…are you removing the "now" from all those labels? Ƿidsiþ 17:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It is logically redundant. It wouldn't make sense to say "once historical, but now current again". Equinox 23:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
No, but it does make sense to say "once current, but now historical". Some historical words have always been historical in English (like, I don't know, "centurion"). Others, like the ones you just edited, are not historical in many of the earlier citations. That is an important difference to bear in mind when you look through the older citations. Using a word like "cordwainer" nowadays has obvious historical connotations, whereas to Dickens it was as current as "programmer" is to us. But something like "maniple" has never been current in English. Ƿidsiþ 14:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Widsith: Okay, I see the distinction (and why it's not like "now archaic/obsolete"). I do hate the use of "now", though: it's like when someone edits Wikipedia and writes "Recently, X has happened", and a year later it's not recent at all. Perhaps we need some sort of template (oh gawd) with a date embedded in it? Equinox 05:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I hate that too! I don't see "now" in the same way – maybe because it's used by the OED in a similar way, so it seems pretty authoritative to me. Ƿidsiþ 06:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, the OED has paid employees and (presumably) a rolling schedule of how often they update any given entry. Look at how they sweep through the alphabet and suddenly hit B and say "yes, now we know what a blog is". Wiktionary does not have any work schedule and is updated mainly based on what people LIKE, which is why we have lots of Pokémon shit. Equinox 07:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

re hotwifeEdit

I have a thing against citations in NS:0 which do not demonstrate usage, since they take up screen space and don't provide any value to the person looking up the term. I probably should have moved that cite to the citations namespace instead of just deleting it, but in that case it was a mention by someone secondhand (a journalist) which makes it a step further from use. A quick books search showed that there is ample usage in romance novels, so it won't be long before that one is replaced with something more demonstrative I am sure. - TheDaveRoss 14:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It did provide some value to me. – Jberkel 12:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

date to a cool event - have unprotected fun!Edit

Hey. I'd like to invite on a date, it is gonna be a really cool event, namely the clearing of Category:Requests for date/Shakespeare (had 750+ entries, now whittled down to just 2 (yes, 2!!! I'm so freaking good!!!). By incredible odds, this cool event can only be celebrated when cool and event have been dated. Being a n00b, I can't edit those pages, so let's you and I have some unprotected fun together (please unprotect the pages cool and event). --Alsowalks (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to touch pages at the moment, I've got the Bieber fever. Equinox 23:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I Don't Care about the fever, Baby. After approx. 10,000 Hours of Wiktionarying, I have become a registered (and therefore totally trustworthy) editor. Category:Requests for date/Shakespeare is now empty. Get Me! Mark My Words, though, it'll be populated again soon. --Alsowalks (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Username changeEdit

Got your email. Sorry about this énième change; I realise it's annoying, and I myself don't find it funny anymore. It's just that I was once again dissatisfied with my username. PUC 18:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

go one's separate waysEdit

I think this entry would be preferable to go their separate ways, even though one person cannot by himself go separate ways. To begin with, the phrase can be "go our separate ways" or "go your separate ways," and I'm not so sure that that information would be clear from the entry go their separate ways. Secondly, Oxford's dictionary lemmatizes the phrase as go one's separate ways, which suggests that this form may be most inclusive of the variation in the pronouns. At the very least, it indicates that this is one acceptable way to put it as an entry. Maybe adding a usage note on the page go one's separate ways might have been best? Or would it be better to create different pages for go our separate ways and go your separate ways? Or maybe there's some other solution I haven't thought of or don't know about. In any event, this might be a better discussion to transfer to some other forum in Wiktionary, but I wasn't sure which forum would have been best. Imetsia (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Why not go one's separate way, which is at least doesn't imply that the subject is schizophrenic? DCDuring (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
"Our separate ways" and "your [plural] separate ways" still don't support an individual form, because "our" and "your [plural]" are both groups. Could you take this to WT:TR to get some further opinions? Equinox 01:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

triple whammyEdit

Hi there, thanks for looking at my edit. Is there a guideline on things like when to link compound terms? Hmm, on second thought I kind of see your point that maybe "drug regimen" doesn't need a separate definition. Do you think renal failure should have one though, since it's a specific condition? And is there some guideline for how precise to be in medical definitions? I have no hard feelings. Would like your input. -- 22:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, just wondering if you're planning to reply, or edit that page further? I'd like some input from experienced users. We can move this to the talk page if you feel that's a better place. Thanks. -- 19:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Try asking at WT:TR. Equinox 19:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

break a lawEdit

The talk page says that it was RFD deleted, but... the entry still exists. Tharthan (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)