Welcome edit

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
  • Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
  • Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
  • You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary!

Your question to Wikitiki89 showed you have a lot to learn about the way we do things, so I thought I'd start the process rolling. The short answer: we go by usage, not by authoritative sources. We have a page dedicated to the issue (WT:CITE) because it's so counter-intuitive to anyone used to Wikipedia's rules. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Chuck Entz. I understand the diff between primary and secondary sources, of course, but had noticed that references to other reputable dicts were sometimes invoked in discussions as a sign that a word or sense was indeed in use (on the understanding that they would have only entered things they had evidence for); and putting this together with the fact that all the Webs 1913 defs were transported into Wiktionary ... you can see where my thoughts led me ... anyhow, thanks again for letting me know, I will stick to primary sources from now on. Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Countability edit

Hi. A noun is uncountable if you can't refer to some number of them ("some rice", not "two rices"). Something like Fegatello Attack, on the other hand, might merely have no plural, which probably makes it a proper noun instead. Equinox 22:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Indeed. But it is sometimes tricky to determine. I was following the system in place for other chess openings, most of which had been input as uncountable. Basically, they can be uncountable under the grounds of there is only one of them (e.g. the sun, the moon). Whether or not it is a proper noun doesn't affect its countability, proper nouns can be either. But, it is also difficult to determine if these are actually proper nouns - though, to be fair the convention seems to treat them as such (i.e. capitalised headwords), but not label them as such (none seem to have proper noun as the pos label). But I digress.
Your example "rice" is a mass noun, which is one type of uncountable noun. These are another type of uncountable noun - at least as far as I am aware that is a very common usage of the term "uncountable" in grammar texts, and amongst linguists. The current Wiktionary def. for uncountable "Describes a meaning of a noun that cannot be used freely with numbers or the indefinite article, and which therefore takes no plural form" is a bit nebulous ("used freely"). Perhaps some tightening up of the def. is needed and some agreement among Wiktionarians.
Finally, any count noun can be turned into a non-count noun, and vice versa - e.g. In the tournament three Fried Liver Attacks (or Alekhine Defences) were played. But the plural form is unlikely to meet CFI's three-count for many of these, should anyone try to do the research (i.e. not only for chess openings, but for absolutely every non-count noun in Wiktionary). So, in the end, my feeling is perhaps best to leave as uncountable for the while. What do you think? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
I used to enter various medical conditions (like Alzheimer's syndrome — only seen with an -s in a group, e.g. "Alzheimer's and Parkinson's syndromes") as uncountable nouns, but found it unsatisfactory, and these days I do them as proper nouns. I gather there is some general debate over whether proper nouns can be pluralised, and whether we want to distinguish them from other nouns at all (since some languages don't; it has occasionally come up here). In terms of the potential inflections of something: my personal feeling is that we ought to need three citations for every single form (so certain odd verbs used by Shakespeare and Spenser might be missing a past tense, for example) but that doesn't seem to be the policy of most mainstream dictionaries, or of Wiktionary, so apparently if we have an attestable lemma we do not need three citations — or even one! — in order to add the "obvious" inflections (plural, past tense, etc.). I would see it as damaging the project to add a plural to an only arguably pluralisable noun where there isn't even one citation, though. Equinox 02:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
As far as proper nouns go, some are usually count (the Himalayas), some are usually uncount (the Sun, the Amazon), some can be both (an Aboriginal, two Aboriginals; I spoke to Dave last night, there were two Daves at the party). Seems to me that proper nouns behave in the same way as common nouns with regard to countability. I note also that while Alzheimer's syndrome is entered as a proper noun (without any info about its countability status), Alzheimer's disease is in as a common noun, labelled uncount. Clearly Wiktionary as a whole is in a bit of muddle over this aspect of grammatical labelling, but, then again, as we discussed, it isn't always clear, and there is no clear policy statement (though, personally I'd shrink from trying to write one in the first place), so I guess it is to be expected. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey edit

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey edit

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

brown edit

I note that you have chosen to include two entomological definitions, one for individuals, one for species. I have chosen not to have both such names in English entries I have contributed to because of the trivial relationship between them, which applies to (all?) English vernacular names of organisms. In some languages, eg, Finnish, it makes some sense to have both definitions because the plural is used to refer to the species. It would seem a better use of time to just focus on one of the two definitions. I believe that for many truly common vernacular names, the common usage is in reference to individuals. For uniformity, I only provide that definition for any English vernacular name of an organism. It is not official policy, having never been voted on, but does it not make sense? DCDuring (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. I'm not sure my definitions have made the case clear. All butterflies of the subfamily Satyrinae are 'browns', even though not all of them are brown, and many of them have a vernacular name that does not include the word brown. For instance, the Marbled White is a 'brown' (my first def.). However, there are a number of Satyrinae butterflies that have the common name 'brown', such as the Evening Brown, and the Varied Sword-grass Brown, which sense is covered by my second def., and this is the usual type of definition for other types of butterflies (e.g. albatross, tiger, palmfly, etc.). A similar situation occurs with the term "blue", which can refer to all lycaenids and is also the common name for many species of that family. I don't think it is going to be a huge problem, as there are only 7 families of butterfly, and this situation only occurs with the term 'brown' and 'blue', I think (maybe also 'skipper'). So, I'd be happy to leave two defs in this case. But I'm happy to take any suggestions as to improving the defs. Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the problem is limited to butterflies. And don't take it from me; take from Rupolph Carnap: E.g. the phrase “the lion” has a universal sense in the sentence “the lion is a beast of prey”, but not in the sentence “the lion is now fed”. That some English vernacular names for types of butterflies are also color names is a canard. Most names for classes of animals, vernacular or taxonomic, derive from the names for what are considered typical examples of the class.
I'd venture that the most common spoken usage of brown is in reference to an individual brown, observed by a gardener or butterfly enthusiast. Other uses are derivative, by metonomy. DCDuring (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Right, now I know we are completely talking at cross purposes. The use of "the lion" generically/specifically is not the same linguistic phenomenon (clearly there is no need for two defs in such cases - and indeed English has 3 ways to achieve this "the lion is carnivore" = "a lion is carnivore" = "lions are carnivores"). Rather the situation is more like cat where it is the name for the whole class of felines, and also for a specific one, the house cat, and for which we have two (sub)defs.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
What threw me was that you used the any of wording, which I associate with reference to individuals, for one definition and certain species for the other. I think of species as proper nouns referring to lineages. I know that usage differs, but I keep hoping that metonomy will eliminate the need for having different definitions for the vernacular name of individuals and for the various taxonomic names. I'm glad Dr. Carnap helped clarify things for us. DCDuring (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

taxonomic name links edit

It would be helpful if you would use {{taxlink}} to link to taxonomic names. I keep track of these and add Wiktionary entries for the most common missing ones every month. I have to do special searches to find taxonomic names linked to Wikipedia using "w:" or {{w}}. You can use the correct syntax for {{taxlink}}, but just using it without any parameters is OK too. Eventually I will get around to adding entries for genera like Lethe. DCDuring (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring - sure, no problem, I will give it a go next time I get enthusiastic about adding more butterflies [been too busy lately for much Wiktionary-ing]. Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Such fits of enthusiasm are important for Wiktionary. How can we give more people such fits? DCDuring (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Community Insights Survey edit

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Reminder: Community Insights Survey edit

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Reminder: Community Insights Survey edit

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Admin edit

Hi. You've been around her quite a while now, quietly going about business and not annoying people. That's normally enough to get yourself nominated for adminship. You fancy the job (you don't get a pay rise, I'll be honest, but do get fancy new buttons)? --Dada por viva (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Dada por viva: - very kind of you, however, I fear I shall have to decline any such offer as other matters will shortly be making me more time-poor with regards to Wiktionary. Sadly. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Good choice. Being an admin sucks! --Dada por viva (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I get that impression. -- And of course, I eternally doff my hat to all admins, your work is greatly appreciated (and underappreciated). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

bird-loving edit

Nothing personal, but bird-loving looks so SOP from where I'm standing Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I can't possibly imagine why anyone would create this unless trolling, or trying to create a translation for aviaphilic or something. Burn it with seven kinds of fire. Equinox 12:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oops this isn't a vote. Serve me right for checking my watchlist. Still that is a MAD ENTRY. What were you thinking? Equinox 12:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox, @Darren X. Thorsson - Thanks for the input guys - though perhaps it could have been more polite and respectful. You do know that opinions differ about such things as SOPness case by case, and indeed the very rules of SOP and their usefulness in this dictionary. In any case, it seems that it is also spelt "birdloving" as one word, for which there are enough cites on Google Groups to satisfy CFI - so I don't know if perhaps I should move the entry to "birdloving", or would that be anathema as well? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Admin edit

Hi, Sonofcawdrey. If I were to nominate you to become an admin, would you accept? — This unsigned comment was added by Dentonius (talkcontribs).

@Dentonius, maybe try reading previous conversations before you start nominating users to become admins. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Robbie! Long time no see! How's life? You and I need to drink a tuica or a rachiu one day and just shoot the breeze. ;-) — Dentonius 16:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Only drink with friends and you should really practice some social distancing. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Robbie, I'm going to hazard a guess that our interactions aren't half as amusing for you as they are for me. Let me say a few things which I hope you'll think about. Actually, many people here should reflect on these words: Don't take yourself so seriously. All of this matters. Yet, none of it matters. Wikimedia Foundation built a platform which is highly addictive. It will suck the best years right out of you. You're a young guy. It seems to me that this world of ones and zeros has a terrible hold on you. Take a break from this thing from time to time. Disappear for weeks without contributing. There's a life outside this virtual world which beckons. Yes, we're dealing with a platform which attracts the stiffest and most rigid of individuals -- those preoccupied with words, syntax, and grammar. But it doesn't mean that you need to make this stodgy way of life your own. I'm coming from a time when bulletin boards were the thing, when people connected with their shitty 14.4K modems (or worse) to socialise on BBSes, when people had fun online. Lighten up. Relax. Smile. Go and live a little. Meet people who are unlike you and who think differently from you. You will profit from it. You will also add more life to your years. Whatever you may think, by the way, I have nothing against you. In fact, I wish only the best for you. — Dentonius 19:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I suggest you heed your own advice Dentonius and also, please stop telling people what to feel, say or do. I don't find you amusing and this fake kindness is clearly passive-aggressive. I apologise Sonofcawdrey for this completely useless discussion on your talk page. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Dentonius unfortunately I could not in all conscience accept a nomination for admin. I do Wiktionary stuff on the side to relax and for a bit of fun - or to procrastinate from things I should be doing - and will go for long periods of doing nothing - but simply couldn't commit the time to being an admin. Thanks, anyhow.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Category:en:Conspiracy theories and theorists edit

Two things: 1. When you create a new topic category, you have to add it to the relevant module. 2. Before we add it, it's not a great name — why not just CAT:en:Conspiracy theories? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your input - clearly, I need help here. 1. Yeah - I read the documentation but did not understand what the process was. How _does_ one add the new page to the relevant module? 2. As for cat name: well, I suppose the more succinct title you suggest would suffice. How does one go about changing it? Apologies for my ineptness. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Added with the new name. Now you just have to fix it in all the entries you added it to. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Metaknowledge. Much obliged. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge, Sonofcawdrey: Some question about the category: Why not just “conspiracies”? In comparison to Category:Historical events many are also imagined as historical events, instead of as continuous processes, so the supercategory could also be History instead of Culture, I don’t really see the cultural connection in general; maybe these theories are a part of Category:Social sciences since it is theories about how people behave; it does not matter here that many are pseudoscience since Category:Pseudoscience is under Category:Sciences. We might also have a category Genocides and categorize this under Conspiracies because genocides are supposed as a few people planning crime etc., so conspiracies. On the other hand there are also events of a few days which might warrant an even broader category massacres, such as for St. Bartholomew's Day massacre and Kristallnacht, but then again with the latter the focus is on property plundering, but it is still easily subsumable as a conspiracy theory due to the assumption that it was state-organized, whereas surely not all massacres in history were well-planned. Because conspiracy theory isn’t “a minority view”, “everything I don’t agree with it”, innit. Fay Freak (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
The only cogent point here I see to respond to is that we should consider a new parent category for Pseudoscience. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge: So there is no ground against categorizing e.g. Shoah under Cat:en:Conspiracy theories? For obviously, it is a concept that “members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities.” To say nothing of all the things called conspiracy under US criminal law. Jurists aren’t wont to retain insufficient definitions, on the contrary, so where are the rational grounds beside the loaded nature of this term? Definitely at least that genocide must be categorized as conspiracy theory; it is odd only that the most accepted conspiracy theories one refrains from categorizing so. I just mulled whether perhaps we could categorize more mediately than whipping out this catchword in many entries. Fay Freak (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
There's a difference between real and fake. I have no interest in discussing this any further with you. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

OaA edit

@Metaknowledge: - sorry to bother you - I made a typo in inputting a new entry ... could you delete page OaA? Thanks - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

English heading edit

All of your recent entries are missing the English heading (delta variant; Gunwinygu; Burarra; Nunggubuyu; Anindilyakwa; Murinypata; Kitja; Bardi; Western Desert language; Nyangumarda; Walmatjari). I added the heading for Walmatjari then realized all are yours. J3133 (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@J3133 - thanks for spotting this. Have corrected them all. Cheers - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

You created 9 more entries without the heading. J3133 (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@J3133 - Again thanks ... I'll fix them ... and try to be more careful yet again. Really appreciate your contacting me about this - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

bevy edit

I see no reason to add the sense "a group of women"; I see the term applied almost as often to men. Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com, and the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary all lack such a definition. - Furrykef (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Furrykef, I'm afraid your changes have not improved the entry. The history of this word is that it was originally applied to certain animals, esp. quails and larks, and thence to women in early modern English. Skeat (1897) defines bevy as "a company, esp. of ladies", and the glossator to Spenser's Shepheardes Calender (1597) notes that "A beavie of ladyes is spoken figuratively for a company or troupe: the terme is taken of larkes. For they say a bevie of larkes, even as a covey of partridge, or an eye of pheasaunts". Other modern dicts also note this, e.g. Cambridge International Dict of Eng., The Macquarie Dictionary, Chambers 20th Century Dictionary. The OED, meanwhile, labels the use for things other than animals or women a "transferred" sense. So, I am going to revert you changes in light of this evidence, if that's okay with you.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

tacker edit

Hi - just an FYI that I've replaced etymology 2 of tacker with a request, since you'd put that it comes from the dialect of Devon/Cornwall. It's actually still used that way, so it makes more sense to include them as part of the label. Unfortunately, I can't find any info on where it ultimately derives from (though I can't find any Cornish words that correspond, so I suspect it's not that). Theknightwho (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho - Goodo, didn't know it was still current in UK ... Green’s Dictionary of Slang has a sole US citation from 1904 (can't check DARE as I am missing last volume). Anyhow, wouldn't it be better then just to put "Origin unknown"? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sonofcawdrey - we tend not to put "unknown" unless there's actual academic consensus saying that it's unknown, because that means knowledgeable people have looked into it and come up with nothing. Otherwise, it's better to put a request for the etymology - there might be some info in a book none of us have access to, or it might simply be that no-one's ever looked into it. It's often quite difficult with dialectal stuff, especially when it's spelled the same as a more common word, since it's hard to search for (e.g. etymology 2 of coffin). Theknightwho (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho - "academic consensus"? Seems unlikely that there would ever be such a thing for a word like this, or the thousand of other words without known etymologies; Wright didn't know of any etymology, as he always put one in EDD when he had one; Bruce Moore has "of uncertain origin"; Macquarie Dictionary editors don't know of one either; so that's some people who have looked into it, as well as me and you. At what point does one move from "request" to "unknown"? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sonofcawdrey I mean academic consensus in the sense that everyone who's written about it has said that there's no obvious origin. With a term like this, I suspect there will be some info out there - I'll have a look into it if I have some time later today. Theknightwho (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
It could derive from tack (to join in wedlock, verb), but that's just a guess. Theknightwho (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply