Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

RuakhTALK 17:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


I was just wondering, on your addition to eh, was the language you were adding w:Ainu? Just trying to sort it out. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It was. Sorry for the confusion; I forgot the French (where I got the entry from) change the spelling of their words to suit their pronunciation system. This, that and the other 08:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 15:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


I have corrected the ety (it was only slightly off, as the correct etymon is an alternative spelling of what was put). It appears that shpellë exists and already has an etymology. Further back than that, and I would suggest asking User:Ivan Štambuk. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


What were you trying to do with Template:fr-conj-ger?diff=6436457?

RuakhTALK 16:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I was trying to use it on Appendix:French verbs, and I obviously didn't want that intro there. On reflection, the text needs to be switched off by a named parameter or something. See my contribs for other fr-conjes I did it to. (Sorry, busy at the moment.) This, that and the other 08:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Appendix:French verb tablesEdit

Hi, I noticed that page added. May I ask, how is any different to Appendix:French verbs or Category:French conjugation templates. Do you I merge them? --Rising Sun talk? 23:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The page is intended as a concise listing of irregular French verbs. However, it is no use in its current, half-completed state. I have userfied it, to User:This, that and the other/French verb tables. Thanks for asking, it was a forgotten project of mine. This, that and the other (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
It could possibly become Appendix:French verbs/irregular, as the French verb appendix is already rather long. :Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. I'll knuckle down and try to flesh it out this weekend, or when I get a spare moment. You're still welcome to edit it in my userspace, if you like. This, that and the other (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

6@Chin from water, diffEdit

The etymology at 6@Chin says that it comes from the "W" of the English word water. Do you think that this is incorrect? Or do you think that this does not mean that it's a descendant of the word? --Yair rand (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems that I was mistaken. Feel free to revert it. This, that and the other (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


However, surely it's just a typo because the r and t are next to each other on a QWERTY keyboard. Typos aren't words in their own right, they're just mistakes. 12:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

According to Help:Misspellings#Common, misspelling entries can be sent to RFV, so I was going to do it (as it looked like a pretty unlikely and inconsequential misspelling). But this one had plenty of Usenet hits. This, that and the other (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
It’s Latin, a form of doctoro. It is not a typo. —Stephen (Talk) 09:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion was apparently with reference to the English entry present in the history. However, it was more than a year ago and I really don't recall what was going on. This, that and the other (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"no redlinked alt forms, please"Edit

Hi. Red links are an important way to allow the dictionary to grow. Perhaps somebody knows an alt form but doesn't have time to create the entry. Don't remove them indiscriminately! Equinox 02:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If you insist. They're just a really ugly thing to have at the top of an entry. I'm sure many of those redlinked alternative forms would fail RFV even if they were created! This, that and the other (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Heh, actually, one of my pet hates is when people stick an alt form that's obviously obsolete (like "nowadayes") without flagging it as such. I can imagine a foreign learner coming and thinking "oh, I can spell it with an E if I want!". Equinox 02:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
(Since I'm back here: at least we have changed the entry structure now so that alt forms usually go below the main entry content. Good.) Equinox 05:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


Added follow up comment on interweb -- ryper (Talk) 19:30 19 Mar 2015 (UTC)

So you translate French…Edit

Hello This, that and the other. I note from your user page that you “can read French, which means [you] can read frwiktionary stuff and move it here” and that you are “more active on the English Wikipedia”. I wonder: Would you be up for creating English-Wikipedia articles, however stubby, for w:Félix Gaffiot and/or w:Dictionnaire Illustré Latin-Français from their extant French equivalents at fr:w:Félix Gaffiot and fr:w:Gaffiot? I requested the articles in the English Wikipedia's requests lists ages ago, but seemingly nothing has come of that. They're needed for linking from {{R:Gaffiot}}, you see. Just a thought; it's no sweat if you have no interest in doing so. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 03:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi I.S.M.E.T.A.! Thanks for the message. I actually did a French-to-English translation course late last year, so I ought to dust off my skills and give it a go! I can't make any promises, but if I end up getting it done, I'll let you know. This, that and the other (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Much appreciated. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
If you want to try it, here is a translation tool that you might like: Special:ContentTranslation:Félix Gaffiot. —Stephen (Talk) 13:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown: “No such special page”… :-(  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
What do you see there? Don’t you see a button that reads "Start translation"? If you don’t see anything, maybe you have to start it from the beginning. Try w:Special:ContentTranslation. —Stephen (Talk) 18:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown: Both those pages you linked to look like this:
No such special page
You have requested a special page that is not recognized by Wikipedia. A list of all recognized special pages may be found at Special:Specialpages.
Return to Main Page.
I see no “Start translation” link. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Weird. Then go to w:Special:SpecialPages and search for "Content Translation statistics". Click on that and select "New translation", and then click "Start a new translation". —Stephen (Talk) 22:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you have to turn on Content Translation in your w:Special:BetaFeatures. This, that and the other (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown, This, that and the other: Turning on the Content Translation beta feature worked. I've just finished translating fr:w:Félix Gaffiot. Would you guys mind looking over my translation to correct any mistakes I've made, please? Thanks in advance. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for tweaking en:w:Félix Gaffiot, This, that and the other. Now that I've translated the dictionary's article, too, would you and/or Stephen mind giving en:w:Dictionnaire Illustré Latin-Français a quick once over? Thanks again. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown: Thanks for that. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

m: prefixEdit

Technically, Wiktionary:Votes/2015-11/Namespace abbreviations did not start yet. I forgot the problem of "m:". That could be changed to "mod:" before the vote starts. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


Thank you @This, that and the other for your correction (diff) and all your corrections. Sorry to bother you here, at your Talk page, after 2015. The only thing i know about editing, is copy-paste, and I made this weird thing:

## τὰ '''Γέννα''' • (Génnā) <FONT COLOR="#000000">{{comment-link|Appendix:Glossary#neuter|neuter|n}}</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">{{comment-link|Appendix:Glossary#plural|plural|only pl}}</FONT> ''(genitive'' {{l|grc|Γέννων}}; ''[[Appendix:Ancient Greek second declension|second declension]]'' (6th century [[Appendix:Glossary#CE|CE]]))

because i needed a pseudo-headword line which would NOT put the page γέννα at Ancient Greek categories neuter nouns & neuter 2nd decl. This is a Medieval-only word (unlike feminine γέννα), but I am not allowed to create a separate section for it. So, i mimic a headword line.

  • I had tried {gkm-noun, (gkm=Medieval) It does not exist, and it is not allowed
  • I had tried |nocat=1 but it doesn't work
  • I do not know how to make links black colour, not blue (for abbreviations n, pl).
  • You spotted this edit! Are you a bot? Then, if these patterns remain, maybe in the future, there WILL be a Medieval section, and then, they can be traced and redone?

You do not need to answer, I am just apologizing for this messy edit of mine... I shall not do it again, I will avoid mediaeval words. sarri.greek (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sarri! No need to apologise; I am correcting invalid HTML and wiki syntax, and you should not feel bad about adding invalid syntax to pages - lots of people do it all the time, because the rules are complicated and not all written down. Normally at this wiki we do not link abbrevations like "f" and "pl". As for your other questions, I feel that we should ask at one of the discussion pages, perhaps WT:TR or Wiktionary talk:About Ancient Greek, for some advice. This, that and the other (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Xingjiang EtymologyEdit

Hello! Are there any specifics on the etymology of this term? Could you provide example usages? Since the term does not appear in GEOnet, I believe the term is likely to be a common misspelling. Also, I am not sure if this would be an alternate form of Xinjiang or a synonym. If we keep this page, I would like to include a link to it on the Xinjiang page with a qualifier saying it is a mistake (if it is a mistake). Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative I'd say it is a common misspelling. Easily citable from searching Google Books for "Xingjiang province" (in quotes). This, that and the other (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I have come off the wrong way. I have never done a page about a word I personally considered to be a clear misspelling, and I actually don't know how misspellings are documented in Wiktionary. Sorry for bothering you. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
No worries! You didn't come off the wrong way at all. Thanks for helping to improve my bad old entries! This, that and the other (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Rhathymia, and "Doing it properly"Edit

In your 07:41, 27 November 2021‎ edit on the page rhathymia, you included the comment "at least do it properly", presumably referencing the modifications you made to my own immediately preceding edit. Could you point me in the direction of some good resources on how to do it properly, specifically for adding the morphemes? I added them mainly because I noticed that the word did not appear in "Category:English words suffixed with -thymia", and tried to use the same formatting as other pages. However, if I did so incorrectly here, that means I likely also did it incorrectly in several other places - and I need to know what exactly to do to correct them. Pinball larry (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Pinball_larry

Hi @Pinball larry, and welcome to Wiktionary! Thanks for your contributions so far.
I'm sorry if I came across a bit brusque with that comment. Your edit was valuable in that it included a morphological breakdown of the word in the etymology section. There are a couple of ways it could have been improved:
  • The confix template was awkwardly placed at the start of the etymology with no logical connection to the rest of the info there. This is still the case at, say, cacothymia. While we don't currently have a settled, standard way of indicating this kind of synchronic morphological analysis alongside the traditional etymology, it's normally included as part of a sentence. Some editors write "Synchronically analysable as ...", while others (including me) write "Surface analysis ...".
  • Although I left it in the entry in deference to your edit, I don't believe rha- is a real prefix. To my knowledge, no other English words incorporate this element. In that sense, it may have been better to avoid the confix template and manually include the article in the relevant category: [[Category:English words suffixed with -thymia]] Or alternatively, place something like "(see -thymia)" after the relevant etymon.
I hope this makes sense. Let me know if you have any questions. This, that and the other (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tipEdit

Hello, thank you for informing/reminding me of this template: [1]. I will try to remember in the future. 04:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Chronic bee paralysis virusEdit

As I start typing I don't know the following:

  1. Whether we should have it with initial capitals
  2. Whether it should be italicized
  3. Whether it should Translingual or English
  4. Whether it is used in works written in languages other than English

I do know that:

  1. It is not part of current ICTV taxonomy.
  2. ICTV has it as an unclassifed virus
  3. NCBI has an entry for it.
  4. WP and Wikispecies have articles for it.
  5. It is in use with this capitalization, more frequently than with title caps but less frequently than no caps.
  6. I in ICTV means international and ICTV leadership is not
  7. It does seem to be used by authors for whom English is not their native language.
  8. It was isolated in 2010.
  9. It is mentioned in only 5 "articles" on ICTV site
  10. It does not appear on the ICTV site in italics or in this orthography; items in the taxonomy appear in italics with initial capitals on the ICTV site, items not in the taxonomy do not.

1. means to me that there is no presumption that it is Translingual. 2. means we should have this orthography 3. and 4. don't mean much 5. means that it might be best treated as an alternative capitalization of the all-lower-case form.

I net this out that the entry in question is:

  1. an alt form of the lower-case form, which should have all the external links, the fullest definition, etc.
  2. in the absence of evidence of usage in other languages, it is an English term.
  3. a proper noun, as is the main entry and other alt forms.
  4. not to be italicized.

Thanks for making me think this through. DCDuring (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


Sorry - copy and paste botch job when I was tired. It's an archaic form of adsint and I clearly wasn't paying enough attention. Theknightwho (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Theknightwho yeah the template could do a better job of warning you when your headword diverges too sharply from the entry title! This, that and the other (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
That's a good idea, actually - might implement it. My inclination is that it should present a warning unless a specific flag is set (e.g. override=1). Theknightwho (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I would initially implement a categorisation, and see if it turns up false positives; if not, just make it an {{error}} I'd say. This, that and the other (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes - one of those things to ease in gently! Theknightwho (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


Can you help me to understand the purpose behind the edit of this page?

We give definitions of words as they are used, not how certain people may think they should be used. This, combined with the anecdotal evidence of anyone who has been paying attention to world news in recent decades, should be convincing enough for anyone. This, that and the other (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The examples of the term oligarch being used to describe people in several countries are numerous. Using current geopolitical sentiment to derive a proper usage of a word seems to be the wrong way to go about this. Sebastian-Hady (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Did you actually read the article you cited before citing it? "While not labeling its own wealthy and powerful elites as “oligarchs,” US corporate media do, as noted, occasionally acknowledge that the United States itself is an oligarchy. ... What a strange country the US is—an oligarchy without any oligarchs." Sebastian-Hady (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that last sentence contains an example of the word "oligarch" being used to refer to (putative) American oligarchs. I have no doubt you can find numerous "examples of the term oligarch being used to describe people in several countries" as you claim; my point is that examples referring to Russian/Ukrainian oligarchs are significantly more numerous and that this has been the situation for at least 20 years. It's hard for either of us to prove the point either way; you can start a discussion at WT:TR if you like. This, that and the other (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


Haha, I just noticed your reversion there, from the "flog" error. Thanks. This was not deliberate trolling. I nearly always use flog as my copy-paste source for verb forms. Equinox 05:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It was a light-hearted "accusation" :) This, that and the other (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


Hi! I'm trying to categorize all Latin words starting with in- according to which of the homophonous prefixes they contain (i.e. empty out Category:Latin_words_prefixed_with_in- by sorting all contents into its subcategories), and I'm confused by and curious about the etymology given for inconcessus: "Apparently from in- +‎ concessus (perfect passive participle of concēdō), but more properly an adjectivisation of in- +‎ concessus, -ūs (noun)." Why is it more proper to say that it is from the noun concessus? From what I know, it's quite typical for Latin adjectives starting with the negative prefix in- "un-" to be formed from participles, and not usual for them to be formed with fourth-declension nouns as their base. The meaning seems to fit with derivation from the participle: "unallowed". Hoping you could shed some light on this.--Urszag (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Urszag! I've noticed your efforts here in categorising the in- entries I created. In many cases the categorisation was obvious and I just got lazy (sorry!), but in many cases it is not obvious. I find that in- is often used as an intensifier without any kind of spatial or temporal sense of "in, within, inside" as defined at our entry in-, and I always felt a bit uneasy about putting those words into id1=in. It just didn't feel like the right fit. Perhaps we need a fourth sense of in-.
As for inconcessus, I really have no idea why I wrote that. I've looked at my usual resources and none of them support this. So feel free to restore it to the more logical derivation. This, that and the other (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response! I was also wondering a little about whether the different semantic meanings of prepositional in- "in" should be categorized together, but ultimately, I do think that's the best way to handle it. It is a case of one preposition/prepositional prefix having multiple meanings; probably, the best thing to do is to add additional definitions at the entry for in-. E.g. I'd say English "up" is the same word/particle whether it's used with a literal physical sense or with an abstract sense as in "hold up", "buddy up", "act up". More practically, it's usually straightforward to categorize the negative and prepositional prefixes separately, but I think it would be messy to try to distinguish subsenses of the Latin prepositional prefixes. Urszag (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
That's a great suggestion. I'd support the expansion of the relevant part of the in- entry. The analogy with up is very logical. This, that and the other (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Weegie, WeedgieEdit

...are also English words found in English texts. Not only in Scots texts. Please restore. Equinox 12:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox our entry Weegie has always been Scots. Anyone who creates the plural of an English term without creating the singular lemma is just being annoying, imho. Anyway, I'll put it back. This, that and the other (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@Equinox while I have you, I think you might have deleted grucched in error. I evidently forgot to change the header to Middle English when I changed the language code of the templates, but it is a legitimate ME form that we should have (an apparent use by Chaucer turns up in GBooks). This, that and the other (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes by all means restore that piece of crap. I may have made a mistake while enjoying the Aprylle showers by the roote. Equinox 02:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
@Equinox I'm not an admin. Anyway, I'll just recreate it. This, that and the other (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
The entries look fine now. Please don't delete a word just because it looks like a form of a missing word. Even if it's annoying. The existence of quirkafleegs (let's say that's an English plural) implies the existence of quirkafleeg singular. Yes, the Right Thing to Do would be to create quirkafleeg with citations and rfdef template, but if it's a word it should stand. The point of this project is to define words, essentially. Not to fulfil your idea of cleanliness. Equinox 02:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Yep, understood. I haven't been deleting redlinked form-ofs unless I really think they're wrong, and in this case I was mistaken. This, that and the other (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Forms of "convalo"Edit

Do the participles of "convalo" and their forms need to be deleted? I'm referring to convaliturus, convalitus, convalendus, and convalens. I see that the latter goes with convaleo, but I'm not sure if it needs tweaking. Ultimateria (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ultimateria Thanks for pointing this out. I'll have to check whether these forms exist. (Also thanks for noticing that the inflected forms had to be deleted! Most admins who patrol CAT:CSD don't seem to be too careful to do this.) This, that and the other (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
convalitus and convalendus can be deleted. convaliturus is attested and seems to belong to convalesco. I fixed convalens. This, that and the other (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
  Done. Ultimateria (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Language Codes in Template:inh-liteEdit

re: this edit: apparently {{inh-lite}} saves memory by using a list of pre-defined language-code/language-name pairs hard-coded into the template. While changing fy to frr in that context is perfectly correct, it causes an error unless the language code is in that list. It might be better to forgo using AWB for that template unless you're sure that the code in question is in that list. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Thanks for pointing that out. Seeing as I created inh-lite myself, I should know! I'll leave the -lite templates alone in my auto-editing for now. This, that and the other (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)



Opps!.. Thanks for being sharp-eyed :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The reappearance of long-deleted {{rft}} was what baffled me... This, that and the other (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

"Clerical edit to match..."Edit

[2] You realise that the old text supported future changes to RFV, but your new text does not, and any RFV changes must now be copied there. Are you convinced that is a good change? Equinox 10:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox the text "three citations of figurative use that fulfill attestation requirements" is already in CFI in two places, so it can't make things worse to put it in a third place. On the other hand, CFI doesn't mention the term "RFV" anywhere. We should try and keep our policies easy for newbies to understand.
Anyway, that vote will struggle to pass, won't it? This, that and the other (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that some day RFV might change so that we need FOUR or FIVE votes, and the previous text was fine, but now, you need to update your text to change the number. Do you commit and swear that you will always do this forever? Equinox 11:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely. Even after I'm dead. This, that and the other (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
based Equinox 11:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
"the text 'three citations of figurative use that fulfill attestation requirements' is already in CFI in two places, so it can't make things worse to put it in a third place." And how did I miss this?! I've killed two girls so I might as well go for the triple! Anyway, I'm sure you know what you're doing. I am just clearing up my horrible list of 15 ignored "bell" icons. we cool? cool. yes. Equinox 06:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Someone took that wording out before the vote started. I know you're disappointed. And it looks like the vote will fail after all, who would have thought? This, that and the other (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

User:This, that and the other/broken interwiki linksEdit

This is obviously a good page, but it needs more Wikisource Dunderdool (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dunderdool you out of fresh username ideas there? Anyway it's easy enough to generate one if you want it. This, that and the other (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The Project wants it Dunderdool (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Dunderdool okay the one I just generated has a bug, it seems to ignore the language param. I'll try again in a few minutes. This, that and the other (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Nice list! It turns out that most of the errors were from Wonderfool's sloppy editing. Luckily, we have an army of dedicated users to clean up Dunderdool (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  • And we might as well get the complete set: Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage, Wikibooks, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki. I doubt there'll be a big number Dunderdool (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    I'll do it if I can be bothered. It's kind of tedious though. Plus, there are <1000 links to each of these wikis (other than Wikispecies) so there won't be too many broken ones. No idea why we are even linking to Wikiversity or Wikinews... This, that and the other (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • That was easy. Just a half dozen things to fix. We can probably ignore this project for the next ten years or so Dunderdool (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
    Let me know if you ever want some updated lists, if you're after something to keep you off the streets. I'll keep regenerating the WP and WS ones until done. This, that and the other (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

more listsEdit

Hi. How about regenerating User:DTLHS/eswikipedia? There has been a lot of progress on it over the last 2 years Dunderdool (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dunderdool What is it? This, that and the other (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
A list of all words in es.wikipedia that don't have a Spanish entry in en.wiktionary. A good way to a) find tyops in es.wikipedia and b) find missing Spanish words. Dunderdool (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@Dunderdool tell you what, I'll look into it tonight on condition that WT:RFVN#orixe is resolved. Or more precisely, RFV-passed, since these hits look pretty Asturian to me... This, that and the other (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Done. I'm not gonna cite it tho Dunderdool (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
For the record, this is harder than it looked to me earlier and I will not be able to do it in one sitting. But I'll uphold my end of the bargain before too long. This, that and the other (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@Dunderdool I finally got around to doing this: User:This, that and the other/eswikipedia-missing-words/2022-08-01/page 1, User:This, that and the other/eswikipedia-missing-words/2022-08-01/page 2. It's full of false positives (particularly species names) but hopefully it is still of some use. If you think it looks good, I can post the complete list (267803 words used 6 or more times on eswiki that lack Spanish entries on this project). This, that and the other (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, these aren't great. Having a quick skim through, I reckon there's about 1% of that stuff that is actually Spanish worth including here. We'd want to filter out anything with punctuation marks, anything in italics, anything classed as a quotation/reference/external link. Dunderdool (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Dunderdool now I look more closely, I see what you're talking about. Let me see if I can do better... This, that and the other (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Dunderdool I tried to remove all italic text, references, and external links, although it's still a pretty scrappy effort. Page 1 is still almost completely full of crap, but lower down the list (say at page 14) we start to get some more interesting things. What do you think? Any suggestions on how to improve it further? This, that and the other (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, it is getting better. We also want to filter out anything inside a template, anything with punctuation (brackets/hyphens/slashes/numbers/apostrophes/pipes/asterisks/quotation marks etc.), non-Spanish symbols like ʔ or ī (but obviously keeping ñ and the vowels with acute accents). I reckon with that the list will be pretty usable. Dunderdool (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Another listEdit

Another useful thing would be to regenerate Wiktionary:Todo/phrases not linked to from components. 13 years ago it was made, it was very useful and is being RFD'd at the moment because it is so obsolete. Dunderdool (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dunderdool this one's easier than the Spanish thing. Here's the first 2000 entries in a newly generated list: Wiktionary:Todo/phrases not linked to from components/2022-07/page 1. Let me know if it needs adjustments in the way it's generated. If not, I'll make the rest of the list. This, that and the other (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! The list looks good, but it'd be slightly more useful to change the comma to a | before the terms, showing bogey: bogey man|triple bogey instead of bogey: bogey man, triple bogey Dunderdool (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and you could put the terms in alphabetical order on the same line, if it's not too much trouble. Dunderdool (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Hmm I don't know if I want to make the lazy copy-paste into {{der4}} too tempting for you... for instance, the list for "ace" needs to be split over various etymologies/POSs. Can I trust you to be reasonable?
And they are already in alphabetical order (although for some reason caps got sorted before lowercase).
For terms with one etymology/POS I might even be able to automate the addition of the derived terms sections... This, that and the other (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, automated stuff would be great too! Dunderdool (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Hey again. Congrats on the perfect vote! I look forward to one day getting blocked by you! Would you be able to generate the rest of Wiktionary:Todo/phrases not linked to from components/2022-07/page 1? I suspect there'll be about 15 pages...enough to keep me out of trouble until 2026. Almostonurmind (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Almostonurmind heh thanks for nominating me! I'd rather use the carrot (maintenance lists) than the stick. And besides, it looks like Eq is keeping you on the straight and narrow for now.
    If you can wait a few days I'll generate the lists off the 1 September dump so they are deliciously fresh. This, that and the other (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Admin timeEdit

Hi. I want to nominate you for admin. Give me the word and I'll set up a vote Dunderdool (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dunderdool A WF admin nomination? Truly the highest honour of Wiktionary. I would have said it's a trap, but you seem to have a good hit rate. Also I practically behave like an admin already, so it's probably about time. Let's do this. This, that and the other (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
You're smart enough to suspect it is a trap (it's actually not, I just love you). accept here and I look forward to the result. Dunderdool (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


Regarding this news, how does it work? I removed {{trans-mid}} from withdraw, but the translation tables do not automatically arrange themselves into two columns. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw unfortunately a bug was discovered and the change had to be reverted. See WT:Grease pit/2022/August#Translation tables are gone haywire. Essentially I had not properly tested the effects of blanking {{trans-mid}}. However, I have identified a solution to the problem; hopefully @Ruakh will have some time (and courage!) to implement it again with the proposed fix. Sorry for the confusion! This, that and the other (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Thanks. Hope you can figure it out. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Phrases not linked to from components: duplicationEdit

Hi, I notice there is a lot of duplication between Wiktionary:Todo/phrases not linked to from components/2022-07/page 1 and Wiktionary:Todo/phrases not linked to from components/2022-09/page 1. I'm guessing this is just because any terms that were not processed (i.e. did not have derived terms added to them) between the two dumps ended up in both lists. If this is the case, which page would it make sense to keep the duplicated terms on, and which one should they be removed from? Thanks, - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 07:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Flackofnubs can I delete the July one? This, that and the other (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
As FON's secretary, yes, you may delete it GreyishWorm (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)