Open main menu
  1. 2012                5. 2016
  2. 2013                6. 2017
  3. 2014                7. 2018
  4. 2015


soy boyEdit

Metaknowledge my dear fellow, in sincere love I highly suggest you respect and heed the clarification for accuracy in that etymology section. Everyone could learn from it, both men and women. Xenoestrogens are the Roman leadpipes of our era.--Sigehelmus (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's be clear: you need to stop editing that entry. You are not the first (and will not be the last) editor around here who is capable of perfectly productive edits but has a strong opinion about a particular topic that conflicts with the neutral and fact-based enterprise of writing a dictionary. The solution is for you to leave that entry to others. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
So when you leave a water bottle in the sun for an hour and it has a funny sweet taste, you think that has no effect on your body that could be negative?--Sigehelmus (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not interested in discussing this with you (and it's not relevant to the entry's etymology). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
For your own good by my own agape, here are the fact based studies for you to review just to start, from NCBI itself:
Screw the entry, if for nothing else you should see for yourself for your own benefit. Or do you want to be infertile and get cancer, inter alia?--Sigehelmus (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you missed the bit above where I mentioned that I'm not interested in discussing this with you. Please stop posting on my talk page unless you want to discuss something relevant to the dictionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
So be it, shame on me for having earnest concern. Good day. I will sincerely and innocently presume your intentions are purely benign, of course. Not like people skeptical of xenoestrogens would listen to a wiki anyway, pssh.--Sigehelmus (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Xenoestrogens aside, I have to point out as a historian of Late Antiquity that the "lead pipes" theory of the 'fall' of Rome is utter bollocks. (If your post wasn't meant to be taken seriously, please ignore this..) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The lead pipes are actually a remarkably good analogue for xenoestrogens. They both have some negative health effects, but those effects are marginal and wholly irrelevant to the civilisation as a whole. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hahha, can we turn "shame on me for having earnest concern. Good day" into a meme please? Equinox 14:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


On the subject of memes, explain your regular vandalism here: Lysdexia (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not a synonym, it's a hypernym. A catchphrase is only a very small part of the range of things a meme can be. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

So he didn't care to edit appropriately either time instead of click out the work. However meme says "that is transmitted verbally". catchphrase refers to the same level concept. Lysdexia (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please note the word "or" in that definition. That opens it up to other things that aren't "transmitted verbally". There's nothing inherently verbal about a meme in either definition- unless there's some verbal aspect to rickrolling that I've missed. Chuck Entz (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(Don't edit my indent levels; I deliberately don't increment replies so that the whitespace doesn't eat commentspace but keep the indent level where I enter the thread, and may use different indent levels within the same comment for quotations.) The other clause refers to expression which is included in phrase, one of which admits rickrolling:

From Late Latin phrasis (“diction”), from Ancient Greek φράσις (phrásis, “manner of expression”), from φράζω (phrázō, “I tell, express”).
  1. A short written or spoken expression.
  2. (grammar) A word or group of words that functions as a single unit in the syntax of a sentence, usually consisting of a head, or central word, and elaborating words.
  3. (music) A small section of music in a larger piece.
  4. (archaic) A mode or form of speech; diction; expression.

Lysdexia (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I can almost hear the semantics screaming from being stretched beyond recognition, but I know you sincerely and deeply believe in your own infallibility- so I won't waste much more time on this. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Michigan pronunciation of theaterEdit

I'm not sure I understand why you reverted my addition in the first-place, as it's certainly a common colloquial pronunciation of the word, especially in Michigan, well-documented at that. As such, I'll revert your rollback upon the addition of a complimentary audio-file. Учхљёная (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

You haven't shown a great track record, so I was suspicious, but the addition of "nonstandard" and the fact that what you recorded does match the IPA is enough to satisfy me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
If we are going to have a Michigan pronunciation, I would think we would also have a Southern U.S. pronunciation, which (to mix phonetic styles a bit) is something like Θee-ATE-ər. bd2412 T 21:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I've also heard a few Americans pronounce this with ~2 syllables, like /θeɪ(ᵊ)tɚ/ (someone mentions this here). No idea if it's specific to some particular region, or worth including. - -sche (discuss) 22:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I hear myself use a 2-syllable pronunciation, no marked diphthong, but I'm no good at IPA. DCDuring (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

About "boyfriend" pronunciationEdit

Hi, you reverted my edit on the page [boyfriend], and I am not agree with the reason you gave, which was: "That's just a simplified version of the same transcription we already have", so in my opinion what I wrote was not a simplified version, it was indeed another pronunciation, because it lacked of the second stress. So in my opinion it should be accepted.
By the way in that page, in the recording they pronouced boyfriend in that way. More over in the page of [forvo] you can hear both pronunciations.FanNihongo (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, you're talking about the page boyfriend, right? Secondly, I think you're wrong, but I am willing to concede that I could be misunderstanding the situation, so I'd rather somebody more knowledgeable adjudicate. @Mahagaja? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to hear a difference between /ˈbɔɪˌfɹɛnd/ with a secondary stress and /ˈbɔɪfɹɛnd/ without one. It's entirely a matter of personal taste whether to show the secondary stress in that word or not, but it definitely makes no sense to show both versions as if they were different, because they aren't different. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Mahagaja and @Metaknowledge I am a hispanophone, I am learning English, and it took me a lot of time to understand the secondary stress(I mean hear it and how to pronounce it). I am someone who tries to speak English correctly, I do hear the difference, so for example when wiktionary says that the word "boyfriend" is pronounced /ˈbɔɪˌfɹɛnd/ and then I hear the recording saying /ˈbɔɪfɹɛnd/ then that pronounciation should be added. So if you Mahagaja are admiting both pronounciaations are correct then if you both don't mind I will change it as /ˈbɔɪ(ˌ)fɹɛnd/FanNihongo (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@FanNihongo: The more I think about it, the more I think that if you're hearing two different pronunciations at all, what you're hearing is /ˈbɔɪfɹɛnd/ vs. /ˈbɔɪfɹənd/, i.e. the difference is in the quality of the unstressed vowel, not in the presence vs. absence of secondary stress. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mahagaja:, Thanks for your explanation. That must be what is happening. Now that you mentioned it, I am not detecting the sencondary stress in [forvo], it is as you say. FanNihongo (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


Do you know anything about Subi, a Bantu lect the ISO recently gave the code xsj? They say it is not particularly closely related to Shubi, which we merged into Rwanda-Rundi a while ago. Unless you know of a reason not to, I'll follow their suit and add the code. - -sche (discuss) 00:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@-sche, thank you so much for dealing with this year's crop of code changes. I've read about Shubi, but I'd never heard of Subi before now, and I can't find any resources. The code request form mentions an attached wordlist, but I suppose the wordlist isn't posted on the website? Absent that, the request mentions what languages are most closely related and lexical similarity, which is enough for me to think that the code is probably merited. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Proto-Altaic articlesEdit

Hey! So, the title really summarizes this, I was wondering why you deleted all the articles on Proto-Altaic reconstructions? Most of the pages were adequately sourced, and I daresay that their deletion should promote a particular side of the debate on its existence, rather than being descriptivist as this wiki is intended to be. I assume there's a thread that details this, so I'd appreciate it if you could link me to that. Thanks! -/ut͡ʃxʎørnɛja / (탁ᷞ, кон-, ឯឌឹត្ស, 𐎛𐎓𐎄𐎛𐎚𐎒). 15:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC).

Wiktionary:Votes/2019-01/Banning Altaic. Per utramque cavernam 16:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


Sorry for the late overhaul, which is not something I'm fond of doing. Should the obsolete sense be added to the FWOTD section as well? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: I often omit senses that I think are less interesting, but it's arbitrary. By the way, there are a bunch of Dutch FWOTD nominees that need quotes translated or other minor touchups. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll look into them. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The account you just blockedEdit

I'm not going to go into detail, but the user you reverted and blocked is the sockpuppet of a vandal, and certainly deserved an indef block. I was wondering why they were limiting the edits on that account to one low-grade offense. Now I know.

That said, you didn't know that at the time you blocked them. I'm not going to moralize, but you do need to be careful not to let people like that push your buttons. It just plays into the power-tripping that keeps them going. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. I gave that account an indef block because they were either the same person from yesterday or the sock of someone just as immature. If you're obliquely commenting on how I "fed" the vandal yesterday, I think it was better to waste a bit of my time than to let the images sit. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm not commenting on your previous actions, which I agree with. If you believed that it was the same person as yesterday, then my comments don't apply. Never mind... Chuck Entz (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
You guys talking about Wonderfool? --I learned some phrases (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
We're talking about someone blocked for using {{quote-journal}} to link to a dismemberment video, who asked for an explanation on their talk page so they could "learn from their mistakes"- someone so addicted to the cheap thrill of shocking people that they'll lie about anything. Does that sound like WF? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
After a certain number of drinks, but before a certain (larger) number of drinks, perhaps. - TheDaveRoss 13:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


You reverted my edit on the page kvetch. You ask for support of my edit, I speak Yiddish, the origin of this word. Weitzhandler (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

That might be fine for the entry for Yiddish קוועטשן(kvetshn), (though, even there, you should demonstrate that people have actually used the word that way). This is the English entry, and you should be able to show usage by English speakers speaking English. See our Criteria for inclusion. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


So where would this go? Citations page? I still think it's a useful quote to understand the context. It's a half-mention, that's why I added brackets. – Jberkel 20:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Crappy cites or non-durable cites can go on the citations page, yes. This is both crappy (i.e. misleading) and non-durable, so there's really nothing of value besides the notability of who said it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

why did you revert my changes to Template:yi-phonetic spelling of?Edit

I am rewriting all uses of {{deftempboiler}} to use a Lua equivalent. There should be no change in behavior except that bad parameters will be caught and all parameters of {{m}} should be supported. Benwing2 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Already undid my revert. You did change the behaviour in this case, so I reverted in case I didn't have time to deal with it right away. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


Do you think I would or can put that? Osbri (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

What? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you think I would or can put "lambón"? Osbri (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I cannot understand you, so repeating yourself won't work. If you can't communicate in English, use Spanish. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I asked you if you think I would put "lambón"? Or "if you think it's correct to put "lambón"?" Osbri (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The Spanish word lambón is correctly spelled with the accent. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking some would put or write "lambon" or I was thinking it would be an alternative spelling. I think I would add it then. Osbri (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't be an alternative spelling, but a misspelling, and it is not common enough to enter into the dictionary. Also, the entry was formatted very poorly; please see the changes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

My botEdit

I have fixed the entry layout to the best of my knowledge as per WT:NORM. How do I make a few edits for you to check? Sinonquoi (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Unblocked. Please run a limited number of test edits. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Added 3 entries. Do check. Sinonquoi (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
There's still an issue that Ultimateria alerted you to. It looks fine otherwise, but @Rua should check, because she knows NORM a lot better than I do. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
It looks ok to me. It would be useful if the user page of your bot would link to your own user page, so that people can find who it belongs to. —Rua (mew) 18:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
So do I get rid of the "extra" line at the end or leave it be? I will add a link in a sec. Sinonquoi (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
If by "extra line" you mean the ---- dividing language sections, then it should only be there if there's another language section on the page. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


What are you talking about specifically? DTLHS (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

[1]Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I actually moved that from accedere where it was added (with the comment) by BiT on 10 June 2007‎. DTLHS (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks; there was no indication, hence why I pinged you. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


Why did you roll back Welsh "gallu" as a modern example of the PIE root of Latin "Gallus"? It seemed like a pertinent example. 04:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It was poorly formatted, and I considered cleaning it up, but it did not contribute much, so I simply reverted it. Latin words that come from old Celtic sources do not need to reference modern Celtic languages, as if to demonstrate that the root really exists. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

{{pos a}} et alEdit

I see you deleted these per a failed RFD, do you think it's fine to just remove their transclusions? Personally I like to remove that info when I come across it but I know many editors actively add part of speech to links. Ultimateria (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

That's really stupid of me, I thought they'd already been orphaned. Someone should just run a bot to fold them in as a parameter to the linking template. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

con#la, com#laEdit

One of the most commonly "wanted" (redlinked) Latin terms, according to Berkel's published table, is con#la. It appears in many etymologies. Looking up con online in L&S and in the Later Latin glossary doesn't yield anything. Should those etymologies instead refer to cum#Latin or to Old Latin com#Latin? Should we have an L2 for con#Latin? I don't have ready access to the Oxford Latin Dictionary. Is there someone else I should ask about this? DCDuring (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You can feel free to show me some examples. Where I've seen these, like in compute#Etymology, it's an error for con-. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
This search has mostly offending items. But if con- is a good entry, don't bother. I thought I remembered that we didn't have Latin prefixes because the candidate terms using them were "really" compounds of Latin prepositions and other words. I think Encyclopetey took that position. DCDuring (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
He may have thought that, but it doesn't make much sense, and luckily that is not how we operate. In any case, the etymologies will still need to be fixed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I got all the offenders in that search. There may be more, not found in that search, but not many. DCDuring (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, the com ones need to be fixed in the same way. (They should also use con-.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@DCDuring, a reminder, if you want to fix the remaining ones. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm frying other fish, eg. snapper. DCDuring (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Swahili Terms at 16 PersonalitiesEdit

I added a number of terms at Wiktionary:Requested entries (Swahili). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You've alphabetised them rather oddly. In any case, I don't think they're all attestable; for example, I only see two BGC hits for mwamurishaji (and none for the plural). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


How was the IPA "yáː" wrong[2] I got it there <--Ndołkah (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's keep the conversation in one place (your talk page). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Modifi aliaj homoj diskutoj.Edit

Saluton. Kial mi ne rajtas por modifi aliaj homoj diskutoj? Mi ĵus faris ĝin kun bona fido, por resumi la diskuton. Parenteze, ĉu ĝi kontraŭas la regulojn? FanNihongo (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It is universally considered to be very poor form. See w:WP:TPO for the guidelines which we tend to follow as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Understood and thanks for your answer. FanNihongo (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Removing the RFV tag on havereEdit

Perhaps your mode is a bit more formal than others, but for every other rfv discussions whereas I have been beholden, we the editors have decided to come to a consensus about removing the rfv tag before waiting for the whole rfv process to go through. Aearthrise (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It should be obvious that the person who creates the entry has a vested interest in saving it, and therefore should not be the person who removes the tag. Moreover, just removing the tag does not suffice; the discussion must be closed as well, but even that is not done immediately after a term is cited. I have no doubts about this word, but given your (undeserved) block over this, I thought you would see how much we value preserving a functioning, transparent system at RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


Hi. I came across the word magosha which seems to be used in South African English for a prostitute. It's not clear to me whether this is supposed to be singular or plural (I think maybe it's plural in the source language but used singularly in English) and you seem to have some background in this area. What do you think? Equinox 11:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

This is @Smashhoof's territory — we do need an entry umagosha. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I can't find the word umagosha in any Zulu dictionary. Googling for it does bring up a lot of results though, so it must be a newish slang term. Not sure if I should make an entry without confirming with a Zulu speaker about the meaning. Smashhoof (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, best to check with a native speaker, and that way you can get the tones right as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


@Metaknowledge Yes; it is sited in both the New Gresham English dictionary and that of Professor Skeat's 1911 edition, as is in Collin's Gem Welsh dictionary. Its breakdown into Welsh cib (pod, husk) Welsh gwst (humour, malady, desease) though, is too dubious to include. However, since you cannot find it in the Welsh Academy (that sites cibi for "kibe", but not as a heading) I can sympathise with your removal of it for the time being. Kind regards, Andrew Andrew H. Gray 13:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi. Please have a glance at the etym, when you have a moment. The "Κητώ" (from Wikipedia) looks right. I found this German text, for instance. The following also came up in my search list, but unfortunately not in the scan snippet:

Ο Πόντος, αφού έσμιξε με τη Γη, γέννησε τον αγαθότατο και σοφό Νηρέα, τον τεράστιο θαύμανια, τον Φόρκυν, την όμορφη Κητώ και την Ευρυβίη ή Ευρυβία.

I had to use Google Translate on that, but it seems relevant enough. Thanks.— Pingkudimmi 08:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Except that it's in (modern) Greek, not Ancient Greek. The German text looks good, though (it's a mention, but it's only for the etymology, so that's okay). Chuck Entz (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

PIE 'spleen'Edit

Why was *sploiǵh₂ḗn deleted? It actually had a reference to an academic source (unlike most PIE reconstructions here). Who exactly decided it was a 'hodgepodge of unrelated words'? I cannot find the discussion. 12:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

WT:Requests for deletion/Non-English#Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/sploiǵh₂ḗnΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
There's no discussion of *sploiǵh₂ḗn on that page. 14:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Yesterday it was archived to Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/sploiǵh₂ḗn. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for your edits, I'm still new here. I'm not totally clear on the difference between "etymology" and "inherited", if you can please explain it to me. --Shad Veyosiv (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Shad Veyosiv: No problem. You want to use {{inh}} for words that are inherited from an ancestral language (so Middle High German for Yiddish), {{bor}} for words that are borrowed from an unrelated language (like Russian loans in Yiddish), and {{der}} for any other cases — I use it for the old stratum of loshn-koydeshdike words in Yiddish, which aren't exactly inherited but weren't exactly borrowed either. The template {{etyl}} that you might see in some entries is deprecated and should not be used. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


I suspect this is a verb that was formed in Dutch, but do you know if there is a Yiddish verb like mayemen that means "to rain". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was formed in Dutch. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Swahili form-of entriesEdit

Apologies, it wasn't my intention to change the way the output looks; I'll fix up anything that's broken. Benwing2 (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I appreciate you doing the work, and this wasn't a very important error. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Politics categoriesEdit

How did you chose these demonyms? E.g. "French politics" versus "Politics of France" or "UK politics" rather than "British politics"? —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggested them in the BP, and nobody seemed to mind them. I chose them for brevity. If you have a good reason to change them, we certainly can. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of "[x] in/of [place]" for conflicts like Dominica/Dominican Republic, DR Congo/Republic of Congo, etc. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
We could special-case those as "x of place" if the categories were needed. (I somehow doubt they will have enough entries to merit it.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank You MetaknowledgeEdit

Thank you Metaknowledge, you're very kind! Aearthrise (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


Did you see what I wrote on the talk page? --Shad Veyosiv (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but I wasn't sure what to do about it, so I thought I'd leave it to you. We obviously need the entry טרייפֿן, and then you say you've never heard forms like טרייפֿע, so maybe it's an Americanism and should be marked as nonstandard? (I don't know where you're from.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm an American, but the Yiddish I speak isn't the same one you'll hear in BP or Williamsburg... I speak "Russian" Yiddish. How would you mark nonstandard in conjugation section? --Shad Veyosiv (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I would just put a bit of text right under ===Inflection=== before the template saying something like "These inflections (are/may be) considered nonstandard." —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi Metaknowledge!

I was adding {{wikiversity lecture}} to words like superconductivity when I remembered petrophysics was originally a resource that has since been conscripted into v:Draft:Petrophysics. I removed that link. Am I correct that Wiktionary does not want v:Draft:Petrophysics or any other Wikiversity Draft namespace resources linked? --Marshallsumter (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

That's correct. In general, I find most of the Wikiversity links to be of low quality, so I would advise you only to add them if a relevant Wikipedia entry does not exist. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


Every Romance language dictionary says that their word for motor comes from Latin motor, motoris. Isn't that an adjective? Ultimateria (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a noun to me, which is consistent with the etymology. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


As I was creating the word "kepos" as a plural noun and third-person present singular verb form of kepo (an alternate spelling of the Singlish term kaypoh), I encounter this message:

Warning: This page has been protected so that specific rights are needed to create it. The latest log entry is provided below for reference:

   05:58, 8 August 2012 Metaknowledge talk contribs protected kepos ‎‎[create=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) (Counter-productive edit warring) (hist) (thank)

Please consider reopening "kepos" for the stated-above meaning. Thank you. THE IMPERIOUS DORK (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@THE IMPERIOUS DORK: It looks like you created it just fine; I suppose you're autoconfirmed by now. By the way, re kepo, please note that on the English Wiktionary, the English section precedes all other languages (except for Translingual). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but what did you find plausible? What plausible thing did he give? All he did was to prove that he's an amateur who has no scientific knowledge of Arabic whatsoever. He's not even aware that there's a vast literature about Arabic etymology in journals, claiming that "all that could be done" is to look for an early attestation. This is grotesque. With all due respect, do you yourself know Arabic, so you can judge that he gave something plausible? He didn't. He made something up and now you say "hypothetisized", which makes it sound like a scholar came forward with this theory. What you might do is to say: Compare qafas, Persian qafas. A relation between the terms is entirely hypothetical, however. Something along these lines. I mean, sure, there's some room for speculation on wiktionary, but there must remain some standard. 01:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

PS: Also, shouldn't the very fact that he wrote all of this as if it was established fact, make your careful? Coming up with a whole story (Arabic, Persian, reborrowing, [f] > [v] > [w]) and all of it made up in his mind? I mean, even I thought there was some basis for this, but apparently there isn't. Best regards. 01:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, I don't know really know who you are, since you haven't made an account. I spent the last few minutes looking over your edits and you seem to be pretty smart and knowledgeable, so it would be helpful if you were a known quantity. I do know Fay Freak: he's made mistakes, but he's careful and knows the literature pretty well. When he provides examples supporting the changes he proposes, that lends plausibility.
You say there's lots of work in journals we're ignoring — produce it, so we can source an etymology. Do you even have an alternative besides "unknown"? I'm fine with making the weasel words even more weaselly, so to speak, but this is the best proposal we have to work with right now. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Unscientific are always the others. So what would the journal authors have done? They would read something together and then it’s an article, that’s the philological science. Bad enough though that you cannot even read the version history consisting of merely two contributions. You would see that I have not even added it. It has been added “as if it was established fact” by @Profes.I. who is a real scholar. Maybe it is out of his acquaintance with journals. But in any case it is plausible by the reasons given. Never seen him write anything implausible, and I think much of what he writes is out of memory from literature acquaintance. And it’s the reader’s choice to weigh the probabilities or to become agitated. Many things written as established facts I cannot believe but find laudable nonetheless. So can you add at least any quotes from your copious literature ken? Fay Freak (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


Good evening, brother,

you reversion on Pashtun etmythology has some minor mistakes, including that part I had edited 3 hours ago. It was claimed there are 50 million Pashtuns out there but where is the source and the proof to base that claim? The latest Pakistani population census from 2018? represents the number of Pashtuns there with about 28 millions, plus 4 to 5 million Pashtu-speakers but of non-Pashtun origin. They also live in Afghanistan but in Afghanistan there never have taken place any population census based on identity, let alone how many people live in that country. All numbers for this country are assumptations. How you want to argue the 50 million figure? Territorial, it is not even possible to host 50 million people in all those regions and belt they populate since its too small and with minor sources providing.

cheers--Asya'dan Kurt Pençe (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It's based on CIA World Factbook estimates. Go take your prejudice elsewhere. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please reference it and also provide source where and when CIA had taken itself a population census otherwise it will be reedited to a more accurate and neutral version--Asya'dan Kurt Pençe (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't have time to waste with you, and you clearly have no interest in building a dictionary. If you revert it again, you'll be blocked. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

FWOTD miscellaneaEdit

  1. The focus week of terms derived from German is now basically ready to go; the only thing that is left to be done is getting a translation for the Italian quote. The final week of Oktoberfest (Sept. 30-Oct. 6) could be a nice choice, since German Unity Day is also celebrated in this week.
  2. How useful are my occasional bulk nominations of entries with pronunciations in little featured languages (e.g. diff, diff, diff)? Typically I pick anything remotely interesting that has a pronunciation of some kind, so tell me if nominating should be more selective.
  3. Are there any languages in particular on which you want me to focus my nominations? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Metaknowledge".