Hi! Thanks for your recent contributions. Some of them were slightly different from how we do Greek entries (compare WT:About Ancient Greek and WT:Entry layout); see the following edits for reference:

Notably, you listed descendant terms (i.e. terms in other languages that are taken from the Ancient Greek) as "derived terms", which refers specifically to terms in Ancient Greek itself which are derived from said Ancient Greek word. Furthermore, you moved one of your entries to a page title with a macron, which we avoid doing on Wiktionary. The macron can be used within the entry itself, but not in the page title.

Please take note of these corrections. These are all in all relatively minor quibbles, the pages were quite good otherwise :) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


Please stop removing spaces. Canonicalization (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Somehow your etymology template added the word to Category:Latin words prefixed with omo-, but it's not a Latin word (at least our entry isn't). Do you know how to fix the error? Equinox 16:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

omohyoid same problem. Equinox 16:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your additions. Please take note of formatting changes like this: omit spaces in ==Language or part-of-speech headers== and you don't need to put blank lines between a header and content (unless the next content is just another header, like when a language header is followed immediately by a part-of-speech header). Also, as Equinox says, notice that something like {{affix|la| results in an entry being categorized as Latin (a Latin entry formed by affixing), which isn't right if it is in fact an English entry. Ways around this include moving that portion of the etymology to the Latin entry, or adding nocat=1. - -sche (discuss) 22:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Rhymes pagesEdit

Please read Rhymes:English before you add rhymes for anything with more than one syllable. In English, rhymes include the stressed syllable, so alligator and cucumber don't rhyme- even though their final syllables do. They also don't rhyme with fur or deter, so they don't belong at Rhymes:English/ɜː(ɹ). Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

What if two words sound the same from the secondary stress, e.g. respiratory and compensatory in General American?--陳弈豪 (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I would advise against it, though it's close enough that I probably wouldn't go out of my way to remove those. I can't speak for anyone else, though, so you might ask at the Beer parlour to see what the consensus is. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
You can add these on the page for /eɪtəri/ following each word with {{qualifier|US pronunciation}} —. Paul G (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Translingual Taxonomic-Name EntriesEdit

Please be careful not to blur languages together in these.

A taxonomic name is, according to the two main taxonomic codes, Latin, with any non-Latin constituents converted to Latin by specific rules (it's certainly not Ancient Greek, though it uses a lot of Ancient Greek vocabulary and morphology). As Latin, however, it's more of a stripped-down, limited simulation of Latin, especially as used in more recent centuries.

What makes it translingual is that it's the same in a large number of different languages and is really independent of them all. English has pronunciations for taxonomic names, but so do all the other languages. I'm not really sure what our policy is for adding pronunciation sections (perhaps @DCDuring would know more), but adding English pronunciations as if they were English sections is definitely wrong. I don't think any translingual entry should be in Category:English terms with IPA pronunciation or any English rhymes category.Chuck Entz (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd favor pronunciation tables for taxonomic names, but there is no consensus for that. Short of that, we could justify English pronunciations because, after all, this is English Wiktionary, but there is no consensus for that either, probably less than for pronunciation tables. In other words, we would need a BP discussion, which IMO would likely not have a constructive resolution. DCDuring (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent additions to rhymes pagesEdit

I note that you have recently added words to some rhymes pages. In several cases, these words were already listed, and in others, the words added are not in the right alphabetical position.

I have cleaned some of these up. Could you do the rest, please, and then take more care in future. Thanks. — Paul G (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Source of flatworm entriesEdit

What source are you using for the flatworm entries you are adding? I am having trouble getting confirmation for some of the entries from the sources I usually use. Most of the sources I use are not specialized and so miss some recent developments. But some country- or region-specific sources use names that are not necessarily accepted globally. DCDuring (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources/References for taxonomic entriesEdit

Your taxonomic entries are in areas for which the taxonomy does not have widespread acceptance. Please provide sources for the Hypernyms. I will simply replace them with something I can source if you do not.

Your failure to provide actual links to your sources is the cause of my problem. Most taxonomic databases provide a visible ID# for each entry. Some require that you inspect the link to obtain such an ID. Do you not use the documentation for the templates? I know that you do not provide documentation for the templates that you have created. I am concerned that you have not replied to most messages left on this page.

The actual definitions that you provide are generally very good. You are providing much-need content. You may be wasting your time making templates, many of which will not have frequent use for quite some time. DCDuring (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The Catalog of Life is not a high-quality source. You should compare it to other sources. For non-viral pathogens NCBI is the best convenient online source. DCDuring (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I thought the CoL is one of the most authoritative taxonomic sources? 陳弈豪 (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
It is very comprehensive, but I don't think it is as good as some of the other taxonomic databases. I like WoRMS (aquatic organisms), APG (plants), Mammals of the World, Fishbase, AviBase, Algaebase. For taxonomy at the rank of order and above I rely on {{R:Ruggiero}}, which is comprehensive, represents a consensus of leading taxonomists, is fairly current (2015), and is supposed to be revised every 5 years or so. I will post a link to the document and to two spreadsheets that contain their taxonomy. Catalog of Life does not have many of the ranks included, eg, tribes, subtribes, subgenera, but also suborders, superfamilies, subfamilies, subclasses, subphyla. There are many important groups of organisms that are not well understood taxonomically and others that with taxonomies that are being revised based on new understanding derived from analysis of DNA. I haven't spent much time looking for the best specialized databases on nematodes. I have been interested in other groups of organisms that cause human pathology. Viruses and prokaryotes have well-structured official bodies that control names. The Index Fungorum and MycoBase are great sources for fungi. I haven't found similar sources for chromists, protists, and multicellular animalian parasites of humans. Because it originated with concern about human health, NCBI is the best database I have found for pathogens of humans. I try to reconcile it with Ruggiero. DCDuring (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


Please don't revert without edit summaries or comments on user talk pages. Also, specifically, don't oversimplify taxonomic hypernym templates. And don't forget to

  1. source your hypernyms with usable links to the taxon's pages at credible sources.
  2. document the taxonomic hypernyms templates you create.

It is difficult to deal with your efforts when you fail to explain yourself or even respond to comments on this page. DCDuring (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


I didn't see why a national authority such as the CDC could be assumed to have any role in taxonomic nomenclature generally and specifically at Wiktionary. I look to the taxonomic codes. ICTV prescribes the use of italics for all viral taxa.

Under the heading "Suggestions for Authors and Publishers" the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes; Prokaryotic Code (2008 Revision), published by the Microbiology Society states:

For scientific names of taxa, conventions shall be used which are appropriate to the language of the country and to the relevant journal and publishing house concerned. These should preferably indicate scientific names by a different type face, e.g., italic, or by some other device to distinguish them from the rest of the text.

In the text of the document, all taxa appear in italics. For example, under "General Consideration 5": "Note. “Prokaryotes” covers those organisms that are variously recognized as e.g. Schizomycetes, Bacteria, Eubacteria, Archaebacteria, Archaeobacteria, Archaea, Schizophycetes, Cyanophyceae and Cyanobacteria." I believe we should follow their suggestion and examples. DCDuring (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Campylobacteria "not validly published"Edit

According to Campylobacteria at List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature, it was a name proposed in 2017, but was deemed "not validly published". There is no reason not to have it as an entry (subject to attestation etc.), but I don't think we should include it in Hypernyms or Hypernyms templates. DCDuring (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The correct name remains Epsilonproteobacteria. DCDuring (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I wonder whether the Genome Taxonomy Database is reliable enough for bacterial taxonomy? 陳弈豪 (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't look to me as if it is sufficiently reliable. I was just looking at some templates that you created that use GTDB. I don't see enough other databases following it. It may be where disgruntled advocates of taxonomies not (yet?) accepted by the mainstream databases go to record their work. Also, do you know how to track the sources GTDB use for their taxonomies? Most mainstream databases try to have sources, the best always have sources (eg, NCBI, LPSN, ITIS, WoRMS, IRMNG, Tropicos, FishBase, MycoBank, Algaebase); others, like Wikispecies, sometimes don't. Ruggiero et al. doesn't, apparently relying on the list of distinguished authors to provide authority. DCDuring (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mailEdit

Hello JoeyChen,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Related termsEdit

Hi. "Related terms" is when the words come from the same route, like way and via. If it's just the same topic, use "See also". Equinox 17:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Misuse of suffix categoriesEdit

"-ic acid" is not a suffix. The word ending in "-ic" and "acid" are completely independent. For instance, one would ask "what kind of acid is it?", to which the answer would be "hydrochloric". Then there are coordinated phrases like "sulfuric and hydrochloric acids". What's more, "acid" is a noun, with the "-ic" word acting as an adjective modifying it. If you want an analogy with Chinese, think of the word ending in "-ic" as having something like "的" after it. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, Robbie SWE, Surjection: This user has just created Category:English words interfixed with -gest- and -gest- on the basis of medroxyprogesterone. They are filling the dictionary up with nonsense, and they should be blocked temporarily before they wreak havoc further. PUC – 16:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
@PUC, I blocked the user for an hour. Hopefully, they'll feel compelled to respond here. @陳弈豪, please explain why you've added these kinds of terms and categories – they contradict linguistic practices and feel foreign to English speakers. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

JoeyChen (block logactive blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter loguser creation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

The "weird-looking" affix entries I created contain stems of international nonproprietary names of pharmaceutical drugs, based on Stem Book 2018.
Lexicographers behind that source are not. The extraction of a -ster- interfix from mesterolone, penmesterol and rosterolone hardly makes sense. Also, that work is licensed as CC BY-NC-SA 3.0, but there to my knowledge has been no attribution. — surjection??⟩ 17:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
any sense*. — surjection??⟩ 17:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I don't quite understand. 陳弈豪 (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
My two main points are: 1. the creators of that source seem to have different lexicographical standards and definitions from ours; 2. there is a potential license violation, as the source you linked has a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license, which requires attribution. — surjection??⟩ 17:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I see. Then is it sufficient to keep those entries from deletion by simply adding the attributions? 陳弈豪 (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd say no, it's not enough because they don't necessarily attack it from a linguistic point of view. This is a dictionary, not an industrial textbook. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Does it mean then that there is no means to keep those entries? 陳弈豪 (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
No, but possibly the other way around - attribution should be added with references, or otherwise someone else may choose to wipe all of it as a copyright violation. Which content should be included though should be judged separately. — surjection??⟩ 22:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
A stem is not an affix, it's something you add affixes to. Besides which, these don't really correspond to anything that you would have in a dictionary. It's like a kit, with some of the things in the kit being assembled beforehand out of various parts. You might have a combination of the thing that's attached to a particular place on the main piece with whatever gets attached to it. Or it might even be the main piece with all the attachments that always go together with it, so all you have to do is attach the optional parts.
Another point to consider is that the drug names don't have to be specific to English. That could potentially make the names translingual, not English. It's reminiscent of the way taxonomic names are assembled using a limited set of Latin grammatical rules with endings that are very specific to the taxonomic rank. A taxonomic name may look like Latin, but it's meant to be used the same way in any language and isn't something you would normally use in a Latin sentence. Likewise, these drug names may have English components like "acid", but that doesn't make them English.
I'm not really sure how you would classify the "stems" in that reference, but they're mostly not English prefixes,suffixes, infixes or circumfixes. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I assume these drug names to be English since they have Latin and Spanish counterparts, e.g. the Latin form of furosemide is furosemidum, and in Spanish it's furosemida. Or am I wrong? JoeyChen (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for registering and for engaging in discussion.
These terms certainly have English terms in their ancestry. But they seem to be intended to be used translingually. The hyphenless terms in the reference you cited above don't seem to be usable on their own, ie, without prefixes and/or suffixes. Do they need both prefix and suffix to make a chemical term that is understood by chemists? The morphology of these terms is apparently like that of terms in agglutinative languages (Like Finnish, Hungarian, and Turkish), so such languages may offer suitable models for how to handle these terms. DCDuring (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the question, but here is an example: The stem fos (from phosphorus) can appear at the beginning (foscarnet), in the middle (tetrofosmin), or at the end (triclofos) of a word. For the latter word, it is derived from trichloro and fos. I visited Finnish and Hungarian Wiktionaries and found some affixes, but I'm afraid I can't figure out exactly how those languages deal with agglutination at first sight. JoeyChen (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE, Surjection, Chuck Entz: Category:English words prefixed with rifa- (rifampicin)... PUC – 18:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


Hi. At auricularis anterior it seems you copied a definition basically word for word from Webster. This is not legal. Equinox 19:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Links in rhymes pagesEdit


I am updating the links for longer endings in the rhymes pages to include endings beginning with consonants as well as vowels. See the content at Rhymes:English/æb... for an example. This is to help make the rhymes pages shorter and rhymes easier to find.

Please don't revert these to say "+ vowel..." as this format is no longer being used. Thanks. — Paul G (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit summary for new pagesEdit

Hi. You can leave it blank instead of typing "New page". Then the page content can be seen in Recent Changes, which is useful. Thanks. Equinox 05:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

def/indefinite articles in definitions; Further readingEdit

Hey, I've noticed that in your recent edits you remove the articles "the/a" from definitions and move the contents of the Further reading section into References - for example in this edit: Special:diff/62455375. Could you explain the rationale?

  • Why remove the articles, which are an important part of the English grammar? Why remove only the first occurrence of the article and not the second, eg. in "part of the cheek"? Why did you still decide to include it in the translations inside the etymology section (Ancient Greek βῡ́ᾱς (bū́ās, a hoot), French bouche (the mouth))?
  • In that entry, the References section contained a publication that I actually used as a reference, namely the OLD; Further reading contains generic, less reliable and academically superceded dictionaries like L&S and Gaffiot that aren't being used as direct references. I do this for all the entries that I update with definitions from the OLD, unless the coverage in L&S is just as good (mostly for words with few meanings or attestations). I think it's not a good practice to automatically cite a bunch of random dictionaries as references in every article when there exists a special section for that, about which WT:EL#Further_reading says: "This section may be used to link to external dictionaries and encyclopedias". Don't you agree? Brutal Russian (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    • There was a deliberate decision to move external links that aren't for the specific purpose of validating specific details (mostly in the etymology) from "References" to "Further reading". Moving them back would be a bad idea in most cases. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong rhymesEdit

Are you sure your English is good enough to do this? "Medicinal" does not rhyme /aɪnəl/. I've seen you make other mistakes too. Equinox 11:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster Online, "medicinal" is pronounced /ˌmɛdɪˈsaɪnəl/ or /ˈmɛdsənəl/ in Shakespeare's and Milton's works. As for "garroter," Merriam-Webster included /ɡəˈɹoʊt/ as one of the several pronunciations for the verb "garrote." JoeyChen (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I checked OED and it agrees with you on carinal, but not on medicinal (/mᵻˈdɪsᵻn(ə)l/ /məˈdɪsən(ə)l/ /mɛˈdɪsn(ə)l/) nor on garroter (/ɡəˈrɒtə/). You certainly cannot rely on the pron on "garrote" to find the pron on "garroter", by your own logic (because "medicinal" doesn't have the same vowel as "medicine"!). Furthermore if you are talking about pronunciations in Shakey and Milton you have a duty and obligation not to present them as modern everyday prons because they are not correct any more. Maybe they were once. Your user page ranks you as en-2: either this is correct (and you are probably not well informed enough to deal with rhymes of rare and difficult words) or you are "better" than en-2 and undervaluing yourself. Which? Equinox 03:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Just because that rhyme is valid in Shakespeare and Milton (though I guess the latter's pronunciation is based on metre rather than rhyme? not that it matters) does not mean that it should be added to rhyme pages. "This pronunciation occurs in some authors from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries" is far too marginal content for a rhyming page. Moreover, you should have thought of that before you made that edit and should have asked for community feedback instead of going ahead with the edit; that is just common sense. However, policy on historical rhymes seems seriously underdeveloped. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, as the person who has been adding most of the rhymes to Wiktionary, I generally do not add obsolete words unless a modern pronunciation is given in a reputable source, such as the OED. — Paul G (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Do not remove red links from rhymes pagesEdit

I see that on February of this year you removed a large number of entries from this page. Could I ask you not to do this.

Entries that show up as red links indicate entries that are missing from Wiktionary and that need to be added, not ones that need to be removed. In some cases, entries for proper nouns are linked to Wikipedia, and those that are Wiktionary material should be turned into internal links, but again, there is no reason to remove these.

I have restored these, which has taken me quite some time and effort to do. Please reconsider in future before removing content from Wiktionary. Thank you. — Paul G (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

PS: I see you have done the same at this page. Which other rhymes pages have you deleted material from? — Paul G (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Most of the Romance descendants of such a basic word as 'tooth' are inherited, not borrowed, so I undid most of your bor=1 flags. Outcomes like Italian dènte and Occitan dent are perfectly normal for those languages too. A word doesn't have to show radical sound changes like Spanish e>ie (diente) to be inherited...--Ser be être 是talk/stalk 18:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)