Last modified on 17 April 2015, at 09:58

User talk:Chuck Entz



Welcome! Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  • How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


What’s the matter? --Romanophile (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, we only have lemmas at the "I" spellings, so there's no point in adding it to the translations. That's not to say that we shouldn't have an alt-spelling/form entry for it, but anyone clicking on the "Jesus" link in the translation is going to be disappointed- why waste their time? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


First of all, thanks for the warnings. I'm not an experienced user on this project but I'm gradually adapting to how things work here; so if I do something wrong, please do not hesitate to correct me.

I copied terms from Wikipedia's annex and created entries about them, each containing an etymology section created through {{confix}}. These phobia-describing terms are not hard to get, since most of them only have two morphemes: -phobia plus an also Greek prefix, leaving solely the task of finding out if the prefix exists and has an actual usage. Also, I always knew these templates add categories to the entries. Whether the criterion used by Wikipedia is the same used by us or not, it seems that reliable sources making use the term are enough to create an entry, since labels such as (rare), (non-standard) etc. can be used to warn the term is not a normally used or widely-accepted one, although certain circumstances allow it to be applied or "invented". - Alumnum (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope. See WT:CFI. I'll be very suprised if even half of your phobia entries are still here a month from now. I've begun removing your etymologies, because they're only based on a mechanical separation into parts, and because you've routinely misspelled the header. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "irregardless"Edit

The current version of the article shows a narrow transcription of the word with sounds which are not the phonemes of English ([ɨ], [ᵻ] are allophones of /ɪ/), and the transcription is in slashes, indicating it shows phonemes, not real speech sounds. I think it should be changed to square brackets. Zaqq (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Recent correction in LatinEdit

Dear Chuck,

My bad. It was an honest mistake, and I am still only learning Latin. I have contributed several hundred definitions to wiktionary, so one mistake in a thousand is not bad going. I am only human. It is a shame there is not more thanks, than criticism (however constructive it may be), on wikipedia.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Maxwell Lewis Latham Cert.H.E. (humanitas) with Classical History specialism. (a.k.a. Anglyn)

Rollback on word blasphemyEdit

Hi Chuck, Please reconsider your rollback on blasphemy. I revised it after checking five dictionaries, and three encyclopedias. Six of these sources are recent, that is published after 2010. I cited two, with quotes (Blasphemy, Meriam Webster (2012), Quote: "great disrespect shown to God or to something holy"; Blasphemy, in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2013), Quote: "Contemptuous or profane speech or action concerning God or a sacred entity.")

In secondary and tertiary literature, there is a difference between God, god and deity. A God is a deity, but a deity is not necessarily a God. A deity can be demigod, non-god, natural object, etc. Please check if after your revert, you have inadvertently returned the page to something with original research and POV, in light of the most widely accepted, predominant meaning of the word blasphemy. RLoutfy (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't have the same rules regarding reliable sources or original research that Wikipedia has: if a term is demonstrably in use with a given meaning, it doesn't matter what authoritative references say- we include that term and/or meaning. You can find dozens of uses of the phrase "blasphemy against the gods" (just to give one example) going back at least a century and a half, so the choice of verbiage in other dictionaries' definitions is irrelevant. As for POV, you're the one who's drawing arbitrary lines excluding certain religions- I don't see anything in the semantics of the term that would limit it to monotheism. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
My concern is WT:NPOV policy, which the blasphemy page is currently violating. The word "God" is not on the page, even though that is the predominant context for the word blasphemy. I suggest we add that context as well, or take our dispute to the tea house.
How about adding 4. Disrespect, contemptuous or profane speech or action concerning God or a sacred entity? RLoutfy (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Your thoughts on above blasphemy page dispute would be appreciated in the Tea house. See: Wiktionary:Tea_room/2015/January#Blasphemy. RLoutfy (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi, I wanted to tell you that profanity doesn't always mean that someone or someone swearing by using delicate language that could offend people. I'm pretty sure it can be something other than that like vulgar for example.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Why did you delete my addition of the French female form for Prime Minister?Edit

In Québec the female form was used while they had a woman Prime minister, however I'm not aware if the form was or has ever been used outside of Canada. -- Sion8 (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Because we don't link to both genders in translation tables, just as we don't link to plurals, or to different tenses for verbs. The idea is that one clicks on the one gender to go to an entry that has the rest of the information. The entry for premier ministre was missing the feminine form, so I added it just now. We apparently don't have an entry for première ministre yet, but I don't know enough about how French entries for feminine forms are formatted to feel comfortable creating it. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, for nouns we do link to both genders, because they're considered separate nouns. —CodeCat 03:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

horned frogEdit

It really is used synonymously with horned lizard, at least in Texas for the Texas horned lizard. It is especially because it is a misnomer that it merit an entry in Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

Original Barnstar Hires.png Barnstar
For all the work you're doing to add entries to topical categories, and include them in more specific categories. —CodeCat 02:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Splitting categories into subcategoriesEdit

e.g. the trees and plants. I see how this adds precision; however, is there now a way for me to say "show me all entries that are trees", without having to go through the subcats separately? Equinox 23:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason I decided to do this is because there were over 300 entries in the category to start with, and I'm constantly finding more that would go there- there are at least twice that, now, and it could easily be a thousand or more. At some point, a category gets to have too many entries to be useful: going through multiple pages in a category isn't that much different from going through multiple subcategories, except subcategories are at least grouped by some recognizable criteria. There are several of my category names that could probably be improved to make them more meaningful to non-experts, but I still think they're an improvement. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you think it would be useful to have some kind of general standard for how many entries should be in a topical category, both at a minimum and maximum? —CodeCat 23:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
That's really just a limitation of the technology (in terms of retrieval times, or how many to display to a user on one page). I don't see why dictionary categories, like real-world categories, can't be enormous. I just think it would be nice to have a way to retrieve "everything in this category and all of its children". Equinox 23:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Request to Add New Subcategory "LWT" within LDLEdit

Chuck, these are my thoughts on the matter. Please let me know if it is appropriate to cut-and-paste the comments into the Beer Parlour, or whether I should just link to my own talk page, as I am doing here. Also, please tell me if you think I need to clarify anything.

"Request to Add New Subcategory "LWT" within LDL", URL accessed on 2015-01-19.

Emi-Ireland (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

We need to replace brackets by proper templatesEdit

With few exceptions, our entry-to-entry links are more precise if referring to specific language sections instead of the vague multilingual page. The {{l/xx|}} template can do this, but most of our links use double square brackets [[ ]]. I think we need to fix this and make our links more specific. Can bots do this work? I don't know much about them. Maybe if we put warnings in editing pages discouraging users to add the brackets, it would be also heplful. - Alumnum (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

While I sort of agree with you, there are tradeoffs: templates add a layer of complexity/overhead that some people dislike. On pages with lots of linked terms, it can actually slow down the loading of the page enough to be a problem. And there's the matter of centralizing things: if something happens to Module:links (a typo, or even an accidental deletion), every use of {{l}} and {{m}} will display a module error, and the diagnostic categories will be useless for weeks after it's fixed. Also, templates take more typing and have more details to keep track of, so there will always be people that would prefer not to use them, and who would resent anything they might perceive as an attempt to pressure them into their use.
As for using a bot: most plain wikilinks go to English sections, but a significant minority don't, and it's hard for a bot to tell the difference in many cases.
None of the technical problems are really an obstacle, but politically, any attempt to change things systematically will be met with opposition- some of it quite vehement. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. Regarding the agreement problem, I understand that the community may not appreciate the idea of pressuring users into doing something they aren't used to, and that's because I thought of bots too. I have a loose idea about how bots work, but I think it is enough if they can be programmed to differentiate between English sections and foreign languages' sections and within the latter, definitions (which are in English) between related terms (which refer to words in the foreign language concerned). - Alumnum (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
A less radical approach would be to target the use of {{l}} to those links to non-English, non-Translingual terms on pages that actually had more than one language section now. A bot would be perfect for a task that was so defined. This would give us maximum benefit, minimal performance penalty, minimum need to change behavior, and probably maximum consensus. DCDuring TALK 21:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Chiasma rollbackEdit

Hi, just wanted to ask why you decided to undo this edit:

I thought a link to chi in the etymology would be helful and unobtrusive. Thanks. Attys (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It was the "Etymology 1" part that was the problem. Since anyone can add, remove or rearrange the sections at any time, linking to etmologies is unreliable: Etymology 1 could be Etymology 2 a few minutes from now. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

re: your profile blurb, phonetics/written alphabets, pain and sufferingEdit

This is not WP relevant, but I thought might be of interest to you personally: At some moment, having studied Korean and then right after exploring Aymara, I was fascinated on how Aymara could be written with Hangul characters better IMHO than with the so far practice of using some concocted variant of Roman (like tt, t', k, kk, etc). Then, conversing with one of the greatest specialists on Aymara linguistics, and quite a brilliant ethnologist on his own right (name escapes at this moment), he mentioned that even better than Hangul is Mongolian, there being some strange semantic parallels even! Different subject, reading this page, it seems you do quite a few deletions. I assume that it's pain that makes people cry, and the fact that you do many, many more corrections than deletions simply doesn't get the credit it deserves, true? Yamaplos (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with Aymara, but, in general, Hangul is pretty good at handling all the fairly simple syllable structures, so any language without complex consonant clusters or diphthongs/long vowels fares pretty well. If you tried to use it on some of the languages around the Caucasus or in the Pacific Northwest (e.g.Bella Coola), I think it would get truly ugly in a hurry.
On your last point: I don't feel misunderstood. Most of my patrolling of recent edits really is destructive rather than constructive- by the time I've taken care of all the vandalism and revertable stuff, I don't have much time/energy to work on the salvageable edits. It's not that I take a meat axe to anything that's not perfect, though: if something is more of a judgment call or is okay aside from needing work, I tend to leave it and go on in search of the more obvious problem edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Kephir pulling my chain againEdit

Kephir (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks)

Apparently, it wasn't clear to Kephir that he should stay away from me. He's been edit-warring with me over the categorization of enumeration with the category Category:en:Statistics. When I tried to explain to him why enumeration belongs in that category, he just undid me and deleted comments from his page. Twice. I am 100% certain that enumeration belongs in the statistics category, as part of the field of statistics involves enumerating things, so Kephir edit-warring with me on this is perplexing. The only two explanations I can see for it are 1) he doesn't really understand what statistics means (this might be borne about by his nomination of the probability and statistics categories for merger), or 2) he's just trying to fuck with me yet again. But the fact that he refuses to dialogue on this is troubling, and more evidence of the fact that the project would be better off without him as an administrator. Purplebackpack89 22:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

So "he should stay away from [you]" but you're justified in telling him on his talk page that he isn't allowed to interact with you? Equinox 22:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not the one who told him to stay away from me on his talk page. In the thread "PB(&J)P89", other users said it. But you're sidestepping the issue and trying to make this about me, when this is about Kephir's continual harassment of me. Purplebackpack89 22:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
No, it's a simple content dispute, with both sides on a hair trigger due to past interactions. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
...But I can't resolve said content dispute because Kephir disruptively pawns off anything I say on his talk page as vandalism. This wouldn't be a problem if Kephir was actually discussing this; he's currently making Marshawn Lynch look verbose. It wouldn't have happened if Kephir had left articles I edited alone; if my edits need to be monitored (which they don't, really), somebody who's less disruptive than he can do it. And it wouldn't have happened if Kephir hadn't poisoned the well with a series of bad blocks. That is why I think Kephir needs to stay away from me. I don't actively seek out his mainspace contributions and undo them, so there's not really a lot more staying away from him I need to do. Purplebackpack89 22:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not a neutral dispute between two equally valuable parties. It is clear from past interactions that you see yourself as some infallible godlike figure — you have never admitted to making a mistake, unlike most of us — and anybody's disagreement with you is taken to be some kind of wiki-crime that must be punished with removal of rights, etc. The fact is that sometimes you are wrong or misguided. But I might as well try arguing with David Koresh. Equinox 08:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you're hyperbolizing, Equinox. I also think you're ignoring the problem in this case. The problem here is that Kephir treated my edits (as he's apparently treating all my edits nowadays) as bad-faith edits that should be reverted without explanation. That's not acceptable. And don't say I didn't give any reason for why my edits should be the way they are; look at the subthread below (and, since you're an admin, you can also see the comments I made on Kephir's talk page that he deleted). And why's there some pervasive need to admit anything? Isn't just not editing the page to favor my way of looking at things enough? Purplebackpack89 15:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • 1) I don't remember Kephir admitting mistakes, but maybe memory fails me on this. 2) Kephir's undo at enumeration lacking meaningful edit summary was poor form, as was his subsequent removal of comments from his talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • 3) Yes, Purperbackpack89 is sometimes wrong. He also shows capacity for adjustment, as he did with his signature. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Argument in favor of enumeration being in Category:en:StatisticsEdit

Statistics aren't just all rates and averages and stuff like that, sometimes they are counts. The process of tabulating head-count statistics is enumeration. Ergo, enumeration should be in Category:en:Statistics. Purplebackpack89 23:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Although I can see room for disagreement on whether the concept of enumeration is within the realm of statistics, I think the categorization should go at enumerate, rather than at enumeration, if it should be placed anywhere. As for the merits: even though an enumeration produces statistics, it doesn't actually do anything statistical with them, so I see Kephir's point. It's really a form of measurement, like determining the weight, length, width, or height of something. Of course it's common practice to follow enumeration with statistical analysis, but then, that's also true of sports- there's nothing statistical about a tackle, but play-by-play announcers may very well discuss the statistical background or results of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Why didn't User:Kephir himself make that argument, and make it hours ago? Also, I think that tackles and free throws and field-goal percentage and quarterback rating should eventually be added to the category Category:en:Sports statistics when it is created. Purplebackpack89 23:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

diuca speculiferaEdit

Hi dear Chuck Entz, diuca speculifera isn't "buzulkuşu"! 88.XXX.XXX.XXX huge liar! --123snake45 (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Why I did not fix that manuallyEdit

Apperantly these seven edits do not solve the problem, and thus I have not performed them: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No, but posting a description of the problem to the Grease pit would be far more effective, and you can link to diffs showing how it looked before they were corrected without leaving module errors in seven entries.Chuck Entz (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a long time since but ...Edit

Hi, I've just checked in here after a long absence and I noticed this. I am not up to speed with the requirements of this project but I have a certain degree of expertise when it comes to caste claims etc, which is pretty much my specialism on English Wikipedia. I really do not understand how a bunch of names, which bear no particular relation to anything in particular, can be deemed acceptable. Despite appearances, the list consists mostly of names that are used by a variety of caste communities and not necessarily even those connected to the Kshatriya varna (ie: one of the four fundamental divisions in Vedic Hindu society). Really, the list is a nonsense at worst, highly misleading at best.

What am I missing? Can anyone say anything here? Could I add my own last name to the list with impunity? - Sitush (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Appendices such as this one which have been transferred from Wikipedia are a recurring problem. Yes, there's no doubt a great deal of nonsense in this page, but you can't just wipe it out in one edit all on your own. The proper thing to do is nominate it for deletion by adding the template {{rfd}}, then click on the "+" the template provides to start a discussion on the Requests for deletion page. You should explain it in such a way that someone without your expertise can see that it's not worth keeping, in spite of the high amount of interest in it by anonymous editors. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Ha! Thanks for the explanation. Anonymous editors fiddling with caste cruft are prolific in most WMF projects. It might be easier to prove a point by adding my own name and see how long it stays there. Explaining to the unacquainted why it is that the appendix is useless would require a lengthy essay, beginning with concepts such as why many Indian contributors mistakenly think that a name is a marker of a caste, which in fact has obvious problems because, for example, Helen Reddy is not connected to the Reddy caste. Doubtless, though, there is some equivalent here to this. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


Basically, you asked for it. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

I appreciate the message you left on my page, i am reading the materials to better acquaint me with the Wiktionary platform hence to improve my contributions on here.Flixtey (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


Please explain edit revert. DGtal (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Interwikis for entries have to be exactly the same spelling. I know that Hebrew Wiktionary has their entries arranged differently, but, as I understand it, that's the way things work here. Our interwiki bot doesn't run as often as it should, but when it does, it's going to remove such interwikis when it finds them. Feel free to ask about this at the Information desk or the Beer parlour- there's always the possibility my understanding is out of date. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Revert on mum's the wordEdit

Hi, I was wondering if you could explain your recent revert of my edit to mum's the word. I had added the section link to the specific etymology of mum that was being referred to. Without the section, the link just goes to the page for mum, which is, of course, less focused. I'm a bit new to Wiktionary—are section links not normally used in the term template? Or is it something else entirely? Thanks. –Boomur [colloquia] 22:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Because anyone can add, delete, and/or rearrange the Etymology sections at any time, you can't really depend on Etymology 3 being the same Etymology 3 you meant to link to. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand, though it seems a bit silly that there's no workaround. How about at least linking to #English? –Boomur [colloquia] 03:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi. The Italien word is pustola [9].

Yes, but has pustula never been used in Italian by anyone? I suspect it may be an alternate or obsolete form, though I'll leave that to the people at Requests for verification. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

them -idsEdit

When I did all those zoology -ids (which have probably done more than anything else, except possibly the minerals, to help me chase SemperBlotto's edit count) I thought they'd sit there for years unedited by anyone. It's rather fun to see them come up in my watchlist when you go through doing the categories! I wonder if there is an -id-alike for plants, other than the occasional "genus name without capitals means a plant in that genus". Equinox 01:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm on itEdit

Fixing it now :) Thanks. --Antwoord (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

All fixed, thanks for helping me :) --Antwoord (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


if I add the italian etymological ref will you revert it also this time? --Tanet (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I had a few problems with the etymology you added. First of all, why did you have two numbered etymologies? We never format etymologies that way. If there are multiple possibilities, one might join the two with "or, alternatively,", "another possibility is...", or something along those lines. Having two seemingly mutually-exclusive etymologies with no explanation about their relationship to each other is just confusing, especially since we never use line numbers, bullets, etc. for etymologies. It didn't help that you had redlinked terms with no mention of what language they were (the language code was for Middle High German), and things seemed kind of disorganized, like you hadn't given much thought into how to fit them all together. It's true that the current etymology is a bit odd, to start with, but you didn't improve things.

Also, I was skeptical of the details of the etymology. I wasn't able to find guelcus in the Lewis & Short dictionary at Perseus, which means it must be Vulgar Latin (language code: "VL.") or Medieval Latin ("ML."), and the "gu" is typical of borrowings from Germanic languages (I should mention that language codes above can only be used in the {{etyl}} template- for the {{term}} or {{m}} templates, you would use the language code "la"). It looks to me like guelcus is the result of a word starting with "w" being borrowed from a Germanic language. The current etymology's choice of a Germanic source seems a bit of a stretch, semantically, but deriving this from guelcus isn't much better, because one is faced with the question of where guelcus itself came from. You might want to ask about this at the Etymology scriptorium.

The combination of bad formatting and jumbling of new and old information tipped the balance in favor of just reverting it so someone could start over. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


Please read the source before reverting. 'Moreover, "cup of joe" was first recorded as entering the English language in 1930, a full 16 years after the grumblings of disgruntled sailing men supposedly put the term into common parlance.'

'His General Order 99 that prohibited alcohol aboard such vessels was issued on 1 June 1914.'

So reverting my correction to saying that 'cup of joe' predates Josephus "Joe" Daniels order is historically wrong.

You changed part of the sentence without changing the rest of it, so that it made no sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad anonEdit

Your actions against are fully justified; diff is quite damning for the anon. The allegedly philosophical definition added by the anon was retarded continental nonsense inappropriate for this dictionary. You probably do not value my stance on this all that much, but anyway. Maybe you will get input from BD2412 as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the main reason I was asking for his opinion, rather than that of anyone I normally deal with, is that, in addition to being a veteran admin on multiple wikis, he also doesn't know me that well or owe me any favors, so he would have no reason to go easy on me. You certainly aren't known for going easy on me, so your opinion doesn't hurt, even if I may disagree with your opinions on the propriety of various actions by admins.
I wasn't happy with how things progressed: not all of the content was bad enough to merit reverting, but I was too tired to go through and edit out the bad stuff, and it was hard to figure out where to draw the line between difference of opinion and enforceable policy, so I just reverted all of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Error: Proto Malayo-Polynesian languageEdit

I recently created a page of an Old Javanese word wwe. There is an error when I try to add the etymology, regarding the Proto Malayo-Polynesian root. I think there is something missing about the ISO code for the proto language "poz". Thank you. NoiX180 (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

What's missing is the "-pro". The convention we use is that we add "-pro" to the family code to make the proto-language's code: in this case, Malayo-Polynesian is the family, with the code "poz", and Proto-Malayo-Polynesian is the proto-language, with the code "poz-pro". Families don't contain terms, since they're not a single language, but languages and proto-languages do. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Heading levelEdit

Hi Chuck Entz, why do you think Noun should be at the same level as Etymology 1? --Ngocminh.oss (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't. I overlooked that detail and forgot to check the entry after my revert. What I saw originally was one edit that did some weird stuff to the header levels, followed by another that undid some of that, but left it still wrong, so I reverted it. The real problem was that the first noun section wasn't just at the wrong header level, but an exact duplicate of the second noun section, which was in the wrong place. I've now fixed the arangement of the entry by putting the first noun section at the correct header level and removing the second one. I would highly recommend previewing your edits before saving, so you can make sure that your edit did what you wanted it to do. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for asking about this. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

deus theosEdit

Hey chuck, I know I'm probably not formatting the edit as perfectly as could be, but θεός as a general appellation of deities or divinities is translated, quite undisputedly, into Latin texts as deus.

(On the use of the singular Θεός (and Latindeus) as a generic term by (later) heathen writers, see Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, 2nd edition iii. addit. note D; cf. Dr. Ezra Abbot in Chris. Exam. for Nov. 1848, p. 389ff; Huidekoper, Judaism at Rome, chapter i. § ii.; see Bib. Sacr. for July 1856, p. 666f, and for addit. examples Nagelsbach, Homer. Theol., p. 129; also his Nachhomerische Theol., p. 139f; Stephanus' Thesaurus, under the word; and references (by Prof. Abbot) in the Journal of the Society for Biblical Literature and Exegesis, i., p. 120 note.) -Strong's Concordance

I realize that the similarities seem superficial on the surface (superficial superficiality?), but when you've got a Greek word being translated into a Latin word, and the two words look & sound so darn similar... & they actually mean the same thing... I think the similarities go a bit beyond superficial.. AS sarcastic as that may sound, I'd actually like to get this information in the page as effectively as possible, because Theos is of uncertain origin & that being the case, we're kind of obligated to explore all possible avenues. Disregarding the fact that the two words are essentially phonetic twins, any claims concerning similarities in origin would in fact be unattested. However, the similarities in usage & pronunciation (development) do merit some degree of significance & should not simply be overlooked.Lostubes (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lostubes: Hello there! I saw your recent edits and had a few questions and comments:
  • It is indeed the case that θεός is always translated into Latin as deus. This is, naturally, because they both are the most common words for "god" in their respective languages. I can say with great certainty, however, that the phonetic similarities imply very different origins. Much better and smarter minds than you or I (no offense intended) have carefully mapped the sound changes in these two languages more carefully perhaps than any other languages in history. I feel pretty confident that we know exactly how the sound laws and origins of each language work to the best of our abilities, and they just don't point to θεός and deus being related. I am always in favor of exploring other avenues of explanation, but there is no phonological evidence that they are related except a resemblance. If you can find more evidence in favor of this theory, by all means present it.
  • I'm curious about your disfavor of PIE. Through the comparative method and years and years of use, almost all linguists agree that this language existed and was the singular ancestor of many, many languages. What does it matter if it is unattested? If we can be sure to the best our knowledge that a form came from a particular reconstruction (in the case of deus we can be extremely sure), why does this bother you so much? I fear that you will not see a change in policy, but I do not want to discourage you from making your views known.
  • While I appreciate your edits to Yamato, they probably contain too much information for a single etymology section. I would not be surprised if your additions were heavily abridged. I won't touch them myself, as I know little of Japanese etymology, but I warn that they may be changed.
Please continue to contribute and edit! —JohnC5 05:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@JohnC5: You're totally right about the added information. I realize the edits are a bit rough, with yamato, I was just copy pasting info from other articles on wiki (scouring denshijisho etc.), but my thoughts are better the information be there and rough than not be there at all. As far as DEUS is concerned, I believe I've stated my reasons in the above statement. You said it yourself, Theos is always translated as Deus. I don't understand why it's so hard to realize how that is relevant... But yeah, if it's just going to be perpetually reverted, then I think a subsection denoting the similarities/differences would be in order.
  • sense evolution = etymologic significance
PIE disfavor? ....waitwait... okay, so the only difference between the PIE roots for these two words is "wo". *dhes & *dewos... are but a slight vowel sound apart... comparative to this & those... I don't disfasfavor PIE... I LOVE PIE... I'm just well aware that it's just an estimation. Words don't come from a reconstruction, the reconstruction is available as a comparative reference...
Again, I realize the first draft nature of some of my edits, but that's why I can edit in the first place, we are supposed to edit... If something is just plain wrong and uncited, then yeah, revert to the other more wrong uncited thing... whatever... that's fine... *slits wrists*. (just kidding, please improve the more right rough thing, that would be the more logical avenue)

(probably should have left the reverted edit in there, the one about how they aren't related... that's actually my mistake, but saying they aren't related & then saying they are seemed kind of...) Lostubes (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Re: Yamato, I have indeed reverted Lostubes' edits. The information given was irrelevant to the English entry, as it concerned how the term is spelled in Japanese. The changes also removed valid information about the term likely being related to Japanese term (yama, mountain), a word that has been in Japanese pretty much since there was anything identifiable as Japanese. This removal was given an edit summary about the Chinese term (shān), which is entirely irrelevant to the term Yamato and cast serious doubt on the linguistic veracity of the edit in question. (No offense meant, simply trying to describe how things looked.)
I understand the idea that “better the information be there and rough than not be there at all”, but it should be 1) in the right entry, and 2) be correct.  :) Click through to the Japanese entry 大和 (Yamato) and you'll see that much of the information you added is already listed.
FWIW, I'm doing some research into reconstructed Middle Chinese pronunciations of the characters used as w:Man'yōgana to get a better understanding of the likely sound values prevalent in Old Japanese. I suspect, for instance, that there was no term yamatai, that the -tai ending is a relatively recent misinterpretation based on relatively recent Chinese pronunciations, and that yamato has been the basic phonetic form of this word from the beginning. Japanese and Chinese sources that I've seen are both reasonably clear on which characters were used to spell yamato, so the key question is how they were pronounced. Anyway, TL:DR version is that I'll be updating the 大和 etymology again in due course, to add in what I can find.
For future, I would ask that you add etymologies for Japanese terms on the pages for the Japanese terms.  :)
Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@Lostubes: This doesn't seem to be sense evolution. The word deus is used to translate θεός because it is one of the only words in Latin that means "god." The fact that is used is because it is the only word to use. If you are focused on its later meaning of "the Christian God," then indeed that is sense evolution, but it is impossible to say whether this meaning is borrowed from AG or internal evolution (It also the case that the Latin word for the Christian God is normally capitalized (Deus)).
The other problem you'll find is that Wiktionary does not tend to track sense evolution or even particular dates of usage as the information becomes to cumbersome. As such, even if you can show that the word θεός did affect the meaning of deus (which would be difficult), I'm sure there would be editors who would still remove that information.
Furthermore, what information does this add to the article? The word god is always used to translate deus, but such information is not included in god's article.
Concerning the similarities of the PIE roots *dʰh₁s- and *deywós.:
  • The phonemes * and *d, while both voiced and dental have completely separate reflexes in their descendants (* becomes f in Latin at the beginning of a word!)
  • The laryngeal *h₁ and the diphthong *ey also have very different behavior
Trust me when I say that they are very different. This page might be helpful.
I'd also advise against making wrist slitting jokes as they could be considered offensive. Just a thought. —JohnC5 05:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@JohnC5: " even if you can show that the word θεός did affect the meaning of deus (which would be difficult), I'm sure there would be editors who would still remove that information."

  • Yeah, doesn't that bother you? That "editors" would remove accurate information from a collection of information that should be accurate... As offensive as suicide jokes may be, the analogy is sound in its application. On Latin, "deus" is c.1300 translation of Zeus. You can actually SEE how the connection between sanskrit diva and Greek theos could have arose... in the map on the page you just told me to look at. Also, the italic languages come a tad bit later. Your Latin is from 6th to 9th centuries AD (it's differences can be attributed to... well.. check this out while Greek is from 2500 BC and 1700 BC. The "proto" aspect is paramount in this regard.
I'm not sure what you're talking about- the first Latin inscriptions date to the 6th century BC, and Classical Latin was pretty much over by the 6th century AD. The first Greek writing dates to the 16th century BC, not the 26th century. Yes, it's attested earlier, but there's no reason to believe Hellenic is any older than Italic. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, again I beseech you, please realize that PIE is not a real language. it is a comparative reference.

I suppose it would be relevant to point out that there is another missing link in this discussion, that being the Greek root word "thea" which is related to "viewing" (theater? light? fire? diva? day?) there's really, actually, for sure, some things of relevance here. blah, this is all pointless conjecture without references & I'm too tired to dig for the publications in which I've read of these similarities. Another day, perhaps. Good luck.Lostubes (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
A proto-language is an artificial construct, but it's the result of extensive work by serious scholars over a couple of centuries. It's not perfect, but it beats every other explanation ever suggested by light-years. Your addition, on the other hand, is based on your uneducated guess based on superficial similarities. Also, as John said, the fact that one language uses a particular word to translate a word in another language doesn't belong in the etymology section. Do not restore your edit again. If you do, I will block you. Case closed. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Also Chuck, I apologize for the spam on your page! I feel a little bad for all these many fruitless bytes of discussion. —JohnC5 06:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: It's not an uneducated guess. Deus is the Latin translation of Theos. That case actually is closed. AS for my edit, as I've apparently failed to explain; I plan to improve upon the format/style through which the information is presented & will, in fact, be unhindered by scare tactics. Apologies for the talking on your talk page. Thank you & good night.Lostubes (talk) 06:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

...? Have you ever heard of False cognates? Other examples of false cognates include habere (have), haben (have) and dog (dog), dog (dog). Being synonymous does not imply etymological relationship. - -sche (discuss) 07:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The word deus is used to translate numerous words for god in various languages. The word god is dog spelled backwards. These are Interesting Facts, but they don't belong in the etymology sections, because they have nothing to do with the origins of the words. You're trying to dispute things that you obviously don't understand, and you're making less and less sense as you go. Formatting and wording tweaks won't change that. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz:For the record, my edit was purely intended to point out that theos is translated as deus in latin, this purely as a sense evolution comparison. I shouldn't have removed the original entry, doing so was a mistake. However, if one is truly interested in depicting a more comprehensive etymology for the word, then I'm more than happy share what is known... forgive the domain name, as it is non-sectarian & non-mystic sources are ultimately scarce.
  • "It could eventually be that the old Greek words theos and zeus were in some way related, linguistically."


  • "The etymology of Deus (God) is somehow controversial. Some etymologize it from the Greek Theos (God; Θεός), whereas others (Babiniotis etc) reject this etymology."
Wait, what's that? "Some etymologize it from the Greek Theos (God; Θεός)" Wouldn't that make them... O_o ACTUAL COGNATES Lostubes (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't. That would mean one came from the other. Cognates are terms that inherited from a common third source (the ancestor of both). So far, you haven't defined what you mean by "sense evolution", I'm guessing because you don't know, either. As far as I can tell, deus and Θεός have always had pretty much the same range of meanings, so where's the "evolution"? It looks to me like you have some vague idea that deus and Θεός are somehow related, and this is the only way you could think of to mention both of them in the same etymology. As for your sources: the lack of support for your views in etymological sources is no coincidence, which isn't to knock religious sources in genersal. Theology is about ideas and concepts for things that are beyond examination by science and history: it's possible to be a very good theologian, but abysmally ignorant on matters of biology or historical linguistics. It's also true that theological pinciples from thousands of years ago can still be quite relevant, but in etymology, no one really understood the relationship between Greek and Latin until the nineteenth century, at which time a great deal of work was done to work it out in great detail. There are still matters of dispute, but the basic sound correspondences are pretty solid- no one actually familiar with them is disputing them. The difference between *dʰ and *d may not seem like much to you, but it's quite significant, especially in a root- it's the same level of difference as what separates cat and god in English. The fact that the Latin word fēstus is cognate with Θεός, and shows the sound correspondences one would expect works against there being an exception in this case. It's rather complicated, with different suffixes and ablaut grades making Zeus and Jupiter closer to each other than to deus, but the *dʰ and *d distinction holds true throughout the sky- and god-/religion-groups of etymologies. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


hello, I have seen on the Tangut discussion page that you have made some edits. I am currently learning Tangut and would like to add definitions of Tangut words to Wiktionary. I have had no success in figuring out how to input Tangut into wiktionary (or on my computer in general). If you know how to input Tangut, could you point me in the right direction? If it is a bother, do not worry about it.

I don't know much about Tangut. I added some general information to Category:Tangut language, and that's about my involvement. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way to use Tangut script at Wiktionary: we're Unicode-based, and Tangut hasn't been added to Unicode yet, as far as I know. There are fonts you can download in order to use Tangut script on your own computer, but they'll probably become obsolete when the Unicode version comes out (I'm sure there will be ways to convert from one to the other, eventually, though). See W:Tangut script for more details. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't use numbersEdit

How do you refer to only the relevant entries? Dan Pelleg (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Butting in, not aware of context, but: try {{senseid}}. DCDuring TALK 16:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Or, for Etymologies, as in the reversion under discussion, refer to a main meaning of the Etymology. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Like this?
  1. sphere (three-dimensional object / concentric hollow transparent globes formerly believed to rotate around the Earth / one's province / set of all points that are a fixed distance from a fixed point / extension of a general conception)
Dan Pelleg (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, since all you are doing is directing folks to the right definition or etymology you can be more terse, just using one or two key words and abbreviating them. ("3-D object", "transparent sphere", "province", "set of equidistant points", "extension of conception".) BTW "one's province" is a bad definition, "one" implying a person and "province" being just one synonym with a most common sense that does not mean "sphere". DCDuring TALK 01:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok well "there's the rub" right there – say I refer the reader to specific definitions using keywords from those (e.g. "one's province"), and then some time later someone else changes those definitions. My reference would become useless. The upshot is that in Wiktionary, definitions are just as much in a state of flux as list numbers. It's up to editors to discover reference errors that have resulted if either change, and correct them. Or is there an advantage to using keywords as opposed to numbers I've overlooked? Thanks – Dan Pelleg (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
{{senseid}} does not show anything in the entry. It's purely a linking anchor by design. This means that editors will generally leave {{senseid}} alone because they know that other entries are using it as a link target. On the other hand, they're free to change the entry around, rewrite and reorder definitions, as they wish. —CodeCat 18:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


Hieher is actually an obsolete term used by German Austrians from the late 19th century. It's no longer used and I can even provide evidence for it.

Page 365 of Die Babenberger und ihre Laender by Georg Juritsch. "Dass Heinrich Jasomirgott hieher seine Residenz verlegte, waere an und fuer sich noch nicht hinreichend gewesen, wenn das herzogliche Hausdurch verschiedene politische Ereignisse nicht selbst emporgekommen waere."

You can tell me I'm wrong, use counter-evidence or revert your revert.

I didn't revert you because of any judgment on "hieher", but because you tacked it onto the etymology of hierher in a way that made no sense. Were you saying that hierher came from hieher? If so, you need to learn how to format etymologies. If you didn't, then your edit was like sticking walrus random words in the middle of your sentences: they may be valid words, but applesauce people wonder what on earth they're doing there. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Someone with experience would have fixed it instead of delete it. That's what smart people do. Hieher most likely came from hierher, as obsolete slang.

MontChevalier (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone with good judgment would have tried the Tea Room or the talk page instead of displaying ignorance of Wiktionary, the meaning of the word etymology, good lexicographic practice, and abusing people to boot. DCDuring TALK 01:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
You're quite welcome to create an entry for hieher. As for hierher, I fixed the entry by removing a totally irrelevant piece of text from the etymology section. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Wiktionary is about talking. You guys are a bunch of dictators deciding what is and what isn't. You don't give room to talk. And you're doing it now. Tea Room? Talk page? Nobody listens to those. And you guys refuse to even bother looking into them. If you guys can't just give a better explanation why something shouldn't be a part of something, you can cut the passive-aggressive crap and try acting more mature. Otherwise, I won't be giving any more of my services to this site and I'm moving on.

MontChevalier (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank YouEdit

Original Barnstar Hires.png Barnstar
For helping in organising Pashto prefixes ! — Adjutor101 (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
That's all very nice, but I think any of the admins would have done the same. I could see that you misunderstood our system of templates (they're extremely complex), so I wanted to give you an example to show you the right way and keep you from unintentionally creating more problems. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:circumcised - protectionEdit

Do you think we could have Wikisaurus:circumcised protected against anonymous editing, or to only allow auto-confirmed users to edit? Otherwise, more reverts are likely, and the page is already full of reverts that do not really need to be there. Registering is fairly easy, and anons can still post suggestions on the talk page of the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Origin of katakanaEdit

Dear friend, How are you doing?

I would like to suggest two minor changes to two of the articles on katakana characters.

① The first one is 「ノ」: It is stated that it derives from the kanji 「乃」. I am not saying that assertion is false, but just wanted you to know that many Japanese scholars consider that katakana derives from the kanji  「之」. This is also the kanji which corresponded to the possessive particle, when this language was written only with characters. The kun'yomi pronunciation of those two ideograms is 「no」. Because of the meaning of the second one, and also the pronunciation, quite a few scholars firmly assent that the katakana mentioned before derives from it. I though it would be a good idea to indicate that.

② Another is 「カ」: While it is certain that 「か」 derives from the kanji 「加」 (the right part of the character being represented as the stroke of the hiragana letter), the case of its katakana equivalent 「カ」 is not so clear. Many argue it derives from the aforementioned kanji, because its on'yomi pronunciation is 「ka」, and think it is the left radical of the ideogram.  Keep in mind that the katakana 「カ」 and the kanji 「力」 are exactly the same character (no right stroke in the katakana to represent), although the syllable is usually represented slightly narrower. Also, its kun'yomi pronunciation 「chi-ka-ra」 contains 「ka」, so it is definitely not harebrained to think it may have evolved from that ideogram.

So, would you kindly consider adding those pieces of information to the two articles? I honestly think it would be a good idea to add that information to the article, since the origin of a few kana are not known with absolute certainty. Also, in my humble opinion, when explaining any academic theory, it is nice to let the people know about other possible theories, as long as they are not retarded.

Anyway, thank you for reading my request to the end. I understand you are very busy and don't want to disturb you anymore. It's just that, as a native Japanese who is quite fond of his language, I'd like to help those foreigners who study the language seriously to develop a comprehensive knowledge of the language. If I can contribute to anything, I will be very happy to help. Thank you again, and have a very good day. Ikemen maru (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  碓井 磨瑠

Arrowred.png Butting in, as it were, but I saw this and felt compelled to respond.

Blue Glass Arrow.svg In the absence of any resources that present reasoned arguments in favor of other derivations, we will not be changing the stated derivations at the (no) and (ka) entries. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 09:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Aside from the merits of the etymological information (which I didn't know), the edit in question (diff was reverted because it added a contradictory explanation to the first one with no explanation, in effect making the etymology argue with itself. @Ikemen maru: it would have been better to have posted an explanation like you gave here to the discussion page for the entry, preferably with {{attention|ja}} so editors knowledgable about Japanese would be alerted to it. For information that you know is correct and that you know no one will object to, feel free to just edit the page itself- but make sure you use the correct formatting. We have very specialized templates that do a lot of things that may not be obvious, so take a look at how they're used in other articles. We definitely need knowledgable people to edit Japanese entries, so please take the time to learn how we do things, and pitch in! Chuck Entz (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this rollback is in errorEdit

regarding geschrieen

At Appendix:Glossary#nonstandard it is: "nonstandard -- Not conforming to the language as accepted by the majority of its speakers.".
E.g. in [] (2011) it's: "Große Mehrheit lehnt Rechtschreibreform noch immer ab" (A great majority is still against the spelling reform) and "62 Prozent [der Bevölkerung] halten sie [= die Reform von 1996] noch immer für falsch" (62% of the citizens (of the FRG) think that the reform from 1996 is wrong). Thus one could even argue that "geschrien" has to be labeled nonstandard, though (so I guess) there's no doubt that (pro-reform) prescriptivist here wouldn't like that. So the neutral and non-prescribing way is to simple note something like "the reform from 1996 replaced <the one spelling> by <the other>". That even includes all other information like "administrative bodies shall use the new spelling (or are even compelled to use it)".
BTW: Maybe one could add reasons why words got replaced, e.g. to harmonise the spelling of <one word> with the spelling of <another word>, or because reformers didn't know several German words &c. (like Quentchen became *Quäntchen as they didn't know the word Quent or ignored it and created a pseudo-etymology deriving their new word from Quantum).
PS: Also traditional spellings aren't obsolete. Appendix:Glossary#obsolete: "No longer in use, and no longer likely to be understood." Traditional spellings are still in use and are likely to be understood. Even those people who try follow the reforms sometimes use traditional spellings (e.g. because that's the way they learned it or because they don't know which form is correct or because in case of single words they think that the traditional spelling is more common or more likely to be understood or makes more sense etc.). -13:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC), PS: 13:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the previous version was perfect, but you removed any indication at all that anyone disapproves of the word. Also, changing just the one term doesn't work: you need to discuss the prevailing practice with other German editors (the talk page at WT:ADE would be a good place to start). This is a community, and you can't just change everything on your own. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I did not remove any indication, see "Alternative forms" and "Usage notes: The spelling geschrieen was deprecated in 1996 in the German spelling reform of 1996 (the Rechtschreibreform)." || The spelling is not obsolete, so, as en.wt is non-prescribing, claiming something like "obsolete" is simply wrong. Also there are other "old" spellings not marked as obsolete, so there was most likely someone else who "just change everything on yourhis own" or at least it looks like that. -13:40 & 13:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The IP is correct that neither spelling is obsolete; they are both still in use. In the past there was some discussion about whether or not to label the spellings deprecated in a spelling reform — I forget it if was a French or a German reform — as "obsolete". I think I pushed for something like "now nonstandard", since "obsolete" seems too strong, given that there are still many French people and Germans who use the pre-reform spellings. (In contrast, labelling something like a ligatured spelling of an English word as obsolete seems sensible.) Whether or not geschrieen is nonstandard is slightly more difficult to say; it was deprecated out of official standard German; do we want to analyse the validity of various polls to determine whether or not it meets our usage-based definition of "nonstandard"? Meh. It's probably best to leave the entry as it is now, with the usage note explaining the situation. PS, @93: it is not the case that if a majority rejects the 1996 reform, geschrien is nonstandard: geschrien was not introduced by the reform; it has always been in use, the reform simply deprecated the competing form geschrieen. (I've fixed geschrieen to express this more accurately, per Wiktionary_talk:About_German#Note_on_Rechtschreibreform.) - -sche (discuss) 17:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I was going to ask you about this as my next step, because I could see I was getting onto thin ice- but you saved me the trouble. I only knew that this was a contentious subject, and removing context labels in such a situation set off my POV detectors. I'm glad to have a knowledgeable second opinion and help in sorting this out. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for common misspellingsEdit

Hi Chuck. Many thanks for clearing up my rubbish from earlier today (I'm a huge WP-editor but only dabble in Wikt.). However, when I tried to convert comaraderie into a Redirect , Wikt. gave me a message that Redirections shouldn't actually be created for misspellings. Would you know the policy? Trafford09 (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

While you were posting here, I was replying at the talk page for the entry. See my comments there. We don't use redirects most of the time, because it may be a real word in some other language: see appel for a good example of a misspelling for apple that is used for lots of other things. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah - that makes sense (as did your other comments of course). Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Chuck Entz".