RFD closuresEdit

In most cases the entry should be deleted, not stubbed. Equinox 05:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox: Are you referring to Sorani alphabet? I did that only for consistency's sake. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 05:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
ELIZA and others; see my recent edits. Equinox 05:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Equinox: I'm sure you're aware I wasn't the one who created those stubs (except for Sorani alphabet). They've existed for some time now, I've only changed the template parameter now: diff. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 05:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand. Never mind. As long as RFDs (request for deletion) are not being closed by stubbing. Equinox 13:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
@Equinox: I don't quite understand either: ELIZA sat there as a stub since January 9, 2013; I had nothing to do with that. To me it seemed like you thought I had created all of those 30 or so stubs that I've recently changed a parameter in; just wanted to tell you that's not the case. However, I did create some stubs (Sorani alphabet for one), so I will take your advice to heart. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 13:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand that a template change caused the change in the entries. But I thought this was related to some RFDs, jeez, I dunno. I'll get off your back now. Equinox 01:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent deletionEdit

Hi. I'm not objecting your recent deletion of Göteborgs Rapé. But I'm curious about the reason, to prevent further mistakes like it. In the comment you say "as per RFD and RFDO", but I couldn't make heads or tails of them. Can you point me in the right direction? --Christoffre (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Christoffre: Hey. RFD is a process by which editors can propose entries to be deleted (the details of which are described in the link). The article was proposed for such a deletion on March 11, 2021 by User:Glades12. The deletion discussion can be found here: Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#Göteborgs_Rapé. I've decided to close this almost 1 year old request because two native speakers voted to delete it with nobody opposing the deletion. If you object (it's your right to do so), please comment on that discussion with "Keep" and I will (temporarily) undelete it (as you might not have been aware of this RFD, which is unfair to you) until we get a clearer consensus or until some more time has passed. Hope this helps! — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 00:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. No, the reason is valid. It's nothing more than a brand name. Christoffre (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

My accidental revertEdit

I accidentally rollbacked your edit in error at star up. Sorry! —Svārtava [tcur] 08:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Svartava: No worries! It happens. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 12:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered usersEdit


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Hello and thank you for the advice, I will use them. Rex65mya (talk)


Does the Fr in this sentence: {{fr-noun|m|?}} means french or a coding thing? Thanks-User:Rex65mya

@Rex65mya: It means French. Under ===Noun=== in a French entry you should use {{fr-noun}}, under ===Adjective=== {{fr-adj}} and so on. If you don't know what to do, just have a look at a couple of similar articles. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 03:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


Hi, I don't want to start a fight or anything at all, but you corrected me that перде is in Macedonian. While that may be true, I am not denying it, please check when was the Macedonian language officially created (1945), from what language is deriving, and from when is the modern Bulgarian dating back (from around 16th century). So, I believe it would be fair to have at least both languages in display :) 2600:6C5A:97F:F7BA:10E1:5862:5731:FB6D 15:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If this word also exists in Bulgarian, then an entry for that should definitely also be created, no doubt about that. The reason why I reverted your edit is because you can't just change the L2 language header like that because:
  1. It effectively removes a Macedonian entry, however, removals are done via WT:RFD or WT:RFV.
  2. The article uses Macedonian templates which also place it into the corresponding Macedonian categories (see instances of mk on that page).
If you want to create a Bulgarian article for the same grapheme, you could start by copy-pasting the Macedonian one, substituting "Macedonian" with "Bulgarian" and "mk" with "bg". Note also that the languages on a page should be sorted alphabetically. I hope this helps. :) — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


This has a hidden module error: when you feed a module invocation into a parser function, any error messages generated by the module are treated by the parser function as just more text, and {{#ifeq}} doesn't actually display anything. I only know this after spending many, many hours in the past trying to figure out why entries were in CAT:E when there was nothing visibly wrong. The worst part is that there's usually nothing obvious to show which template has the error, so a page with hundreds of templates can be very hard to debug.

Although the current module error could be easily fixed with <noinclude></noinclude>, I would strongly recommend testing your parameters outside of the parser functions and throwing an error there if there's a problem- it's just too easy to get the template syntax wrong or to make a typo.

Also, has this new template been discussed at all? Aside from whether it's a better approach than {{t-check}}, it's going to increase traffic on RFVN and RFVCJK. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Ah, thank you, I actually saw the hidden category but couldn't figure out what the issue was because - as you said - there's no visual indication of an error. I'm still not done with the template and I'll take care of this shortly.
It has not been discussed but I believe that this is a very sensible template to have. The idea was born out of the edit warring of two Turkish redlink translations in astronaut that I've tried to settle by creating a potentially nonsense article (uçurcu) only to immediately send it to RFV (there are a small number of other Turkish redlink translations with the same issue). The work of creating such articles (and the damage inflicted by having incorrect information as standalone articles) could be saved by this template. Also, I have at multiple times in the past wondered what the correct process to send a translation-box-only term to RFV; I'm sure others have wondered the same. What's more, as WT:TRANS states that translation box entries must meet our attestation criteria, I don't think we should have a different process by which to verify the attestation of a term depending on whether it has a standalone article or not. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 20:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
There's a difference between suitable for an entry and suitable for a translation. Having an entry is covered by CFI, and we try to cover everything in actual use, except for things covered by WT:BRAND and WT:FICTION (SOP terms are covered at the entries for their parts). Translations, on the other hand, are for the purpose of knowing how to say something in other languages, not to cover everything. They aren't addressed by CFI, though in practice we shouldn't be redlinking to anything that's not suitable to be an entry. Adding a non-standard translation that will only be understood by a few thousand out of 70+ million speakers gives it undue weight and should be reverted on sight. The same goes for obsolete terms in modern languages- those should be covered in synonym sections for the current equivalents. Dead and poorly-documented languages are different, since it's helpful for finding things that you can't find any other way.
In other words, you're developing procedures for things you don't need to do in the first place: it doesn't matter whether there's an entry for it, if it's not useful as a translation or useful for some other legitimate purpose, just revert it. If someone persists in adding such content, block them.
Of course, there are edge cases where such a template and procedures might be actually useful, so I'm not rejecting the idea out of hand. I just think it should be discussed. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: I am aware that our criteria for inclusion are different for entries and translations; however, WT:TRANS expressly states that attestation criteria (a subset of WT:CFI) still apply for translations. As RFV is concerned with the attestation part of WT:CFI only, it makes sense that translations be incorporated in the RFV process, hence my template.
I see your points and I agree for the most part, though I still hold that the template has legitimate uses, for instance the following somewhat common scenario: 1. the English term is very specialized 2. there is only one translation provided in that language 3. the translation is a redlink and 4. the lemma looks somewhat legitimate though all I can find offhand in terms of attestations is, say, one valid cite. No other procedure is satisfactory in this scenario: {{t-check}} and it may still remain there for another decade; simply removing it is also out of the question for a variety of reasons; just leaving it be and continuing to promote a potential protologism is also not something I would accept.
As per your wish, I will open a BP discussion. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 01:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Rollback on KinoEdit

I think you made an error rolling back my edits, so I am posting to your talk page as requested. The word "kino" as used in those contexts absolutely is 4chan vernacular, and I think it should be categorized as such. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 01:06, 8 January 2022.

Yep, you're right. My rollback was a mistake. Sorry! — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 01:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


Merhaba @Fytcha, can you add my name to Wiktionary:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage? I want to use the AutoWikiBrowser. ToprakM (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Merhaba @ToprakM. I honestly don't feel comfortable adding you there because you're not whitelisted, which means your edits would flood the patrol queue. Sorry! — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think anyone will nominate me soon. Thank you anyway. ToprakM (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


I can't see where you tagged me. I must use a computer to see it. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mahmudmasri: That must have been here: Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#أشهد_أن_عليا_ولي_الله. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 04:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


Can you give this a look, please?

I am trying to explain how the police had reasonably high standards until they couldn't find any suitable applicants because of it, so they lowered their expectations close enough for government work. They ran out(?) of Nachwuchs. The appropriate quote is already in place, but it's glossed offspring, which I don't find pertinent to this sense, as the five senses there don't match.

I looked up so now I got "new blood" (or better youngblood, which is distinguished from young blood) for the general sense, "trainees" and "junior staff" for the workplace, and I'd add "next generation" from the top of my head (incidently equivalent to the Erich Mühsam quote, viz. "Die Jugend, der Nachwuchs, die kommende Generation hat [...]").

I don't know how to organize this.

  • 1. A biologic progeny sense is appropriate, Nachwuchs bekommen will be easy to source. Other biologic senses don't come to mind.
  • 2. One generally figurative sense might suffice.
  • 3. Can we make subsenses explicit?
  • a) The biologic sense can pertain to anything from a single family household to mankind.
  • b) Besides the work force it can also be said in sports, eg. Nachwuchstalent, and basicly of whatever organisation or social institution.

I find it difficult slotting particular (imaginable) usage examples into place because it's a slippery sloap from 1. to 2. For example, a subset of the youth who happen to enjoy piano are different from a class of students, different from a single apprentice to a master, and the master could be the biologic father, whereas the teacher could be an adoptive mother, church father, Doktorvater, etc.

Conversely, a single birth is most specific, generations are a crude generalization, upto anyone currently alive belonging to one generation, whereas nature (from PIE "birth", it seems) would be the driving force behind it. Indeed, DWDS gives a medical sense. It's the old and tried nature vs. nurture debate.

Of course it won't translate well if it is only superficially consistent. "junior staff" solves my problem, but this won't improve the entry by much.

I like the glossing style with three near synonyms either way, because "offspring" alone seems insufficient, and because an intensive definition might be more difficult. Is the appropriate course of action to confer with bilingual dictionaries (I have none available, that's why I'm here) and monolingual (to lift a definition of it), or rather posting to WT:TR for a native speaker of the target language to look over it? For the sake of simplicity I would change it to 1. progeny, offspring, 2. the youth. Trying to do so I failed to keep it simple (see contributions, in sandbox).

Ironically, I can't but note that I entertain a comparison of "offspring" and Frischling (of pigs; that's a tripple entendre, viz. "Bullenschweine"!), which may be entirely misleading; see also Ferkel. As for nach per se I have to think of to follow – surprisingly we have follower 10. Young cattle. It does look very similar to nature though, akin to kin.

I'm sorry if this is too much. TL;DR: Can we make subsenses explicit? Should I leave it alone or post to the TR? ApisAzuli (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to hereinschneien on this, but I've just noticed it while leaving a message here. I think a biologic and and a figurative sense are enough, I'm not a fan of subsensing (which makes sense only for a small portion of very complex entries). The usage examples could be used to illustrate nuances and directly link to compounds such as Nachwuchstalent. – Jberkel 13:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@ApisAzuli, Jberkel: I've extended the article according to your suggestions, DWDS, and my own intuitive understanding. I am still not 100% happy with it, particularly the gloss for sense 4 is just... bad. However, I do think though that it is relatively understandable as it is. Tell me what you think about it and feel free to change it anyhow you deem fitting.
Regarding the relevant senses 3 and 4, to me it feels like 4 is more or less a figurative use of sense 3, or at least that's how it came to be. I personally don't perceive Nachwuchs to be Frischlinge, as prodigies are also called Nachwuchstalente, right?
As to your question what the best course of action is: I personally just go with what I perceive to be the closest English equivalent. Monolingual dictionaries assist me to make sure that I haven't forgotten some secondary sense. Sometimes I draw on bilingual dictionaries but more for priming, so that I'm psychologically on the right track, so to speak. For difficult cases, bringing it up in the Tea Room (which I've recently done) is probably the way to go. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 13:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
And more in general, is it a better strategy to finish an entry before submitting? I'm sorry that's a rhethorical question while I could simply add mb "maybe" and wait for citations (as per TR) instead of writing.
Finished? is irrational, or subjective, as I would really rather have left the Nachwuchs alone before a wrong etymology grows offsprings. I looked at DWDS again and it links to Wucher with evidence that the sense 'Kind' is much older. Compounds that appear transparent today are alas very often neglected in the etymological dictionaries, but I think the etymology could be split, or more detailed. ApisAzuli (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@ApisAzuli: Sorry, I'm not 100% following what you're saying (du kannst ansonsten auch auf Deutsch schreiben). If you want to discuss the etymology of a particular word and want input from others, it's probably best to add {{rfe|de}} and open a discussion at the Etymology scriptorium. Pfeifer doesn't say a whole lot about Nachwuchs in particular (giving only a sense and a date) but a derivation from nachwachsen -> (bot.) Nachwuchs -> (fig.) Nachwuchs seems very plausible to me; the part where he references Wucher is under wachsen so it doesn't really apply here, no? By the way, is the thing with the senses resolved now? I see neither you nor @Jberkel have touched the article since; feel free to disagree with how I structured it. I split up the senses according to what made sense to me. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 22:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

German bible quotation templatesEdit

This has been on my todo list for some time. I haven't been able to find a good website which is easy to link to, comparably to what's used in {{R:KJV}}. Maybe we can just use wikt:de:Vorlage:Ref-Bibel as a starting point and clean it up a little. – Jberkel 12:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jberkel: Good to know this has been on your radar already. What do you think about this website? The URL is easy to build and they offer all of the most important translations. More importantly, from the looks of it, the URL scheme works the same for all translations. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 14:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
The 1545 version has some formatting/transcriptions errors:
Vnd Gott sahe / das das Liecht gutDas ist / nütz / fein / köstlich. war
Vnd der GeistWind ist da zumal noch nicht gewest
Checking another version it looks like these are footnotes which have been inlined into the text. It's also missing the various "Vorreden" (maybe not so important) – Jberkel 20:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

pl-IPA to pl-p conversionEdit

Hey! Thanks for offering your help with the conversion, if you're still up for it. Given that it might take a while, I figured I'd outline a few points now - The bot should be able to include respellings, but should probably disclude hyphenations and rhymes. The old rhymes have some practices that are not followed anymore, and hyphenations will 99% be done through the pagename or respelling (with a few exceptions, but I should easily be able to take care of those. Also, homonyms should be included. Vininn126 (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

P.s. some pages will have 2 spellings and potentially a qualifier (just to cover all my bases) Vininn126 (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Vininn126: Hey, you're welcome! Just write down whatever comes to your mind to what I should be paying attention when doing this cleanup so that we don't forget about it later. As I said, it will probably still take a couple of weeks but I hope that I'll eventually be able to take care of this. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 14:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocking of a rangeEdit

Hi, why did you block this range? I'm not familiar with their language but their edits look hardly like vandal's, and it's worth noticing that most of their edits are the "current" version and not reverted. —Svārtava [tcur] 15:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Svartava2: Unexplained removal of a lot of features of a high-visibility template: diff. I didn't notice that most of their other edits were in fact good-faith. I lifted the block. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


Hi Fytcha. I wanted to bring up entries like this one that you've been creating recently. I don't think you necessarily need to speak a language in order to create good entries in it, but you do need to have a certain level of familiarity with it and access to good resources. This entry, for example, is entirely comprised of information available in the translation section at sociolinguistics, which suggests to me that you did not check any resources. Although it is correct, not doing so is an easy way to spread errors. In the mean time, it is below the usual standards of our Russian entries, which use language-appropriate templates (e.g. {{ru-noun}}), display IPA and declension, etc. If you can learn to add these things correctly and check a Russian dictionary before adding Russian lemmas, then I see no reason you shouldn't add entries like this — but if you don't want to make that level of effort, then you should leave them for somebody else. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Metaknowledge. For the small handful of stubs of this kind that I've created, I either checked that they exist on the corresponding Wiktionary or made sure that they were added (as translations) by a reliable editor. I don't plan to actively contribute in those languages that I have absolutely no command of; my thinking was more along the lines that maybe such stubs make it easier for the corresponding language's editors to expand them instead of having to create them from scratch, but I can see how flooding the attention categories can be annoying. I will stop creating them. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. As an aside, other Wiktionaries can't be used as reliable dictionaries for our purposes. Some of them are rife with errors, even in their primary language (looking at you, sw.wikt), some of them are well-maintained but have ludicrously lax inclusion criteria (looking at you, fr.wikt), and some of them are wastelands of bot-created nonsense (looking at you, mg.wikt). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Setting FWOTDs without prior communicationEdit

It is considered poor decorum to set FWOTDs without discussing it beforehand with the person who currently sets them. Please delete and undo all the FWOTDs that have been set for March and later. I'll see what to do with February when I get better, but undoing those FWOTDs will probably lead to a mess. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: I didn't see any hint of that sort on WT:FWOTDN and my actions were mainly motivated by the lack of FWOTD today. Do you have a concrete problem with my FWOTDs? The only ones that I've set past March are Wiktionary:Foreign_Word_of_the_Day/2022/December_1 and Wiktionary:Foreign_Word_of_the_Day/2022/December_31. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
You are right that this hasn't been written down and it really should. But it is my feeling that it would be quite a conflict of interest if I wrote it down now. However, common sense would dictate not to go overboard with setting FWOTDs without asking, at least not beyond bare necessities.
But honestly, you have set some terrible FWOTDs. Some are nominations that should never have become FWOTDs without a really good special occasion (E-weg). And it really interferes with the special occasions I had in mind for February, makes it more difficult to pick a focus week for February because you've used up some of the most 'flexible' languages, and it doesn't serve a great purpose in helping me keeping FWOTD up to date, because I could have easily filled it up in this way. Fustet is very nice, though.
Please don't ever do this again. Always ask before you go set stuff, that is just common sense. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Okay, I got the memo, I won't be setting any more FWOTDs ever again and I deleted the ones from December and E-weg (Feb 4). You could have explained it in a calmer and more collected way and I would have obliged with anything you would have said (well, did so anyway...); I was clearly unaware of the "de-facto" rules of FWOTD (which, again, should be written down somewhere, so it's not really my fault for being ignorant). I'll now leave FWOTD entirely up to you and won't touch it anymore but I ask you to be more careful because I don't want to clean up after you again. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 10:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, excellent. "in a calmer and more collected way": My messages have been quite calm and collected, especially since I have been in a considerable amount of pain for the last few days. You may have been reading a tone into my words. The statement about E-weg was just a home truth. "be more careful because I don't want to clean up after you again": There is nothing not careful about that; it's business as usual for the nom page and I clear it out thoroughly after a while. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with LBD, and respect both of you highly. Keep the FWOTDs coming! Br00pVain (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Hallo Fytcha, wie werden hier collocations/typische Wortverbindungen eingetragen. Hintergrundː einjagen, dort würde ich gerne ergänzen jemandem Angst einjagen und jemandem einen Schrecken einjagen, nach DWDS die beiden häufigsten Kombinationen mit einjagen. Kann man das so machen, wie hier dargestellt? Danke für Deine Antwort und viele Grüße Jeuwre, (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hallo Jeuwre. Das ist im Moment leider ein bedauerlicher Schwachpunkt des englischen Wiktionarys. Vor unlanger Zeit gab es hierzu eine Diskussion (Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2021/December#Collocations), im Rahmen welcher ich mich auch für die Aufnahme von Kollokationen ausgesprochen habe. Vielleicht wird jemand in naher Zukunft eine Abstimmung darüber in die Wege leiten, aber für den Moment bleibt uns nichts anderes übrig, als Kollokationen als bloße Nutzungsbeispiele festzuhalten; so, wie es in einjagen gemacht wird. Wenn es sich lediglich um zwei, drei Kollokationen handelt, kann man diese ohne große Probleme als Beispiele (mittels {{ux}}) dokumentieren; das Problem entsteht erst da, wenn es sich um ein Dutzend Verbindungen handelt, denn so viele Beispiele werden in einem Artikel normalerweise nicht gern gesehen. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 10:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

A Honig proverb in GermanEdit

"Man schmiert nicht Honig um den Mund des anderen, nur um ihm zu praisen". Is there an entry we can make from this? Equinox 03:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox: Thanks, created them: Honig um den Mund schmieren. The last word in your quote is probably rather preisen FYI. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 05:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Google Groups scriptEdit


Thought you might like to see this: [1]. 01:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you a lot for your great work again! Yes, I'm very interested in this.
Small bug report: When a post is very recent, " (x days ago)" is appended to the date, which is not parseable by the Wiktionary template. I've added
date = date.replace(/ \(.*$/, "");
to line 31 but it doesn't seem to work. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 06:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I have updated the code link to fix this issue. (Btw, I hereby release all the JS code for those four scripts under CC0, in case anything comes up where rehosting or editing them is needed.) 07:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
It works! Thank you a lot again. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 07:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Please block 2A01:B340:85:A8D0:C5FB:C223:FE70:526A. 10:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 10:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Revert in mental disorderEdit

I reverted your reversions. Mental disorders are not mental illness. Also, the wiktioanry entry is ridiculously offensive equating mental disorder with being "crazy". Cbinetti (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)cbinetti

crazy and insanity are definitely not exactly same as mental disorder so I've removed them as synonyms. But you're certainly not correct regarding mental illness as only a severe disorder, because it can be used for mild cases also (see google:"mild mental illness",, etc.). Note also, Wikipedia redirects mental illness to the mental disorder page. —Svārtava (t/u) • 02:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@Cbinetti: The Wiktionary entry is not equating anything; it merely documents how people use language. For the semantics, see what Svartava wrote. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 08:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


Hey, could you check [2]? Thanks in advance! —Svārtava (t/u) • 16:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Svartava: Your revert was correct, their change was bogus. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Svartava While it never hurts to ask a native speaker, it was unnecessary: the change was revertable solely on the grounds that the entry was still a German one in every detail except the header, so they made it contradict itself. In addition, they were deleting a German entry out of process when they should have just added an English section. A quick look at Baumgarten (surname) on Wikipedia shows that it genuinely is a German surname. There are lots of people of German ancestry in the US (I'm part German myself), so an English section is certainly plausible, but the etymology would have to link to a German section. Duden shows that it's also genuinely a German common noun and a Google Books search for "ein Baumgarten" shows plenty of usage, so there's no way the German section would fail RFVN even if the surname sense were bogus.
Just on circumstantial evidence, the IP geolocates to Argentina, a Spanish-speaking country, and their entire /16 range has basically never worked on the English part of an English entry- just the etymologies and translations.
If I had to guess, I would say they typed the word into Google translate, which detects it as English, and naïvely assumed that Google Translate must know better- a common assumption that is terribly, horribly wrong (just for fun, type a fairly complex phrase into Google translate, then type the result in for a reverse translation. You will not be impressed [e.g. केवल मनोरंजन के लिए, Google अनुवाद में काफी जटिल वाक्यांश लिखें -> Just for Fun, Write Quite Complex Phrases in Google Translate.]). I use Google Translate all the time for a rough guess at meaning in languages I don't know, but I have linguistics training and I know the pitfalls.
I hope you don't mind my going back over something for which you already know the answer, but the more tools you have for assessing edits, the better your patrolling will be. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Thanks for all those tips... I'll try using more tools for better patrolling (in this case the reason I asked was the IPA change which also got reverted, but I don't geolocate IPs much at all). Yes, regarding Google translate, I often use it to get quick translations of Hindi quotes but ~90% times it isn't fully correct and needs some changing (sometimes for complex words it is even just ridiculous sometimes!). By the way, in future, we'll apparently have some new useful tools which would be helpful for this. —Svārtava (t/u) • 04:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


This was created recently. Could be speedied… ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 11:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: I'm not comfortable speedying that article because I can see some reasons for why someone who voted to delete British Pakistani would vote to keep this one. I'll convert it to an RFD. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 11:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. It was not even a very well-formatted entry, and was created by someone who has newly registered here. And what’s more, in the recent RFD discussion ’bout British Pakistani, ’twas agreed that [[Irish American]] is naturally SoP as well. I would have followed the regular process if this had been an old entry; so I believe this should be deleted out of process. But then it’s up to you to decide… @Chuck Entz, what do you think about my conviction? You might be able to help us out regarding this. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 11:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I think a better way would have been (which I would have done if I had been in your place) to delete the entry speedily; and then, the creator of the entry could challenge the deletion at RFD. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

{{bor+}}, {{inh+}}Edit

Hi. I notice you sometimes use these templates. What do you think of converting existing uses of {{bor}}/{{inh}} to {{bor+}}/{{inh+}} in German entries when it's appropriate to do so? (Basically when they occur at the beginning of a line, optionally preceded by "From " or "Borrowed from "/"Inherited from ".) Benwing2 (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, I haven't forgotten about your accelerator request; it's just gotten bumped down the queue a bit by other requests, but I should be able to get to it tomorrow or the next day. Benwing2 (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Benwing2: I'm definitely in favor of changing {{bor}} to {{bor+}}, but (in the case of German) I'm really not that crazy about {{inh+}} (neither about {{com+}} or writing "From" before affix constructions (which is to say, I really don't like them)). Less is more, see e.g. how cluttered the "Herkunft:" section in de:Hausdach is. The first step in an inheritance chain should always be Middle High German anyway so there's nothing confusing even without the text. I think I've only ever tried out {{inh+}} in German articles a small handful of times. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 09:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
OK, sounds good, I won't use {{inh+}}. My instinct with affix constructions is also not to use "From " unless I need to add some additional text afterwards, i.e. I will format a basic compound as just (without "From" or a following period)
Foo +‎ Bar
but if I need to add additional text, it will look more like (with "From" and final period)
From Foo +‎ Bar; cognate with English Bazbat.
Benwing2 (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Benwing2: Yep, that sounds good. Thanks! — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 21:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

gsw podcastsEdit

Salü, could you recommend some Swiss German podcasts? I'd like to train my listening a bit. Ideally related to culture somehow, or politics. Danke. – Jberkel 12:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jberkel: Hey! I assume you're familiar with what SRF produces, right? Their podcasts are here and here, but some are in (Swiss) High German too, so it requires a bit of clicking around if you want to specifically find Swiss German. I personally like Schwiiz und dütlich and Mundart where they talk about the evolution Swiss German, interesting words, etymologies etc. (be warned though, the second one is a bit cringe at times). I sometimes cite it in etymology sections (e.g. Thönder). They also have categories for politics and culture, but I'm not terribly familiar with them. I personally love Roger Schawinski's discontinued talk show that you can find on YouTube (the ones where he sits vis-a-vis of somebody in a studio on the thumbnail) or just on the SRF page. Der Bund also has a podcast, here's the series about contemporary politics. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 13:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh, forgot about this one but I love Arena (politics). — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 13:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
No, wasn't familiar with SRF (haven't really started digging yet), but just had a quick listen to Schwiiz und dütlich, very interesting. Thanks! – Jberkel 13:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Anon blockEdit

Thanks for that. :) I had no idea that this was actually a cross-wiki problem... 13:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me! Yes, the horror film harasser is a long term cross-wiki problem, see diff and w:Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Jinnifer. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 13:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Lake Constance AlemannicEdit

I have a curious question: How much do you know about Lake Constance Alemannic? --Apisite (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to answer immediately. --Apisite (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Apisite: I have full passive comprehension being a High Alemannic speaker, but when it comes to special words / idioms that are only used in that region and nowhere else in the Alemannic Sprachraum, I would probably not know much. Feel free to ask away though. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 19:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Have you ever looked up Lake Constance Alemannic words from in and around Überlingen or anywhere else in the Lake Constance Alemannic Sprachraum? --Apisite (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
@Apisite: No, I haven't, but as I pointed out, as long as they're not exclusively used only in that region, I will likely recognize them. If you need help understanding something specific, don't hesitate to ask. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 09:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

exoplanets planetsEdit

Hi i am rex65mya on a new account because i forgot the password on the old on but i was wondering if exoplanets such as kepler 22b and kepler 452b can go on the wiktionary. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Hellowikitionary (talkcontribs) at 00:09, 8 March 2022‎.

@Hellowikitionary: Please refer to WT:CFI#Celestial_objects. Note that many of your previous articles have been deleted; you can read the discussions and reasons here: Talk:HAT-P-11b, Talk:HAT-P-11, Talk:BD+60 1417b, Talk:HAT-P-11. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 00:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Witkionary source codeEdit

Hi, do you know who I can talk to about accessing the Wiktionary source code? I can find some parts online, but some parts are missing. I'm working on a project to crawl (a dump of) Wiktionary and create full ancestry trees for words, and it would be helpful to e.g. make use of the code for parsing templates (currently I'm just using a hacky handrolled partial version). Who can I talk to? Thanks! T039mwftulnm0l (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@T039mwftulnm0l: No need to crawl; database dumps are available: T | L | C 〉 11:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Right sorry I spoke imprecisely. I have the dumps, by "crawl" I mean "traverse". To do that I have to parse the templates, but the templates are irregular; sometimes there's no word being linked to (e.g. with a quotation template), sometimes the word being linked to is in the first position, or second; sometimes it's a list of words being linked to; and so on. The Wiktionary back end must handle this somehow, but I don't know where, if at all, that source code is available. T039mwftulnm0l (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@T039mwftulnm0l: The code for specific templates / modules is also found in the dump in the Template: and Module: namespaces respecively. The general infrastructure for how templates and modules behave is part of the freely available WikiMedia software and the extension called Scribunto. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 12:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, but really I'm asking if there's someone I can talk to who knows these systems well. Are you such a person? I have more questions, like, how is it possible to string together the publicly available code to get a function that takes a template as input and outputs the arguments labeled by function. If I knew this were possible then I could try to figure out myself how to do it, but I don't even know if some of the crucial code is hidden in a PHP backend or something. T039mwftulnm0l (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@T039mwftulnm0l: No, I do not know how to achieve that apart from running a complete WikiMedia instance. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 13:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. T039mwftulnm0l (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


For some reason, ACCEL generated the entries in Category:German see also forms with an odd POS. Not sure if it's enough to just fix those five entries or if something in the noun template (or the gadget) needs changing; pinging also User:Benwing2. Perhaps the error is because "See also" is placed higher than "Declension" in Flottillenadmiral, when the expected format is for it to be placed lower? - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@-sche: Good catch, I didn't see this when I created them. I've just tested it and yes, moving the "See also" section down fixed it. Not sure whether this is specific to the German templates or not, but I won't be able to fix it anyhow. Let's just hope Benwing comes back :( — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 21:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)



I'm not trying to be annoying, but maybe you could take a look. I think the code in the second pastebin link fixes both issues you listed (along with the brokenness of Bing search currently). 04:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I've replied there now. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 09:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Romanian terminusEdit

Hello. Is this not borrowed via English, like the French terminus? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Hello. If anything, I'd say it's borrowed from French like the majority of Romanian train vocabulary, which is also the conclusion a couple of Romanian dictionaries (DN86, MDN00, NODEX02) come to. Pinging @Bogdan who added this as borrowed directly from Latin. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 19:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it's from French, which itself is from English, then from Latin. I changed the entry. Bogdan (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please create this categoryEdit

Software is blocking me from creating Category:Jersey Dutch terms derived from Italic languages, can you do it please? Acolyte of Ice (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Acolyte of Ice: It's the SLO filter, which is an edits-per-time abuse filter for new accounts. I've granted you autopatroller rights which exempt you from that filter. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 09:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Ooh I see, thanks for that! Acolyte of Ice (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Got another problem: when I try to create Category:Awutu language I am stopped and told that the action has automatically been identified as harmful. The code I used of course was {{auto cat|Ghana}}. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Acolyte of Ice: I created it; it says Actions taken: Warn [not disallow]; Filter description: various specific spammer habits so if you clicked twice or thrice on the publish button you probably could have pushed it's creation through. By the way, good to see you've created an alt rather than editing as an anon ;) —Svārtava (t/u) • 10:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Acolyte of Ice: I've made changes to the abuse filter in question as this is a clear false-positive. If @Svartava doesn't mind, I'll delete the category and you try to recreate it to see if my changes solved it, ok? — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 10:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Seems like I'm getting the same or similar error still: "This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed." :( Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Acolyte of Ice: Yes, I've changed the wrong part (and thus reverted my change). I know now what triggers it (line 33 in Special:AbuseFilter/32, see also Special:AbuseLog/1275753, Special:AbuseFilter/examine/log/1275753) but I don't know what to best add to fix this false positive. I've found out how to debug abuse filters without you having to re-enter the change so I'm going to restore the category, but this false positive should preferably be fixed anyway, seeing that autopatrollers like Svartava also get a message. @Surjection, Chuck EntzFytcha T | L | C 〉 10:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Fytcha: I never got any message... I want to test creating it with my alt, can you delete it again? —Svārtava (t/u) • 10:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Svartava: Just so I understand correctly: The message you've pasted above, did you receive it when creating the category with your main account? You shouldn't have gotten a message on your main account (per line 3 of the filter) but I assumed you did anyway, given what you've written. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 11:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Fytcha: I was just viewing the abuse log and pasted the message which Acolyte of Ice received, I never got it from my main account. I tried creating Category:Mandari language with my alt and I got the message (depite "Svartava2" being autoconfirmed). So it seems to create such categories autoconfirmed + autopatrolled is needed. —Svārtava (t/u) • 11:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Another run-in with the abuse filterEdit

Couldn't create Category:Liangmai Naga language with {{auto cat|India}} when I tried just now. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Acolyte of Ice: I've created it. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 11:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me pinging you again too much, but I got another one with the same problem lol: Category:Mandari language, with {{auto cat|South Sudan}}. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Acolyte of Ice: No, I don't mind. Surjection has fixed the problem in the meantime so you won't be held up by this filter any longer. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 11:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I see, thank you Fytcha and @Surjection. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Question about watchlistEdit

It seems like Wiktionary is auto-adding pages to my watchlist as I create them...Is there a way to turn this off? Acolyte of Ice (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Acolyte of Ice: see Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist under "watched pages" and uncheck "Add pages I create and files I upload to my watchlist" option. —Svārtava (t/u) • 11:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


Why not create it so we can test it out, rather than writing its creation as something that will be enforced after the vote? Especially considering that failure will not ban anyone from creating it. Also, I think limiting its use to nouns and verbs is unfortunate. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey Allahverdi Verdizade. Yes, I could create them already. The reason why I haven't done so is because 1. there's not really something to test out in my opinion; the templates are just going to be exactly like their ux counterparts with the only difference being that they have their own categories 2. I need somebody to look over my changes to make sure they're good; implementing this is pretty straight-forward from what I can tell but when it comes to a module with such high traffic as Module:usex I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes.
The limitation to nouns and verbs is only temporary and I originally didn't want to include it, but it makes sense from a realpolitikal point of view. This vote already has a somewhat bad chance of passing so I'll happily take the compromise if it means a couple of more people are open to give it a try. If collocations turn out to be a success, I'll of course propose extending this list. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 09:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


Please hide this revision. Thanks. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 11:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Done. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 11:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Re-inserting redlink categories that were deleted by consensusEdit

Why are you doing this? What is the value in having these when they have been discussed and deleted? —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf: Which edit are you referring to? — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Edits to userpages that re-add deleted categories. I can get diffs if you need. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@Koavf: I've reverted those changes because, again, you're not going to remove correct information from pages only because of redlink categories. I thought I made this clear enough when I undid your removal of correct information in Villnöß and about a dozen other municipalities. Same is true here, you don't get to remove proper babel userboxes from editor's userpages or did User:Hydriz suddenly lose his/her Chinese?
If you want to clean out wanted categories, please do it properly. There's no value in "cleaning" that out by removing correct information from our pages. One way to achieve that is to amend {{place}} or {{babel}} accordingly. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
So you think that someone is a native user of IPA or that someone speaks advanced simple English? Why would you re-include deprecated HTML in a userpage? How is that an improvement? —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@Koavf: You're dishonest and arguing in bad faith. None of my reverts had anything to do with IPA. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
How am I being dishonest? Why do you think it's better to use deprecated HTML like in this edit: —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@Koavf: I just told you: you're dishonest because you just made stuff up about me thinking that someone is a native users of IPA. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I retract my statement about IPA: there was a user who had a userbox that said he had native understanding of IPA and you did not revert that. That was a mistake, not a lie, so please pardon me. That said, you're ignoring my other questions: Why do you think it's better to use deprecated HTML like in this edit: —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@Koavf: Okay, thanks for owning up. Regarding that edit: I don't think it's better to use deprecated HTML and if you had only changed that, I of course wouldn't have reverted it. My revert was only because of your removal of language skill babel boxes (as you did on numerous other pages) but seeing as that user isn't contributing here anyway I reverted my revert. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for working with me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning compound typeEdit

I know about your preference of not writing even From before X + Y in an etymology, and honestly it was mine too at some point, but I always find it good to state compound type in etymology like at betelseller. I can see a few points for not doing so: 1) short and clear etymology; 2) mentioning compound type may be confusing (for readers) and unnecessary (as most other dictionaries don't state them); 3) inconsistent with the vast majority of other entries (esp. in English) since |type= parameter is not a very old addition. What do you think on this? —Svārtava (t/u) • 15:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Svartava: I honestly didn't even know that there are different compound types until I joined Wiktionary, and I still don't know the different types well enough to employ them myself in articles. None of the major German dictionaries distinguishes compounds by type except for the German Wiktionary which however seems to do it incorrectly from what I can tell (e.g. de:barfuß), which means that there's no reference. Combined with the fact that we practically never document this in our German articles anyway (only 3 out of 19514 compounds have this information; 1 by you and 2 by User:Mahagaja, so only by people who have knowledge of the Sanskrit grammar tradition) I think it is fair to conclude that this information is not that important in the German language (in addition to the inconsistency argument that you've already made yourself). — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Fytcha: I see, fair enough; what about for English, though, like betelchewing = chewing [of] betel => tatpuruṣa compound? —Svārtava (t/u) • 04:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@Svartava: I have no opinion on that; fine with me either way. A BP discussion would likely give you more input on this matter. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 07:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Svartava: I think it’s unnecessary to mention compound types in languages other than Sanskrit. I don’t think we even need them for tatsamas in Indo-Aryan languages. Some editors might even categorize compounds incorrectly. Let compound types be limited to only Sanskrit entries, seeing that compound type is not a necessary linguistic information in most languages. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 11:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Surely there are compound types in the German and English traditions as well, as the gloss for tatpuruṣa shows "determinative compound". Onomastic lexika make use of such like. ApisAzuli (talk) 04:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Rollback on Yukie is an errorEdit

It's an alternative spelling of the already-existing Ukie, meant to denote a Ukrainian —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 12:38, 17 March 2022‎.

I'm sure it exists, but it's extremely rare in print. I'm not absolutely sure if it would survive rfv, though I didn't check for online usage. At any rate, I fixed the formatting, which was all wrong (see our Entry layout page). Chuck Entz (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

A Little Programming ProjectEdit

Although I do a lot of database application work in real life, my actual formal education in programming was four decades ago, when dinosaurs ruled the earth and the Apple II was still fairly new (we did our BASIC assignments on terminals hooked up to a mainframe somewhere downtown, and FORTRAN on punch-cards). Fortunately, I'm very good at figuring out how things work and at troubleshooting systems without complete mastery of all the details.

That means that I often come up with ideas that I would never be able to implement myself. I have a long history of posting ideas in the Grease pit or the Beer parlour that get ignored. I'm sure most of them are quite deserving of such treatment, but I also come up with things like the original concept that became {{auto cat}}.

Which is where you come in: you have the skills, and you aren't yet locked in to your own Big Projects. I was hoping you could try your hand at a fairly straightforward idea I suggested back in August:

I think {{desctree}} should respond to the lack of a Descendants section in the target entry not by throwing a module error, but by adding a hidden category along the lines of "Category:desctree missing English descendants". This would be in an umbrella category like "Category:desctree missing descendants by language", which would in turn be under Category:Wiktionary maintenance. The first category should also be in "Category:Requests for attention concerning" + the language name, as in "Category:Requests for attention concerning English.
It would also be a good idea for {{desctree}} to display an error message using a certain css class that's only visible in preview- see {{taxlink}} for a template that does this.

I hope I haven't put you off with all the details- that's so you don't have to come up with them yourself if you don't want to. If you'd like to do it some other way, that's fine with me- you're the boss.

Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey Chuck. Interesting idea, I agree that your solution is better than the current one. While I do have a strong programming background (though not in BASIC!), my experience with the stuff used at Wiktionary specifically (Lua, JS, the specific module hierarchy etc.) is very limited, however I think I'll get the hang of it fairly quickly once I get my hands a bit dirty. Your idea sounds like a perfect starter project; I'll have a look at it.
Just one thing: As {{desctree}} only takes the borrowing language's code, I would only be able to place it in the categories associated with the borrowing language, not the donor language (even though the cleanup sometimes has to happen in the donor language's article). Maybe an overarching category for all languages is the way to go then? — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: See User:Fytcha/Sandbox, Category:English entries that need Descendants for desctree and Category:Entries_that_need_Descendants_for_desctree_by_language. I had to put the language name first so I reworded the categories' names a bit. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 18:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
A little further information: most of the module errors in the current setup come from editors deciding that the descendants are really from some other form, and moving the Descendants section there. Quite often, they're right. In such cases, we want someone to change {{desctree}} to point to the entry that has the Descendants section (provided it's actually a descendant itself, of course), not to restore the Descendants entry in the original target. Also, the members of the category aren't English entries, so the category name should reflect that. Perhaps "Category:English descendants to be fixed in desctree"? Chuck Entz (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: I've made it so: Category:English descendants to be fixed in desctree, Category:Descendants to be fixed in desctree by language. I've also placed the latter in Category:Wiktionary maintenance. I didn't place them in the attention categories as those describe themselves as being related to manually inserted {{attention}} templates (link), something I think we should not change. However, it still is in Category:English entry maintenance. Tell me what you think and if there's anything else I can do for this proposal. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 09:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)



I can see that he also treated you in a very unkind way even though you were polite and were right about the issue. I will not leave it like that, he's on some ego trip, apparently. Shumkichi (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Shumkichi: I've considered opening a BP discussion about the user in question both in the past as well as now, but I don't really have the nerve nor the energy for that. In your case, I just wanted to let you know that he did indeed not stalk you; you were reported by another user to WT:VIP. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@Fytcha Yeah, you're right, I think I'll also let it be, not worth my time. But some ppl here are really creepy with their stalking, and some admins abuse their powers. We need more democracy here but I know that's never gonna happen. Shumkichi (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


Could you please delete Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Royal Canadian Mounted Police? They have already failed RFD, and the RFD discussion has been archived as well. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thadh: Hello, seeing as Fytcha has been inactive for a while, could you delete these two entries? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@Inqilābī: Could you look into the terms linked to "Royal Canadian Mounted Police" first please? We'll need another way to link to the concept and the French translation should possibly be RFD'd as well. Thanks. Thadh (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@Thadh:   Done (except for those in userpages). ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hephaistos und AsklepiosEdit

Hallo Fytcha, könntest Du bitte einen Blick jeweils auf das Geschlecht unter 'de-proper noun' und 'declension' werfenː der unter der Deklination ausgewiesene Dativ ist sicher falschː ich weiß aber nicht, wie ich die zweite Variante beim Dativ mit dem angehängten 'e' wegkriege. Vielen Dank für Deine Unterstützung. Viele Grüße Jeuwre (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jeuwre: Hey Jeuwre. Um die Variante mit angehängtem 'e' wegzukriegen, musst du noch zusätzlich .dat:- anfügen. Liebe Grüße — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Hallo Fytcha, vielen Dank für die Info, habs geändert, hat funktioniert :-). Viele Grüße --Jeuwre (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

We did it!Edit

Collocations have passed, and a template has already been made. A propos the adjectival collocations - I am realizing now that many of the noun + adjective collocations are noun + relational adjective, in essence a noun + noun collocation. I know this is a weird time, but what are your thoughts on those? Vininn126 (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Vininn126: These collocations can currently be added to the noun's entry. I am in favor of extending the policy so that we can also add them to the adjective's entry. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back! 17:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you 70, I appreciate it! Don't get too used to me though for the time being. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Came here to say the same: welcome back :) —Svārtava (t/u) • 03:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Beispiel in HauptursacheEdit

Hallo Fytcha, es tut mir leid, Dich erneut zu belästigen. Ich habe versucht, ein Beispiel mit der Quelle deutsche Wikipedia einzufügen. Es wird mir aber immer nur die englische Wikipedia angeboten (trotz Setzen des Parameters 'de'). Auch nach einer halben Stunde Suchen/Recherchieren/Probieren komme ich auf keine Lösung. Irgend etwas mache ich offensichtlich immer noch falsch. Leider habe ich nicht mal Beispiele für nicht-englische Wikipedia-Zitate gefunden, von denen ich hätte abkupfern können. In der Beschreibung gibt es auch kein praktisches Beispiel (noch besser wäre eine Liste der Anwendung in verschiedenen Sprachen, dann wäre die Anwendung dieses Templates für alle wirklich leicht). Könntest Du mir bitte helfen? Vielen Dank schon mal im Voraus. --Jeuwre (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jeuwre: unless I'm mistaken, Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/May#Quoting from Wikipedia may be relevant here. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Dear Chuck Entz, you're right, it seems to be relevant. Did I get it right, your remark with the link to the discussion is an objection? The statements there are a strange approach for me personally (as if the German Wikipedians weren't able to speak proper German :-)). It's also different from quoting behaviour in German Wiktionary. But there will certainly be reasons, even if I don't know them. I don't like to interfere with the policies here. It's completely your choice and we can delete the example with translation I added today in Hauptursache immediately. What do you think? Kind regards --Jeuwre (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jeuwre: It's not that there's anything wrong with the German at German Wikipedia, per se, but that wikis are generally bad as sources- anyone can change them at any time for any reason and they tend not to be independant from Wiktionary- someone could add something totally artificial at German Wikipedia and then quote it here.
This is especially bad with smaller languages that haven't had occasion to be used to write about certain subjects- the Wikipedias for those languages tend to make up terms so they can write about such subjects. It's not a problem with German, but it's all the more reason to look askance at wikis as sources in general. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Dear Chuck Entz, From my point of view one should consider the individual case: is the sentence grammatically correct, is it appropriate to clarify the usage and is it translated correctly? German Wikipedians don't make up any "new words" (as far as I can tell). The whole time I worked for the Wikipedia environment I found much more misspellings in quite relevant German sources (like Der Spiegel, Die Zeit, Deutsche Welle, etc.) than in German Wikipedia. In German Wiktionary you have the option to fix the source at the state you retrieved the example with an option "oldid=..." (= permanent link) to get always this specific version with the example sentence, so that can't be changed. But, as I said, it's your choice. I deleted the example a few minutes ago. Have a nice day and thank you for your support --Jeuwre (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Hallo Jeuwre, Chuck Entz. The template {{quote-wikipedia}} does not support Wikipedias other than the English one: "At the moment, the template does not link to other language Wikipedias." While the quote that you've provided (diff) is perfectly fine, I want to point out that we've had at least three cases of words that originated in the German Wikipedia that had to be deleted from en.wiktionary: Talk:Alkoholersterwerbsalter, Talk:schreibungsabhängig, Talk:schreibungsunabhängig. I wouldn't remove an obviously fine sentence such as the one you've provided but, at the same time, I would probably try to cite non-Wikimedia sources if possible. Hope this helps! — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 14:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


Hallo Fytcha, ich bin unlängst auf dieses Wort gestoßen. Einen Eintrag dazu sollten wir auf jeden Fall haben, aber ich frage mich, ob wir etwas zur Etymologie dieses Wortes sagen können: ist es eine alte Nominalform mit historischem Ablaut, die sich nur in alemannischen Varietäten erhalten hat und nun auch ins schweizerische Schriftdeutsch eindringt, oder ist es eine eher junge Wortschöpfung in Analogie zu Flug, Wurf etc.? –Austronesier (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hallo Austronesier. Laut dem Schweizerischen Idiotikon (Band 9, 1929) hat das steirische Wörterbuch von Unger-Khull (1903) wohl auch einen Eintrag zu dem Wort, was eher für einen gemeinsamen Ursprung als eine alemannische Innovation spricht. Ferner scheint das Wort auch heutzutage im Bairischen zu existieren, auch wenn die Benutzung schwindet. Gleichzeitig ist dem Grimm (Band 15, 1899), der sogar einen Eintrag für das Nomen Schwumm pflegt, diese Bedeutung nicht bekannt.
Vielleicht ist es noch hilfreich hinzuzufügen, dass im Alemannischen schwümme als regionale Variante (die mir primär aus Bern bekannt ist) von schwimme existiert. Lexer kennt dazu die mittelhochdeutsche Form "swummen"[3], die auch Grimm unter "schwummen" aufführt[4].
Hoffentlich ist etwas Hilfreiches dabei! — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 15:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Alt Forms in Translations BoxesEdit

Hey, I noticed your recent comment on 'outsider' and I was wondering how you would view what I was doing at Boao. Let me know if you have any advice for me. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey Geographyinitiative. I can't say I've ever seen a translation box for an alternative spelling but WT:TRANS doesn't seem to forbid it. Still, personally I would probably start a BP discussion. If there is a clear community consensus on either allowing or forbidding translations of alt forms/alt spellings, it should be codified in WT:TRANS. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 00:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Cool, I will get that entry cleaned up and take it to the BP. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


Hey, could you flag me as autopatrolled? While using JWB, I'm facing a rate limit, so I guess that could hopefully get resolved by that. Svartava2 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

No, this is decided at WT:WL and not requested by the target user. Equinox 16:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@Equinox: I'm already autopatrolled and I could also mark my alt's edits as patrolled manually. I just need the flag to bypass the rate-limit. Svartava2 (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Besides what Equinox has said, your account is already autopatrolled on my end. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@Fytcha: Asking for this alt which is enabled for AWB/JWB. Also, this doesn't require WT:WL. Svartava2 (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I was thrown off because clicking on your username User:Svartava2 redirected me to your main account which is why I thought that you were autopatrolled already. Anyways, I've proposed you on WT:WL. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, though I guess it would be better if it was done today (since it's late night). See User_talk:Barytonesis/2017#Socks. Svartava2 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Alemannic 'sr'Edit

You seem to know Alemannic. Am I correct in assuming that -s-r- would palatalize, even across boundaries? Asking in reference to Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2022/June#Isreal. If epenthesis happened to avoid the palatalization, it would give a prosodic structure that can explain the sound change equivalently to Nathaniel.

Es fällt auf, dass Sr- sowieso nicht existiert auf Deutsch ([5], außer Sri Lanka) oder Angelsk ([6]; NB: SRAM heißt bei mir /ɛsˈʁam/) und eben Alemannisch ([7]). Im phrase-book sieht wér kseenisch de auch aus als wär das k hyperkorrektur, was bis auf *wiz zurückgehen mü', weischt? ApisAzuli (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@ApisAzuli: Das k in wér kseenisch de ist nicht epenthesischen oder hyperkorrektiven Ursprungs; das Verb für sehen (gsee) beginnt in allen Kontexten mit einem Verschlusslaut. VsrV an Silbengrenzen klingt (in meinem Dialekt zumindest) nicht palatalisiert. Vielleicht ist noch festzuhalten, dass Alemannisch vor VsVrV > VsrV nicht zurückscheut (z.B. üsere > üsre). — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 22:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Das ist allerdings nicht weniger kurios.
  • 1. Die relative Datierung von *gasehwaną führt anscheinend bis auf den Lautstand vor Rhotazismus *wiʀ (über *wīz) 2. Eine comitative oder selbstreflexive Wendung wäre wohl sinnvoll (vgl. generel con-, cum, bzw. verschiedentlich "Wir gedenken ...", "Ich denke mir ...", sowie unbestimmt "Wir sehen uns!" und bestimmt "Wir seh'n uns dann!" usw. neben "Ich seh mir das an" usw. usf., falls SVO vorausgesetzt werden kann). Ich habe nun schon drei mal zum Konter angesetzt, um alle Ideen zu berücksichtigen, die mir dazu einfallen, ohne dass ein Ende in Sicht wär, weil dann wieder das beleidigte Herummosern einsetzt.
  • Ich sage äuß're Umstände jenauso, nicht zwingend. Diese Lautung wäre sogar die erste Option, die ich mir überlegt hatte, nur fehlt mir das fachwissenschaftliche Vokabular zur genaueren Beschreibung. Wegen extra würde ich nicht von einer einzelsprachlichen Gegebenheit ausgehen. Doch ich habe mir unlängst vorgenommen, PIE *ter und ähnliches nicht anzufassen. Dafür fehlt mir die Kneifzange.
Also, ich bedanke mich vorerst für den außerordentlich hilfreichen Hinweis. 12:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Colour (English) and Color (American)Edit

It really depends whether the source from which the spelling was taken is American or English. If, American, you were quite entitled to revert the unidentified users edits; but not if it were English. I realise that Wikimedia is American based. Some good terms like 'fall' for autumn have not been taken on by sloppy English = my native tongue; but others that are incorrect like billion = one thousand million is simply error. One billion times one billion = one quadrillion with 24 zeros and always shall be! Just a detail. Kind regards. Andrew H. Gray 20:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[[User:Werdna Yrneh Yarg|Andrew]] ([[User talk:Werdna Yrneh Yarg|talk]]) Andrew H. Gray 20:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding orthographiesEdit

I have a question regarding the use of orthographies for languages which have no fixed official/semi-official orthographies. I have seen some Afro-Asiatic lemmas which were written in IPA, but I was wondering whether this is an established practice or whether it's best to hold off on adding IPA entries. It must be difficult to re-work entries to official orthographies once they become available. ESTTLG (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@ESTTLG: Wiktionary is very descriptivist and it doesn't really matter whether there is an official orthography or not. All that matters is that there is evidence for a certain spelling being used, official or not. If the language that you're working on is on this list, then there have to exist three durably archived attestations of that word being used with that spelling. If it is not on that list, then a single use or even mention suffices. As to entries with their IPA as the title, I have only seen this practice very rarely (I think only once?) and I don't think it should be done without prior discussion. If there are words for which there are no attested spellings (which is entirely possible because audio and video are also valid sources per WT:ATTEST), it can be discussed in e.g. the WT:Beer Parlour. Hope this helps! — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 12:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
So if for example I find a word in a vocabulary of a language which makes use of the glottal stop symbol and several other characters normally only found in IPA, I can add it as it is written in the source vocabulary? ESTTLG (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@ESTTLG: Vocabularies typically only mention the word (w:Use–mention distinction) and mentions are only permissible for Limited Documentation Languages, so as long as the language is not on this list then the answer is yes, otherwise no. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 12:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@Fytcha understood, thank you for clarifying! ESTTLG (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

ThanksEdit general for being a decent Wiktionarian. You're in my top 20 Wiktionarians of 2022 (so far) Zumbacool (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zumbacool: Top 20 of 2022 sounds more like a burn than a compliment but seeing that I used to be annoying on your talk page I guess I'll take it. You on the other hand, my friend, are easily in my top 15 of 2022! You should stop by more often. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 23:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


Why did you even tag me in that discussion? Do you have a problem with me? If so, just write to me rather than dragging others into it. Shumkichi (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Shumkichi: I wanted to link to your profile, not ping you. I don't have any problems and I wouldn't have blocked you for your user page contents, your case was however relevant to the discussion at hand. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 11:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
@Fytcha I don't think so, people block me because they have a bias against and because I'm argumentative, but when I expose their hypocrisy, they stop responding and just block me xd Anyway, I'm sorry for the message, I thought you were just another person who wanted to humiliate me here but you're actually nice :( Now I feel bad :/ Shumkichi (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

About the usage of "stunning and brave"Edit

I thought that this term was mostly used by US conservatives and so-called "anti-SJWs" (reactionary or traditionalist fans) towards activists who behave in a petty manner. After all, most of the time I saw that term being used more often by these groups.

Is it actually a more general term used by almost anyone, regardless of politics?

Thank you for clarifying!

PulauKakatua19 (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@PulauKakatua19: The reason I removed the "political" label was because I thought you can also mock other, non-political things with the phrase. I haven't researched it super deeply and while it seems that the majority of uses are in some form or another politically related (possibly due to it's origins, seeing that the South Park episode deals with political topics), I also found plenty of non-political uses on the internet in just a quick search: mockery related to sports, mocking something that is perceived to be phony, mocking somebody who calls somebody else courageous, self-mockery related to sports, mocking behavior perceived as immoral, mocking somebody for thinking of themselves as overly special. These also make me question whether the phrase at hand really means more than just stunning and brave ironically (in which case it should not be included). Perhaps a label along the lines of "originally political" or "chiefly political" can be added. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 18:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining! PulauKakatua19 (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


Hi Fytcha.

In your edit-summary for Charonian, you stated that "different PoS can't have the same synonym, which is what the L3 layout suggests." But then you added the same synonym to both the adjective and noun sections, meaning that they do have the same synonym. I suppose that some grammarians would argue that the adjective 'Charonian' and the noun 'Charonian' are two different words, rather than polysemy, but that's a theoretical claim, and psycholinguistics would suggest an incorrect one. So do we really need to duplicate the same synonym in PoS after PoS? Or is it a matter of verifying that the PoS in each word matches the PoS we claim it's a synonym for?

kwami (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey Kwamikagami. I would subscribe to the idea that Charonian (noun) and Charonian (adjective) are different words, but I think this is not all that important to this discussion. More important is the fact that, one, L4 nyms are the vastly more common approach (see User:JeffDoozan/stats/sections/latest, in the WT:ELE box, synonyms: 1069 L3, 227975 L4 (worth keeping in mind that the figure for L3 is inflated due to false uses such as in watchtower); the other L3 nyms sometimes being in the single digits) and, two, that whether a header is L3 or L4 is more easily overlooked (as compared to just having inline nyms under both PoS). WT:EL also exemplifies ====Synonyms==== as a header that is subordinate to the PoS header (which you'd also find in WT:NYMS as an L4) but, granted, it doesn't say that nyms must be subordinate to PoS headers. I personally think that there are a couple of legitimate exceptions where L3 nym headers are justified, most importantly when there's the whole bells and whistles as in Shiite or Central German where it would be absurd to have everything twice. My suggestion is: making nyms subordinate to the PoS unless one has a really good reason to do otherwise. In cases such as Charonian where there's two PoS and only one nym, I would personally never use an L3 nym header but I think I wouldn't edit-war somebody else over using it either. Hope this helps! — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 00:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, I think it was entries like 'Shiite' that I'd internalized as my model. Or perhaps that formatting was more common when I started here than it is now. I've been using the inline templates when a word is a nym for only some of the several definitions of the entry. kwami (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

de:Diskussion:den Arsch aufreißenEdit

Möchtest Du Dich daran beteiligen? Gruß, Peters Assistent (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


Sorry, mobile interface cut off my revert reasoning before I could finish it. I'm not a Romanian speaker, but as far as I can tell, mîglă is a variant of mâglă (that I can find in Romanian dictionaries it appears) and it's the form that's being provided in all etymological dictionaries that have the word. Hythonia (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hythonia: mîglă and mâglă refer to the same word (same pronunciation and meaning) and differ only by their adherence to different orthographic convention with mîglă being the dated or Moldovan variant and mâglă being the standard Romanian variant, which is where the non-stub entry usually goes. A non-orthographic borrowing borrows the word, not the spelling, and as such it doesn't matter with respect to etymology which one we list as the donor word in the Polish entry; mâglă is however where the non-stub Romanian entry will be situated at, hence my change to that. To give an analogous example: it doesn't matter which of the homophones counseling or counselling we list as the donor for カウンセリング so we just go with the non-stub one (counseling). Same reasoning for mygła. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 18:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Got it. Reverted in that case. Hythonia (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent revertsEdit

I believe you were mistaken to revert so many edits of Tim Euler, especially to firebell. Just because Tim Euler was a sockpuppet account of another does not automatically mean all his edits were disruptive and/or vandalism. Is there any chance that you can go back, review, and undo some of those reversions, one page at a time? Thanks. 17:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time to check every single one of your edits, I simply saw that you're still completely clueless about the languages you're editing (diff, diff) which was enough for me to throw it all out. You better get used to it.
How hard can it be to simply stop editing languages you don't know? This is what got your main account blocked in the first place. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

citations for section apeEdit

Hi there Fytcha, are you kindly able to dig up some citations for this entry?

I would greatly appreciate it! 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:D4CC:23E0:7FF6:DF35 19:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! The term in question doesn't seem to be citable. Google Groups yields no fitting citations ([8]), and neither does Google Books ([9]). — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 11:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)