Open main menu

Wiktionary:Information desk

(Redirected from Wiktionary:ID)

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Information desk

You can search in the archives of Information desk:

Welcome to the Information desk of Wiktionary, a place where users can ask questions about words and about Wiktionary, ask for help, or post miscellaneous ideas that don’t fit in any of the other rooms.

To start a new topic, clicking on the “+” tab, or click here: Start a new topic.

Sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), code which produces your signature, followed by a UTC timestamp.

For past questions, see /Archives.

Information desk archives edit


September 2018

Challenges to Grammatical AffixesEdit

How do I signal a challenge to a grammatical affix that is only stored in a Lua module? Can I raise a tea room topic? To make matters more complicated, the affix appears in a separate module for each of the half dozen or so scripts the language is regularly written in. If a tea room topic is appropriate, should I attempt to raise the challenge in each of the modules, or just the most important one? If my doubts are confirmed, pages will have minor edits rather than being deleted. -- RichardW57 (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Would it be terribly obtuse to ask you to name the affix you are unhappy about. Equinox 00:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Pali dative singular in -atthaṃ for masculine and neuter a-stems, which I cannot find in my grammars. They only give -assa and semantically dodgy -āya for these stems. The main module is Module:pi-decl/noun/Latn; there are 8 other modules, which appear to have less use. I would be less bothered if I only had to change one or two master entries, but gluing on the affixes is fiddly, as the writing systems and their encodings variably use implicit vowels and visual non-phonetic order, and so each script has its own list of affixes.
(See w:User:RichardW57m for my aliases.) RichardW57m (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Whew, I suppose you can't RFV the guts of a module because it isn't an entry. I would suggest you use the proficiency templates to find any active users who are familiar with Pali, and start a discussion with them. Equinox 22:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Pinging users who have edited Module:pi-decl/noun and its submodule: @Octahedron80, @AryamanA. — Eru·tuon 01:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The affixes are collected from the textbook. And it has every possible forms (because they are needed in poetry). I don't know how do you learn it but let's see Wikibooks. -atthaṃ is อตฺถํ you said. For verb, I gave up because there are totally near-hundred of forms. By the way, every rule has exception; some special words are not dealt with yet. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Self-taught, I'm afraid, and not very proficient. I started work on a Hunspell-using spell-checker with a view to puzzling out Lanna Pali texts, as modern Pali seems to largely separate words by spaces. I had a list of 966,668 'words' sorted by frequency, which I've used to clarify matters. I used Duroiselle, "Mazard's version of Mason's..." and a new book I've actually bought, Steven Collins' A Pali Grammar for Students; all fail to mention any such case ending. Duroiselle is reported to have taken into account relatively recent versions of Pali, such as chronicles. The best I can come up with is that the accusative of atha in Pali Text Society (1921–1925), Pali-English Dictionary, London: Chipstead. (licensed under CC-BY-NC) can function as a postposition, and that often it forms a compound with the preceding noun instead. That would give the appearance of a dative case ending, but to count it as a case ending I'd want to be confident that tolerable Pali could have:
adjective_in_dative + noun_compounded_with_attha_in_the_accusative
That test assumes that adjectives don't compound with atthaṃ when they're qualifying nouns.
So where did the former user 'Khun panya' get the ending from? His Holiness's work?
On further digging, it seems that the dative singular in -atthaṃ is part of the Thai Pali grammatical tradition. - RichardW57 (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
You've missed that neuter plural nouns can form their nominative, vocative and accusative plural as though they were masculine nouns. I don't know what happens to their accompanying adjectives - could the adjective and noun appear to disagree in gender in the NVA plural?
I think we need to set up a database module for irregular noun inflections - some of the ablatives of a-declension nouns in -so and -to do seem to be real ablatives. I'd like to just set up a master entry in one script - we have eight scripts to support already, and inflections have only a very limited variation between scripts. Round AA v. tall AA is the worst complication to handle, though there are a few differences that would show up in Romanisation.
I was getting a lot of sandhi with ca, eva, api, and iti, and had added them to my spelling checker's inflection tables. If I hadn't suspended work, I would have added attā to the spell checker's adjective inflections ('vuttattā' was the commonest instance) - but I wouldn't have called it a case ending! - RichardW57 (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Octahedron80, @AryamanA, @Erutuon - RichardW57 (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

About tall AA of Myanmar and Lanna, it is stricted only to put after some consonants; it cannot be put anywhere or interchangeable with round AA. I already have logic to adjust that. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, @Octahedron80, it is not as simple as that. In the Thai Tham script, there are five consonants which everyone who uses tall AA agrees should in general be followed by tall AA: BA (non-Lao Pali <p>), WA (Pali <v>), LOW TA (Pali <d>), LOW THA (Pali <dh>), and LOW KA (Pali <g>). There are differences of opinion as to LOW PA (Pali <b>) - the MFL uses tall AA after it, but Wyn Owen reports that the Tai Khuen don't. I've a feeling some people add HIGH CA (Pali <c>) to the list, but I haven't seen that in action. I've heard of a strange rule (may be it's the wrong way round) that tall AA should not be used in Northern Thai words of Pali/Sanskrit origin. The next problem is the exceptions to the rule. I believe it doesn't apply before spacing subscripts. This is an exception in the MFL, but perhaps Northern Thai and Pali behave differently. By this rule, the spelling of byagghā 'tigers' will depend on the shape of the subscript <gh>. (It may show up sooner in the nominative singular byaggho.) The existence of these different rules is why they are encoded differently in Unicode, though I'm sure the precedent of the recent disunification in the Myanmar script also affected thinking. In the MFL, <pr> and <br> also lack tall AA, but these are mostly native or Sanskrit words. Finally, Wiktionary is supposed to support common misspellings, so we can't appeal to grammar rules to eliminate alternative spelling styles! - RichardW57m (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The Northern Thai Dictionary of Palm-Leaf Manuscripts uses round AA after LOW PA. So does the neat handwritten text in Bunkhit Wachrasat's big blue book. When we look at Pali, the only consolation is that many of the opportunities for variation in the rules vanish - but there're enough there. We may even need to look at variation in the realisation of -tth-. While you'd think the subscript should be encoded <SAKOT, HIGH THA>, we're liable to find <SIGN HIGH RATHA OR LOW PA> and even <SAKOT, LOW THA>! We may need the Lana4 parameter when invoking {{pi-alt}} - and perhaps we need some displayable attributes, such as 'deprecated'. - RichardW57 (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@Octahedron80: See the quotes supporting ᨻᩩᨴ᩠ᨵ. Both round and tall AA occur after the stem. - RichardW57 (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I've also read a small book in Northern Thai that entirely lacked tall AA. - RichardW57m (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The usage of tall AA is already standardised. If you read old and unstandardised version, you surely met random round/tall AA. The reason tall AA is used because to distinguish forms against other consonants that have same final curve. For example, <ga> must be always followed by <tall aa> because <ga>+<round aa> looks like <ka>. <va> must use <tall aa> to distinguish from <ta>. etc. In case of cluster, shape of aa is considered by the first consonant at the top of stack. So <byaggha> you said then must be followed by <tall aa> since it has <ga> on top. I have Northern Thai dictionay either. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
By the way, you can still add manual alternatives in the "pi-alt" template for some obsolete forms; I already think about those. And I also recommend to include automated form as modern one. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
One of the reasons for the Myanmar script's disunification is that the rules have changed in Burmese; Christian materials still tend to use the old rule. If Burmese Pali has had the same rule change, then there will be different forms for old Burmese Pali and modern Burmese Pali. - RichardW57m (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@Octahedron80 If you read Phaya Luang Maha Sena's Learn fast to read Tham characters in Lao Texts (ແບບຣຽນໄວ ເຫຼັ້ມສອງ ຣຽນອ່ານໝັງສືທັມ ຂຽນເປັນພາສາບາລີ), you'll find that any international Pali word that can be written with tall AA can also be written with round AA in some region. That doesn't mean that sabbadā can be written with subscript LOW PA and round AA. - RichardW57 (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Formatting errorEdit

Fix the error on Pyraminxes for me please. Torrent01 (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

  • It was fixed before you asked. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Question about the rulesEdit

Does Wiktionary have a "one-person-per-account" rule like in w:WP:NOSHARE? —This unsigned comment was added by Torrent01 (talkcontribs).

No. DTLHS (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
In other words, I can let family and friends use this account if I like? Torrent01 (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
You will be held accountable for all ensuing mishaps.  --Lambiam 12:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
If I were you, I wouldn't have told us about it, TBH. BTW, what's our sockpuppet policy anyway? --XY3999 (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Days of seasonsEdit

Why can there be a summer's day and a winter's day but not a spring's day or an autumn's day? Equinox 00:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Who says there can't be? DTLHS (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Google does: I searched for "spring's day", and it gave me the results for "spring day" instead because "spring's day" had only about 300 hits, while "spring day" had over a million. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
And how is that relevant? [1], [2], [3], [4]. DTLHS (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, it is totally normal and natural to say the first two, but the second two sound weird and wrong — perhaps only in my local British English? I suspect more widely. Equinox 05:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The same in Canada. "Spring's day" sounds like something a non-native speaker would say. Only "spring day" and "fall day" seem natural (or "autumn day," but we prefer "fall" in Canada). Conversely, "summer day" and "winter day" sound fine (and are more likely to be used in speech than the possessive forms). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

possessive + gerund + direct object in EnglishEdit

I have a couple of questions about a type of noun phrase that consists of a possessive or genitive element, a gerund and a direct object. For instance: "The hunters' shooting large game roused a passionate diversity of opinion." Any potential for ambiguity aside, is this considered informal or regional as opposed to the hunters' shooting of large game or the hunters shooting large game? Is there a term for this kind of construct? Could this also work for indirect objects (e.g. "The assembly has approved their giving the victims support", which doesn't sound too flash to me)? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The issue becomes a bit clearer if the term for the agent does not end on an s, so that one can also hear the difference. “In 1984, the U.S. Congress passed a bill that limited the insanity definition to the defendant not knowing that he was acting wrongfully.” Or, “In 1984, the U.S. Congress passed a bill that limited the insanity definition to the defendant’s not knowing that he was acting wrongfully.” Aristotle said that “the pride of man proceeds from his not knowing himself.” Here, you cannot insert “of”: ✲“his not knowing of himself.” I see no problem with indirect objects, as in, “I expressed my uneasiness at his giving me so often the appellation of yahoo, an odious animal, for which I had so utter an hatred and contempt.” (Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Travels – To the Houyhnhms.) I do not know the answers to the other questions.  --Lambiam 02:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Question about Korean manhwa titleEdit

There's a Korean manhwa named "Angry" or "앵그리".

My question:

  • Is "앵그리" just a transliteration of the English word "angry"?

Thanks in advance. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I think so. It is used in many titles in hangul that are obviously transliterated English, like the titles of Angry Mom (앵그리맘) and Angry Birds (앵그리버드).  --Lambiam 00:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


I have babel on my user page. Am I doing it right? Torrent01 (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Andrew Sheedy (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Why do words meaning "bad" end up meaning "cool"?Edit

Like wicked, sick, ill (in hip-hop), perhaps gnarly, and bad itself. Has this been studied at all? Is it for example some kind of linguistic revolt against the dominant culture (or parents/school!) by using words to mean their opposites — but in that case, why do positive words like "sweet", "lovely", "good" not end up meaning "bad"? Equinox 22:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

And when do we have to categorize such words as contranyms? Fay Freak (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
terrible can be confusing too. Per utramque cavernam 08:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I know how to cook a real mean steak. It’s terrific.  --Lambiam 11:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
And then there's using awfully as an intensifier for positive adjectives. Though since awful itself started out more positive than negative (“provoking awe”), maybe it's not in the same category. — Eru·tuon 19:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
In some cases, like "awfully" and "wicked", I wonder if the words were initially intensifiers for negative adjectives, and then became general intensifiers. Mitt Romney once described himself as "severely conservative" evidently intending "severely" to have positive or neutral connotations instead of the negative ones it often has. And you can still use both as intensifiers for negatives: "that's awfully rude", "wicked ugly", etc. - -sche (discuss) 21:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Oxford wrote a bit about the history of inverted meanings, but not much about the why. - -sche (discuss) 21:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I made Appendix:Hip hop slang and have always meant to expound upon it. My recollection is that it's 1.) ironic and 2.) a way of "taking back" language that denigrated African-Americans' music. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Adjective senses of petEdit

Prompted by a question on the feedback page, I was wondering: are the adjective senses we list over at pet not just attributive uses of the noun? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Which noun sense could be used for the professor's "pet theory"? It's not an animal or a darling person. Equinox 17:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
It's metaphorical use of the "darling" sense, though the "pet rock" sense is the "animal" sense, as would be "pet hamster". Chuck Entz (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it's sufficiently common and distinct from the noun sense to merit a definition as an adjective. If I were a non-native speaker who was unfamiliar with that usage, I probably wouldn't immediately understand it solely based on the noun senses. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Pyraminx solved.jpgEdit

On the global usage list, why isn't Wiktionary listed? Torrent01 (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

If the domain name is (, en.wiktionary is the previous section. —Suzukaze-c 22:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The usage list is for "other wikis". DTLHS (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

chiaro scuroEdit

I think it's Latin; what does it mean? Thanks. --J. Wiwat (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Garbage citationsEdit

What's the procedure for getting rid of garbage citations that are mere mentions and can't reasonably be verified? Like this one? [5] ? Can I take them to RfD or something? 07:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You can remove it but you should replace it with something better. DTLHS (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

"practice, practice, practice"Edit

I am unfamiliar with editing Wiktionary. The entry for practice, practice, practice is incomplete at best. There should be mention of the origin (punchline to "How do I get to Carnegie Hall?"). Here is a good source:

My apologies for this drive-by post; it is unlikely that I'll find my way back to this page. --2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 17:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

go azewEdit

This is a word meaning "dry up" in Tess of the d'Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy. I don't know whether we should have an entry for this.--2001:DA8:201:3512:106D:C5C9:3E7F:7291 18:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems tricky to find elsewhere, except in dictionaries. An alternative form is assue. Equinox 18:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Isolated lemmasEdit

Hi. Is there a way to query for isolated or orphaned lemmas? These lemmas are "isolated" because they cannot be accessed from other lemmas and only way to look them up is by search engine, category page or by typing the exact headword into the URL.

Benefits of querying such lemmas: Inclusion as derived terms, synonyms, etc. into existing lemmas. KevinUp (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

We have Special:LonelyPages. DTLHS (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
But that's by page, not by lemma. So while it doesn't give false positives, it gives false negatives. —Rua (mew) 16:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. That is almost what I'm looking for. Too bad it only shows up to a maximum of 5000 entries. If we could have the lemmas sorted by language, that would be even better. KevinUp (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The limit makes LonelyPages useless; the truncated list does not even reach far enough to cover any terms starting with “a”.  --Lambiam 22:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"dog eat dog" etc.Edit

Is there a name for N-V-N constructions like dog eat dog and diamond cut diamond? Are there many more of these? Equinox 00:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I haven't found a name, although this book discusses it as "a proverbial pattern" and has some more examples, like "love begets love", "money begets (breeds, makes) money", "will will have will", as well as "great thieves hang little ones". The book distinguishes this from tautological constructions like "a bargain is a bargain". Other examples it gives: "blind lead the blind", "the great fish eat up the small", "one deceit (nail) drives out another", "like will to like" / "like to like", "nothing comes of nothing", "weddings breed weddings", and some similar constructions in Spanish, Italian and Latin. - -sche (discuss) 23:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I think they're missing an important detail: in the two phrases here, the verb isn't inflected: it's not "dog eats dog" or "diamond cuts diamond". I'm not familiar with the second phrase, but dog eat dog seems to be only used attributively as a sort of modifier, not as anything that could be construed as a clause in its own right. There's something else going on here. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a subjunctive conjugation, used in questions. "Dog eat dog?" "Me edit Wiktionary?" DTLHS (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Subjunctive, perhaps, but I don't think questions are involved. I can see how these could be rephrased with "may", as in "dog may eat dog". The phrase devil-may-care might be relevant. Another peculiarity about these is the lack of marking for number or definiteness- dog and diamond are countable. There's monkey see, monkey do, but that seems like (real or imitated) pidgin English. Another construction that reminds me of this one involves coordinated verbs: do-or-die, kill or be killed, make or break, sink or swim, stop and go, wait-and-see, etc. Those look like bare infinitives. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I just want to mention the industrial rock band Cop Shoot Cop. —Pengo (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Making assumptions about regular forms?Edit

Do you need to know that a form of a word is used to include it?

For example, if you have a word you know can be included, and an affix that should be included, can you add word+affix without seeing that specific combination in use if it's regular and obvious it should be legit?

-e was an alternative form of -et used in neuter words of Nynorsk to form definite form, that was used in the early 1900s and maybe the 1800s, but has pretty much completely disappeared today, and even fans of traditional Nynorsk rarely if ever use it. So, if I am to include neuter words with -e ending in definite form, do I have to find a source for each individual word, or can I take a regular word and assume that word could have -e based on the completely regular rules, even if there may not necessarily be texts where they are used?

What about words that came into the language after the spelling -e was completely replaced with spelling -et? It's extremely unlikely that anyone would come across these forms, but they are still part of the system.

The same applies to dialects. There's not much written content easily avaible, but you still have regular words. It'd probably be easy to find sources for vøri, but what about all the other forms that work exactly the same way, where a Nynorsk o or u is replaced with an ø? You can assume an entire verb system, but it may not be possible to find sources for more than maybe 20-30 words. Should only those words be included, or is the full system still allowed?

I believe there's no issue with you including these forms in an inflection table, but you should only link to, and create entries for them, if they're citable. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Can you make inflection tables for non-standard forms? Overall I feel that it's a flaw that there aren't any inflection tables for non-standard forms, especially the conservative ones that many would want to use.
But what if the base form is identical to a standardized form, but the inflected form is different? I believe base form of vøri would be væra, which used to be a standard form in Bokmål. I can't start adding inflection tables for various dialects to standard spellings, and making an additional language when the word is defined in one of the written standards would be bad too. Also, if you start adding multiple dialects you'd have a complete mess with 50 different inflection tables for the same word, one for each dialect. 15:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
You could create an appendix with the full list of inflection tables, and link to it from the main entries. Or you could simply create entries for the inflected forms and not include them in the lemma entry. For example, we have givest but it isn't mentioned at give. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

How to go about disputing a revert?Edit

I made an entry to a definition but the moderator reverted it without explanation. I then did a little research and made a new edit with sources. Again the moderator reverted it without comment. I tried to start a discussion on his talk page to get his reasoning for his revert but he has not responded. I am fairly certain my edit is correct and that the information now on the page is incorrect. What should my next course of action be? —This unsigned comment was added by Tardis4500 (talkcontribs).

You've started on the right track, which is talking directly. Give him some time and see if he can respond. Can you show me which entry it is? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
It concerns this edit.  --Lambiam 07:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Over a month has passed without reaction from the reverting editor to the attempt to engage them in a discussion.  --Lambiam 22:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
This seems to have slipped between the cracks. I've restored the credit (and cited/attributed the claim to Wired inline). Strictly speaking two moderators/administrators reverted here; Chuck probably just saw the OP restoring the previously-reverted content with links to pop-culture-y sites and figured it was insufficient (and maybe it is, but eh). - -sche (discuss) 23:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, I got busy and forgot about it. Sorry.
The main problem I had was with adding links to interviews with Jordan Brady as evidence to back up a vague assertion that "Many sites credit the original usage to comedian Jordan Brady". I suspect that someone doing a celebrity interview doesn't bother any kind of rigorous fact checking, so it's entirely possible that the interviewers were just repeating information that Jordan Brady gave them. A dictionary etymology should only link to lexicographic resources, or to actual historical usage- something authoritative. We also try to avoid linking to commercial sites unless there's a very good reason, in order to avoid the appearance of endorsing those sites. Providing examples of someone in no position to know saying something in passing is not a good reason. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
While I understand your concerns, I note that the original date of 2004 has no reference or attribution at all so I'm not sure why my correction of that date with at least some reference is worse. I will continue to look for solid references but it seems clear this phrase was in use in the late '90s. -- Jeff Smith
So here is a link to the Jordan Brady routine on "An Evening at the Improv" in 1989 where he repeatedly uses the proto-phase "bow-chica-boom-bow" I'm not sure if this is a reference that would be acceptable for use in the entry or if you feel supports his generation of the phrase. Please advise. -- Jeff Smith
It appears to be the case that the phrase can be attested as having been used in 1989. But for one to assert that it was in use, I feel there needs to be evidence that it was used by more than one single person.  --Lambiam 09:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I seem to have compounded the confusion I created by letting this fall through the cracks by being unclear. This isn't Wikipedia. We have different standards about original research and referencing. I wasn't so concerned that your references weren't good enough, as annoyed by cluttering the etymology with irrelevant references. We get people from time to time that say "me and my friends invented this back in high school". With the exception of a few iconic turns of phrase associated with a well known person or character, it's really hard to to document this stuff, and there are no truly reliable sources. If you were making a linguistic claim, references are a good idea. Here, you're just documenting that someone publicly stated that they thought something they wouldn't have evidence for- there's really no point.
I'm no expert on dealing with this kind of thing, but I think the best way would be to say that Jordan Brady was using this in the late 80's, so he might have been the source. Maybe someone else would have more specific suggestions. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok. I've taken another whack at cleaning this up. Let me know what you think. I did find another attribution to a character on the show Red vs. Blue where it became his catch phrase after he first used it in 2005. I just don't know if this is worth working into the etymology. I also found an online forum in 2003 where there was a discussion over where it originated. They didn't come to any conclusions but that means it was definitely in common usage then. -- Jeff Smith 00:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Linking Wikipedia and Wiktionary accountsEdit

Hi, all. I'm new to Wiktionary as an editor. I have a user page on Wikipedia (as Cavallero, but on Wiktionary I have a basic page. Is it possible to link the accounts or do I have to build up my user page again? Thanks. --Cavallero (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

See [6]. DTLHS (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
See also WT:USER. We don't allow most Wikipedia-type user boxes, so you probably couldn't make your Wiktionary page like your Wikipedia page anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

URGENT: Category tree not workingEdit

It seems the Module of category tree data has broken. Major categories like English verbs, etc. are showing some Lua error. Kindly someone fix it. JainismWikipedian (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed by simply rollbacking everything you recently made to Module:category tree/poscatboiler/data/non-lemma forms. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 11:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Fact remains that you were already reverted before when modifying that module, so you should from now on seek actual consensus to your edits and make sure they don't break everything. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 11:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)