reconstruction has not been undertaken. There is extensive information on various sub-branch proto-languages (I'm not sure if that's what you mean by "elements" or if you're referring to reconstructing e.g. the lack of tone, or the phoneme *f as opposed to a word *foobar). Dominic Yu reconstructs Proto-Ersuic (I may add it later), and Guillaume Jacques and Alexis Michaud reconstruct Proto-Naic in connection with their argument that Qiangic should be called "Na-Qiangic" with Ersuic and Naic being considered separate branches alongside Qiangic rather than branches of Qiangic per se. One scholar (Chirkova) argues that Qiangic is not a family at all but rather a diffusion area, but more other scholars support a genetic relationship. But I added the family code not so much to reconstruct a proto-language as because it seemed odd to have a large number of languages sorted directly into the highest-possible family (Sino-Tibetan), lol. - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll admit that I kind of want this so that Kenny's Module will sort them into a subgroup. —JohnC5 02:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
That module ought to be (and I thought at one point it was) adapted to accept families and not just proto-languages. :-p As a side effect, that might encourage people to add families, the way the module's initial creation lead to a rush of adding "ancestors" (which were, however, often redundant to the family info). - -sche (discuss) 02:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
You're right: it had been suggested! (@kc kennylau *hint, hint, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, cough, cough, gasp, gasp, asphyxiate, asphyxiate*)JohnC5 02:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Please edit my ANC yourself; I'll be quite busy for the next few months. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm not sure I'm clever enough to do so. @CodeCat, might you be free? :DJohnC5 03:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

About the "Visual description" sectionEdit

I added separate support/oppose/abstain options for each name in Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/August#Poll: Description section.

I suppose your comment "This name is too long, IMO." about "Visual description" should be counted as an oppose vote? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Cascading protection of main pageEdit

I remember the BP discussion about this where I voiced my concerns, and I didn't remember that you ignored said concerns and proceeded to remove cascading protection. As a result, we had vandalism on the main page for more than an hour today because an anon edited the FWOTD template. The main page needs cascading protection unless you (or someone else) takes it upon themselves to find a way to protect everything that goes on the main page individually. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

FWOTD templates should be protected the way we protect WOTD templates, which is to say, individually (protect only those pages which need protection) so that all the modules that transclude them aren't restricted as collateral damage. For what it's worth, I didn't ignore your concerns, you voiced them after I acted and you were the only editor to voice concerns. - -sche (discuss) 00:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry for my tone; I was rather angry about the vandalism, but I shouldn't have been so accusatory.
Obviously, protecting all the FWOTDs individually is not reasonable, given that a new one is created for each day. However, there is still a scenario where the next day's FWOTD can be vandalised and nobody will notice before it appears on the main page (as happened in this case). Can we get that one protected as well? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
It's alright; I understand how easy it is to get stressed when something goes wrong, like vandalism. I'm sorry that my reply was also snippy. I think we could create a page that would load the next day's FWOTD (and then protect that page the way Template:FWOTD main is protected), if we can find the magic words to do it (I mean, the Mediawiki magic words). I've tried here (btw I am open to any suggestions if there are better names for these pages); I haven't got it working yet, but it seems like it should be possible because the preload templates for creating new votes seem to manage it. However, there doesn't seem to be a pre-made magic word for "tomorrow" (or is there?) the way there is one for "current day", so we might have to have the page load several possible templates to account for "tomorrows" at the end of months, years, etc. - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Yep, looks like you'll have to special-case them all (or ask at the GP to get further advice). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Or you could use #time: instead of magic words. I've fixed Template:FWOTD tomorrow so it would show tomorrow's FWOTD- if there was one. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! And yes, you've noticed that I tend to wait until the last moment to set FWOTDs. It's a bad habit, but I'm always hoping for something brilliant to be nominated. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Aha, thank you! Are the workings of #time documented anywhere (presumably on mediawiki-wiki)? - -sche (discuss) 06:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, here, which is linked to from the magic words page you linked to above. When I looked at the code in {{timestamp}}, I saw it used there, so I knew we had the extension installed. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure why, but your fix didn't work... an anon went and created the next FWOTD before I got a chance to (Special:Contributions/ I'm still pretty perturbed by how easily anons can edit stuff that ends up on our front page — luckily this one isn't a vandal. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge I'm sorry for the late response. I believe the reason that edit wasn't stopped is that the protected page we're using (and even the main page, if we moved the code and protection back to it) loads the upcoming FWOTD and then cascades protection down onto it. If the FWOTD doesn't exist (if no November 7th FWOTD has been created yet), the code can't load it and hence can't protect it. - -sche (discuss) 16:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    Well, that's pretty screwy. Any ideas? @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIVΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    It's probably like -sche described. Not sure how to avoid it; perhaps we should make the template load missing FWOTDs from the FWOTD of the corresponding day in 2013. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    Actually, that's probably a good idea anyway, as a failsafe. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

RTL or LTR marksEdit

Hi, what is the best way to see these marks? The diff does not show them. I'm sure they were added by copy and paste, but how does one copy/paste without adding these marks? --Panda10 (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to avoid copying them when copying text, but one can delete them after pasting text by using the delete key on the places where one "knows" they're hiding, either from experience (e.g., I know Google Books uses them before and sometimes after authors' names) or — I use a Firefox extension that lets me highlight text and then "identify characters", showing the Unicode values and names of each character and revealing any hidden marks like those; Chrome probably has a similar extension. Obviously, it's inconvenient to check any and every text one pastes, so I wouldn't worry about doing that: it's easy enough to do periodic AutoWikiBrowser runs to eliminate them from a database-dump list of all pages that use them. Ideally we would resurrect the AutoFormat bot and it could probably remove the marks automatically.
PS there's a (RTL-mark-free) arrow → in the "Miscellaneous" field of the "Edittools" below the edit window when you edit a page.
- -sche (discuss) 03:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


How many genders does Nasioi have? --Romanophile (contributions) 22:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Technically maybe no genders, although it has a lot of noun classes. Poking around, I see that John McWhorter claims in two different books that it has "a hundred" or "two hundred genders", but he is apparently oversimplifying/mislabelling a system of noun classes. (In fairness, Ranko Matasović, in Gender in Indo-European, while mentioning various non-IE languages for comparison, says "languages such as Nasioi (of southern Bougainville) have a nominal classification category which is intermediate between a true gender system and" a noun-class system. And what's the difference to a layman?) Nasioi attaches enclitics to adjuncts in a sentence, based on the class and enclitic of the head noun, and these classes are very specific, e.g. raampu "tens of sago shingles", ruʡ "fluid", ruta "eye", va "house", vari "tree", vo "mother and children" (per William Foley, The Papuan Languages of New Guinea, saying Hurd 1977 has a comprehensive list). - -sche (discuss) 03:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Noun classes are genders. This sounds significantly different from that, though, whereas Bantu noun classes function remarkably similarly to SAE genders (although SAE doesn't make verbs agree for gender as well). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Conceptually, most of the time. But certainly the works above make a distinction, at least on the level of terminology. Probably "gender" is more likely to be used when there are only a few classes. - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


Hi -sche, thanks for your attention to this page. Rather than go back and forth with edits to the page, I wanted to bring up a couple of points here…I'm happy with "now sometimes proscribed" (though personally I still think that's giving too much ground, especially outside the US), but I really don't think citations support an "informal" tag. It's used in all kinds of formal English. The only reason I think this is so important in this case is that – the idea that this is "informal" usage is put forward as a matter of assertion by certain sides of the debate; it can't be justified historically and I'm doubtful it can be justified now. I'd also ask you to reconsider the Guardian quote that you removed, which I think is pretty clearly talking about "men" and "women" as separate classes of people, not as different social constructs.

Part of the problem, maybe, is that any use of the "sex" meaning is now inevitably influenced by the "social construct" meaning, so that assigning citations to one definition or the other is quite hard – in many people's heads the word probably exists in a vague superposition between the two. I'm just looking at the OED's entry, and under the "males or females viewed as a group; sex" definition, they add the following note: "Originally extended from the grammatical use at sense 1 (sometimes humorously), as also in Anglo-Norman and Old French. In the 20th cent., as sex came increasingly to mean sexual intercourse (see sex n.1 4b), gender began to replace it (in early use euphemistically) as the usual word for the biological grouping of males and females. It is now often merged with or coloured by sense 3b." Which sums up the difficulty, I guess, although their own entry has no problem putting citations of the "both genders" type under the "sex" definition. Any thoughts? Ƿidsiþ 13:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits to the entry, especially adding the missing electrical sense. (Does one also speak of the "sex" of plugs as well as the "gender"? I see one book saying "For every cable connection, the cables that plug into a connector must be of the opposite sex." But it's hard to find any more because the other meanings are so common, hah.)
Re the "informal" tag, you're right that it wasn't informal historically; the usage notes touch on that. Perhaps "now chiefly informal and sometimes proscribed"? Or I guess just "now sometimes proscribed" would work, inasmuch as people would probably realize that formal works would not be likely to use proscribed words/senses. As you note, uses of "gender" to mean "sex" are usually ambiguous now, because the other reading is usually also possible.
In my view, the Guardian citation more likely refers to social categories, but is ambiguous in any case. If I say I think reviewers of Sherlock are judging Vinette Robinson based only on looks and not acting, someone might say: "well, Rupert Graves faces the same problem, I think both genders are judged on looks." And if I say I think reviewers of #Hashtag are judging Jen Richards only on looks, the same person might say: "but Ryan Crice is judged the same way: again, both genders are judged on looks." Occam's razor suggests the person means "gender" the same way each time, and the second example makes clear that they're talking about the visible social categories of 'men' and 'women' to which people belong based on how they live their lives, present themselves, etc, and not the genital/gonadal/chromosomal/etc ('sex') categories. (If the speaker meant "both sexes", the second sentence wouldn't make sense, since it's my understanding that the actress Jen Richards and the actor Ryan Circe are of the same sex.)
Maybe the "biological category" and "social category" senses should be subsenses of a broad sense to the effect of "a category such as 'male' or 'female'" (", to which organisms belong based on biological or social factors]"?), paralleling how the grammatical senses were made into subsenses...? Then ambiguous citations — and pre-1900s ones! — could go under than broad sense. When writing the sense, we would need to keep in mind that there are works that use this word in talking about real and fictional species with more than two genders/sexes and societies with more than two genders.
- -sche (discuss) 06:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

North American native languages projectEdit

At this page is information about a native language preservation project based at the computer science department at Southern Oregon University. Have you heard of them?

One of their projects involves dictionary software. I wonder whether there is any kind of cooperation that makes sense with respect to:

  1. a smooth interface between their software and ours (both ways)
  2. getting content from projects associated with them
  3. using their software to encourage users to create specialized glossaries from our content.

- DCDuring TALK 12:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware of that site; thanks for linking it. (I have seen a few similar sites run by other universities.) They say their project "provides web-based export of information", but I don't know how they / the dictionary-authors who are using their format would feel about letting us import their content (which would release it under our licence). They might be interested in importing our data into their format, since they could do so for free as long as they attributed us per our licence, but there are not many North American languages that we document more extensively than other online (single-language) dictionaries, e.g. our coverage of Cheyenne is tiny compared to the online Cheyenne Dictionary. - -sche (discuss) 02:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Willingness to share depends on attitude and situation. Death, retirement, loss of funding, etc might cause some of these databases to become available. Facilitating export to their format might yield future benefit in the form of increased willingness of dictionary makers to let us have their data when the time comes. DCDuring TALK 12:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Verb form of "king" at article on "kings"Edit

I agree that there was already a definition of the verb on the page for king, but shouldn't the page for kings have information that the word "kings" is the third-person singular simple present form of the word "king" ? The lack of any mention of the verb form was why I put the verb in at "kings". Is this kind of back pointer common for verbs? I know the back pointer is there for nouns. ie: "plural of king" Bcent1234 (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You put the definition of the noun "kinging" ("the action of promoting...") into the verb [[kings]] and used {{head|en|verb}} as if [[kings]] were a lemma, which was incorrect on a number of levels. If you look at an entry for any third-person verb form, e.g. looks, you can see how they are formatted: {{head|en|verb form}} # {{en-third-person singular of|king}}, like so. :)
Incidentally, I'm not convinced "(poker slang) a pair of kings" is really a sense of "kings" distinct from "plural of king"...
- -sche (discuss) 22:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • By the logic for inclusion that we follow. Because one could be confused as whether kings in poker meant "2, 3, 4 kings", we would include it. DCDuring TALK 10:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    • But is it really limited to two kings? Wouldn't you say "there were kings and aces scattered around the room" if poker players threw a couple of packs of cards in a fit of rage? How is this different from defining "rackets" as "(tennis slang) a pair of rackets, or (doubles tennis slang) a foursome of rackets" because that's how many rackets tennis is played with? - -sche (discuss) 19:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
You could be right. It's just a matter of fact. Unfortunately (?) I don't spend much time playing poker or watching/listening to others playing poker. DCDuring TALK 19:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
In poker, out of the final five-card hand, if you say you have "kings" that means you have a pair of kings and not more than that. If you have three kings, you would say you have "trip kings", or if you have four, "quad kings". It's of course not limited to kings and applies to all cards. And of course if someone dropped the deck, you can still say "there are aces and kings scattered on the floor", because having a poker-specific sense doesn not imply that all other senses suddenly don't exist. Having said that, I still don't think we necessarily need to have this sense. --WikiTiki89 19:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


You said to leave a post on your talk page about the Zigeuner entry, but I just started and want to follow Wiktionary recommendations, so we should talk about this in the [Room]

Dzungalo77 (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi @-sche, Could you please add a Proto-Nawiki language code, perhaps nwk-pro, which is based on PNwk from this paper. Thanks. Pinging @Metaknowledge as well. --Victar (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Also related, I have a few Arawak family languages that need codes as well. Thanks!

--Victar (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

As I told you, awd-nwk-pro will be necessary. Also, we've been discussing some of those languages already (search for their name at WT:RFM). Specifically, I remember being unsure about whether Wainumá and Mariaté are actually separate languages, and I think -sche may have added notes about some of the others. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
No need for nasty "I told you"s. You said awd-nwk-pro was necessary if NWK is of my own invention. As I stated above, it is not. If Wainumá and Mariaté are considered one in the same, that's fine, but I'm still lacking a code regardless. --Victar (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't intend that to be nasty. I suppose I was unclear earlier; we are trying to make codes that complement ISO standards, rather than conflict with them. It's not about who made it up, but simply that it's not in an ISO standard. And I don't know enough and haven't done the research to judge whether those should be merged or separated; I would trust your judgement either way, but I wanted to bring up the issue. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a ton for the explanation. I didn't realize that ISO was the only excepted source for new un-hyphenated codes. It makes sense though; cuts down on arguments and possible future conflicts.
I think quite a few indigenous American languages are actually dialects on one another, but because they have more research, ISO assigns them separate codes. I figured since these are just hyphenated codes anyway, it doesn't much matter. Either way, I just need some way to add them. --Victar (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, I've added Nawiki as a family and Proto-Nawiki as a language, with the code as above (hopefully I did it all correctly). We'll have to populate the family; which codes ought to be in Nawiki? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Proto-Nawiki corresponds to the parent of Western Nawiki and Eastern Nawiki on Wikipedia, so the descendant codes would be: awd-pas, rgr, cbb, awd-kaw, ycn, mht, gae, bwi, kpc, tae, pio, along with the propossed awd-ymn, awd-wmt and awd-wrn. --Victar (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: could you add Proto-Newiki as an alternative name? --Victar (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I added the alternative name for the family and the protolanguage, and added the family to all the already existing codes. I haven't created the new codes you requested yet because I'm waiting on -sche's input. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
You rock! Thanks once again. --Victar (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge if you could, I also have another related proto language, proto-Piro-Apurinã. I figure if I'm reconstructing them for PAwk, I might as well be creating entries for proto-Piro-Apurinã as well. I've also seen is called proto-Apurinã-Piro-Iñapari and proto-Purus in one case, but proto-Piro-Apurinã is most common. awd-pia-pro would be perfect. Derived languages code would be apu, inp, pib and mpd. --Victar (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I can't find linguistic works with much to say about Mariaté and Wainumá (Wai, Waima, Wainumi, Wainambí, Waiwana, Waipi, Yanuma) beyond that they exist; has short wordlists which are quite similar. Do we want to take a conservative approach and give each its own code as we often do, or are we confident enough that WP is right to group them?
My preference is to keep them separated, but I don't have a strong opinion. --Victar (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Marawá needs to be distinguished from Marawán. And do we want to give it, Guinau, and "Baré" (a terribly ambiguous name) three codes, or merge them as Barawana, as Aikhenvald suggests?
It's quite annoying that they're so similarly named, but they are indeed two separate languages: mara1408, mara1409.
Guinau and Baré are actually quite different in many ways, from what I've seen. --Victar (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I thought Uirina had already been discussed somewhere, but [after searching] I guess not (must have been a language with a similar name). - -sche (discuss) 05:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I've added Yumana. - -sche (discuss) 05:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --Victar (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@-sche: What code did you use, because the proposed awd-ymn didn't work? --Victar (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I've added Wainumá as awd-wai, which was suggested on WT:RFM and which is more clearly distinguished from sai-wnm (Wanham) — it's a small thing, but it seems better not to have a sai- ("South American languages") code and an awd- (South American "Arawakan languages") code be identical except in their potentially mentally-interchangeable prefixes. And I've added Mariaté as awd-mrt, as proposed here, rather than -mar (as proposed on RFM), to better distinguish it from sai-mar. Yumana was added as awd-yum (as proposed on WT:RFM). I added Guinau and noticed we already had a word in it, and a code for Bare despite that term (Bare) 's ambiguousness. - -sche (discuss) 04:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


Hello, do you happen to know whether espan is also a descendant of the Munsee word (or whether a related language is more probable or whatever else)? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any references that say anything explicit about the Swedish term (you've outdone me by just finding so many citations of it! excellent work!), but the word is clearly Algonquian, and based on where the Swedish settlements in America were it 's most plausible that it came from Munsee, Unami or possibly Nanticoke. Of those, Nanticoke echsup and the (clearly unrelated) Unami nahënëm are phonologically implausible, but Munsee é·span (where é· is /ɛː/) is a great fit. Combined with the sure derivation of the very similar Jersey Dutch word from Munsee, I'd say the Swedish word is from Munsee, or if one wanted to be conservative, "From an Eastern Algonquian language (from Proto-Algonquian *e·hsepana, most likely Munsee é·span." - -sche (discuss) 22:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll add the more conservative version to be on the safe side. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Kurze AnfrageEdit

Tagchen [tʰa̝x̠ʝɪ̈n] - Du bist doch in der weiten Bücherei deutscher Regionalismen gut rumgekommen. Ich bin neulich an 'ner Studie vorbeigekommen, die erwähnte, dass /ɛː/ in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern als Merkmal eines fremdsprachlichen (plattdeutschen) Akzentes empfunden wird und nur die Aussprache von ⟨Ä⟩ als /eː/ als korrekt empfunden wird. Ich weiß nur leider nicht mehr, welche es war. Es wahr wohl Dahl 1974, der norddeutsche Sprachatlas oder diese andere Arbeit über Sprache in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern aus den 70ern, die mir einfach nicht mehr einfällt. Du weißt nicht zufällig, wo man dieses Zitat findet oder wo man diese Arbeiten einsehen kann oder wenigstens, wer die Arbeit geschrieben hat, die nicht Dahl ist? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Illion numbersEdit

You can see the larger number to Wiktionary.

Millillion - 10^3003

Dumillillion - 10^6003

Myrillion - 10^30003

Micrillion - 10^3000003

Nanillion - 10^3000000003

Picillion - 10^3000000000003

Femtillion - 10^3000000000000003

Attillion - 10^30000000000000000003

Zeptillion - 10^3000000000000000000003

Yoctillion - 10^3000000000000000000000003

Xonillion - 10^3000000000000000000000000003

Cyrus noto3at bulaga (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

A proposal on splitting Monguor into Mangghuer and MongghulEdit

Hey, a proposal I've made at Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Splitting_Monguor_into_Mangghuer_and_Mongghul seems to be stuck for a long time now, could you perhaps take a look at it, share your thoughts and vote? Crom daba (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

//NOTE: This message was crossposted to multiple talk pages. Crom daba (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


Hey, I see you've made a Salar entry in Arabic script, do you have any resources on the orthography? I'm making some Proto-Mongolic entries and it will feature in descendants. Crom daba (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Finno-Ugric to UralicEdit

Note that a bunch of module errors have been generated as a result. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Coorne citationEdit

Please explain why you removed the OED Coorne citation. Note in particular that though it gives no actual quotation, it explicitly supplies the necessary citation. JonRichfield (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be the type of citation that Wikipedia requires, but not the type that Wiktionary requires. It's one thing to list the OED as a source for more information in a separate section, but it's not a good idea to use an inline citation as if that verified the existence of the word to Wiktionary standards (we have an entire appendix of dictionary-only terms that can't be regular entries). If the OED gives examples of use, cite the usage in the original sources. See WT:CFI for details. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Chuck Entz thank you. I followed some of your refs. Would you care to comment on the looseness (by current standards) of earlier English spelling? Eg, Tyndale's bible had at least three spellings for corn, two of which occur in the quote I subsequently supplied. Coorne itself is labelled (correctly IMO) as obsolete in English. JonRichfield (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a definite problem, because we treat Early Modern English as English, and that means 3 cites/quotes for verification. Wiktionary is structured around precise spellings, so coorn and coorne have to be verified separately. Lemmas, as our stand-in for the term as a whole, can be verified by inflected forms- so a quote for corns will verify our entry for corn- but these are alternative forms. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Chuck Entz I had thought of that independently, but as it happens Tyndale not only has been republished in editions by various editors who retained his spellings (which I have verified as accurate by looking very carefully at an image of the original) but also has been quoted more or less correctly (though at least one misquoted "corn" as "corne", but retained "coorne" correctly). Now, corn/corne does not look like much of a problem for most readers, in searching for corne in WKt the reader might well notice "corn" and make the connection, and besides spelling in those days (16th c and earlier) was pretty arbitrary (GBS would have LOVED it). But it is perfectly possible for someone reading coorne out of context, or in a different context, to read "coorne" and wonder what the bleep it meant ("coronet" for goodness' sake!!!) without making the corn connection. For such a reader that is IMO a definite justification for such an entry whether it is a ghost word or not. Furthermore, check the 15th century entry I have just added to the Dutch; in those days, English being what it was, it is quite conceivable that the form 'coorne' from the Dutch was known in southern England; and don't forget that the rejected OED entry, though it does not supply sources for that one, does give it for a variation of kernel, coornel, which should count as being as much of a cite as any other book, even if not as a satisfactory dictionary entry. (Other books also have their ghost words :D ) JonRichfield (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Lake ChargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamauggEdit

A language code was adding in this diff. Is it correct? I also wonder if the rest of the etymology is correct, after having looked at the Wikipedia article and a couple of its sources. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Check Chaubunagungamaug, where I haven't tampered with the etym. — AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 02:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Your involvement is why I noticed it, but isn't really the reason I asked. I noticed your edit when you made it, and made a mental note to ask about it later when I had time and when -sche seemed to have time to be asked. Discussing your edits jogged my memory, so I posted this today. My question still remains, though Angr's involvement does ease my concerns a bit. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The base name is generally agreed to ultimately be Nipmuck. I consider it suboptimal to use the same code both in situations like this, where the language being referred to or speculated about is identifiable as the language of the Nipmucks, and also when dealing with the wordlist that is known by the obvious placeholder name "Loup A" that is merely assumed to be the same language. Nonetheless, sources do treat them the same, to such an extent that the Grammar of the Nipmuck Language identifies itself as "a grammatical sketch of Loup A". (Maybe I'll give Nipmuck an etymology-only code like New Latin, though. Or we could change the canonical name of Loup A.)
Thanks for adding the pronunciation, Awesomemeeos.
I've added some references explaining that the longer name is a 1920s hoax. - -sche (discuss) 03:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
It reminds me of the first assignment in the American Indian Languages class I took at UCLA thirty years ago: we were asked to look up the origin of a list of US place names (in books- the World Wide Web hadn't been invented yet). It was eye-opening how much bogus information there was in respectable references.
By the way, I added an archive link to the Webster Lake Association website cite, since the site is now apparently defunct. Thanks, -sche! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks; I copied that one over from Wikipedia and, as you see, ultimately removed it as unnecessary/redundant. - -sche (discuss) 16:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


diff I think you made a mistake here? You removed a bunch of language codes. —CodeCat 01:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes; I've reverted myself except for the one change I was trying to make, to fix Chono's code. - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Intersection-al and inter-sectionalEdit

Is it perhaps wise to divide intersectional into Etymology 1 and Etymology 2? The dominant sense today relates to intersectionality, which seems to have been coined by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw in or about 1989. But there is also a literature on inter-sectional politics during the American Civil War, and I've seen mention (in twentieth century texts) that this notion of relationships across "sections" was popular among eighteenth- or nineteenth-century American thinkers – maybe Federalists? (See the two different noun senses at intersectionalist.)

In Google Books, before 1989 intersectional mainly seems refer to scientific meetings or sports tournaments, or to the Civil War-era intersectionalism. After 1989, it seems to refer mainly to (theories or treatments of) gender, race, discrimination, etc.

Any road, do you think it is worthwhile to think about dividing the word into senses with different etymologies? or is it fine as-is? Cnilep (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The page could certainly be split that way. I only didn't make the effort doing that at the time because the two etymologies are pretty similar and ultimately both break down to the same inter- section -al. - -sche (discuss) 02:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Maybe I'll think more about it if I have some free time in the future. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


Hope this is where you wanted me to reply/discuss this.

Yes, I do adamantly feel the rollback is in error. Please kindly revert to my 4-10 updated mombie definition. There is currently no proper usage cited. Defined as a 'mombie' (even though male) myself I understand what it means fully. My definition had rave reviews by many mombie parents. The proper usage is as stated. This word is not always derogatory. The proper definition is becoming more popular and should be listed first. 9/10 actual mombies agree. Parenting is not easy by any means. Mombies give their all and then some. There needs to be a definition listed that is non-derogatory as well as the derogatory usage.

Let's get the accurate proper use of the word back online for all, please. It would mean a lot to myself and 'mombies' around the world. Thank you very much for your time.

Joshua Crum (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Crum: First of all, don't add it back without discussion first. It wasn't reverted by mistake. Your definition obviously can't stand even if the non-derogatory sense is fine; if you look elsewhere in the dictionary, you will see that definitions are never self-aggrandising paragraph-long spiels. More importantly, though, not just any definition can be included. Only those that pass WT:ATTEST are allowed in English. Even if you personally use a word every day, if it hasn't entered into the popular lexicon of durably archived English, we can't accept it here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The long, aggrandizing paragraph was over the top, but I appreciate the point that usage is not always derogatory; some books and other uses I see are just referring to the sleep-deprivation-induced mindlessness you mentioned. I've tried to expand the definition a bit. Let me know if any key elements are still missing. - -sche (discuss) 21:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

das seine - pronunciationEdit


One of the Russian opposition journalists said that in "jedem das seine" there is no /z/ sound. While I agree that Russian /z/ is much more voiced than the German, I'd say that the final s in "das" is voiceless but the next "s" is slightly voiced, isn't it? Or is it completely devoiced? What do you think? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That's an unusual thing for Russian journalists to be discussing! The "s" in "seine" is /z/ in standard German, even after the /s/ of "das". - -sche (discuss) 01:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
What? Voicing of /z/ ⟨s⟩ is entirely facultative in every register of German. And progressive devoicing is completely normal. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The canonical sound is /z/, however. Compare for example aussöhnen, which the Duden (and e.g. Viëtor's Deutsches Aussprachewörterbuch) transcribes [ˈaʊ̯szøːnən]; our colleagues at de.Wikt are missing the verb (as are we) but have Aussöhnung [ˈaʊ̯sˌzøːnʊŋ], as well as e.g. es sich [ɛs zɪç]. - -sche (discuss) 18:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
But even the section 'Genormte Lautung' (opposed with 'Umgangssprache') in the current Duden Aussprechewörterbuch only says something along the lines of /s/ can also be voiced in these positions (Same goes for vocalisation of /r/.) and then explicitly states that amongst these they pick one, but the others are always an equally standard alternative. I'd prefer if we use our (basically) infinite space to afford some wider precision over a brevity which might accidentally turn us non‐descriptivist. Also, I feel a bit impolite for barging into your talk page, sorry, but it's on my watchlist for some reason, and with German there is a lot of prescriptivist spirit floating around the Wiki projects. I also use the [sz] pronunciaton in these cases and I'm all for differentiating /ß/ from /s/, but we shouldn't make it wrongly sound like it's the one right way. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Spellings in dialectal categoriesEdit

(This is not another dispute on which English forms deserve lemma.)

I’ve noticed that there are quite a few alternative spellings which are placed in the same category as regionalisms. A few examples include Euroskeptic, favor, gigametre and humourless, amongst others. Considering that we have categories for this purpose, e.g. category:Canadian English forms, all that it does is clutter. As well, template:standard spelling of appears to be using the wrong categories.

Is there any chance that we can fix up this? (@Daniel Carrero can also weigh in, since he seems familiar with this kind of thing.) — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 04:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Switching from "British" to "British spelling" seems to bring about correct categorization, both in {{label}} and in {{standard spelling of}} (see my edits to gigametre), but going through all the entries in the regionalism categories and making sure they use the right labels will take a fair bit of work. I'm sorry for this delayed and probably disappointing response. I may try going through the dialect categories and checking labels with AWB sometime.
A tangentially related question is whether a word that's limited to, say, Shetland, should use {{lb|en|UK|dialectal|Shetland}} as some entries do, which puts them into "British English" although the words are not used in all or even most British English varieties. The lack of consistency about whether all entries which are dialectal go into "Category:English dialectal terms" or only some random entries do is also unfortunate.
- -sche (discuss) 03:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Categorizing CategoriesEdit

Hi -sche, I haven't had a lot of users discussions yet, so if this needs to be at another place or done in a different way - let me know. I created a while ago category:English_false_friends_for_German_speakers. Your bot left a note for clean-up, also a while ago. But I do not really understand, how to add a language category to a category. Can you help? Thx. (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the current name is the best name for the category, but the main issue is that I'm not sure where "false friends" categories like it fit into Wiktionary's system of categories. - -sche (discuss) 03:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

hommesse "woman"Edit

I found the very rare French word hommesse, "woman", on the multilingual website: [[3]].

Genèse 2:23 French: Martin (1744): - Alors Adam dit : A cette fois celle-ci est os de mes os, et chair de ma chair; on la nommera hommesse, parce qu'elle a été prise de l'homme. -- New International Version: - The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man."

Th noun hommesse is listed on the fr.Wikt under Dérivés "Derived terms" for homme [[4]]. Therefore I think the word hommesse "woman" should not be deleted from the English Wiktionary, even if it is very rare. I think that separate Wiktionary pages for hommesse, "woman" ought to be created to show that this word was used in an earlier French translation of the Bible. Cf. German Mann / Manne "man" and Männin --

1 Mose 2:23 German: Luther (1912): Da sprach der Mensch: Das ist doch Bein von meinem Bein und Fleisch von meinem Fleisch; man wird sie Männin heißen, darum daß sie vom Manne genommen ist. [[5]] Have an excellent day! Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
It would be fine to have an entry for it, which could note how rare a bit of wordplay is. But it's downright misleading to list it as a translation in the translations table at woman, which is why I removed it from there. Incidentally, it seems to more often mean something different, along the lines of "effeminate/androgynous man". - -sche (discuss) 03:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice 'crattageEdit

Great admin work, -sche. So much so, I may have to nom you as our next bureaucrat. —This unsigned comment was added by Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talkcontribs).

Thank you for prompting me to take care of so many of those old RFMs. Do you have aWa enabled? (Can non-admins enable it?) It would be preferable to archive old discussions to talk pages rather than just deleting them. - -sche (discuss) 22:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I can't use aWa, no. It's only for autopatrollers and above. I know it is preferable to archive them, but I'm not known to do things the "right way". In fact, I'm no teven checking my spelling, punctuation or signing my posts these days, which really pisses people off .
Ah, that's silly, that you can't use it. Oh well! :p - -sche (discuss) 22:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Old NorthwestEdit

FYI, you just added it to a category that doesn't exist. Will you create the category? Purplebackpack89 23:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe there is a bot that creates wanted categories that fit naming patterns. I know there is one for POS and derivation categories. - -sche (discuss) 23:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Now there's Category:en:Regions of the United States as well as Category:en:Regions of the United States of America... —CodeCat 00:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The "cities" and "towns" categories use the full name, so presumably "regions" should, too, at least until we decide on an overarching policy. (A shorter name like just US would be easier to type, but some have felt the full name is more professional.) - -sche (discuss) 00:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
There's still a data entry in one of the modules of topic cat somewhere. —CodeCat 00:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Good catch (that was my own error and apparently also someone else's, since it was added twice; hah). Btw, do you know why we have both Module:category tree/topic cat/data/Place names and Module:category tree/topic cat/data/Place names old? Does the split serve a purpose or could I merge them, for example at Module:category tree/topic cat/data/Places? - -sche (discuss) 00:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it was because I made some changes to the module that someone else didn't like so they forked it? —CodeCat 00:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Do you happen to notice any reason why it would cause errors if I started moving labels from the "old" module into the plain module? I don't; the formatting of the labels looks identical. Do you have a preference for whether they be un-forked at Module:category tree/topic cat/data/Places or at Module:category tree/topic cat/data/Place names? - -sche (discuss) 00:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Just "Places" would make more sense, since that's the new head of the tree. I don't know if the data entry for "Place names" would even belong in there anymore. —CodeCat 00:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
OK; I've started centralizing the labels there. I am inclined to leave "place names" as the only label in its module, for a while, while people adjust. - -sche (discuss) 01:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, User:Daniel Carrero did that when he created {{place}} and wanted to add a gazillion new items. He copied the existing module to Module:category tree/topic cat/data/Place names old and put his stuff in Module:category tree/topic cat/data/Place names. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Actually, my contribution to {{place}} is very minor. I basically just created a worthless stub template and then @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV created a full module and made it work. Which is awesome. (I also checked the results and gave feedback while he did the hard work.) You mentioned my contributions in Module:category tree/topic cat/data/Places so I'll reply to that: You're welcome. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
You were more influential than you may think: the main reason I chose to do it was to avoid the proliferation of decentralised templates like {{place:Brazil/municipality}}. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy that you did it. I believe my ability in editing modules at the time was close to 0%, so I created the municipality thing because it was better than nothing. But it's way better to use {{place}} than decentralised templates like {{place:Brazil/municipality}}. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I’d like to say that this sort of situation is exactly where I felt that something like {{place}} would be useful: people adding placenames only need to worry about the correctness of the information they are adding, and let the data module worry about its categorisation.
I am the first to admit that it became a kitchen sink, though. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm hoping to get place name information from Wikidata in the future. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

United States of America categoriesEdit

There are name that are just "United States" without "of America":

If you can move these and the subcategories, that would be great. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these. The "state capitals" one has been stagnating at RFC/RFM since 2009, I see! I'm going to go with the suggestion made there of "State capitals of..." [the United States of America]. I wonder what motivated the weird capitalization on it and the nicknames category. It'd be nice if category-redirects would also take any pages put into them and put them into the "main" category, so we could use short forms like "US" when typing the names out in entries, but I guess that's just wishful thinking! - -sche (discuss) 04:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
No problem. It would be easy (for someone who makes bots) to make a bot to do this. —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, Category:Georgia (State). In addition to the caps, "state" means both an independent state (like the republic) and a subdivision of the U.S. On en.wp, we use "(U.S. state)". —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Shorter category names are much easier to enter. That's my tuppence worth. DonnanZ (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with that. How about we create category-redirects at shorter names, maybe systematically replacing "[the] United States of America" with "US". Then we could empty out the redirects periodically by bot. I've created Category:en:Georgia (US) and Category:en:Cities in Georgia (US). By the way, Hotcat is a great help with adding categories without having to spell out their full names. - -sche (discuss) 02:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Someday we might decide to make the "US" short forms the main categories,but so far there has been disagreement in the various discussions at WT:RFM and elsewhere whenever this has come up, between those who want short names and those who want "professional" full names on the finished product. - -sche (discuss) 02:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I have successfully edited Module:place/data to adapt to your moving Category:US State Capitals to pt:State capitals of the United States of America.--Jusjih (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


I think we need an actual idea of how to approach to handling macrolanguage codes that coexist with codes for the constituent lects. Guaraní has an open RFM on this issue at the moment: the macrolanguage code gn has been used almost entirely, if not entirely, for Paraguayan Guaraní, which has its own code, gug. The RFM drew overwhelming interest and support for a merger (well, overwhelming by our usual standards), but some confusion about which code/name to keep and which to merge. There are other cases, like Kurdish, that I want to bring up at RFM, but first I wanted to get your thoughts on how best to solve these: allow one dialect to take the macrolanguage status, or retire the macrolanguage code altogether? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If we consider all the dialects of Guaraní to be one language, then it makes sense to merge all the codes into gn (obviously).
And if we consider all the dialects of a language to be distinct enough to keep separate, then IMO it's clearer to retire the macrolanguage code, even where one dialect is more prominent than the others ... unless there is a clear tendency for the unmarked language name to refer to that dialect even when other dialects are being talked about. (For example, we merged ekk into et rather than vice versa.)
There is only one case that comes to mind where we let a dialect have a macrolanguage code although the situation was arguably not that clear, namely mhr = chm, which is silly because we still call the language "Eastern Mari" ... that should probably be revisited. (Als into sq, although not as clear at ekk into et, is probably fine.)
In this case, "Guaraní" does seem to usually be identified with gug (almost certainly helped by the fact that gug has many orders of magnitude more speakers), so it would probably be fine to merge gug into gn even if other dialects are kept separate, especially because we probably want to keep the name as "Guaraní".
For Kurdish, it seems like it might make more sense to retire the macrolanguage code, since no one dialect seems to have an overwhelming case for taking it on (Kurmanji has the most speakers, but only 2-3 times as many as Sorani, and Sorani is standard in Iraq), although I only made a brief look into it and could be wrong.
Guillermo's comment "[nhd] is similar and very close to [gug] but it's slightly different and always confused with [gug]" actually supports merging those codes, IMO, although he's arguing the opposite. Wikipedia is ambivalent about what should be done with them, and I'm not sure yet either.
- -sche (discuss) 04:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Properly splitting topic and set categoriesEdit

I would like to work on a proposal for this, but there's several issues to sort out first. I'm hoping you can help with this. There are two other issues which are also at play with these categories, which have come up before. First is the matter of naming the "by language" topical categories. They have literally no naming scheme, and we've occasionally run into naming conflicts with these, so adding something to the names so that they are clearly set apart as topic/set categories is useful. Second is the matter of the language codes in the names. All our other categories use language names, and people have complained about the presence of codes in user-facing parts of the dictionary before. If we're going to rename the categories, we might as well tackle all issues together, so that we don't have to rename the categories multiple times. —CodeCat 17:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is a tricky tangle of issues. I will look back over previous discussions to refresh myself on what potential problems have been pointed out with some of the previously-proposed solutions. I agree with you that it would be useful — necessary, really — to add something to the the names of both types of categories, so that they can finally be told apart, and so that we avoid naming conflicts. Maybe we could have a poll to gauge if people would prefer quick-to-type prefixes like "t:" and "s:"/"l:", or spelled-out prefixes "topic:" and "set:"/"list:", and also if they would prefer spelled-out language names or codes. I know some people dislike language codes, but other people dislike long names, and codes are shorter (and code-based categories don't have to be moved when we rename languages, a minor benefit). If we used spelled-out names, we should probably set them off by colons (maybe someone has already suggested this), because renaming CAT:en:Dogs to "Category:s:English dogs" or "Category:list:English dogs" or even "Category:English dogs" makes it seem like it's for England's breeds only. But should the subcategory of "Category:Dogs" be "set:English:Dogs" or "English:set:Dogs"? I guess the second one is maybe more logical from a sorting perspective?
- -sche (discuss) 03:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't like shortcuts like t: and s: because these categories are meant to be understandable for the average user. —CodeCat 15:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@CodeCat Alright, but I expect some people to balk at lengthening the category names.
Where should the language name go, in your view? "CAT:topic:English:Dogs" or "CAT:English:topic:Dogs"? (Or something else?) I'm thinking "CAT:English:" may make more sense, matching "CAT:English nouns" etc and like the current "en:Foobar" scheme, grouping all the English categories together as having "English" at the start of their names. Is there anything else that needs to be worked out before bringing this up for general discussion?
- -sche (discuss) 18:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I would prefer using full language names ("English", "Chinese" instead of "en", "zh") and writing categories as normal phrases, without the colon anywhere. For example:
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I know other people object to long names, however, especially for categories that are often added manually rather than automatically templates ({{rfi}}, etc). More people should use HotCat, obviously. Or {{C}} et al, which unfortunately don't play nice with HotCat. Someone should update HotCat...
"Names of" may sound off in some cases — would the "E numbers" discussed on RFM be "Translingual names of E numbers"? That's not awful, but it seems like calling "1" an "English name of a number", and/or a "Translingual name of a number". But "Translingual/English list" [of Foobars] doesn't sound great, either.
"Pertaining to" may be better than "relating to", since "related" in "Related terms" means etymologically related. - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
"Pertaining to" sounds fine with me. Maybe "involving" can be considered too? Here are all the options:
What do you think of using "names of" for proper nouns, including place names? I've been thinking this may be a good idea, but feel free to give other ideas. Examples:
I know that some languages treat language names as common nouns, so I'm not sure this works in all cases. Days of the week also have that problem (Category:en:Days of the weekCategory:English names of days of the week). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I think "involving" is a bit weird. Anything can involve dogs in theory. The police trains dogs, so they are involved with dogs, but we don't want police in that category. Going back to the proposal of using a prefix to indicate the category type, we could use "related" instead of "topic", so Category:English:related:Dogs. Yet more possibilities are Category:English:Dogs (breeds), Category:topic:Dogs (English) and such. —CodeCat 20:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Now that you said it, I think I agree with you in that "involving" is a bit weird. I'm not really sure I like any of the prefixes, but I'd be curious if other people want it. (any large scale category change would need a vote, so we're going to see what people think) I know we've been saying "topical categories" to refer to the categories starting with "en:" but I'm not sure I like it. Category:topic:Dogs (English) is short but is it clear enough? If we translated it to a phrase like Category:English terms in the topic of dogs would it make any sense? So far, I like Category:English terms relating to dogs the most. I think it's clear enough that it's related to the idea (the semantics), not the etymology. If it were Category:English terms relating to "dog", it would be the etymology. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
We could look to other Wiktionaries for inspiration. Dutch Wiktionary literally just has "Biology in English" with its parent "Topics in English". Their grammatical categories are named the same, "Words in English" (equivalent to our "English lemmas"; they had it before us!), also singular in "Verb in English", "Noun in English" etc. —CodeCat 22:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
For the record, the earlier incarnation of Category:English lemmas called Category:English parts of speech was created in 14 July 2004, so it apparently predated nl:Categorie:Woorden in het Engels by a few months! (I believe you can't see deleted page histories right now, so FWIW I support restoring your and Wyang's admin rights.)
Portuguese Wiktionary has pt:Categoria:!Entrada (Inglês) for Category:English lemmas. They basically always use the format "Stuff (Language)", sometimes starting with that exclamation point.
About "Biology in English". I would support creating separate categories for these two things: 1. Category:English biology jargon, Category:English medicine jargon, etc.; 2. Category:English terms relating to biology, Category:English terms relating to medicine, etc. (or "in the topic of" or "pertaining to"...) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Todo/Mismatched POS - Head - Verb, Adverb, AdjectiveEdit

Hey. Could you make this page and similars again? Perhaps an updated list is already somewhere else. In that case, it could probably be deleted. --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  Done. I'll suggest in the Grease Pit that edit filters could perhaps be used to catch many cases in real-time. - -sche (discuss) 15:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

term → mEdit

About diff. I've been converting {{term}} to {{m}} and adding the language code. Please don't do the opposite. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry; that was because I copied the text from an older revision of the page. - -sche (discuss) 20:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
No problem. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero, shouldn't we have a bot doing that? --Victar (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Only a human editor can figure out cases where no language code is specified with total accuracy. A bot could probably fix a lot of cases, though, like links to terms in scripts used by only one language, or links to long terms where only one language section exists on the target page, or where a language name immediately precedes the link (maybe a bot even already did some of those? I don't recall)... - -sche (discuss) 00:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I seem to recall that at some point @CodeCat used her bot to fix instances of {{etyl|xx|yy}} {{term|word}}, at least. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
A bot can convert {{term}} to {{m}}, and save people that extra second x however many entries. We can also have a bot convert |lang= to |1=, no, for those instances? --Victar (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I'm pretty sure CodeCat also converted all cases of {{term|word|lang=xx}} into {{m|xx|word}}. Apparently, all current instances of {{term}} don't have a language code. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, OK. --Victar (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


Hi -sche. How can we templatise the last part of that etymology? The code for Khoisan languages has been commented out. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's been commented out because it's not a genetic family. Wikipedia attributes it specifically to the Nama language, so I've switched it to that. - -sche (discuss) 22:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


The fundamental problem is that siccity has a single definition, but dryness has two definitions. So, if we direct the user to the dryness translations, how will they know which definitions, and thus which translation tables, apply to siccity? There is no means of informing the user in this regard. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

If siccity can be used in either sense (as seems to be the case), then there is no problem; all the senses and translations of dryness are relevant. If siccity were limited to one sense, then the definition could be made adequate by the addition of a {{gloss}}, the common means of informing users which senses of another word are meant. (Very rarely — so rarely that it seems to be nonstandard — I have seen people add separate sense lines all saying {{synonym of|foo}} with different glosses, and separate {{trans-see}}s, for every sense of foo that some other word bar is a synonym of, but that does seem to be nonstandard.) - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Turkish / Kutayca (happiness)Edit

Do you know what the "Kutayca" translation here is supposed to be? There's a Turkish entry but it doesn't mean happiness. DTLHS (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I can find no evidence of a Kutayca language. It seems to be the name of an athlete(?). It was added in diff by an IP from Turkey; I would guess it's vandalism. - -sche (discuss) 00:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. DTLHS (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

He's at it againEdit

Category:en:United States county index. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The crime would appear to be not in having the category, but in populating it. Therefore it has a token population, so it doesn't register as an empty category, until attitudes change. DonnanZ (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted and you recreated it. Why? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The category still worked and was still very useful despite its deletion, until Koavf removed all the entries under the pretext "remove redlinks". Because of that I decided to reopen the category with a token number of entries, and Koavf has only himself to blame for that. Furthermore, due to continued interference by that user, no further county entries are planned at the moment. DonnanZ (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

We can't use deleted categories. If a category is deleted, then it is removed from the entries. No one can oblige you to do any work here, so if you want to not make entries, that's totally up to you but you also can't expect that anyone will accept your deliberately malformed edits as the only way you will add to the dictionary. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no need for me to respond to that. I am waiting for a reply from -sche. DonnanZ (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


@-sche Have been perusing this etymology again; and would have to state that my thanks was for your edit as opposed to that of Huehnergard. Although I do not know him, his idea comes over as irrational: how far back does he think Proto-Germanic began; does he think that it is older than the origins of Proto-Celtic? You know the answer to these questions; but apart from in Latvian I know of no significant morphological divergent from the source lexeme for cat in any European language. What did they name the wild cats in Scotland? However, I will try to check that of Breton, whose natives fled there from Cornwall in the sixth century, before any Germanic influence had time to be absorbed. So far, all the Celtic forms are from the same pre-historic source, but we cannot be sure of that source: it was certainly older than Proto-Germanic! The Basque forms are probably borrowed, unless cats are and always were native there. My equally invalid assumption was that their ultimate root was the pre-historic *CAD (sharp), because of their claws and teeth. "Cad" was the pre-historic name for the River Plym, and it signified "sharp flowing" at that time! I shall try more research! Kind Regards. Andrew H. Gray 07:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Andrew


Do you want to be one? I reckon you're pretty well trusted in the community, besides being established. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the confidence in me that you express, but I don't want to be a CheckUser. I also don't know that I would meet the spirit of the policy: I am absent from the site for months at a time, during which time there would effectively be only one CheckUser. (Whereas, when I'm absent as an admin, there are always other admins around.)
Perhaps we should ask a global checkuser to look at en.Wikt's checkuser log and tell us how often we actually use that mop, to get a sense of how much we actually need a local checkuser.
- -sche (discuss) 06:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I am strongly of the opinion that having a local checkuser is good. (I think having two is actually unnecessary, hence me not minding if one is absent now and again). I simply would not want to bother making a formal request to the stewards over a local issue that they would not immediately understand. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


@-sche, if you have a second, could you weigh in here. Much appreciated. --Victar (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


As always, there is a backlog of language code discussions that could use some attention. Hardly anyone comments in a substantive way, let alone a scholarly way, on the issues I raise there, so your input is much appreciated. I'll try to clean out the ones that you've actually responded to. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder; it prompted me to spend the past few weeks (and hopefully coming weeks) going through more of the requests. I could (and perhaps should) go through adding codes much faster if I only segregated out the ones that seem like they might need further checking to be sure there is content in them (e.g. Gamela, and maybe Èrsh depending on whether more than placenames are attested and what language we prefer to include the placenames as), and just added all the rest in one go, but I try to find and add content in them at the same time as I add the codes, which slows things down. On a related note, it is probably time to start going through the chaos of Category:Tasmanian language and assigning the words to actual languages. - -sche (discuss) 06:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Just as you started to catch up, we got swamped with a new deployment of ISO codes: WT:Requests for moves, mergers and splits#ISO code changes for 2017. Most of these should be fairly straightforward, but I'd especially like your input on those for which I have abstained or disagreed with the ISO outcome. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 10:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
It always interests me that we and the ISO/SIL find different things to grant new codes to — we have a lot of exceptional codes they haven't added yet, while all of their additions look like things we hadn't spotted. Cuitlatec is also interesting because I also thought I had read somewhere that the ISO/SIL/Ethnologue had decided not to grant codes to any more extinct languages besides the ones already included, but perhaps I misremember. Anyway, thanks for spotting the changes; I've retired all the codes they retired and will look into the rest. - -sche (discuss) 17:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I remember reading that about extinct languages too! I had actually spotted one of the missing codes already (Nzadi), but I hadn't gotten around to posting about it on RFM because it's part of a confusing and mostly poorly documented cluster of uncoded languages, which still need to be addressed at some point.
If you ever care enough about ridding us of exceptional codes, we could team up to submit some requests and see if we get any. :)Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


Hey. This has been on WT:RFC for 200 years, more or less. It looks to me to have been cleaned up already - is the conjugation correct now? If so, we can remove it from the RFC page. --Gente como tú (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it can be removed from RFC, because it now uses its own custom conjugation template, so any additional forms that need to be added can just be added. - -sche (discuss) 06:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


I have been using Moslem since I learnt how to spell, and I don't see any need to change and I don't consider it offensive. It can't be eliminated entirely, all words in all languages remember? It may be worth listening to the pronunciations here. BTW, you undid all of my revision. DonnanZ (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

-sche said "that spelling is dated and chiefly used by Islamophobes these days, as the entry warns, and is just an extra click users have to make to get to the lemma". There are several important considerations here. You may not consider it offensive, but its use is often intended to be thus (as our entry documents). The pronunciations are irrelevant, because we are talking about spelling. And "all words in all languages" refers to the fact that we should (and do) have an entry for Moslem, not that you should use a spelling that requires users to click through in order to find content. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, my opinion is that there's no need to list a dated and sometimes pejorative/offensive alternative form, which is also not the lemma, anyway (so users who click on it then have to click again to get to the definitions at Muslim).
I'm sorry I undid the other parts of your edit; I have now restored them. - -sche (discuss) 22:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


Template:seemreCites in sense 1. (Also, I have some research associates in this specific topic.) - Amgine/ t·e 15:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that typo! :) I'd appreciate more feedback from knowledgeable people on how this word could be defined, if they'd like to take a look, though please consider what's been said in Wiktionary:Tea room/2018/February#male, particularly about the inclusion of any more qualifiers ("[typically] has a penis"—but not all species or individuals who are referred to as male do; "[typically] has XY chromosomes"—but not all species or individuals do, references to "XX male" people are numerous; etc). One must be cautiously aware of how (flexibly) the word is actually used. - -sche (discuss) 15:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
In humans there are many variants of sex-linked genes, not simply two. Phenotypic expression (having 'typical' genitals) mismatching sex-linked genes is rather more common than many 'normal' genetic variations, for example red hair or A+ blood type. Although rare in mammals, phenotypic expression can change from one to another; this is more common in other animals - for example parrot fish. My partner's implications for practice essay on the topic. - Amgine/ t·e 20:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Todo/Non-templatised gendersEdit

Hey. Is Wiktionary:Todo/Non-templatised genders still useful? Can it be regenerated? --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I regenerated it in AWB, but found that it was mostly false positives (cases where e.g. "n" was mentioned as a letter, or sometimes short for "noun". So I regenerated it in a probably over-narrow way. - -sche (discuss) 03:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

from fromEdit

Hey. I've also noticed you adding "from from" in etymologies. It's a weird mistake, but please try not to make it. Thanks for your awesome work. --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you point to examples? I usually find myself cleaning up the error, including working from the cleanup list that probably inspired you to make this post. :p - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I went for the old-fashioned googling approach. Typing "from from" and then searching "from from" in the browser brings up a ridiculously big number of such things. Maybe most of them are not done by you, but I suspect you're a member of The Etymology Club, who is responsible for this henious crime. --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
When I search for the "from from" in quotes using Wiktionary's search, I get about 125 entries. Most of those have from ending a line and from beginning the following line. I cleaned up three so far. DCDuring (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
A more precise search line is:
"from from" insource:/[fF]rom [fF]rom/
Running it now shows no such duplications occur. Thanks for noticing the problem. There must have been more than 30 or more of them, mostly in etymologies. DCDuring (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


Another question for you while I've got your attention. Why the heck does Wiktionary:Statistics/generated take so long to sort in ascending order? --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably because we include so many languages. - -sche (discuss) 21:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

kimono usage noteEdit

Did you mean "literary"? DTLHS (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh! I'm glad you caught that typo. I meant "literal". Literary might also be accurate. - -sche (discuss) 02:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


I think your rollback is in error because there is a profound lack of clarity and bias in the definition. Let's discuss this on the definition discussion page. ~ JasonCarswell (talk)


Calling me "stick in the mud" is rude. Please desist. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Bureaucratic masturbationEdit

You wrote in an edit summary: "since I'll make use of this section as part of my general opposition to what one of our more colourful users once called bureaucratic masturbation".

A cheap trick, isn't it? The responsibility for inflamming the discussion by using terms like "bureaucratic masturbation" is yours; you cannot shift the responsibility to unnamed "colourful users".

Prevalence: google:"bureaucratic masturbation".

--Dan Polansky (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, a warning: the behaviour you are engaging in is not an appropriate use of a Wiktionary talk page. Secondly, you are either ignorant or lying; either way, you have decided to attack -sche in bad faith. That phrase was first notably used at Wiktionary by Dick Laurent, and searching the site would have revealed that very quickly if you had bothered to try. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Huh? I do not deny that the phrase was used by someone else before; indeed, the link above I provided makes it very easy to verify. Rather, I point out that people are responsible for their use of phrases regardless of whether these phrases were used by someone else before. I believe that the use of the phrase is rude, unnecessary, inflammatory, and therefore to be avoided. A talk page seems like one obvious venue to raise that in; I do not see why e.g. Beer parlour would be a better venue. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


Hi -sche. When you changed the language code xmn to pal, I think you missed a few. They are in CAT:E. —Internoob 23:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Code for Kam-Sui language familyEdit

Hi there. I think we need a code for Kam-Sui languages. What do you think it should be? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Since no (super-)family to which it belongs has an ISO code, it'll need a qfa- code, like qfa-kms, or any other three letters that approximate the name of the family if you would find e.g. something with a vowel in it like qfa-kas easier to remember/use. (You may already know this, but for the benefit of anyone who doesn't, how to construct codes is documented in Wiktionary:Families.) - -sche (discuss) 03:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
qfa-kms looks good to me. Thanks! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. Do you think we need a code for Hlai languages (which is the family including Hlai and related languages, like Cun)? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

How many languages would go in the family? It looks like most of the Hlai lects are currently lumped into one language code, lic. If there would only be a couple of languages in the family, it might not be that useful, unless it would help you in some other way — for example, if you need to be able to say "from a Hlai language" in etymologies, then go ahead and create a family code (although, if there really would be just two languages/codes in the family, it would seem like etymologies could say "from Hlai or Cun"). - -sche (discuss) 03:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, there's Proto-Hlai, which is used sometimes for comparison in Chinese etymologies and can be used for Hlai/Cun/Jiamao entries. (Ethnologue seems to put Cun under Kra rather than Hlai, but Glottolog puts it under Nuclear Hlai.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
As I skimmed through Norquest's reconstruction of Proto-Hlai, it seems like even Jiamao's classification into Hlai is doubtful. Since we're treating all the varieties of Hlai as one language, I'm not sure how we could include something like Proto-Hlai in etymologies. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, we do have Proto-Basque, despite the Vasconic family consisting of only Basque and arguably Aquitanian, so a family being ultra-small doesn't stop us from including Proto-Hlai if scholars have reconstructed it. (And I think we usually create a family code whenever we create a proto-language code.) If you'd like to include Proto-Hlai reconstructions, then go ahead and create a code. (Do you think the Hlai varieties should be split? Or are they, like Zhuang, usually treated/standardized as one language?) - -sche (discuss) 04:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The written language is only standardized to the Ha dialect, similar to the situation with standard Zhuang. I'm not sure how other dialects are written (or if they are written at all). It's usually treated as one language, so I think we should leave it as is for now. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The Tai-Kadai node above Kam-Sui has an ISO 639 code, "tai". Evertype (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Evertype: If I'm not mistaken, tai is for Tai languages which is one of the branches of the Tai-Kadai family, not the same as the Tai-Kadai family itself. Hlai and Kam-Sui are sisters to Tai. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Schwa naEdit

Well, I did send you an e-mail. Evertype (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Are there any updates? --WikiTiki89 13:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for that e-mail, @Evertype. I passed the contact information along to @Mahagaja, who I presumed would e-mail you and take it from there, because he is more familiar with the Hebrew script than I am. I should've e-mailed you to explain that's what I had done; I apologize. - -sche (discuss) 16:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I had forgotten about this for a while, but I did eventually remember and e-mailed Evertype last night. My bad, sorry! —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Old High German ÔstaraEdit

Hello, I'm confused on why you marked the template for clean up when it is quite neat in its presentation. I had to use a blank template so I can put all the correct declined words. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Addition of Idiom Neutral to Module:languages/dataxEdit

I see you edited Module:languages/datax today. Could you take a look at my request at the talk page? Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 10:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

usex at down#Adjective, 2015Edit

[6]: The original usexes seem to have been a set of rhymes, and I'm curious as to why you changed Tyrone to Jack :p —Suzukaze-c 06:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I no longer recall... possibly so that it didn't sound like AAVE speakers were the only ones who used the (widespread) sense. - -sche (discuss) 16:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Middle English EtymologyEdit

Hi--thanks for fixing those etymologies from the non-lemmas. I included them because I didn't realize that I could just have the Etymology heading without any content, but I'm glad to know that's not necessary. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@SanctMinimalicen: No problem. :) By the way, the reason I noticed them in the first place is that you used {{der}} and similar templates to link to other words in the same language, which caused them to be categorized as "twice-borrowed", which should actually only happen in a case like anime. If you just need to mention that the current word is a variant of another word in the same language, you can either just use {{m}} (it's assumed the word is in the same language unless otherwise specified), or {{cog}}. - -sche (discuss) 17:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Ohh, right, now I see that. That was carelessness, I'll admit. I know not to use the {{inh}} and the like with the same language (I had made that mistake in the past), but with some of these I had imported existing etymologies from the en entries of direct descendants (e.g. thy for þi where it was applicable (i.e. when the enm members were mentioned in the en etymologies), and in some cases I must have accidentally just changed en to enm for enm members of chains instead of fixing to the {{m}}. In any case, I'll not do that again. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick question...Edit

Do you have any idea why /æɹ/ and /ɛəɹ/ distribution differs slightly between British English and some North American English dialects lacking the Mary-marry-merry merger, such as my own? Is it due to hypercorrection, or is it due to something else? To be more specific, /ɛəɹ/ in my dialect is never where /æɹ/ ought to be, but /æɹ/ is sometimes where /ɛəɹ/ is in British English. I'm not sure if I asked you this question before, but if I did, I don't remember your answer. I'm just wondering. Tharthan (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting situation; I'm not familiar with it, and don't know a cause. If you can't find a historical reason (e.g., if the forerunners of your dialect community spoke a variety of English with a different distribution of those sounds than current canonical/common BrE), perhaps it's interference from other dialects that are around you geographically or in media, or just lexical diffusion. If it interests you, you might try to track what words it happens in and look for commonalities (which could be clues), like if certain phonological environments trigger, enable, or prevent it, or if the words affected are ones you hear from outsiders more than from fellow dialect-speakers (perhaps leading to something like hypercorrection, as you speculate, if you unmerge the sounds "wrong"), or if the words tend to be ones you use a very little (which might thus be "book words" your brain guessed the "wrong" unmerged sound for) or if they're words you use a lot, or if the shift helps distinguish the words from (or draws them closer to) other words. - -sche (discuss) 05:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Trans definitionsEdit

Thank you for your attention to the edits around trans and cis terminology. I have not edited Wiktionary before and am not terrifically familiar with the platform. (Thank you as well if it was you that unblocked me - it was very upsetting having my first edits result in a ban for "gibberish" when I explained all of them and provided citations!) The entries for "transmasculine" and "transfeminine" are still not quite accurate - in retrospect I should have checked elsewhere first for clearer definitions, as on Wikipedia "transfeminine" is defined as "an umbrella term describing individuals who were male at birth but identify on the female side of the gender spectrum" and on the Gender Wiki it is defined as "a term used to describe transgender people who were assigned male at birth, but identify with femininity to a greater extent than with masculinity". Both of these are accurate and much clearer. The main idea is that "transfeminine" describes feminine trans people who were assigned male at birth; it is not exactly a synonym either for "trans women" or for "feminine trans people" because the former is not inclusive of transfeminine nonbinary people and the latter is overly inclusive (i.e. includes feminine trans people who were assigned female at birth). I don't mean to heap more work on you but frankly I'm afraid that if I make the edits myself I'll just be banned for gibberish again. Best wishes.

Please delete اسهالEdit

Hello, please delete this page to make room for a move. I have copied the information. Thank you.Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

CFI for chemical formulaeEdit

We've had some spirited debates in the past (Talk:AsH₃, Talk:LiBr), but there's still no consensus for what to do with entries like MnS and H₂O₂ (note that the former is English, the latter Translingual). Any thoughts on what sort of proposal might meet with consensus? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd appreciate others' input as it's not my area of expertise, but:
  • It seems, including from the two discussions you link to, like there's more support for ones that look like they could be abbreviations (like LiBr) than ones that are obviously formulas (with numbers in them). And the longer a name gets, or the more obviously formulaic it is (e.g. having parentheses), the less accepted I would expect it to be. Maybe we could straw-poll and see if there'd be agreement for any cutoff "no formulae consisting of more than 3 parts" (or some other number), where "H₃" counts as one "part", and "no formulas with any parentheticals" (or "with more than 2", or something).
  • There seems to be support for a few really common ones that are used in everyday speech like Talk:CO₂ and H₂O (which even passes the lemming test, being in Meriam-Webster, which doesn't include LiBr).
  • Maybe, similar to how BRAND requires brand names to be attestable in places that don't clarify what the product is, we could require these to be attested in contexts that don't make clear that they're formulae by e.g. explicitly discussing chemical formulae or by listing their component parts. So, "AsH₃ is made up of an As and three H atoms" wouldn't support AsH₃, but a murder mystery saying "the air in his scuba tank had been replaced with CO2" could support CO₂.
  • Some of the comments in the RFD discussions suggest there might be more support for ones that have "unpredictable" common names like alabandite than for ones that refer to also-formulaically-named chemicals like S4N4 being "tetrasulfur tetranitride", but maybe that wouldn't be a wise or widely accepted distinction, as there are some long formulas with short unformulaic names (fornacite's Pb2Cu(CrO4)(AsO4)(OH)), and conversely CO₂ is "carbon dioxide".
  • Maybe for long chemical formulae that have short/unformulaic common names we include, we could redirect the formula to the common name, to satisfy people who want to be able to type the formula into the search box and get information. (We could have a redirect from the full chemical formula of titin...)
  • We should include redirects from "normal" numbers to subscript numbers (or vice versa) for any that we include.
Incidentally, is our definition of MnS right? Alabandite and our entry alabandite suggest it's only one form of MnS. - -sche (discuss) 15:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I like the BRANDy idea, because it limits us to ones in common use. I don't like that it means sending everything through RFV. A clear cutoff would make for a very straightforward rule, but is there anything it would exclude that we'd want to keep? Also, I fixed MnS.Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to insert myself in a conversation where I may not be welcome (this page was on my watchlist from a past convo), but out of curiosity I began running our Category:mul:Chemical_formulae for BRANDesque-worthy citations, and all of the ones I've checked thus far pass. The complication I ran into is whether to count instances where a chemical is named with the formula in parenthesis (e.g. "carbonic acid (H2CO3)"), whereafter only the formula is used as shorthand--much like acronyms for things like companies, documents and organizations. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I think looking at spoken usage would help- we say "cee oh 2", but I don't think people say "em n ess". Of course that really doesn't fit into our current verification / deletion policies. DTLHS (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether that would work or not. On Talk:CO₂, Shinji mentions that idea, opining that we would naturally say "see-oh-two gas" but not "aitch-two gas"; OTOH, I think that many formulae would be read as letters, and indeed for more obscure ones, if a speaker doesn't know offhand what the letters stand for, they have no choice but to say "army scientists were working on an ay-ess-aitch-three gas", etc. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I think a starting point would be treating chemical formulae as if they were spelled with spaces, so they would be considered SOP unless proven idiomatic. You would want evidence that a formula is a label for a concept, rather than simply an ingredient list (e.g. is H2SO4 sulfuric acid or is it whatever you get when you combine 2 hydrogens, a sulfur and 4 oxygens?). Chuck Entz (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
All formulae are "ingredient lists" by definition; some map to a single concept like H2SO4, some map to no concept because they're physically impossible, and some map to multiple concepts like MnS. What they map to is dependent on the physical laws of the universe, not anything linguistic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
By "concept", I meant a lexically-significant concept, something that speakers have in mind beyond the mere chemical identification of the compound- somewhat like the difference between 10 Downing Street or 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and 1600 Main Street for street addresses. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

in the blueEdit

I saw this in an article yesterday from the Express.

The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) politician [Kai Whittaker] said it was still unclear in Berlin what the essence of the disagreement between the Chancellor and Mr Seehofer was and that other members of the coalition had been left "in the blue".

In normal English I'd expect "in the dark", of course. Is "in the blue" a calque of a German expression? DCDuring (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not calling to mind any direct counterpart (the phrase I'm used to seeing is im Dunkeln lassen, as in English), but maybe I'm having a brain fart. Several German idioms do use blue this way, e.g. ein Schuss ins Blaue for a shot in the dark (and ins Blaue schießen — would you say shoot into the dark?), ins Blaue fahren, and eine Fahrt ins Blaue which English apparently calls a "mystery tour", aus blauer Luft, and the closest thing that comes to mind, ins Blaue hinein (haphazardly, without a plan/preparation or goal).
If you're interested, William Jervis Jones has a book on German Colour Terms, including about idiomatic meanings (he says that, starting in at least the 14th century, blue was linked to "distance or vagueness"), although I'm sceptical of at least of few of his analyses of idioms where the colour seems rather literal instead.
English apparently also sometimes uses "blue" idiomatically, though (besides just in "out of the blue"), because I see e.g. a book titled "Out in the Blue: Letters from Arabia, 1937 to 1940", and
  • 1978, Peter Hathaway Capstick, Death in the Long Grass (→ISBN):
    "The problem with buffalo as well as most African antelopes as a steady diet is that they have very little marbling or body fat and, after six months out in the blue, one dreams at night of a T-bone steak sizzling in great globules of yellow fat."
I see that other (English) dictionaries have a sense we're lacking, "the far/remote distance", with usexes about vanishing or disappearing into the blue, which might cover the quotes about Arabia and Africa. - -sche (discuss) 22:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed that w:Kai Whitaker's comments were on BBC World at One. He has a British father and a German mother and got a degree from the University of Bristol. His comments must have been in English, but they struck the Express's reporter as odd enough to put them in quotes. He apparently used blue in this sense twice in the course of his comments.
He may just have picked up on out of the blue and something like wild blue yonder, combined it with the use of Blau in German expressions and assumed that he was speaking idiomatic English. I don't think that we should count it as attestation for any sense of blue. I don't see MWOnline or Century have a definition that could enable blue to fit in to in the dark, which seems closest to what he probably meant, based on the context.
Thanks for your thoughts. I doubt that I could borrow a copy of the German Color Terms book. I'm trying to stop buying such books (and things in general). DCDuring (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


We don't even have a definition for Minderico yet. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


To answer your comment, I never found any evidence that Minderico is anything more than a cant like Lunfardo or Polari. Most of my research was done in 2013~2014. The only linguistic information I was able to find were glossaries. I never found anything about its phonological system or syntax, and the glossaries consisted of high-content lexical items. I also remember that one of the arguments someone made in favour of classifying it as a language was that Minderico is passed from father to child rather than being learned. This circumstantial evidence convinced me that Minderico is a cant, but I chose not to nominate the langcode for deletion before I had more information.

Incidentally, I was similarly stumped when I sought material on the so-called Cafundó Creole, but some authors did something much more shady: they described some syntactic and phonological characteristics of the “creole” that proved that it was different from Portuguese, but in fact those characteristics were also found in the low-prestige dialect of Portuguese spoken in the same area. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Should it be relabelled / merged into Portuguese, then, you think? Will that effectively ban it? (Do we care?) I notice that even a basic word like carranchano doesn't seem like it would meet WDL requirements. - -sche (discuss) 19:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn’t make this call without knowing more about Minderico, but even if it is merged with Portuguese, we can have a full appendix page with words. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
OK. I've moved the entry to Appendix:Minderico, but left the language code as-is. - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Sum of partsEdit

I've generally only done that when it's stood out as notable and recurrently used over years in different contexts. "Individual racism" is an important concept especially now with pushes to narrow the definition of racism from its previously broad past to only refer to systemic/historic ones. Fake family units are a much more notable concept than fake motorcycle licenses. The latter has not come up as the main concept of several movies and present political issues.

SoP is a potentially very broad objection which could result in the loss of many useful pages if the basis was that we shouldn't recognize compound words and just let people figure it out for themselves. ScratchMarshall (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Kermanic language codesEdit

Hey -sche, could I get you to comment on Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium#Kermanic_language_codes? Thanks! --Victar (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Lexicography requests?Edit

Hello, I just saw your edits to absolute and I thought it was some excellent work, so I was wondering if I could come to you with requests about overhauling particularly lacking English entries every once in a while. I totally get it if you don't, after seeing the amount of redlinks on your page haha. If you're interested, I would ask you to take a look at inconsistent. Ultimateria (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome to make requests. :) I may or may not have time to fulfill them, but I'll give it a shot! I've taken a crack at inconsistent. (It may still be missing a mathematical sense, for "inconsistent equations".) - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Kiwima should be able to help with that missing sense. (And feel free to ping me for anything in the natural sciences.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the edits! Per utramque cavernam 21:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit, -sche, and for the offer, Meta! I've been around forever but I'm *very* slowly building up a network of support haha Ultimateria (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you look at disservice now? I want to add some cites, but the defs aren't very good. Ultimateria (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I've combined all the definitions, some of which didn't make sense ("ill office"?); I suppose service that unintentionally proves detrimental could be split from service that is intentionally injurious, but none of the other dictionaries I checked have more than one sense. - -sche (discuss) 20:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would like to request some rewriting at salty. It has a somewhat unprofessional air at the moment. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    I've been thinking about how to tweak it, sorry for not replying sooner. It seems difficult to distinguish "Irritated, annoyed" from "Indignant or offended". I might just cut "said of interlocutors expressing indignation, or merely disagreement" altogether, merge the senses and move the etymological theories to the etymology: "Sense _ is perhaps from the sharp, spicy flavor of salt, or from the salty tears a person so described is accused of crying." - -sche (discuss) 07:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you take a look at reverential? I especially can't figure out the relationship between it and reverent. Ultimateria (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    Hmm, this is an interesting case, because some authorities claim a difference, but there doesn't seem to be one in practice, at least that I've been able to discern so far. I've put my findings at Talk:reverent. - -sche (discuss) 22:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

"Lives" in the context of life insuranceEdit

Re: diff. Since you ask, yes: this terminology is still used in life insurance today. But it refers not to a policy but to a life assured (a somewhat subtle difference that only matters when discussing joint life contracts). I've edited life accordingly. :-) -Stelio (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Neat; thanks! I wonder if those are distinct senses, though. The Century Dictionary is where I found the sense, as "an insurance on a person's life; a life insurance policy". Does one speak of renewing a life assured, or of an assured life lapsing? If so, I guess it is best handled as the same sense, but for comparison: I asked some baseball fans about the baseball sense to see if it was still current, and they insisted it would only ever have been metaphor, like "the mistake gave the batter new life", because that's the only way they were familiar with it — but old examples make clear (IMO) it had a different (specific, idiomatic) sense a century ago.
Btw, from the usage notes on life assured, it looks like that entry itself may really be two senses that belong in two different entries, life assured and assured life...
- -sche (discuss) 16:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
That's a good point. When life insurance started, it will have been only single life (with joint life a later innovation, although I don't have records to say how later). As such, the idea of a "life" being a life assured could be equivalent to a policy. So perhaps there's a sense of "a life assured" (still in use) and a separate sense (by extension, obsolete) "a life insurance policy". That seems a fine stance to take, given citations, and I'd be happy with that.
Heh, I added the entry for life assured just before posting here. ;-) It felt to me like "life assured" was a valid entry but that "assured lives" is more sum-of-parts (lives that are assured). It was a subjective stance. -Stelio (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


I suspect our bad Thai IP is now using a French IP- the style of their Verlan edits and their obsession with adding inflection templates to anything that moves are very suggestive. Unfortunately, my German isn't good enough to tell if their German edits make any sense. Please have a look. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a mixed bag, e.g. the declension of Scheiß was wrong, Scheiße was merely lacking a header, and fixing the POS of qqn seems helpful. The edits to e.g. and p. ex. were misguided but the sort of understandable mistakes a relatively new user (who had just edited labels and seen {{abbreviation of}} in other entries) might make... but the haphazard interests of the IP and the quick arrival at that editor's favored topic of verlan, suggest it might not be a new user at all. - -sche (discuss) 14:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


Thanks so much for your formatting assistance on Iroquois! I'd kept trying to mark it in the IPA template itself, to multitudinous error messages. 05:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you think about {{tlb}}?Edit

Following diff. Do you think that it is only to be used for multi-sense terms, provided the categorization is not different (which it is when for example writing rare or archaic)? {{lb}} is probably more visible for you, on the other hand this largely rests on old habits and we could deploy {{tlb}} further to make it more familiar and it or a predecessor probably should have been used much earlier. Fay Freak (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

When I created it (as Template:term-context, back in the era of Template:context), I envisioned it as enabling a distinction between e.g. entirely archaic words/spellings vs still-common terms with a single archaic sense, and as enabling not having lengthy not-meaning-specific labels like "American spelling" or "British spelling" take up space in front of all the meanings of especially a highly polysemous word with other labels like [[realize]]. (I am surprised at how much it's caught on, which still isn't that much.)
To me, "bally means balaclava in MLE" feels more like sense/definition/"meaning"-specific information, like disco fries being a NJ/NY term and hence also {{label}}led on the sense-line even though it only has one sense — because terms in dialects could have or develop other senses that aren't limited to the dialect, like stoop or favor do (and having the label in the same place in disco fries and stoop seems helpful to me). Whereas, something like "flavour is a British spelling" is what feels like term-level information to me, since it's unlikely flavour would develop a sense that wasn't limited to British spelling.
But it is debatable, and using {{tlb}} on bally is arguably consistent with what the documentation of that template says. Maybe we should change the documentation, or maybe that's how the template has come to be used / how people want to use it and and I should change my ideas about it. - -sche (discuss) 08:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Are quotation templates reference templates?Edit

Yesterday, you renamed a template to be {{R:pi:Sai Kam Mong}}. Now, I had decided not to give it a name like that because it is not being used in a reference section (under '===References==='), but as an expansion of '#* Quotations' in WT:EL. I had half-expected to need a prefix 'Q:', but that is not defined. Are you sure this template deserves an 'R:' prefix?

If it does, there's the group of templates that invoke it that I should probably similarly rename. I'm making the texts that I have work very hard, but as at the moment I'm just using them to confirm the spelling of known words in a less familiar script, I don't think it is unreasonable to work them hard.

Alternatively, this template, but not its invokers, deserves the 'R' prefix because it can be used to define a citation by giving it no arguments. I don't think I will use that functionality, but it's there in case anyone needs it. Please advise. - RichardW57 (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I initially interpreted it as a reference template, because the displayed content made it look like one, and then I didn't have time to reformat it as a {{quote-book}} template when I saw that that was what it was aiming at, so I posted a note on WT:RFM. It looks like it should be formatted as a "RQ" template; I will try to help you with that. - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


Ya. It's late, and I'm feeling stupider than normal after a few longer-than-normal weeks IRL. I appreciate your patience. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


Hi, in this edit made back in March, you left a comment "will specify with glosses shortly" under the "Verb > Notes" section of use, referring to the senses that are pronounced /juːs/ rather than /juːz/. It seems you never got back to do that, with the result that the note is presently in a somewhat unclear state. It is also not clear what "respectively" refers to, and not very clear in what situations "use" in "did not use" is pronounced as /juːs/. I could try and fix it up myself, but perhaps you may remember exactly what you had in mind and may prefer to complete it yourself. Mihia (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. The part about glosses was just that I intended to provide a terse gloss of (the former) "sense 1" etc in place of those numbers, since numbers are subject to change (indeed, my edit reordered the definitions). The old note claimed that both the "habituate" and "habitually do / employ" senses were pronounced with /s/, but I'm only familiar with "habituate" being pronounced that way, so that's the only sense I've edited the usage note to say has that pronunciation. "Respectively" seems superfluous and I removed it, and indeed rewrote the note. "Did not use" would be pronounced with /s/ in a sentence like "the soldiers did not use [=habituate] to the hard weather", I think. But please revise it further, or let me know, if there are still nay problems (or omissions) ... :) - -sche (discuss) 01:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it. I think the second sense pronounced as /juːs/ was supposed to be the "I used to like her" sense, with negative "I didn't use to like her" (their example presently "I used to get things done"). Do you not pronounce that one as /juːs/? I also question the statement that the "to accustom; to habituate" sense (the other "used to" sense) "is now found chiefly in the past tense, and as a past participle". As far as I can think, this sense is only nowadays used as a past participle, as in "I am used to hard work". Did you have an example of ordinary modern past tense use in mind? It could be that I am misunderstanding something here. Mihia (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


-sche, how should we move forward with mw:Extension:PageNotice? --Victar (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. If you want it installed, file a request on Phabricator, and link to the two discussions to show that there's consensus/support for installing it. (If the folks on Phabricator want a clearer show of consensus we could run a straw poll or vote.) - -sche (discuss) 01:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I... have no clue how to do that. @Erutuon, do you think you could help with that? --Victar (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
There's already a request here. You can post on the thread there. It's less threatening than having to post a whole request. — Eru·tuon 02:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

More details on your revert for "gender"?Edit

Hi -sche, last week you reverted my edit on gender, but your explanations did not answer my questions, so I added more details. Can you give more details? I understand that you find it "a bit tricky to define all these words" but I does not seem to me to be a valid reason to revert a change trying to make the definition clearer (by removing its circular aspects). I'm tempted to reproduce my modification and then wait for you to provide appropriate explanations for the non-change. 09:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I outlined the problems with your change on the talk page, in more detail than you quote, but thanks for the poke: in thinking about this some more, it occurs to me that we could perhaps just replace "male/masculine" with "a man", and solve several issues at once; I will suggest that on the talk page. - -sche (discuss) 19:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the answer. I appreciate that you propose a modification to solve the issue, however I still have questions that I detailed on the talk page. Lboukoko (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Vowel allophones?Edit

Hey -sche. I just had a question about the pronunciation of the vowel "o" in different areas.

I understand that the general rule is that the vowel is pronounced as /oʊ/ in North America (aside from in the South, where it is pronounced /ɛʊ/, and aside from some parts of the Upper Midwestern and at least one area in the Western United States where it is pronounced /oː/) and generally as /əʊ/ in the United Kingdom (except in Scottish English, where it is pronounced /oː/, and except in wholly [in regular RP speakers], where it is pronounced [ɒʊ̯]). I know that there are variations on these, but they are beside the point here.

My question is this: have you heard of any North American English dialects that have /əʊ/ as an allophone of /oʊ/ depending on the environment that the sound is in? I ask this, because I notice this as being a natural part of my own speech (something that I am working to correct, actually). It's hard to explain, but like I said, in some environments, I pronounce "o" as /oʊ/, whereas in others, I pronounce it as /əʊ/. For example, unless I am being self-conscious, I pronounce go as /gəʊ/. With that said, /oʊl/ is always /oʊl/, never /əʊl/ (as far as I can tell) in my speech (although that may be because, when I was younger, I had a tendency to merge /ʌl/ and /oʊl/ to /oʊl/). There are other examples of this, but I can't think of any specific examples off of the top of my head.

Do you have any clue as to what might be going on? Tharthan (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of such a phenomenon, sorry, though it wouldn't surprise me if certain phonological environments pulled the diphthong in one direction or the other in certain dialects. Searching for any mention of it in literature is made difficult by the frequency with which /əʊ/ vs /oʊ/ is discussed; the closest thing I spot is a book saying that some English people use [ɒʊ] in cold, bolt etc in contrast to [əʊ] in code, etc. - -sche (discuss) 22:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


I found an edition of the work that contained the cite with different, more modern spellings (of other words) that was published by the Hakluyt Society. Hakluyt used that spelling often in most of his works. DCDuring (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Algonquian templatesEdit

Hey, did you ever create a header template for any Algonquian languages? I'm looking for something to use for Munsee verbs, like kwáxkăkeew. --{{victar|talk}} 02:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Or any templates for Algonquian languages for that matter. --{{victar|talk}} 17:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to respond to this earlier. No, I don't recall creating any templates besides reference templates. - -sche (discuss) 19:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

water translation "Soi"Edit

Do you know what this is? "soj" isn't a valid language code and "Soi" isn't a language name. DTLHS (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's see... I added it in diff, using the translation-adder script, at which time it was a code, but then it was removed as a code in diff following this, but I evidently didn't catch the use on [[water]]. I'll fix it up now; thanks for catching it. - -sche (discuss) 18:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


I'm sorry to bother you on this matter, because I think that we might have touched on this slightly once before quite some time ago, but I have a very particular question. It is about something that I feel ought to have been something that I learnt early on, but nevertheless never did.

When we transcribe words such as bottom (/ˈbɒtəm/ or the like) kingdom (/ˈkɪŋdəm/), mumble (/mʌmbəl/), etc., we use the schwa to transcribe their final vowel. Perhaps there is something up with my dialect (or, perhaps, my idiolect) because I don't quite understand how /ə/ in this instance is a different sound than /ʌ/. Is it anything like how, at least in my dialect, just in the middle of a sentence can be /d͡ʒʌst/ ~ /d͡ʒʊst/? But I was under the impression that /ə/ was supposed to be used to represent a distinct vowel per se...

Similarly, when we transcribe a word like fighter ([ˈfʌɪtɚ]/[ˈfʌɪtəɹ]), we transcribe the "er" as /ɚ/ or /əɹ/. I fail to understand how this isn't the same sound as /ɝ/. Conversely, I fail to see how, when /ɚ/ / /əɹ/ is realised in a non-rhotic dialect / in a situation where a non-rhotic pronunciation is used in a semi-rhotic dialect (such as mine), how this plain /ə/ is different from /ʌ/ (as I said earlier).

In other words, if I were to say "I'm not any better than you" fully pronounced, and then you were to ask me to give a rough transcription of that, I would transcribe that either as (and this is more narrowly transcribed than usual, but a. this is not as narrow as I could transcribe it, and b. to this day I still have trouble properly indicating certain things in transcription, therefore I have this marked with slashes rather than square brackets) /ɑi̯m nɑt ɛni bɛtɝ ðæn ju/ or /ɑi̯m nʌt ɛni bɛtɝ ðæn ju/ (I have told you previously about the complicated situation in my dialect with the realisation of historical /ɒ/. My dialect doesn't have /ɒ/, unlike the dialect of, say, Boston. It does seem to have once been present where I live, but not for a very long time. In modern times, my dialect realises historical /ɒ/ as /ɔ/ [a sound which is not present in, say, the Boston dialect, because--in that dialect--it merged with /ɒ/ instead; a form of cot-caught merger] in words like dog and foster (my father, who is originally from a different New England state technically--but comes from a part of that state that is not particularly far from the "dividing line" between the state that I and my mother are from, and his original state--, pronounces chocolate as /ˈt͡ʃɔklᵻt/, whereas my mother pronounces it as /ˈt͡ʃɑklᵻt/. This was sometimes the subject of casual conversation {usually my mother noting the difference in pronunciation between them for that word} when I and my sibling were young] It realises it as /ɑ/ in a whole lot of words, but in some cases it realises it as /ʌ/ in those very same words. This is particularly true with particularly older speakers of the dialect, although I clearly recall that there were other people my age that I knew during high school that pronounced got, gotten, and similar words with /ʌ/ in some instances. Furthermore, as I may have told you before, my mother always pronounces the name of the cartoon sailorman, Popeye as /ˈpʌp.aɪ/, stressed or unstressed. I ought to note that my father's dialect does not do this; historical /ɒ/ is /ɔ/ or /ɑ/ depending upon the particular word for him. There is no /ʌ/ realisation of it).

If I were to say the same line, but in unstressed speech, and you then were to ask me to give a rough transcription of that, I would transcribe that either as (and forgive my butchering here. I'm not great at transcribing casually spoken sentences) /ɑi̯mˈnɑʔn̩ibɛɾʌˌðɘ̞nju/ or /ɑi̯mˈnʌʔn̩ibɛɾʌˌðɘ̞nju/ (I'm just loosely using /ɘ̞/ here to stand for a vague representation of a sound in between /ɛ/ and /ʌ/. I don't know how I ought to transcribe that).

Keep in mind that I don't have the hurry-furry merger. It is for that very reason that I would get confused if we used "/əɹ/" in the middle of a word in a transcription. Would /əɹ/ represent the /ɝ/ (I'm not saying that /ɝ/ is an accurate transcription here for this) that it seems to when it is at the end of a word if it were to potentially be in the middle of a word, or would it represent /ʌɹ/ in that situation?

The -burgh suffix in placenames like Edinburgh would be said as [standard transcription, not my transcription] "/bʌɹə/" where I live. Yet, in British English, it is /bəɹə/ (or /bɹə/). The British pronunciation of borough is closer to my pronunciation of (in certain placenames) -burgh (in my dialect of New England English, borough would be /ˈbʌɹoʊ/). My mother and younger sister pronounce bureau as [standard transcription, not my transcription] /ˈbjʊɹ.ə/, so I wonder if there were words ending in -ough that were pronounced similarly (thoroughly is the only word that I can think of like that generally). So why are rough and tough not transcribed as /rəf/ and /təf/?

..Anyway, this can cause some trouble for me when I am transcribing words here on Wiktionary, because it sometimes seems arbitrary whether or not to use /ə/ for an o or the like when it seems to call for such a vowel, because, for instance, o can also be pronounced as /ʌ/ in some words as well.

Might you be able to help clear this up somewhat? Tharthan (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

After looking at our entry for come on, and reading the pronunciations given, I think that I notice an oh-so-slight difference. I seem to realise whatever /ə/ is (in the unstressed pronunciation of "come" in "come on") as a sound that is fairly close to /ʊ/, but that I recognise is not actually /ʊ/. I don't know how else to describe it. Perhaps this is what I am doing with the word "just" which I sometimes pronounce differently than /d͡ʒʌst/ when I am speaking casually or swiftly. I would have represented that casual pronunciation as /d͡ʒʊst/ if you had asked me to transcribe it, but perhaps "/d͡ʒəst/" would be more accurate (I won't use narrow transcription there, because I don't actually know what the vowel actually is in my case). Tharthan (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
When I learned (the basics of) IPA I initially had trouble distinguishing /ə/ from /ʊ/. I have learned it by convention (mainly based on stress) but it still seems to me that my own "neutral vowel" is very close to /ʊ/. Equinox 03:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


Sorry if this edit was a bit confusing. Saw someone inserting wild shit like "Soros funded Transgenderism!!" the other day. Should have wrote things like cultural Marxism for a comparison. Tsumikiria 🌹🌉 22:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Grammatical descriptionEdit

Dear -sche. Concerning λύνομαι format.I have often found it difficult to place the grammatical 'recognition' or description of words in en.wiktionary: there is etymology, there is headwοrd line, there are definition lines, but there is no 'grammatical description' line. As in la:legendum or la:caveat. As here before it was changed. I do not mind following each wiktionary's style and instructions. But I would like an 'identity card' of the lemma, well, for greek -I do not know about other languages- Just a thought. --sarri.greek (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

New Austronesian language codesEdit

Hello! I heard you are good with creating new language codes and extending ancestor trees. Could you do the following?

  • Create Proto-Central Malayo-Polynesian, Proto-Flores-Sumba-Hawu, Proto-Sumba-Hawu, Proto-Sumba.
  • Add a bunch of Sumbanese languages as descendants of all these proto-languages? Kambera (xbr), Wanukaka (wnk), Wewewa (wew), Lamboya (lmy), Kodi (kod). Ketiga123 (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Proto-Central Malayo-Polynesian was deleted as a separate language and merged into Proto-Central-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian last year following Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/February#Proto-Central_Malayo-Polynesian and Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/January#Redundant_Austronesian_entities. Are the others valid genetic (not areal) groupings, and not redundant / excessively fine-grained? I don't know if I have time to check right now. User:Tropylium, I think you are our resident expert (or one of them, at least), do you have an opinion on which of these should be added? - -sche (discuss) 00:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
While I don't know much about the CMP area in particular, as a rule of thumb, Glottolog agrees on recognizing the Sumba, Sumba-Hawu and Flores-Sumba-Hawu groups, which seems like a good enough starting point. Also consider though how different these stages are from each other: if only slightly, I'd like to remind OP about the possibility to treat some proto-languages as dialects of others. --Tropylium (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tropylium: I am not sure I am following your line of thought. Are you suggesting to place Flores-Sumba-Hawu directly under Central-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian? Ketiga123 (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Unless there have been some kind of new arguments in favor of treating CMP (or something else) as a real subgroup and not just an areal unit within ECMP, then yes. --Tropylium (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Alright. Can we create the rest of the groupings? I am planing to expand Lamboya and Wanukaka a bit later. Ketiga123 (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

krakum/krakun and ya(b)bosEdit

The translation table of turkey gives krakum for Akan (not Aukan!), whose initial cluster is a good match for Sranan Tongo krakun. Do you know whether a direct descent of the Sranan term from Akan is likely, as opposed to a borrowing from Dutch (which I suppose is possible, l > r is especially common)? A Twi influence on the Surinamese creoles is generally accepted as far as I know. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, the item yabos on your wanted list seems like a rare form of yabbos. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "-sche".