Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup

(Redirected from Wiktionary:RFC)

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for cleanup

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for verification/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

Requests for verification/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/English
add new English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for deletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

Requests for deletion/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

This is a manually created and maintained list of pages that require cleanup.

Adding a request: To add a request, place the template {{rfc}} to the messy entry, and then make a new nomination here. Include an explanation of your reasons for nominating the page for cleanup, but please put any extensive discussion in the discussion page of the article itself.

Closing a request: A conversation should remain here at least for one week after the {{rfc}} tag is removed, then moved to that page’s talk page from here. When the entry has been cleaned, please strike the word here, and put any discussion on the talk page of the cleaned entry.

Pages tagged with the template {{rfc}} are automatically placed in Category:Requests for cleanup. They are automatically removed from the category when the template is removed, or, if the template has not been used, when Category:Requests for cleanup has been removed from the page.

If an entry needs attention from experienced editors in a specific language, consider using {{attention}} instead of {{rfc}}.

See also Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion process, Help:Nominating an article for cleanup or deletion, and Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion elements. Category:Pages with broken file links should also be cleaned out periodically.

Tagged RFCs



English. I wasn't sure where to start on this one. (1) Layout is non-standard. (2) Some senses/translations are too specific - others need writing in simpler English. (3) Translations probably need pooling for re-checking. — Saltmarshαπάντηση 05:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The use of subsections for definitions (using the syntax ##) isn't common but I wouldn't say it's 'non-standard' either. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't come across it, but stating that the term means ppm is incorrect - its just an example — Saltmarshαπάντηση 12:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Insanely, there's nothing to cover the mental state of being concentrated. I've added a French entry for it, but the English definition it refers to doesn't exist yet. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Concentrated doesn't list it either... but concentrate does. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
But it isn't clear whether "the act or process of concentrating" (all the subsections refer to the amounts of one material in another) includes mental concentration. (1) does "mental concentration" get a 3rd subsection or a new section of its own. And (2) does the relevant translation sense include both mental and physical concentration when some languages will have separate terms? — Saltmarshαπάντηση 12:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
How much do other languages use different words for translating this as a process, an act, an ability, a result? What about the distinction between a reflexive/intransitive sense ("the concentration of the particles in the lower portion of of the fractioning apparatus", ie, the particles could be viewed as concentrating themselves) and a transitive sense {"the concentration apparatus proved effective", ie, the apparatus concentrates something else)? DCDuring TALK 20:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Or a state for that matter?


English. Rfc-sense: "The art of using similar techniques in politics or business." Similar to which sense, sense #1 or sense #2? Or neither, perhaps it means the art of using techniques which are similar in politics or business (I don't think it means this, but it's the most literal interpretation from where I stand). I think maybe it's trying to suggest that strategy can be a mass noun, which I think it can, in which case it's not limited to business and politics, in sports you can use strategy (mass noun) and not only a strategy or strategies (count nouns). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

MWOnline has six senses, none of which fit the uncountable sense, which I agree exists and is not uncommon:
  • 2001, Ronald S. Swift, Accelerating Customer Relationships: Using CRM and Relationship ..., page 319:
    Much strategy prevails over little strategy, so those with no strategy can only be defeated.
I think there are two kinds of meanings: more or less neutral: "strategizing, the activity of developing an implementable strategy"; more or less favorable: "good, clever planning". I generally don't think we should have definitions like the second if they are arguably included in a neutral sense.
The MWOnline senses are for: 1.a.1 - national grand strategy, 1.a.2 - military strategy, 1.b - a type or instance of the above, 2.a - a careful plan, 2.b - the art of devising such plans, 3 - something to capture what is imputed to a species for its successful evolution.
Obviously, our definitions combine some of these, but they also seem to omit some components completely. DCDuring TALK 22:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


English. Rfc-sense: "A bump-like imperfection resembling a gall."

This appears in the middle of nine definitions of gall, none of which have a picture or a graphic description. DCDuring TALK 22:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks to belong in Etym 2, as presumably also do the senses about sores and a pit (the context of this last definition is somewhat unclear). — Pingkudimmi 07:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
@DCDuring, Pingku I moved the disputed definition to Etymology 2, but didn't touch "sore" and "pit". --Hekaheka (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


Sanskrit: Rfc-sense: "a species of plant" and "name of various plants"

These are virtually worthless as definitions, but similar definition are common among Sanskrit entries here. Can this be improved upon at all? Similar situations in Latin and especially Greek usually generate plausible conjectures. Some of the cases where a species name is given are not much better as the species name may be used nowhere but in dictionaries or south Asian languages. DCDuring TALK 00:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There are analogous cases in Old French especially regarding plants where there's no way to be sure all the authors are talking about the same plant. I can see a lot of problems on that page, "a species of plant" seems redundant but "name of various plants" is probably as good as it can get. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
That is a typical Sanskrit page with typical problems, including no differentiation of proper nouns, except for higher prevalence of "name of" as part of the definition. The definitions look like wikiformatted copies of old Sanskrit-English dictionaries, possibly different ones combined, with the old dictionaries not being as well done as LSJ (Ancient Greek)or L&S (Latin). The definiens often use polysemic English words with no gloss to suggest which modern sense. DCDuring TALK 01:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
You haven't begun to guess at the true enormity of the problem: I've copypasted the relevant part of the Monier-Williams entry from a pdf I downloaded (enclosed in collapsible header templates for those who don't care to read through it all), and interleaved it with our definitions. The OCR severely mangled the romanized Sanskrit and it would have taken too long to fix it, so don't try to decipher that part. As you can see, our entry is simply the Monier-Williams translated into our format, stripped of the source abbreviations, and paraphrased a bit.
It seems like a combination of multiple dictionaries because Monier-Williams went through libraries-full of sources and made notes, then compressed those notes into an incredibly dense and cryptic format in order to fit everything (barely) into one very large volume. All the bulleted lines below take up what looks like a single 2 or 3 inch square in a much larger three-column page, with nothing separating them but spaces and semicolons. The amount of detail in that work is astonishing- it would take years to properly unpack all the abbreviations and taxonomic names and convert them to modern equivalents. Just one page would take days! Nobody has all the necessary reference material at hand to do it, anyway, so the best we seem to be able to do is reformat this massive lump of condensed shorthand to make it look like a Wiktionary entry, without properly decoding it.
Chuck Entz (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I had looked at some of the Dictionary pages given as references.
My interests and "expertise" are quite limited. I think I can modernize some of the taxonomic names from the 130-year-old ones that were the best he had to work with, but I have to always look at the dictionary page itself. Some of the species names I cannot find in any authoritative online source.
So our Sanskrit entries are "pretend" entries, even worse than the unchanged Webster 1913 entries (for current words). DCDuring TALK 16:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess what's worst is that many of the pages don't have the reference to the dictionary page. DCDuring TALK 16:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

DCDuring keeps repeating that we're dealing with a "130-year old dictionary" but he fails to mention that the dictionary is a synthetic result of tens of thousands of man-hours, and that it's perfectly valid today due to the simple fact that Sanskrit is an extinct language that doesn't change anymore. If the respected authorities have failed to determine what exact species of plants saha denotes in some works, then probably nobody else will. Comparing it to Webster 1913 and modern English is stupid. Regarding proper nouns - they are not recognized as a separate lexical category by Sanskrit grammarians (there is no uppercase/lowercase distinction, there are tens of thousands of deities in Hinduism representing just about any imaginable concept). I have been separating proper/common nouns in some early entries, but have stopped doing so. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a great dictionary. It's available online for free to scholars, so Wiktionary's having copied pages is simply duplicative. It's copied pages are only a first draft of a Wiktionary entry. DCDuring TALK 16:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Apart from the research done on the new interpretation of meanings of Sanskrit words in the 20th and 21th century, it's a complete entry. Sanskrit entries copied from MW dictionary are far more complete than English entries copied from Webster 1913, because the language is not productive anymore as a literary device. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I have three problems with our English entries based on MW 1913 and two with the Sanskrit entries. To me they have one problem in common.
  1. with English entries from MW 1913:
    1. it has English words whose meaning and usage context have changed in some cases, whereas we have not brought the entry up to date.
    2. it uses a dated English for all of its definitions
    3. it includes lists of synonyms in the definiens (instead of under Synonyms), a defining style we don't use.
  2. with Sanskrit entries:
    1. it does not adhere to Wiktionary format and structure eg, not having distinct L3/4 sections for proper and common nouns and non-definiens material in the definitions.
    2. it uses a dated English for all of its definitions.
Just as with MW 1913 entries: I am glad we have the Sanskrit entries. They are an excellent first draft. They need work to be up to our high standards. DCDuring TALK 01:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. I've told you already: proper nouns are not recognized as a separate lexical category by Sanskrit grammarians. This "e.g." of yours is the only objection you actually have to the structure of Sanskrit entries, and yet you keep parroting it as if it is one of many. Non-definiens material (i.e. the list of works were the set of meanings makes appearance) is essential due to the fact that Sanskrit literature stretches over three millennia, and someone reading Rgveda is not interested in the same meanings as someone reading Gita Govinda. We already include non-definiens material in all of the entries - they are called context labels. I fail to see how "this meaning is only used in UK" is any different than "this meaning is only used in the Vedas".
  2. Most of its English is perfectly fine. You're needlessly exaggerating. If you find "dated English" feel free to update it. Perhaps some terms are a bit dated, but often no clear non-dated synonyms exist, and replacing them could introduce new interpretation of some words. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
All of this makes it seem as if a user of the material would be better off to be using the complete text, not Wiktionary's half-formatted, subject-to-insufficiently-respectful-editing version. For example, see Category:Sanskrit proper nouns. Do we need 97 RfC for them?
What value are we adding if all we do is copy? One value might be that we can link to the Sanskrit from other language entries. But that is not for Sanskrit scholars who know the peculiarities of the original dictionary; it is for ordinary Wiktionarians and folks who are simply curious, even recreational users. As scholars have the free online source and should have page links in the Wiktionary entry to that source from every entry copied from it, our Sanskrit entries ought be rendered consistent with Wiktionary format to facilitate use by those other than scholars. DCDuring TALK 17:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Half-formatted subject-to-insufficiently-respectful-editing version? I'm not annoyed by your half-baked attempts of pretend-trolling. Goodbye. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The really terrible one is the neuter noun = बल (bala), because बल has 28 noun definitions. Which one of the 28, or all 28 of them? Limiting only to neuter nouns transliterated as bala, that's down to 14. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
@Mahagaja, AryamanA if either of you would like to modernize the entry any. - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


Russian. At весь#Russian, the pronoun and adjective senses are mixed together and need to be carefully picked apart. --WikiTiki89 15:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it would need to be changed into a Determiner anyway. "all" is not a property of something, but a reference specifier like other determiners. —CodeCat 00:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, the pronoun and determiner senses need to be picked apart. --WikiTiki89 00:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
You could ask Anatoli... he is the main Russian editor I think. —CodeCat 00:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I could also do it myself. I was just feeling lazy when I requested this. Mostly because the pronoun sense needs to be split across весь, вся, всё, and все. Additionally, I'm not sure what part of speech it is in "оно всё там", which is the exact 100% equivalent of "it's all there". --WikiTiki89 00:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can clean as per the nomination but I'm happy to take suggestions. The choice for SoP itself is not so obvious and the Russian Wiktionary uses "местоиме́нное прилага́тельное" (pronominal adjective). Perhaps providing more usexes would make the senses clearer? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not that they are unclear, just that the determiner is intermixed with the pronoun, when they really need separate headers. --WikiTiki89 01:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
You can try it yourself, if you wish. I'm not 100% sure what PoS your examples belong to. Which ones do you think are pronouns?--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Well if it's used without a noun, it's a usually pronoun. --WikiTiki89 02:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The split is required for derived/related всё and все then, not весь. It'll probably suffice to mention the two types of derivations, even if usexes use всё and все. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
"Бумажник упал в лужу и весь промок." What part of speech is that according to you? I guess you could say that it is an adverb and the second clause has a null subject, but then we'd have to add an adverb sense. Now that I think about it, I think that the adverb interpretation is more accurate because it also accounts for "Он весь промок." --WikiTiki89 04:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It's tricky, indeed. See also какая часть речи слово "всё" --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
That answer seems to agree with me that in "Бумажник упал в лужу и весь промок." and "Он весь промок.", it is an adverb. But this is a strange case of an adverb that agrees with a noun in gender, number, and case: "Я его всего высушил.", "её всю", etc. --WikiTiki89 04:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm lost in PoS here. Not sure. I will leave it as is for now. We can try Vahagn Petrosyan (talkcontribs) and Stephen G. Brown (talkcontribs). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
We can get more people to weigh in than that. As I said above, the exact same dilemma exists in English, only since English does not have gender/number/case agreement, there's less of a problem calling it an adverb: "They all went home." ("Они все пошли домой."), "I ate it all." ("Я его/её всего/всю съел."). --WikiTiki89 13:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Most Russian dictionaries call весь определительное местоимение. I don't have an opinion. --Vahag (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It just making everything horribly complex to satisfy some arcane sense of category. I don’t see anything wrong with it the way it is. This reminds me of a few years ago when Michael decided to rename a bunch of files to separate them into Wiktionary:X and Appendix:X, and then I could never find the pages that I used to use because I don’t share his sense of categories. I never again saw some of those pages. —Stephen (Talk) 20:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting getting rid of anything we have. It's just that certain senses are missing (the adjective/pronoun/whatever-they-are ones), but are present in usage examples. A sense needs to be created for them, and since it is not an adjective/determiner, we have to decide what it is. --WikiTiki89 20:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
That’s what I’m saying. To me, весь is one simple part of speech. We used to call it an adjective, and in my opinion, that is what it is. Or mark them with the Russian terminology, attributive pronoun. All this modernistic stuff about determiners and such is just so much nonsense to me. If you want to divide it up into all sorts of part of speech, you have to do it yourself. I don’t recognize those categories and I don’t see the need for them. —Stephen (Talk) 02:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
That's not my point at all. I also consider the distinction between adjectives and determiners to be quite useless, especially in Russian. What I'm saying here is that in the cases I mentioned, it is not an adjective or determiner. It's either an adverb or a pronoun, depending on how you look at it. It makes more sense as an adverb, except for the fact that it declines for gender, number, and case. --WikiTiki89 02:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

February 2016Edit


English. Confusing entry. Jberkel (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I had trouble with the definitions, too. I hope I have not been a mischief (3.1.1) and that any mischiefs (1.3) I may have undertaken do not rise to the level of (serious) mischief (2.1). If the definitions are comprehensible then it would be easier to proceed to the specific problems that @Jberkel had.
I had the most trouble believing in the "agent of trouble" definitions (3), but found one citation for each and could probably find more. DCDuring TALK 01:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I moved some synonyms around and removed the quotations header, it's a bit better now. Jberkel (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It would benefit from some simplification, but the older uses seem quite distinct, at least in degree, from the most common current senses. DCDuring TALK 14:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think synonym lists should be removed from mainspace and moved to Wikisaurus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
In general I agree and avoid moving things to Wikisaurus but for these longs lists it makes sense, it's even specifically mentioned in WT:ELE: "Instead of listing many synonyms in each of several synonymous entries, a single reference can be made in each to a common Wikisaurus page". – Jberkel (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It is one thing to add a reference to a Wikisaurus page to an entry that had no synonyms, and it is another thing to remove lists and replace them with the references only. WT:ELE should probably be edited to clarify whether editors find such a replacement okay. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I liked this revision and found nothing confusing. By contrast, what I see now seems rather confusing, above all the subsensing, although it is probably more accurate and refined. I especially do not understand what is going on with the 3rd sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky I like oversimplifications sometimes too. We could achieve a much simpler entry that remained true to the (selected) facts if we ignored the no-longer-common definitions. DCDuring TALK 21:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why moving things around is such a controversial thing, especially given the size of these lists. Why can't entries be modified according to guidelines? Some options we have: 1) Keep synonyms in the entry and add a mechanism with a collapsible display, similar to {{der3}} and {{rel3}} which makes it feasible to include long lists 2) move long lists of synonyms to Wikisaurus + add references. 3) cap the size of lists. I personally prefer 1). – Jberkel (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky Sense 3 and its subsenses are about cause. The others about effect. DCDuring TALK 15:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
While we're here, am I the only one that pronounces it /ˈmɪstʃiːf/ (as chief in other words)? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
For me it rhymes with tiff. DCDuring TALK 17:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
For me it (and handkerchief) also rhymes with chief, as it does for the vast majority of people in the Midlands and Northern England. Most dictionaries say it rhymes only with tiff in the U.K and U.S but not only is that simply factually inaccurate, showing heavy bias towards the Southern English pronunciation, but Collins goes so far to the other extreme that it actually gives the chief version as the only U.K pronunciation (and the tiff version as the only American pronunciation) here:- https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/mischief. Bearing that in mind I’ve added the chief pronunciation as a possible U.K variant pronunciation. Overlordnat1 (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jberkel: Too many people oppose moving content away from the mainspace; multiple people proposed abandoning Wikisaurus and moving its content to mainspace. It is therefore wise to tread lightly and avoid harming Wikisaurus position and reputation by avoiding associating Wikisaurus project with content being moved away from the mainspace. As for the comma-separated list to be too long to display directly, I think you'll find you are in the minority of people who have any problem with them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't like long lists of anything (except definitions) unless they can be concealed by a show-hide. These particular lists seem like a hodge-podge of things which don't match the headword's various definitions very well, so they could readily be shortened, one list at a time, once the definitions were stabilized.
But in this case the lists would be made more useful if they could match some of the definitions. For example, the main current sense of mischief as something "minor trouble or annoyance" would warrant a subset of the current list which does not differentiate by degree of trouble or harm. Thus, annoyance, nuisance, and prank might belong whereas sabotage might not.
A more drastic approach would be to not have any long list of synonyms for any obsolete sense or one that is currently rare. A Wikisaurus link could still provide access to a fuller set of synonyms. One advantage in the case of this entry is that it would somewhat reduce the weight of the obsolete/less common senses in the entry.
For any of this to be worth doing we first need to stabilize the entry. OED has even more senses than we now show. I don't know whether a fuller set of definitions can usefully be brought into any sense/subsense structure that I can produce. DCDuring TALK 20:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
If the lists are deficient as for accuracy or coherence, they need to be pruned rather than dumped to Wikisaurus. If they are considered too long even after that pruning, they may get shortened to contain only the most salient or common synonyms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
BTW, could someone with access to the OED see whether they have a different, preferably shorter, list of senses and a similar delineation of which senses might be considered archaic, which countable, etc. Cambridge Advanced Learner's has only two senses, both uncountable, one for "behavior that is slightly bad", another for "damage or harm", but links to entries for do sb/yourself a mischief (we don't have any corresponding entry), ie, countable mischief, and make mischief which means about the same as stir the pot. DCDuring TALK 17:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I am informed that the OED has 13 senses and subsenses, but some of them seem to be archaic (they label them obsolete) or rare in current use. Two are legal, too finely distinguished for me to even paraphrase. DCDuring TALK 18:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confusing word ⇒ confusing entry. DCDuring TALK 21:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Entries in Rhymes:RomanianEdit

After last night's controversy over Rhymes:Romanian/abilitate, which Equinox thankfully deleted, I have been going through this category and discovered that the user who contributed, has made a lot of errors. E.g.:

If anyone is up to the task, please feel free to do so or let me know how I should go about making corrections. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE: (See also Wiktionary:Information_desk/2021/October#What_are_the_Rhyme_pages_for?) Is the idea that we eventually delete the Rhymes: namespace? If so, I would be willing to go around and add the correct {{rhyme}} template to the articles and remove them from the Rhymes: namespace. Two questions:
  • Is the ro.wikt IPA data reliable? I haven't come across any mistakes thus far.
  • The rhyme is the the stressed nucleus and everything onwards, right?
--Fytcha (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Wow, don't even remember writing this! I'm afraid I'm not that familiar with the discussion about rhyme pages or the decision taken by the community. As for ro.Wiktionary IPA, it is for the most part correct. I'm no expert on rhymes so it's best to ask someone who deals with them regularly. Robbie SWE (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Robbie SWE: Okay, I will try to figure the things out with rhymes (this can take some time; I've already asked in two places and have gotten no answer in either) and then see what I can do with this category. Fytcha (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

March 2016Edit


English. If etymology 2 is correct, some definitions need to be brought over from etymology 1. I'm not sure if this belongs here or in the Etymology Scriptorium, but at any rate, I don't have time to fix the entry myself. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

One approach is to split the noun and verb senses now in Ety 1 leaving all or most noun senses in Ety 1 and putting all or most verb senses in Ety 2. Another is to combine Ety 1 and Ety 2 on the grounds that the stems of the etyma are the same. The MED asserts that Middle English rakken (verb) is deemed to derive from rak (noun). I have the feeling that the etymology is confused by the persistent trend to Dutch etymological imperialism that characterizes many of our etymologies. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

May 2016Edit


Moved from: Wiktionary:Requests for verification#ngaa

Pitjantjatjara. The word had a cleanup request from 21 February 2015 with the comment: "Almost certainly not Pitjantjatjara. It appears to be Ngaanyatjarra, but I can't be sure of that." IMHO that doesn't sound like it's a matter of RFC but of RFV. -Ikiaika (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but unattested items appearing in RfV could be deleted after just 30 days. RfVs for items in languages with very few contributors might not be seen for quite some time. RfC allows more time. DCDuring TALK 17:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
It had an RFC tag for over a year and nothing changed. I might be mistaken, but I doubt that anything would change in the nearest time and I doubt that there would be much attention for the entry. So I hope that this discussion brings some attention towards the entry and that the RFC/RFV can be resolved. As ngaa also has other entries ("Gamilaraay" and "Hiligaynon"), it wouldn't be completely deleted anyway and one could still find the 'Pitjantjatjara' entry through the version history. However, I'd be okay with changing it to RFC again and moving this discussion to Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup to raise some attention and to give the entry some more time.
Maybe @Vedac13 (he once added the Pitjantjatjara entry) or @This, that and the other (he once added the RFC tag) can help to resolve this issue? -Ikiaika (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
There is heavy overlap between Pitjantjatjara, Yankunytjatjara and Ngaanyatjarra. Some would consider them dialects of the same language. To make matters worse, texts are often misidentified as being in one language when they are actually in one of the others; a lot of reference works relating to these languages are old, use idiosyncratic orthographies, and contain inaccuracies; and Ngaanyatjarra in particular seems to have quite little material available. All this makes it very difficult to sort out the entries in these languages. We really need the assistance of an expert in Western Desert languages to sort out the situation and help organise our coverage.
It probably is a matter for RFV, but I don't think there are many users here who would be able to deal with this problem. I'd favour keeping the RFC tag in place for now. I will have to go and look up a Ngaanyatjarra word list in a library when I have time. This, that and the other (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@This, that and the other Thanks for your reply. I changed it back and moved the discussion. Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
It's certainly not Pitjantjatjara and shouldn't be labelled as such. This and many of Vedac13's other contributions to Pitjantjatjara are flagrant nonsense. BigDom 15:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


English. Second "definition" needs rewriting as an actual definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

  • It looks like a separate entry is needed for heterotypic synonym (and a Derived terms section in this one). There is information here which may not conflict with the "definition," but does seem to indicate a connection with type species.— Pingkudimmi 16:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


Ancient Greek. I think most of the descendants listed are loaned or inherited directly from Latin. Another shady one is English Gus. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Both Κωνσταντῖνος and Constantinus#Latin listed "German: Konstantin" as a descendant.
I don't know how one could prood either of these statements, but German should have it the name from Latin. The older German spellings Constantin and Constantinopel (now Konstantinopel) are evidences for this. In older German texts one maybe can even find the Latin names and maybe even declined the Latin way.
"Finnish: Konstantinus" looks like it even has the Latin ending -us, not a Greek os. I don't know how Finnish borrowed Latin and Greek words, but the entry Konstantinus says it's from Latin. Similary "Icelandic: Konstantínus", "Estonian: Constantinus" and "Turkish: Constantinus" (all in -us and not in -os) could be from Latin.
According to Gus, the English name has another etymology and is unrelated to Constantin. -Ikiaika (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

June 2016Edit

Contributions of User:

English. This user has been contributing quite a variety of new entries in good faith, but without a good understanding of what they were doing. Some cleanup has already been done, but at epithelially I ran into the definition "In a epithelial manner", and realized how much like an assembly line their definition-writing was. I think we need to take a second look at their edits with an eye for other examples of glib meaninglessness that might have slipped under the radar while we've been focusing on vandalism and serious incompetence. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • And some of the entries are listed as adjectives rather than adverbs. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

August 2016Edit


English. Does this actually make sense? – Jberkel (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. But I can't see a distinction between senses #1 and #2. It seems like the same thing (mild deformation of a sheet of metal) just one occurs in manufacturing and one occurs when the item is already in place (roofing). Presumably because oilcans are round and not flat sheets. I'd just reduce it to a single definition (like mine in brackets above) and be done with it. I assume existence is not an issue here? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

November 2016Edit

кънига / ⰽⱏⱀⰻⰳⰰ, кънигꙑEdit

Old Church Slavonic. This OCS word is only attested in the plural. We have it lemmatized twice, once at the (unattested) reconstructed singular кънига (kŭniga) / ⰽⱏⱀⰻⰳⰰ (kŭniga) and once at the plural кънигꙑ (kŭnigy). Presumably either the plural should be made into a form-of definition, or the singular should be deleted as unattested; what is the standard policy? —Vorziblix (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it a plurale tantum, like Lower Sorbian knigły? Or is it only attested with a plural meaning as well? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The former; it’s quite copiously attested with singular and plural meanings, and occasionally translates Greek singulars as well as plurals (βιβλίον (biblíon) and τὰ βιβλίᾰ (tà biblía) both become кънигꙑ (kŭnigy)). —Vorziblix (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I think there are some inflected singular forms, which need to be looked into (care should be taken in distinguishing Old Russian from OCS), such as dative "кънигу".--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The SJS claims that the one-time attested кънигоу is an error for къниги; the expected dative singular would be *кънигѣ in any case, since it’s an a-stem. All of the other attestations given in SJS and SS, which cover almost all of the OCS canon, are plural forms. Do you know of sources that attest the singular? —Vorziblix (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant accusative, not dative. I couldn't find anything, not in the normalised spelling, anyway. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

born in a barnEdit

English. This entry has some real problems, but I'm having trouble pinning down exactly how to fix them. The definitions:

  1. (en, idiomatic) Lacking a sense of etiquette; ill-mannered.
  2. Of humble birth, especially when referring to Jesus Christ.
  3. (en, idiomatic) Engaging in the annoying behavior of inappropriately, and usually neglectfully, leaving open a door or window.

I'm more concerned with the first and last definitions, though the middle one seems to be just a play on the other two.

The phrase is mostly used in the rhetorical question: "were you born in a barn?". Asking that is a way of indirectly criticizing someone for bad manners, especially with regard to leaving a door or window open. Another variation is to say "you must have been born in a barn."

The indirectness seems to be where things are going wrong. The best way to see this is by substituting in the definitions: "Were you [Lacking a sense of etiquette/ill-mannered]?". "Were you [leaving open a door or window]?". To start with, the time frame of the phrase is always in the past relative to the time period of the utterance as a whole, but the first and last definitions are in the same time frame. Also, this is a rhetorical question/metaphor, so the phrase isn't supposed to be true- it's just implied that the behavior of the other person is like what one might expect if it were.

At first I thought this could be fixed by moving the entry to "were you born in a barn", but the variations make that difficult.

Any suggestions? Chuck Entz (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

"(idiomatic) In phrases such as were you born in a barn?: criticizing the person to whom the phrase is directed as lacking a sense of etiquette or being ill-mannered." — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Compare "were you born in a tent". Equinox 13:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This has only been directed at me specifically for leaving the door open. I never had the sense that it was about manners but about not knowing enough to close the door or having grown up in a place where it is customary to leave the door open (as if it would be typical to leave barn doors open, which, not having been around barns, let alone been born in one, I don't have sufficient information to comment on). Eric Partridge in A Dictionary of catch phrases actually gives leaving the door open as a sole usage for this phrase, without any attribution of any further underlying meaning. Unless it has been documented that people using this expression are specifically intending this as a comment on manners or etiquette (is there a difference?), lack of education, or humble upbringing, then it would seem to be synthesis to extend the meaning any further than "Close the door!". Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
There is also a weird use to imply delusion of divinity, and related poetic reference to Bethlehem myths. "He thinks he was born in a born." - Amgine/ t·e 16:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

January 2017Edit

Proto-Slavic ReconstructionsEdit

Not an expert, so I can't really judge if these contributions from the same anon are unpolished gems or candidates for speedy deletion. Any takers? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/šestъ appears to be a candidate for speedy deletion, since we have Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/šestь. The others I can't comment on with certainty. — Kleio (t · c) 18:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/vъnukъ appears to be a gem, so it needs to be polished. Mulder1982 (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


Icelandic. The current definition "held" and the example sentences seem to have nothing to do with each other. DTLHS (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

WF left a message on my talk page asking about these a while back. The phrases used in the examples are real collocations/idioms (see here and here for dictionary definitions). Þungt haldinn seems pretty common ([1]) but I can only find a couple of hits for vera haldinn skemmdarfýsn [[2] (top right p.22) and [3] (bottom left p.5)]. They're definitely not the best usage examples for haldinn either way. BigDom 11:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

many aEdit

English. The anon who created it, who was probably Wonderfool, who had never read a poem in his/her life, tagged it as poetic. Totally wrong, right? And I'd suggest merging the entry, along with many an, into many. --Quadcont (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

many a at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that dictionaries include the term, usually as a redirect to many. I suppose what distinguishes many + [Noun] (plural) from many a + [Noun] (singular) is the emphasis on the individuality of the [Noun]. DCDuring TALK 15:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Not totally wrong. It definitely has a whiff of song/poetry to it – "I've been a wild rover for many a year…", "Many a time and oft on the Rialto…" – these are expressions familiar from songs and literature, not current in contemporary speech except when trying to generate various kinds of archaic/jocular effects. Ƿidsiþ 14:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I did some work on this but didn't remove the label. I will let others decide that. -Mike (talk) 07:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

February 2017Edit


English. Re noun: derived/related terms seem to be arbitrarily mixed up, and I think there's something wrong with the indentation levels. Equinox 07:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There could be the following problems:
  • Two "=" were twice missing, now the levels should be correct.
  • "Related terms" are present twice.
  • Many or even all of the first "Related terms" are simply derived terms. Well, one could differ between real derived terms which are derivates (new terms formed by derivation, by adding affixes) and compounds (new terms formed by composition, by combining words), but both is placed under "Derived terms" here in Wiktionary.
  • Many hyponyms are also derived terms and many derived terms are also hyponyms. E.g. "birthday party" is a hyponym and a derived term of "party".
  • "party" has several meanings like political party and social gathering. So it might make sense to split it up by senses: "green party" is a hyponym and a derived term of the sense political party, "birthday party" is a hyponym and derived term of the sense social gathering.
    BTW: Both terms, "green party" and "birthday party", might be SOP, but that might be the case for several terms listet at party.
  • "political party" is derived term of party and could be both a hyponym and a synonym depending on the sense of "party". To sense 4, "A political group [...]", it should be a synonym. To sense 3, "A group of people forming one side [...]", it could be a hyponym.
- 19:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017Edit


Dutch. Sense: "A bad place of abandon", with subsenses. I'm not entirely clear on what the author intended to communicate, maybe sense and subsenses should be deleted altogether. Subsense 2 seems to be inspired by a sense labelled "ironic" in the WNT, if so then it would just be an ironic use of the literal sense. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

To me it reads like they actually wanted to rewrite sense #2 but tried too much to be funny about it. I think we should just delete sense #3. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

April 2017Edit


English. [may also be of interest to editors in Urdu. This, that and the other (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)] Definitions are too long and the translations section may need examination. —suzukaze (tc) 03:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Appendix:Zulu given namesEdit

This list was created a few months ago by someone with apparently little knowledge of Zulu. In Zulu, all nouns, including names, must have a noun prefix in front of them, but it's lacking for these, which makes the list of relatively little lexicographical use. @Metaknowledge Any idea what to do with it? —CodeCat 23:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's of little lexicographical use. It seems like the content is correct, so I'd add a note at the top about how it's very inexhaustive and the form of the prefix that names have when used in Zulu, and leave it at that. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Except that I don't know the prefix. Normally, it would be class 1a (prefix u-), as you probably know, but there's some names beginning with vowels and Zulu doesn't allow two vowels to be adjacent in native vocabulary. In theory, the prefix would become a consonant before a vowel-initial word, so is wAmahle an attested name? Modern loans use hyphens instead, so I guess u-Amahle is another possibility. I have no idea. —CodeCat 23:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The u-Amahle version is what is actually used in Zulu. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I found some results for uMahle too but whether they're names, I don't know. —CodeCat 00:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

One should also consider that the noun prefixes would only apply to languages that use them. (A super-obvious forest that seems to be missed for the trees of Zulu-ness.) These are the names as they would be used in many other languages that either don't have noun prefixes on names or use different ones. By stripping these down to the bare name, they are far more useful and less confusing. The noun prefix could be covered in a simple sentence: "When speaking Zulu, all the names would have the noun prefix 'u-' but this might not be a part of the name in other languages." Rather like the "o-" for female Japanese names at one point. So someone stopping by here from NaNoWriMo won't come to the conclusion that all their Zulu characters must have names beginning with U in their novel written in English, Spanish, or Mandarin.


Navajo. I can't even find the senses among those huge tables. Moreover, the senses are not marked with # in the wikitext. —CodeCat 19:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


Navajo. Not as bad as the one above, but there's still a giant table in the place reserved for senses. Also, "stem set" is not an allowed section. —CodeCat 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"Stem set" is the way Navajo roots change depending on mode and aspect. It is not a "conjugation" table in the standard meaning of it, but if you feel it better fits the practices here, I can make that change.
Then, regarding the "huge" table, it is how the Navajo vocabulary is built up, around roots to which various preffixes are added. In many Navajo verb pages, a lot of information is duplicated from verb to verb belonging to the same root. It is a lot more efficient and genuine to the language to gather this info inside a "root" page. This saves the burden to add to each verb their related verbs. See for instance yoołmas, haiłmáás, neiłmaas in their "related terms" section.
Then, a group of such verbs comes usually in a number of predefined "categories", as motion, successive, operative.. depending on the set of prefixes that the roots can take (for instance, yoołbąs, haiłbąąs, neiłbąąs follows the same pattern as the examples cited above).
In the same way a Indo-European root page just lists the descendant terms in the daughter languages, in the Navajo root pages I just list the verbs, arranged by sense, theme, transitivity and "category". (The only difference being that the Navajo root is not a reconstructed root, it's a lexical root).
I believe that for learners of the Navajo language these are of great help since it helps structuring the lexicon.
The one issue I had I admit is that the # sign doesn't work when I have multiple submeanings with verb tables inbetween them.
What do you propose I do? I'm pinging Stephen because I'd like to get his input in that matter too. @Stephen G. Brown Julien Daux (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
We have pages for roots of attested languages (Category:Roots by language), that's not really an issue. They are treated like any other morpheme. For Proto-Indo-European, though, we list terms derived from a root under "Derived terms". There's nothing in principle against there being a table under "Derived terms" instead of a list, and I think it is a better location than right underneath each sense.
As for stem sets, if it's not a conjugation table, then I assume that these would be considered separate verbs, am I correct? If so, then the situation resembles that of Proto-Indo-European as well, which also had various ways to derive stems for aspects. We list those under "Derived terms" also. See *leykʷ- for example. Would such a format work for Navajo? —CodeCat 20:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Stem sets are not separate verbs, and if anything, are closer to a conjugation. For instance, yoołmas, yiłmáás, neiłmaas, all mean "he is rolling it", but the first one is progressive aspect (he rolls it along), the second is momentaneous (he is rolling it ), the third one is continuative (he is rolling it about). The difference is in the stem : -mas,-máás,-maas. Then each of these verbs can be conjugated for mode (imperfective, perfective, future...). Then many of these verbs can then take on lexical (non-aspectual) prefixes (just like English "to roll", "to roll up", "to roll out"...), like haiłmáás (he is rolling it out horizontally). That's why the notion of theme is so central to Athabaskan languages, because behind a given lexical verb actually hide multiple segments of somewhat predictable meaning, combining meaning, mode, aspect and lexical derivation. (sorry if that I'm not being clear enough).
Based on these premises, that's why I wanted to have the derived verbs right below each senseid, because the verbs are the incarnations of the themes. A meaning listed without actual verbs doesn't really make sense to me. I could move this to the derived section, but then it would be weird for the synonym section to come before the "derived" terms, because the derived terms are the root itself and a way to define it. And doing this would also make it very repetitive and not synoptic enough. Unless I'm allowed to have "derived terms" before "synonyms", and that I skip senses altogether? Julien Daux (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I haven't really ever dealt with these languages but I'm trying to understand. If you consider what you might call a "whole" verb, with all of its forms, what is included in this? Would you consider yoołmas, yiłmáás and neiłmaas to be different forms of a single verb? Why or why not? —CodeCat 22:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a very good question, and actually this is the central question of all Athabaskan linguistics. Verb mechanism in these languages is so foreign that trying to define it in terms of European linguistics necessarily leads to some categorizations and views that don't belong to it.
The lexicographic "tradition" in Navajo is to consider yoołmas, yiłmáás and neiłmaas as separate "verbs", just like "gain" / "regain" or "perceive" / "receive" are in English, even though the first pair is a predictable derivation and the second much less so. This also fits the definition by which these are the bare shape before any inflection for person, tense or mode is added. Anything that remains after removing person, tense or mode is considered a verb (in Wiktionary and in all Navajo dictionaries). This definition is workable because first this how native speakers feel it (they actually explicitly told Young and Morgan after a survey to arrange their 1980 dictionary by lexical verbs rather than per root), and also because as in any language, some unpredictable or specialized meanings sometimes emerge from these lexical verbs, so it means they can clearly stand on their own (for instance haaʼeeł means "it floats up out", but can also mean "it (a baby) is miscarried, aborted". No other verb derived from this root has this specialized meaning).
Now, other views have emerged in the 1970 that the "real" verbal unit is not the verb (like neiłmaas), not the root (like -MÁÁZ, which can occur in various actual meanings, like "to roll" but also "to be spherical", not that far semantically, but some other roots do have much more disparateness), but the theme, which is the combination of : a root, a thematic prefix compound (possibly null), a thematic classifier (possibly null) and a category (motion, stative, successive, operative....). It is a virtual unit, whose awareness to Navajo native speakers still need to be tested, but whose explanatory power is enormous, and articulates the entire lexicon. James Kari was one of the first to investigate that route with the Alaskan Ahtna language. No such work has ever been carried out for Navajo, even though the reality of themes is a striking overarching phenomenon.
A theme is for instance "Ø + Ø + -MÁÁZ (motion)" (to roll) or "ʼa + ni + Ø + -TʼIʼ (motion)" (to stagger) (you'll agree that that would be weird to have pages named so on Wiktionary, but that's how the paper dictionary of Tlingit is construed). Like many motion themes, these themes can combine with the lexical derivation "ná + di + yi + Momentaneous aspect" (to start to...), to give the following lexical verbs: "ńdiimáás" (to start to roll), "ná + ʼa + di + ni + yi + Ø + mom(TʼIʼ)" = "ńdíʼníitʼééh" (to start to wobble). The question being, can all motion themes accept this derivational prefix? Skimming through Young's dictionary, one can notice that many such combinations are missing from his dictionary, raising the question whether this combination can be freely formed or if it is lexical constrained. Until one finds this out, it better to consider each of these lexical verbs as separate lexical units as opposed to the result of a productive derivational process.
Making a break there :). Julien Daux (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Wow, ok. It seems, then, that Navajo verbs are quite similar to Proto-Indo-European ones, in that you have a root that can serve as the basis for one or more aspect stems, whose existance is unpredictable (not every root has every aspect) and whose meaning can also be idiosyncratic. However, I'm not quite clear on why it's necessary to list verbs by sense. The meaning of each verb is determined by the aspect/mood isn't it? —CodeCat 00:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, two things: 1. I needed one place where to list the verbs belonging to the same theme instead of the copied-pasted list found at the end of each verb entry. 2. Showing the actual possible verbs demonstrates the theme's well-foundedness and also shows places where expected forms would be missing. Also because just listing a root and a theme (like a+ni+Ø+T'I') is way too abstract to be useful to anyone. This was actually the first draft I came up with when I started creating pages for root, and after a couple of these, I saw how useless and disconnected from reality it was. See for instance -CHĮ́ that I didn't have time to reformat.
(Keep in mind that when I'm showing 12 derived verbs in a given theme, there can actually be close to 100 in reality...).
One thing that is in my plate is also to create Wiktionary categories for each theme, like "Navajo verbs derived from the theme X". Currently, the verb entries do not show their appartenance to a theme, the Etymology section just lists the prefixes, but doesn't distinguish between those that are thematic from those that are derivational. Julien Daux (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I suppose that "huge table" refers to the theme/classifier tables. The tables look good to me. The Stem sets are important, and that's what they're called. I can't think of a better way to do them. Maybe the Stem sets could be reduced to mere bolded lines, placed under a headline such as ====Usage notes====. Not a very good solution, but if we're going to shoehorn Navajo stem sets into a format intended for English, it might work:

Usage notesEdit

Stem set
—Stephen (Talk) 02:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017Edit


English. Verb entries 2 and 3 doesn't seem clearly differentiated. Entry 1 talks about technology, but seems to refer to hardware. Only entry 3 is labeled as computing, though all seem tech-related. It seems to me that the example phrase at entry 2 fits better under entry 3. --SentientBall (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that there is any transitive use of upgrade that is computing-specific. Differentiating transitive and intransitive use is a good first step in improving the entry, perhaps along the lines of MWOnline's:
transitive verb
to raise or improve the grade of: such as
a: to improve (livestock) by use of purebred sires
b: to advance to a job requiring a higher level of skill especially as part of a training program
c: to raise the quality of
d: to raise the classification and usually the price of without improving the quality
e: to extend the usefulness of (something, such as a device)
f: to assign a less serious status to upgraded the patient's condition to good
intransitive verb
to improve or replace especially software or a device for increased usefulness
DCDuring (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I've added a missing noun sense, an adverb PoS section, transitive/intransitive labels, some new verb senses, some citations and usage examples. Senses a and f from MWOnline are clearly needed. I'm not as sure about b-e. DCDuring (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


Ancient Greek. I was asked to put a notice here. The etymology is poorly written; it needs to be formatted and more easier to read. I am not an expert on Greek, but I have an interest on that language. TatCoolBoy (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


English. Someone has been replacing translations that are direct borrowings from English (i.e. the word malware in other languages) with other terms. I have checked the three Portuguese translations they added and found that malware is much more common (about 5 times) than the most common of them, and the other two are quite rare.

I suspect that they’ve done the same thing to translations in other languages. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Removals were done by Special:Contributions/ here. —Stephen (Talk) 13:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the translations a bit and restored those borrowed terms. --2A00:F41:4860:4FD7:3411:839:4F7D:67C2 19:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts and your participation in this discussion anon, but I feel that there are still some issues with your edits:
  • you have reintroduced the rare term software mal-intencionado, writing that it is “used by Microsoft in Brazil”; however, even in Microsoft’s website this term is significantly less common than malware;
  • the regional qualifiers you added to software malicioso and software mal-intencionado are absolutely incorrect; both (including software mal-intencionado, despite its rarity) are used in Brazil and Portugal;
  • you added the qualifier Anglicism to several translations and as a label in the definitions; surely that’s information that belongs in the etymology sections of their respective entries, not in the translation table.
Ungoliant (falai) 20:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I've just corrected it. Please take a look.
As for software mal-intencionado, it does seem to be used by Microsoft as a translation of malicious software quite commonly. You can verify that here: https://www.microsoft.com/Language/en-US/Search.aspx --2A00:F41:4860:4FD7:3411:839:4F7D:67C2 20:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


IP users (maybe the same person) have made a number of sum of parts entries in various languages, which are translations of the English malware. I {{rfd}}'ed some of them. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be the same person. They seem to be working off of some source with the translations of PC/Computer terms into a wide variety of languages- I'm guessing something put out by Microsoft. Since they don't know most of the languages, they can't tell if the terms are idiomatic. The entry at malware seems to have been their initial and main focus, but they've been working on the whole range of terminology relevant to PC operating systems and software.
I brought up the subject of their edits here in March with a concern that they were editing in so many languages that they couldn't possibly know all of them. You confirmed that their edits seemed to be accurate, and the discussion was archived to User talk:Anth2943. That account has since been renamed, so it's now User talk:Deletedarticle. There have been a series of edits blanking the page and others reverting the blanking, but for the moment you can see the archived discussion there. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

words ambiguously defined as "dinner"Edit

These words define themselves as "dinner", which can mean either "midday meal", "evening meal", or "main meal of the day, regardless of when it's eaten". Can you clarify which sense is meant if you know any of these languages? (A few entries define themselves as "lunch, dinner" or "dinner, supper", but I can't tell if the second word is intended as a synonym or an indication the word refers to both the midday and evening meals. Some entries are homographic with words meaning "evening", but that doesn't ensure they mean "evening meal", compare middag!) Strike through words you've done. - -sche (discuss) 04:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. dinnéar
  2. jantar
  3. jinnair
  4. long'
  5. pranzu
  6. päivällinen
  7. pāʻina
  8. unnukkorsiutit
  9. àm-tǹg
  10. вечера
  11. вячэраць
  12. дэшхын
  13. обед
  14. обеденный
  15. обід
  16. обѣдъ
  17. оройн хоол
  18. павячэраць
  19. поужинать
  20. ручати
  21. ճաշ
  22. սպաս
  23. ארוחת ערב
  24. تعشى
  25. شام
  26. عشا
  27. عشاء
  28. غدا
  • What makes this one special? This kind of problem is so widespread that we could use some kind of automation to at least assist in identifying all the deficient FL definitions.
Don't we have {{rfgloss}} (or {{gloss-stub}} or whatever its real name is) for this? If not, we should create a template that addresses this specific kind of problem. DCDuring (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
An inspection of the number of entries in Category:Requests for clarification of definitions by language shows the very modest level of use of these templates. DCDuring (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I've tracked down references on, and clarified, a few more. - -sche (discuss) 05:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


Albanian. Should the common noun sense be lowercase? Compare Arbër, arbër? (Also, will whatever bot adds {{also}} reach these at some point?) - -sche (discuss) 19:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


Japanese. It's a mere stub. —suzukaze (tc) 04:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, do we want this entry? Can't this be analysed as just と+言う? (although, it is present in other dictionaries.) —suzukaze (tc) 06:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I see it also in dictionaries, and that puzzles me -- this doesn't strike me as particularly lexicalized, it's just (to, quotative particle) + 言う (iu, to say).
@Shinji, are we missing something? Do you view this as more than just SOP? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 09:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
How about making it a redirect? Daijisen has an entry for という, but the content is repeated in the entry of いう. という is special in that it can have a pause before it, but it is rather a characteristic of the particle . — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Years ago, I co-authored a paper about the use of って versus と, and found that という patterns somewhat differently from other verbs (と思、と考える, etc.) in terms of colocations. Still, it certainly seems SoP in all the ways that normally matter for a dictionary entry. Cnilep (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

June 2017Edit

Entries in Category:en:Language familiesEdit

English. Language family names are generally both adjectives and nouns. But some of the entries here contain only an adjective definition, while others contain only a noun. Would anyone be willing to sort these out? —CodeCat 16:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About JapaneseEdit

Japanese. Still mildly out-of-date, and the formatting makes it difficult to understand sometimes. —suzukaze (tc) 17:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About Han scriptEdit

Out-of-date. —suzukaze (tc) 17:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017Edit


Translingual. Maybe this definition should be distributed into the appropriate language sections. —suzukaze (tc) 03:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Of interest to editors in: Dutch. Afrikaans. French. (adding dots for Ctrl+F convenience) This, that and the other (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

August 2017Edit

Transliteration modulesEdit










Transliteration modules created by a user banned for making bad edits to transliteration modules. —suzukaze (tc) 03:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

(None of them are in use.) —suzukaze (tc) 10:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Some of these are still problematic. @Allahverdi Verdizade, fancy fixing them? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I have struck the ones that have been overhauled since. Maybe the rest should just be deleted? — surjection??⟩ 21:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if pings to IPs work, but @ who has cleaned up several of these modules. Are they correct and worth keeping? Or nonsense and to be deleted? This, that and the other (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


English. I have created a new entry for movie camera, and found some translations under camera. I would transfer them, but they appear to be a bit of a mess. DonnanZ (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Donnanz The translation boxes at camera don't look messy to me (four years later). Do you have a reason to doubt the division of translations between the two senses? Is there anything left to do here? This, that and the other (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@This, that and the other: I was referring to translations for movie cameras, not cameras in general. There also seems to be confusion between movie cameras and video cameras. I don't think the situation in 2017 has changed much. DonnanZ (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I see you want a clearer distinction between the different types of moving picture cameras. This, that and the other (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@This, that and the other: Looking at the translations given for "movie camera" also makes me wonder whether many languages have a word for it - many just mean "camera". DonnanZ (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:English surnames from IndiaEdit

English. These surnames should be categorized by the respective languages. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


English. First definition:

  1. A Sanskrit philosophical term that may be literally rendered in English as nonduality: denoting that though differences and variegation appear in the human condition they are unreal or illusory and are not ultimately true.

This is supposed to be an English-language entry, not a Sanskrit one, and the wording smells of teaching Enlightenment to the ignorant. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


Chinese. —suzukaze (tc) 05:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


Japanese. Is "numeral" really the right way to describe this? —suzukaze (tc) 06:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

No, "SOP" is a much better description- unless you think we should have entries like "四十三本"... Either delete it, or use {{&lit}} like the Chinese section already does. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

A numeral with a counter is traditionally classified as a numeral. See 数詞 on Daijisen. “SOP” is not a lexical class, so it’s irrelevant here. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In English terms, any numeral + counter = noun. Consider "one pair", "two braces", "three sets", etc.
I've had an initial go at a cleanup. The entry still needs more work, including many senses yet missing from our page. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2017Edit


English. Leaving aside the question of whether the proper-noun sense meets the requirements of WT:FICTION, this entry has a translation table full of terms in languages the sole editor of the entry doesn't speak, including Gothic. That's right- Gothic. Even scarier, some of the translations are bluelinks- because that same editor has been creating entries in languages they don't speak for a term that probably doesn't meet CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

And what exactly should be cleaned up? Should t (in {{t|CODE|TERM}}) be changed into t-check? The German translation for example is correct, so it could be changed back to t. Whether or not the German term or any other translations meets WT:FICTION should be a matter of WT:RFVN to decide. - 09:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


English. Someone asked me on my talk page to clean this up. I don't really know what to do with it. Equinox 23:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Looking at User talk:Equinox, it doesn't seem like someone asked you on your user page: user page's first post is from 20zh November 2017 (this revision)‎, post above from 12th October.
  • The etymology seems to be copied from it's source (Adrian Room, Dictionary of Pseudonyms, 5th ed., p. 518, s.v. C.J. Yellowplush). Is it a copyright violation?
  • "used this name" - which name? The source makes it clear by the dictionary entry: The pseudonym C.J. Yellowplush.
    "The same character appeared" - which character? Charles James Yellowplush is the purported author and the servant was a living guy. "character" seems to refer to Charles James Yellowplush as if he is the purported author and the character in his story, but IMHO it's not so clear.
- 04:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


English. A lot of entries here would be better placed in Category:en:Body parts or its subcategories. —Rua (mew) 14:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Will this be done or not? Ffffrr (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ffffrr: Seems like a good idea to me, but a fair bit of work. Why don't you do it? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure, but was any criteria decided for where to place some of the terms? Ffffrr (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
The main criterion is the difference between set categories and topical categories: set categories contain things that are examples of the kind of things named in the category titles. Thus, terms for body parts go in Category:en:Body parts. Topical categories contain terms about the topics named in the category titles. Terms that belong in Category:en:Anatomy are used when discussing the subject of anatomy. The blurring of the distinction has long been one of Rua's pet peeves.
Short answer: if it's the term for a body part, it goes in Category:en:Body parts or its subcategories. That would include arm, leg, spleen, skin, bones, islets of Langerhans, blood, endocrine system, serotonin, etc. Adjectives and other terms about anatomy stay in Category:en:Anatomy: axial, cardiac, cerebral, hepatic, as well as nephrology, innervation, splenotomy,etc.Chuck Entz (talk)


English. A lot of entries here would be better placed in Category:en:Diseases or Category:en:Disease. —Rua (mew) 14:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems this user quit, so I don’t know what will be done Ffffrr (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Etymologies by User:RajkiandrisEdit

They're formatted incorrectly and aren't actually etymologies, all they do is mention a Finnish cognate. They do this even if said Finnish cognate has an entry on the same page with a proper etymology. It seems to me like they just don't want to put any effort in but would rather leave it for someone else to clean up. —Rua (mew) 16:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tropylium, if you haven't noticed. I'm not sure anyone else has the expertise needed to clean these up. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed, yes. My workflow on cleaning up the minor Finnic languages goes usually through checking up from Proto-Finnic entries once they've been sourced, though, so that may take a while before it hits all of these "naturally". I've barely even started the initial source literature scan (going on at User:Tropylium/Finnish inherited vocabulary).
This also makes me wonder if a database dump search for Etymology sections that do not use any of our etymology templates ({{der}}, {{inh}}, {{bor}}, {{suffix}}, {{compound}} etc.) might be worthwhile at some point. Maybe after our eternity project to depreciate {{etyl}} finishes… --Tropylium (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
This user is still highly active, although they seem to have moved on from adding Finnish cognates. I'm not sure whether the bigger challenge here is cleaning up the entries or finding those which need to be cleaned up. Rajkiandris, would you perhaps consider reviewing your own edits from 2017 and addressing the issues mentioned here? This, that and the other (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@Rajkiandris in case my ping above didn't work. See ^^ This, that and the other (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I can take these as a project - I think it should be a reasonable task to scan through all Finnic and Uralic languages, find all pages linking to a Finnish or (Proto-)Finnic cognate that do not have anything else of value and add some details. I'll gather a list on User:Surjection/rajkiandris-uralic-etystub-cleanup tomorrow and start working on the list once I have it. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

absolute superlativeEdit

English. This entry is a confusing mess. The formatting issues are just the beginning; the real issue is that the definitions are actually just a collection of examples from various languages. As noted in the talk page, the concept of absolute superlative should be language independent; its definition should be something like:

  1. An adjective form indicating a quality expressed to the greatest possible extent, in contrast to the comparative superlative, which instead indicates a quality expressed to the greatest extent within some specific context.

A significant feature of absolute superlatives is that some languages use different inflections for the absolute and comparative cases. Accordingly, it is reasonable to still include some language examples in that context.

As an additional observation, I think the Romanian examples are actually just intensifying adverbs, not absolute superlative forms. Wikipedia provides a different explanation using the adverb phrase cel mai and related forms. ―Rriegs (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Formatting should be slightly improved now (diff), but that doesn't address the real problems. The current senses maybe are better as usage notes in foreign entries; e.g. the Romanian sense could be put into an Romanian entry superlativ absolut (if the statement is accurate). - 03:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

November 2017Edit


Middle English. This template is basically a copy of an old version of {{en-verb}}, and is woefully inadequate for Middle English. Middle English verbs have many more forms than just the ones given in this template. There should be a proper inflection table. —Rua (mew) 16:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The Middle English templates in general could really use some love. Some templates just don't exist where useful ModEnglish varieties do (e.g. {{enm-adv}}, as well as a number of grammatical boxes such as personal pronouns)); in others a number of factors make ME more complicated than English (some adjectives having plural forms in addition to the typical comparative and superlative forms.) I'm fairly new so I don't know how templates are born or altered here (or even whether this discussion belongs in RFC as opposed to the Grease Pit), but it would make a huge difference if someone could update and expand the Middle English templates. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Overall our Middle English entries vary wildly in quality once you read past the etymology. A lot of entries wrongly list Modern English inflections or use raw {{head}}, probably because they were added by English editors (like me) who have no idea what the correct inflections should be. Of course, the whole language is a bit of a mess from a modern standpoint thanks to its many dialects and utterly chaotic spelling. But fixing up the headword-line templates would help to restore some confidence in our ME coverage. This, that and the other (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

December 2017Edit


English. Multiple pronunciation sections and multiple etymologies, unclear which refers to which. DTLHS (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


English. I think the long translations of the full name should go to Japanese-Language Proficiency Test#Translations, and JLPT#Translations should be reserved for equivalent acronyms in other languages. —suzukaze (tc) 04:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018Edit


English. The definition is far to simplified. "act of being relegated" - there are many subsenses missing. --Gente como tú (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Contributions of Special:Contributions/

In other technical details besides IP range, this IP is a perfect match to יבריב (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks), and indeed shows the same indiscriminate, high-volume and diverse editing- They seem to be adding translations in just about any language they can think of. Given that יבריב was blocked for making crappy edits in languages they don't know, this makes me very nervous. Depending on the source(s) they've been vacuuming up, their edits could very well range from ok to horribly, horribly wrong.

These need to be checked, but I don't have the expertise to do it myself. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


English. Etymology 1 needs further splitting - these do not have the same etymology. --Gente como tú (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I split off a few of the definitions which come from a common source, and added another sense with its own etymology. Etymology 1 still needs further work clarifying origins. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


English. (relevant to Chinese. This, that and the other (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)) Poor etymology formatting, dubious pronunciation. —suzukaze (tc) 04:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


Are these edits good or bad? - -sche (discuss) 23:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This user made less than 100 contributions, mainly to Scanian (gmq-scy) and Franc-Comtois (roa-fcm). Anyone heard of able to help with these languages? This, that and the other (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


German entry, but abbreviating a Latin term. At the momemt it's mis-categorised because of Category:Latin abbreviations.
Properly, {{abbreviation of|TERM|lang=CODE}} would need two language parameters to produce "Abbreviation of [Latin] {{m|la|TERM}}" with category Category:German abbreviations.
Should the abbreviation template be replaced by text and the category be added manually? - 16:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

this wayEdit

English. No OneLook reference has even a redirect let alone an entry for this, but we have had the entry since before 2007 and we have translations etc, so we might want to try to make sense of this. I have a few questions:

  1. What does the label "imperative determiner" mean? If it is a determiner, why is it in a Noun L2?
  2. Isn't the noun definition SoP?
  3. The three words presented as definitions on the same line in the Adverb L2 don't seem synonymous to me and there are no usage examples, let alone citations. Does anyone have a view on this.
  4. Should we just RfD it? DCDuring (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I added an example that might be of non-SoP usage:
It's good that he's gone. This way we don't have to argue with him all the time.
I don't know how to define it. It might just be an elliptical deixis, which doesn't seem to me to be much of a basis for inclusion. Is it? DCDuring (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
There's also "I wish he'd gone; that way we...", and "I would have preferred things the other way", etc. Equinox 00:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Also with other definite determiners like "his way", "John's way", etc. I was just looking for something I was familiar with that might be idiomatic, it doesn't seem very idiomatic to me. MW Online has a two=definition entry for that way that resembles ours for this way. Oxford has a euphemistic sex-romance usage.
I am tempted to add as citations the lyrics from Walk This Way and Did You Ever See a Lassie?. DCDuring (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Some cleanup seems to have occurred since 2018, but we still have a "Noun" sense glossed as "In the indicated direction or manner". Seems like a prepositional phrase, no? Most of the translations are adverbs. This, that and the other (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

February 2018Edit

Anglo-Saxon and Middle English in (New) English entriesEdit

As Anglo-Saxon and Middle English are not (New) English and as thus Anglo-Saxon and Middle English cites do not belong into (New) English entries but might nontheless be useful for Anglo-Saxon or Middle English entries to be created, I'm moving them to here now:

  1. from God the Son, God the Father,God the Holy Ghost (maybe for God Fæder, Godes sunu, God þe son, God þe holi gost, though are the latter three idiomatic enough and not SOP?):
  2. from thereto (maybe for þher-to?):
    • c. 1430 (reprinted 1888), Thomas Austin, ed., Two Fifteenth-century Cookery-books. Harleian ms. 279 (ab. 1430), & Harl. ms. 4016 (ab. 1450), with Extracts from Ashmole ms. 1429, Laud ms. 553, & Douce ms. 55 [Early English Text Society, Original Series; 91], London: N. Trübner & Co. for the Early English Text Society, volume I, OCLC 374760, page 11:
      Soupes dorye. — Take gode almaunde mylke [] caste þher-to Safroun an Salt []

- 19:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I added the þher-to quotation to ther-to. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This is difficult to address because our Middle English entries (if they exist at all) are in a poor state, with little standardization of spellings. DTLHS (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Follow the headwords in the Middle English Dictionary Online? — SGconlaw (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
As for a clean-up of (New) English entries, moving it to citation pages (like Citations:God, Citations:þher-to) as somewhat suggested in WT:RFC#thereto seems like a good idea. With Category:Old English citations, Category:Middle English citations the citations can than be found.
MED? - 02:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Following the headwords in the MED is a good safe bet, I think. We could then put the other spellings in alternative forms, I suppose? In some cases there are a plethora of spelling options, some of which are universal (e.g. the '-e' ending that may or may not be included; 'þ' and 'ð' instead of 'th' and vice versa, the wynn and the yogh, etc.)--it might be good to somehow standardize how those are handled as well. Or, perhaps, there are already ways the treatment thereof is standardized here--if so, I'd love to know. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
No, there's not really any standards. This should be documented at Wiktionary:About Middle English, if something is agreed upon. DTLHS (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not really that simple. There is no hard dividing line between ME and modE, it's more of a sliding scale and some texts (like Malory) could fairly be counted as either. I think ME citations should not be removed from modE entries if they are doing the job of showing the word's usage through time. Ƿidsiþ 09:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
By time and WT:About Middle English, Malory is Middle English. - 05:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, we picked 1500 as a dividing line, but that is arbitrary. Language did not morph into modern English overnight. Malory is right at the end of the ME period, and in fact is functionally identical to early modern English. He is a world away from (for example) Chaucer. Ƿidsiþ 04:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I see this as a four-step process:
  1. make a list of works/authors used in English quotes and quote requests
  2. select from those a list of those which are from before modern English
  3. make a list of English entries with pre-modern English quotes
  4. go through the list and fix them
The first and third require processing the dumps, the second can be done by anyone who has the time to research or who knows already which is which, and the last requires someone who knows ME well enough to create entries.
It won't get everything, but it will at least catch a large subset of obvious ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Quotes are not parseable enough to make step 1 feasible. DTLHS (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
It's also not necessarily desirable, since it's been established here already that Middle English citations can be used to support modern English definitions if the definition in question is also attested from the modern English period. Ƿidsiþ 14:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


Arabic. User:Kaixinguo~enwiktionary and myself spotted mass-editing of Arabic verb forms. The anon refuses to interact and the edits don't seem right. He may be a native speaker or, more likely an advanced learner, but they are not familiar with some forms and they bulk-remove them. @Erutuon, Kolmiel, Wikitiki89, ZxxZxxZ, Backinstadiums, please review the edits, if you can. I have briefly checked some and I don't like what I see but would be better if they actually explained their actions. Please advise if a block or a warning is warranted. I wonder if they are one of formerly blocked users? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't speak Arabic, but if you think the IP requires blocking please ping me. I will be online for the next few hours. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
In some cases, like this or this, this user seems to be deleting definition lines that have the same inflectional categories as another definition line, but link to an alternative form of the lemma. In the first case the alternative forms are اِسْتَحْيَا(istaḥyā) and اِسْتَحَى(istaḥā), in the second مَاسَّ(māssa) and مَاسَسَ(māsasa). WingerBot created the entry, and I guess Benwing had decided to include both alternative forms. — Eru·tuon 20:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

tunafoto, tular, gegantungEdit

Malay or Indonesian. DTLHS (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen them being used in Indonesia, but maybe an Indonesian could chime in. — Jeluang Terluang (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

March 2018Edit

esthetic informationEdit

English. Strange entry that hasn't been touched by humans in 10 years. —suzukaze (tc) 02:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure whether to send to RFV or RFD. Seems to be a coinage by someone called Abraham Moles, normally found in opposition to semantic information: see [4]. This, that and the other (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


English. Definition:

  1. A taxonomic group of plants or algae, e.g. arthrophyte, cyanophyte.

Wrong. The taxonomic group names are translingual and end in -phyta. A cyanophyte is a member of the phylum Cyanophyta. I'm not exactly sure how to rework this, since it seems to be tied specifically to translingual -phyta, rather than being a general term for some taxonomic group. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it only misses a label like "in plural", as e.g. cyanophytes (collectively) = Cyanophyta. - 05:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I tried to clean it up. This, that and the other (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


English. Metaknowledge expressed concern to me about the military senses. "Way too many badly written military senses... probably should all be clarified, and some might need to be sent to RFD". I agree, and I'm not familiar enough with the military to make a perfect judgement, but I can tell you now some of the red links look questionable, and one of the defs looks unnecessarily long. Any takers? PseudoSkull (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018Edit

Appendix:English–French relationsEdit

The "identical spelling" section is a mess. Some entries are red linked. Some have only an English entry and some have only a French one. Would it be simpler to just delete it? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Not having an entry isn't a good reason. Not existing in English or French would be a reason for removing single terms. A note could be missing: "The gender only applys to the French, not to the English". A reason for deletion could be, that the list would get to long as ~1/3 of the English vocabulary is of French (Old, Middle, New French) and Anglo-Norman origin, cp. File:Origins of English PieChart.svg, after all, l'anglais est un créole. - 09:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


English. Added by an IP today. "Where's a philosopher when you need one?" said no-one ever. Equinox 16:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018Edit


English. Pronunciations don't entirely align with etymologies. Also, several unrelated etymologies have been stuck together within Etymology 4. Dylanvt (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


Japanese. Bad etymology; doesn't have an Interjection section; mildly strange definitions (wording?), and the common reading of banzai isn't presented first. —Suzukaze-c 08:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


Chinese. RFC-sense: Used after 咋, 咋就. so; that. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: It should be fixed now. Dokurrat (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Could you add an example? There are too many senses for so and that, so it's hard to understand what it really means without an example. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Sorry that I can't. It's not of my lexicon. 汉语方言大词典 recorded this sense is found in various dialects. I speak none of them. Dokurrat (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC) (modified)
@Dokurrat: I see. Is it referring to sense 7 (那麼;那樣)? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Yes, I was referring to sense 7 (那麼;那樣). Dokurrat (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Middle JapaneseEdit

Since nothing has been done, I am putting these here: かめ, かへる, かへす, かはる, かはす, かふ. DTLHS (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

kick assEdit

English. Two out of the three definitions and their usexes were based on confusion between this, which is intransitive, and kick someone's ass, which is transitive. I think I fixed the definitions, but I have no clue what to do with the translations. Perhaps they might be moved to the other term if someone would be so kind as to create it. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Italiot GreekEdit

  • avvlì, ammài, ...: "{{lb|el|Italiot Dialect}}"
    With Italiot Greek being treated as a separate lang with own code grk-ita, "el" is wrong and label "Italiot Dialect" unnecessary. In this case the label could simply be removed.
  • σόνο/sono: el term as synonym
  • άντρα/andra: "{{Italiot dialect form of|άνδρας}}" with link to an el entry
    That's an unusual link - is it correct?
    Does άντρα/andra have all the meanings of άνδρας or only some?

- 18:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018Edit


Proto-Austronesian lemmas needs help to use Wolff 2010 system in place of Blust 1999. The conversion is easy as stated on Wikipedia. IPA also needs to be updated a little though. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


Italian. Tagged not listed some time ago, Italian citation needs checking, translating and cleanup. - TheDaveRoss 21:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Bavarian Old High German given namesEdit

Many of the Bavarian names in Category:Old High German given names need to have gender specified. - -sche (discuss) 21:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought Bavarian Old High German was the default Old High German? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018Edit


Tagalog. A horrendous mess. I wouldn't know where to start. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:English merismsEdit

English. I apologize for creating and authoring the descriptive text for this category. Merism suggests that the term is polysemous in a way makes it a poor category name. I don't see what characteristics the members of the category have in common apart from being coordinate expressions. At least the category membership needs to be cleaned out. DCDuring (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018Edit


Translingual. Chinese. How is this a particle, and how is it used? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


English. Too many senses, with some significant overlap. Equinox 12:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


English. Overlong etymology, includes paragraph length encyclopedic content. Delete encyclopedic content or show-hide it and convert inline references to footnotes, etc. DCDuring (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

KYPark and Category:Korean citationsEdit

The few pages in this category have mostly been touched by the madness of our old "friend" KYPark, and I don't know who feels up to looking though them and deleting extraneous/weird material. @TAKASUGI Shinji, Wyang, Atitarev? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Spanish and Portuguese Ordinal AbbreviationsEdit

I started to fix this, then realized I'm not up to the job at the moment. There doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency in the following areas:

  • In many cases, there is an entry for Portuguese but not for Spanish;
  • Sometimes plurals are included in the superscript, sometimes not (e.g. plural forms at 2.º vs. vs. actual entries, like 2.ªs);
  • The headers usually display plural/feminine inflections (), but sometimes not (3o);
  • Sometimes "Ordinal Number" or "Abbreviation" is used as the header instead of "Adjective";
  • is apparently nonstandard (according to the entry), with 1.ª being the main form, but elsewhere, no indication is given on whether one is more correct than the other;
  • The "abbreviation of" information is sometimes in the definition line, sometimes in the etymology.

Good luck! Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018Edit




Langenscheidt reads that unja is the wife of an uncle/ujak. teta shows another definition. Does anyone know the real meaning? --Rasmusklump (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Langenscheidt has: "Tante f Frau des Onkels mütterlicherseits", i.e. "[one's father's or mother's sister] [gender] [wife of the uncle on one's mother's side]", so for a person there are: person's mother -- person's mother's brother = person's uncle -- person's mother's brother's wife = person's unja -20:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
tȅtka is the sister of one’s mother or father (aunt by blood). tȅta is a hypocoristic form of tȅtka. ȕjāk is the brother of one’s mother (maternal uncle by blood). ȗjna is the wife of an ȕjāk, i.e. a mother’s brother’s wife (maternal aunt, not by blood). strȋna is a father’s brother’s wife (paternal aunt, not by blood). The entry at tȅta is wrong; it lumps together both strȋnas and ȗjnas as ȗjnas. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 04:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

November 2018Edit


English. The entry title is lowercase, but the entry says it is a proper noun. —Suzukaze-c 05:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


English. Non-standard "Sources" header; they're not all exactly references either. The most recent edits seem to have introduced an additional source which is presumably the origin of the quote given, so it should be converted as such. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 17:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018Edit

Category:en:Star WarsEdit

Category:English terms derived from Star WarsEdit

Is it necessary to have both these categories? Can one of them be eliminated? (Note that we also have Category:en:Star Trek and Category:English terms derived from Star Trek. I haven't nominated those yet, pending the outcome of the current discussion.) — SGconlaw (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

They are subtly different, though overlapping. For example, Hand Solo is derived from a SW character's name but does not relate to SW itself (and so should be in the latter category but not the former); Machete Order was coined by a blog but relates directly to the films (and so should be in the former category but not the latter). In this fine distinction worth keeping? Ideally, yes, but it could be more trouble than it's worth. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Eeek. I don't think anyone will realize this subtle difference unless it is pointed out somewhere, and I doubt if the effort to try and maintain the distinction is worth it. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw: Feel free to propose either one to RFD. I agree with your arguments. Fytcha (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Fytcha: While I am still of the view that the distinction between the two types of categories is too fine and thus confusing for most editors, I note that "Category:English terms derived from Star Trek" has been nominated for deletion and merging with "Category:en:Star Trek", but it looks like the consensus is leaning towards "keep". If the consensus is confirmed, would someone (@Metaknowledge) please add usage notes to all these categories to explain clearly the difference between them. I, for one, can never remember which entries are supposed to be in "English terms derived from XYZ" and which in "en:XYZ". — SGconlaw (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Noël (interjection)Edit

French. Def: "cry of celebration in the Middle Ages"
Middle Ages end 1500, Middle French ends ~1600, i.e. after the Middle Ages.
That doesn't make sense, needs a clarification.
If the interjection was used in the Middle Ages, it's not New French (fr) but Middle French (frm) [though there could also be a New French interjection Noël, for example used in novels for historic effect but not used in the Middle Ages]; and if the interjection is New French, it wasn't used in the Middle Ages [though there could also be a Middle French interjection Noël which was used back than]. - 11:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019Edit


Needs an Italian speaker to identify which of the entries this user created are SoP & RFD(/speedy?) them, because there appear to be a lot. See Talk:infilare il fondo della camicia nei pantaloni. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Related:, possibly the same contributor. — surjection?⟩ 13:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

give someone an inch and someone will take a mileEdit

searching "give someone an inch" or "give them an inch" returns results for three pages, including this one; however, this page does not link to any of the similar alternatives, and this particular wording seems to be a deviation from the much more common use of 'they'. In this context I think that this page should be deleted.

"Someone" is not meant to be actually part of a saying, but rather a standard template per Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Idiomatic phrases intended to be replaced with the appropriate pronoun in context. But I agree that repeating "someone" sounds a little weird; we should tidy up that policy to spell out what should happen in that case. There are three options I can think of: 1) keeping "someone"; 2) using singular "they"; or 3) using "he or she". -- King of ♠ 07:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. In theory there might be a distinction between "X someone and they Y" (same person) and "X someone and someone Y" (two different people). Probably not in practice. Equinox 07:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the distinction is between "X someone and they Y" and "X someone and someone else Y", with "X someone and someone Y" lying unsatisfactorily in between and thus sounding a bit strange.— Pingkudimmi 10:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know which form is preferred, but either this needs to be redirected to give them an inch and they'll take a mile, or the other way around (or choose a different form). "He or she" is too clunky, and in modern usage they (and its other forms) have come to represent an indefinite gendered single person. -Mike (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

February 2019Edit

הן (Mozarabic)Edit

Messy entry created by @Romandalusí (whose entries in general may require some cleaning-up by someone who has knowledge of Mozarabic and Wiktionary formatting conventions). Not sure what to do with this; tried cleaning it up a bit. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

al dan nietEdit

Dutch. The current definitions for this adverb are "does or does not – in some cases does, in other cases does not" and "did or did not – in some cases did, in other cases did not". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

April 2019Edit

Burzyńska and probably many othersEdit

@Benwing2 Something tells me that this is not the intended way to use the dot= parameter... —Rua (mew) 18:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rua I updated the entry so that it mirrors the masculine version. -Mike (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, that's one entry. But there are sure to be lots more that misuse dot= on this template alone, and even more that misuse it on other entries. Also, @Moverton there's no such thing as "feminine personal". —Rua (mew) 22:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rua Good to know. I had never seen that before. -Mike (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
To make it easy to find misuses of the |dot= parameter, I made an updated list of form-of templates with |dot= , using the list of form-of templates that Benwing2 gave me. Most of them have a single punctuation mark in |dot=. (Here are instances for which that isn't true.) But with the recent changes in template names, probably the list is incomplete.... — Eru·tuon 00:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Erutuon But the template here is {{surname}}, not a form-of template. —Rua (mew) 10:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rua: Whoops. Not sure what I was thinking. Here's the list of all |dot= in {{surname}}, and these are the cases with a lengthier |dot= parameter (not empty and not just a single punctuation mark). There are quite a few Polish surnames in there. — Eru·tuon 19:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured there would be more. Should we start moving {{surname}} away from the dot= parameter? —Rua (mew) 19:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:English words suffixed with -edEdit

This currently contains both terms derived from past participles, and terms derived with the -ed suffix meaning "having". Terms derived from past participles are not "words suffixed with -ed", though, because the suffixation happened with the creation of the participle, not in the derivation of another word from the participle. And since we do not categorise non-lemmas by morphology (thankfully! imagine how many plurals suffixed with -s we'd have!), the participles should not be in this category. —Rua (mew) 22:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

And if, for whatever reason I can't fathom, we want to keep the participles categorised, then we still need to separate them into Category:English words suffixed with -ed (past participle) and Category:English words suffixed with -ed (having) (compare Category:English words suffixed with -er). So the category needs cleaning up either way. However, I'll state in advance that I oppose that solution, since the participles don't even belong in any suffix category.

A side question, for a word like affectioned, should it really have multiple etymologies (one for the verb and one for the adjective) because the different parts of speech use the suffix -ed from different etymologies? -Mike (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
That's not a side question. It's a good question about the merits of the proposal, relating to the conceptual basis for its implementation. DCDuring (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I've edited affectioned to bring it into the state I think it should be in. Lemmas should always be separated from nonlemmas in terms of etymology, lemmas always come first. I've added the usual {{nonlemma}} to the etymology section of the verb forms. —Rua (mew) 12:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it is a bad idea to add etymologies for inflected forms with -ed, or any other common inflectional suffix. There are way too many such terms and either there will be a huge amount of work involved or not all of them will be categorized. — Eru·tuon 21:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Erutuon: I think the idea is to have separate etymology sections that have no actual etymology information or at most "See [lemma of verb]". DCDuring (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Hawaiian adverbsEdit

According to Category talk:Hawaiian adjectives, there are no adverbs in Hawaiian. I'd clean these up myself but I don't know what they are supposed to be, so I'll leave it to someone who knows what they're doing. —Rua (mew) 17:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019Edit


Latin. Ouch, what a mess... —Rua (mew) 19:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup will not help at present as at least one IP is still making dozens of edits to the entry per day. Equinox 18:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Why not protect the page? I'm tired of seeing all these minute changes when I patrol annons. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if the "request for cleanup" might be removed at this point. The entry seems to fairly clearly portray the (quite varied) possible meanings for an adjective which has no directly equivalent translation in English, grouped into categories of sense and without rendering a lot of extraneous commentary. I hope that it is found to be acceptable. If there are any suggestions regarding this, please provide them here.

I hope that Rua, Robbie or Equinox will encounter this, as I would like feedback on the current status of this page. I do not have a Wiktionary account at present, and might consider creating one in the future, but do not want to do so at present. Specifically, I would like verification that the page conforms to Wiktionary's entry layout formatting requirements, and also would appreciate your thoughts about the presentation in general. I have endeavored to separate what I view as the more fundamental meanings of "insignis" from those derived and extended from that fundamental sense (indeed, my original motive for investigating this word derived from my realization that three of the most common translations presented for this term: "remarkable", "distinguished", and "marked" all seem to have entirely different senses from one another, and from my efforts to understand their relationship to one another). Please let me know what you think of the current presentation, and if the current "request for cleanup" might be removed. I am loath to take the initiative to remove Rua's request without such feedback (read: "permission"). Thanks much.

By the way, I encountered with some delight Rua's partial translation into Proto-germanic of Beowulf on his talk page...fantastic!

her, not his. Back on topic though, the definition lines still have what I think is superfluous at the beginning, and I don't think every definition line needs 10-12 different near synonyms. — surjection?⟩ 14:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

My goodness, Rua...sorry for that! (I'll just have to chalk that one up to my innate male bias.) Thank you, Surjection. Do I understand correctly that your reference to "near synonyms" refers to the Latin synonyms, or otherwise to an excess of possible translations in English as well?

I'm talking about the English translations for the words. — surjection?⟩ 13:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can apprehend the desirability of such sparseness when viewed from the lexicographic perspective. I certainly am no lexicographer (indeed, I am out of my league when dealing with those who can translate Beowulf into Proto-Germanic), and so can have difficulty in keeping such considerations in mind. I included so many possible definitions because of the fact that insignis has no direct equivalent in English, and all possible English translations must be viewed as mere approximations of its meaning. I will attend to paring down the first definition line (the "fundamental" sense), which is that most cumbersome, without delay. If there are any further suggestions, pray tell them.


Vilamovian. Needs a conjugation template for its inflected forms. Request posted in the entry:

Please create a template for Vilamovian weak verbs ending in -a like maha, I don't know how to design them. These verbs are regular and follow a common pattern, here the pattern is design around the root -mah-

Eru·tuon 02:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Hunsrik lemmas or HunsrikEdit

If Hunsrik isn't Hunsrückisch but only Brazilian Hunsrückisch as Hunsrik and en.wikipedia claim, then the whole category needs a clean-up. For example, eich is Hunsrückisch but not (necessarily) Brazilian Hunsrückisch. Otherwise, if Hunsrik and Hunsrückisch is the same, namely a German dialect spoken in Hunsrück and Brazil, then the entry Hunsrik and en.wp need a clean-up. Daloda (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no WT:About Hunsrik, so I can't give a definitive answer. @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV should be able to shed some light. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Daloda Our language header Hunsrik (hrx) is South American Hunsrückisch. The reference given at eich does attest its use in Brazil, though being a self-published online PDF, it is questionable whether it should count for our attestation criteria.
As for the English entry Hunsrik, its definition(s) does not need to correspond to the name we use for hrx. If the term also refers to the lect of Hunsrück, you can add a definition (or to the definition). — Ungoliant (falai) 14:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: The reference you mention is only for eich (you (objective, pl.)) and not for eich (I). (Is the reference durably archived? If not, it's not sufficient as per WT:CFI.) P. J. Rottmann who was the source for eich (I) is Central Franconian as he was from Germany and has: datt (the (neuter definite art.), that (relative pron.; conj.)) and watt (what). --2003:DE:3727:FF66:943C:E458:552C:9B20 03:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean now. You are right about that.
The reference is not durably archived. It is an enthusiast’s labour of love that he published on a blog from what I can tell, although this word is attested else (the 2nd person, not the 1st). — Ungoliant (falai) 15:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

decision streamEdit

English. The current definition and the one that an IP just tried to add are solid blocks of technical-sounding jargon describing what seem to be a type of computer application and a rather specific organizational method. The Google Books hits I see, on the other hand, talk about an element in the analysis of processes- basically, a concept. This smells like someone trying to promote stuff that just happens to be available on their website(s).

At any rate, there seems to be real usage, so it would be great if someone who knows more than I do could make a real entry out of it, phrased so that ordinary human beings can understand it. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


English. Perhaps some senses can be merged or converted to subsenses. Jberkel 16:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019Edit


I have not studied law where English is spoken to know what this word means, but I doubt that this word is interchangeable with “owner”, at least in the main sense as currently used – in any case the definition “owner” is hardly enough not to leave doubts about its application; and the second and third definitions are redundant to each other; probably also the third and second to the first if the first is correctly defined, and possibly even the fourth is just subcase.

The translation tables contain “Inhaber” for German. Indeed, how I see the word used in corpora, it translates well so. So there are trademark proprietors, and those are Markenrechtsinhaber in German. But “owner” is not Inhaber, it is Eigentümer, which means the complete might about a corporeal object and it cannot be applied to trademarks or other intellectual property rights. A Besitzer means the de facto control about a thing (borne by the will to possess; it is possessor), a word hardly pertinent to proprietor.

Is it just “someone to whom a right is assigned” at the end? Fay Freak (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019Edit

Category:English collective nounsEdit

Applying {{lb|en|collectively}} and {{lb|en|collective}} causes entries to be placed in this category. These labels have been applied to miscellany of terms, including to Entente Cordiale and Welsh. I would think we would not want to include demonyms or, indeed, any proper nouns in this category. Further, nouns like academia seem to not fit ordinary use of the term.

I am not sure how many problems are here, but some possibilities are:

  1. the label is misapplied
  2. the label needs to be reworded
  3. the label should not categorize
  4. our definition of collective noun is not specific enough
    1. In general as used in linguistics
    2. As should applied to determining category membership

I think this needs discussion before action, but I don't think it rises to BP. If there is a lot of disagreement, we should take it to BP once the problem(s) is/are sorted. DCDuring (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Century 1911 has: "In gram., a noun in the singular number signifying an aggregate or assemblage, as multitude, crowd, troop, herd, people, society, clergy, meeting, etc."
I would exclude multitude, crowd, people, society, clergy and include troop, herd, meeting, though I can't now specify the basis for the differences I find between the two groups. DCDuring (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


Serbo-Croatian. It is isn't clear if this abbreviation should be lowercase or uppercase, singular or plural. --Pious Eterino (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019Edit


Messy etymology; see the entry for explanation. — Eru·tuon 17:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:ceb:Municipalities of the PhilippinesEdit

Category:ceb:Barangays of the PhilippinesEdit

Lots of subcategorisation here. Didn't we previously delete similar stuff about Bangladesh before? If we decide these should exist, then at least they should be added to the category data so that they can be used in multiple languages. —Rua (mew) 16:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


This French IP just added a whole bunch of Greek phonetic transcriptions of English given names with the definition "A male given name, equivalent to English [] " provided by the {{given name}} template. This is rather misleading, especially for names where the English forms are descended from Ancient Greek and the native Greek descendants of the Ancient Greek forms are far more common. These names seem to be attested, but I'm not sure whether they're really Greek or transcriptions of English. Can someone who knows some Greek, like @Sarri.greek, Rossyxan, Saltmarsh, Erutuon, Canonicalization advise on how to deal with these? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sarri.greek, Rossyxan, Chuck Entz, Erutuon, Canonicalization For ease of access I assume that Μαρκ, Μάικ, Μάικλ, Μπράιαν, Ουίλλιαμ, Ρόμπερτ, Ρίτσαρντ, Τζέιμς, Τζον, Ντέιβιντ are the names we are talking about. I looked at Pierre, Odysseus to see how we handled names which I know of personally in the UK of English people; Odysseus has a Greek mother. (I would rather term us all European, but we won't go into that!) The treatment of these two seems fair to me, English people having an extra Category:English male given names from French. The English are generous about given names - anything goes - I don't know how a Greek would define a Greek name, my initial trawl of Βικιπαίδεια didn't find any native examples of these names but that doesn't mean much Μαρκ may be rare but Μαρκός isn't. We need Greek input :) — Saltmarsh. 05:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Saltmarsh, Chuck Entz, yes I can see Odysseus from the ancient name, but is anyone called Othysseas (Οδυσσέας -audio transcription of informal name-)? These are correct audio-transcriptions of the English names, unadapted, without declension: I am not sure of how these infinite code-switchings are handled. I do not know if you wish them to appear in Translations. I see the English Alexandros (transliteration of greek Αλέξανδρος/Ἀλέξανδρος) instead of Alexander. Or Alixandr, Aleksandr (of Александр). Perhaps, for Μάικλ something like...
  • Transcription of the English male given name Michael in Greek script. Equivalent of the Greek Μιχαήλ (Mikhaḗl) (older, formal form) or Μιχάλης (Michális).
Same could be done for the French Michel & Michèle Μισέλ.
But are they used as Greek? No, they are used as English while speaking Greek. Would you add them at Category:Greek given names, or at Transliterations? Category:el:Transliteration of personal names
Example: I know a person called Γιάννης, passport with formal Ιωάννης or Ἰωάννης but his family call him Τζον (John). Is this a greek name? No. It is English. In Eng. we have Iannis, Yiannis, Ioannis (various transliterations of old and modern greek forms).
The reverse procedure IS indeed a normal greek lemma: A foreign name may be hellenized: Robert (transcription & transliteration: Ρόμπερτ) became Ροβέρτος, with full declension, which IS used (rarely) as a greek given name. sarri.greek (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Sarri.greek Do we have 3 options (the first is non-commital)?
1. A male given name from the English Robert, equivalent to the Greek Ροβέρτος (Rovértos).
2. Transliteration of English Robert. a male given name equivalent to the Greek Ροβέρτος (Rovértos).
3. Template:transcription. a male given name equivalent to the Greek Ροβέρτος (Rovértos).
The trouble with using {{given name}} is assignment as a Greek name, which might not be what we want. One option would be to use the first and leave the rest to the Etymology section. — Saltmarsh. 06:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

the the (not The The)Edit

So apparently there are lots of sloppy editors here who accidentally type the same word twice. "the the" is a classic. There are dozens of cases that could be corrected by some users if anyone feels bored (I did some but then got even more bored). --Mélange a trois (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the majority of cases now. This needs to be done semi-regularly. This was my search query (yields some false-positives of course). Fytcha (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Done again (there were 12). The false positives are at the itself (Vietnamese section), hoi polloi and perissology. Perhaps this task should be moved to a "standing items" section of WT:TODO. This, that and the other (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

September 2019Edit

give someone an inch and someone will take a mileEdit

This entry needs a cleanup. It could be a proverb. --TNMPChannel (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


Needs formatting, templating, separation from lowercase to uppercase, and some good old-fashioned TLC --Vealhurl (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019Edit

кабак#Etymology_1, Kabacke#DescendantsEdit

The sections are contradicting as Low German (nds) and High German (de) are different languages. --2003:F8:13C7:59D1:2952:6150:4D4:3CAC 13:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

They aren’t, and Low German (nds) and High German (de) aren’t different languages. The word has been used just north and south the Benrath line. Comparing High Prussian and Low Prussian, they aren’t different languages but dialects. “German” is the Dachsprache. Fay Freak (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


(Some of) those entries need a cleanup:

  1. Some entries lack the page number, e.g. Eichhore, Nuss which are not even in the Wörterverzeichnis (p. 110ff.).
    • Nuss: The source has "nʊss Nuß" (p. 59). Properly it's not ʊ, but u neither. The source explains the characters on p. 7f.: "ı ı̄ [ı with macron] und ʊ ʊ̄ sind sehr offene Laute; [...] i und ī [i with macron] sind deutlich geschlossen; [...] Der mit u, ū bezeichnete Laut ist ein sehr geschlossenes u mit ganz leichter Palatalisierung". Thus apparently it's not "Nuss" and if the occurence on p. 59 is the source for the entry, the entry not only needs the page number but also a note or another cleanup.
  2. Some entries need a note and possible other cleanups, e.g. Tuure, Määri.
    • Tuure: The source has "tʊ̄rə m. Turm, mhd. turn" (p. 19), "tʊ̄rə m. Turm, speziell der ‚Langobardenturm‘ in Hospental" (p. 34f.) and doesn't have "Tuure" on p. 34.
    • Määri: The source has "mǣrı n. Märchen, zu ahd. mâra" (p. 23, in § 26), "mǣrı n. Märchen" (p. 45, in § 51), and "Mä̂ri n. 26" (p. 112, inside the Wörterverzeichnis), and does not have "Määri" on p. 23. As for the Wörterverzeichnis, it begins with this note: "[...] Durch Aufhebung von Entrundung, Verdumpfung und Diphthongierung sowie der sekundären Dehnung und Kürzung ist der Lautstand soweit als möglich dem gemeinalemannischen Status angenähert worden. [...]". That is, the form in the Wörterverzeichnis is artificial, not really Urseren.

--Tybete (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


I've skimmed through some of Theo's most recent contributions and found many dubious edits and some obvious errors. I'm not a Latin, Thai or Chinese expert, but I think those edits should be checked too considering that he has a tendency of reverting edits by knowledgeable users. I also issued a 1 week block so we can go through his edits and maybe let him cool down. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


Can this be reworded? Tharthan (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


Japanese: etymology 3 has too many readings. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, names.
We don't really have any cohesive approach to the enormous variability of Japanese name (especially given-name) spellings and readings. I suppose, ideally, we'd treat each reading fully, but given the wide wide wide WIIIIIIDE range of spellings, I suspect we'd have to lemmatize at the kana renderings.
@Justinrleung, TAKASUGI Shinji, Suzukaze-c, Atitarev, Dine2016, KevinUp + anyone else I'm undoubtedly omitting in my present tiredness: what thoughts on this? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see given names lemmatized at kana only and surnames lemmatized at kanji or kana. I think listing these readings at {{ja-readings|nanori=}} would suffice. By the way, can we capitalize the rōmaji for the nanori readings? KevinUp (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@KevinUp: Listing only as nanori doesn't tell us whether it's a name in itself (not used in conjunction with other characters) and it doesn't tell us whether it's a male given name, female given name or surname. Thus, the romaji for the nanori readings should not be capitalized. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The idea is to have this information (male/female given name) at kana entries because there are multiple ways of writing the same name using different kanji (See ただし#Proper noun for example). I think nanori readings can be capitalized because they are proper nouns. KevinUp (talk) 06:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@KevinUp: Then they shouldn't just be listed as readings under the Kanji header, but also have a soft redirect. Nanori readings may not necessarily be proper nouns in themselves if they're only used in conjunction with other characters to form a proper noun. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr Any thoughts on this? Creating soft redirects is a good idea but may consume more memory and the page is already exhausted. KevinUp (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Ping also @Poketalker for comment. Are there any nanori readings that are only used in conjunction with other characters, and shall these entries be designated as affix instead? KevinUp (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The page has dubious given names such as まさつぐ, しんじ, and ますみ, and dubious surnames such as さねさき, まがさき, しんさき, しんざき, and まやなぎ. They should be deleted, or at least RFVed. I prefer having only nanori readings in a kanji page and attested surnames. Given names are really free when it comes to kanji. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with @Shinji on this. And @KevinUp, re: capitalizing nanori, pretty much all nanori that I can think of at the moment can be used as parts of longer names, and as such, should probably be left as lower-case in the {{ja-readings}} list. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Thanks for the explanation. I managed to clean up the compounds section and reduced the Lua memory from 50 MB to 35 MB. What are your thoughts on creating soft redirects for given names? KevinUp (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@KevinUp: If you mean soft redirects to the lemma entry located at the kana spelling, sure. If you mean something else, please clarify.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. Are we going to lemmatize given names at kanji, kana spelling or both? KevinUp (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019Edit


Middle High German L2

Citations follow a non-standard format. DCDuring (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@DCDuring I have removed the textual variants because these serve no purpose on Wiktionary and removed the nesting. Does that fulfill the request in your view? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
It does.
@Lingo Bingo Dingo The citation beginning Wolfdietrich lacks a date. I couldn't tell whether the date shown was for the specific work or for an anthology-type republication. Can you tell? DCDuring (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@DCDuring It is a type of anthology that apparently includes various versions of the Wolfdietrich. The manuscript used for the quote is Hagens Handschrift, but I do not know what version that is though it is likely not version A. Also, the amount of variants of the work is a bit of a mess, so I have no idea what date to use. The surviving manuscripts themselves seem to be mostly 15th/16th century according to Wikipedia. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Getting the right centur(y|ies) would be an improvement over no date at all. DCDuring (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo I dated it at 1230, but I could also see why one would date it at the date of the manuscript on which the anthology publication was based. Do whatever you think is right. DCDuring (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@DCDuring It is apparently version B and the manuscript has the siglum MS H, which the Wikipedia article dates to the 2nd half of the 15th century. Version B is generally dated to the 13th century. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I suppose that, strictly speaking, one would want to date the citation at the date of the earliest manuscript that included the headword, but what would one do if the surrounding text differed in a way that influenced one's ascription of meaning? I suppose that it would be a rare user here that would be concerned. It makes me appreciate that most printed works are not subject to as much variation, except by well-defined editions, errata sheets, etc. DCDuring (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


make of car.

Apparently, all the citation dates are based on whatever edition the contributor found in their own library or on Google Books. I found 3 errors in the 3 that I checked, including Willa Cather's My Antonia dated 2006, rather than 1918, Elmore Leonard's Killshot dated 2003, rather than 1989. There are 10 others to be checked. DCDuring (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


Too many SOP derived terms. Ultimateria (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


  1. should be an adjective instead?
  2. meets WT:CFI?

Suzukaze-c 00:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be primarily an adjective (パッシブ・アグレッシブな), but there are some noun uses. I've cleaned it up and moved it to パッシブ・アグレッシブ, since the quotations I found all had the dot. Cnilep (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


numbers. lots of them —Suzukaze-c 00:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

a little bird told meEdit

The etymology trots out paragraphs of ancient references to people literally being told things by birds, and mentions carrier pigeons. Is this really necessary? Chuck Entz (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)









Estonian has first-syllable stress on most native words, like Finnish. Rhymes:Estonian doesn't say anything about rhyming rules, but if they are anything like English, a lot of these words do not actually rhyme because they are not stressed on the first syllable of the rhyme. —Rua (mew) 15:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The article Riim on the Estonian Wikipedia does not give a precise definition, but defines the rule loosely as “the same sound” (helide kordust) “in the last stressed syllables of the word” (sõna viimastes rõhutatud silpides). The examples given (all polysyllabic) are all consistent with the hypothesis that the rules are like those for English rhyming poetry.  --Lambiam 15:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

December 2019Edit

may the Force be with youEdit

I'm tempted to rfv the entire translation table, since almost all of the translations look like simple calques of the English, and the phrase was only coined a few decades ago (Old Church Slavic... really?). Someone has obviously made it their mission to translate this into every language that ever existed and is posting the results on a web page somewhere.

Perhaps we need some kind of message on the page telling people not to add translations if they aren't aware of actual usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if these books and/or movies have been translated into Church Slavonic (maybe they have after all); but wherever I met that phrase in any language it was as a literal translation of the English, and what's surprising about that? Star Wars is rating near the top of the box office all over the world, not only in English-speaking countries (and even non-native English-speakers watching it in the English original would then use a literal translation to their friends in their own language). Tonymec (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
[5]surjection??⟩ 15:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Appendix:Wu Chinese surnamesEdit

Looks really messy right now. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes working on it right now. Could use some help aligning all the columns. Merry Christmas!--Prisencolin (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020Edit


I removed a lengthy, footnoted, POV defense of marijuana that was hanging like a goiter from the definition after the offending part had been excised, but the definition itself has been changed from the admittedly dated and awful Webster 1913 one to a sort of half-mutated form that doesn't make sense by old or modern standards. It talks about hemp, the taxonomic equivalent of Cannabis indica, hashish and "narcotic" properties all together, which strikes me as possibly wrong, and it's not completely clear to me how one would refer nowadays to whatever was meant by this obsolete chemical term. Someone better versed in the history of marijuana needs to make some sense out of this. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Cannabin seems to be archaic in the sense given. According to a document titled "How Tobacco and Cannabis Smoking Effects Human Physiology": "Cannabis, produced from the hemp plant, is employed in 3 forms: herbal cannabis, the dried leaves and flowering first-rate, additionally referred to as ‘cannabis,’ ganja,’ or ‘weed,’ among others; cannabin, the ironed secretions of the plant, referred to as ‘hashish’ or ‘charash;’ and cannabis oil, a mix ensuing from distillation or extraction of active ingredients of the plant." (There are a lot of hits for cannabin oids, attempting to exclude them causes google to scold me: "Showing results for cannabis -oil -kids".) There are more potentially useful papers behind paywalls. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


Some of the things listed as homophones (e.g. dâng) do not appear to be pronounced the same, based on our pronunciation sections. Pinging two recently-active Vietnamese speakers @Corsicanwarrah, PhanAnh123, can one of you please take a look and either remove anything in the list of homophones which is not a homophone, or expand the pronunciation sections? - -sche (discuss) 22:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

(Notifying Mxn, PhanAnh123): Soon two years without any activity. --Fytcha (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The pronunciation of the phoneme written <â> is quite messy: bits and pieces of Central and South Vietnam merge it with <ă>. I don’t know if there’s any place where this merger coincides with the merger of <v> and <d> (which is limited to bits and pieces of the South). However it be, Vietnamese homophones are in dire need of quantifiers saying where these words are homophones, as this is never the whole of the country. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Latin entries in wrong categoriesEdit

--Sasha Gray Wolf (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This is partly a module problem (@Benwing2) and partly a question of whether the plural should really be treated as a separate plural-only word (or at least have a separate headword). Chuck Entz (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of that question, it's not a first declension neuter noun. If both forms make up one word, it's a heteroclitic and heterogenerous noun, second declension neuter (in sg., alternative pl.) and first declension feminine (in pl.).
The following Latin entries also need a cleanup: Codex Argenteus ("with a second-declension noun"), albus an ater sit. --Sasha Gray Wolf (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Sasha Gray Wolf Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I fixed Codex Argenteus so it says "adjective". I still need to fix the module so it doesn't categorize adjectives that cooccur with nouns. Benwing2 (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Sasha Gray Wolf I fixed the issue with nouns with modifying adjectives being categorized as adjectives, as in Aequum Tuticum, Alba Longa, Alexander Magnus. I remember encountering the issue with epulum awhile ago, and fixing it is a bit tricky, but I'll see what I can do. Benwing2 (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

{{construed with}}Edit

The template {{construed with}} should be a subcategory of {{label}}, not {{form of}}. See, for example, synonymous, and plenty of other pages on the Wiktionary. Chuck Entz keeps reverting my edits, now look at the result: se lier d'amitié. 15:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2, Rua since you were discussing this template last year. 15:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Logically, {{construed with}} should maybe function as a label, I agree with that, but you can't just change the template the way you've done it. It functions syntactically in a particular fashion, and changing it to use {{lb}} breaks that. In order to change this, you need to (1) investigate the best way to make the relevant syntactic changes to all the pages that use it, (2) get consensus in WT:BP. Benwing2 (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I reverted you because such changes should be discussed before implementing. I have no opinion on whether it's a good idea- it just needs to be discussed with someone who knows the differences in behavior between the modules that support the two versions. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


Definitions are a bit ugly. One is a encyclopedic and poorly researched ("or perhaps applies in the US only"). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Q.E.D., ‪QED‬Edit

  • Q.E.D.: The "1809, Diedrich Knickerbocker [pseudonym; Washington Irving]" quote needs a cleanup, see the entry
  • ‪QED‬: Too many quotes are misquoted, Q. E. D (with spaces) isn't Q.E.D. (without spaces) and Q E D (as in the 1684 quote) isn't QED.

And of course, the spacing makes a difference:

  • USA / U.S.A. / U. S. A. are three different spellings
  • In some languages, the spaced/non-spaced version is prescribed/proscribed. For example in German in case of abbreviations with dots, the unspaced version is proscribed while the spaced version is prescribed, so it's z. B. (prescribed) and z.B. (proscribed) (Duden: z. B.).

And even if WT would state, that it ignores spacing (which it can't state, if it is descriptive and not prescriptive), then it could only do so for the lemmas/entries and not the quotes, as altering quotes makes them wrong. We also don't changes the spelling in quotes of Shakespeare to the spellings used today. --Trothmuse (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The 1809 quotation has been fixed (there was a typo in the template).
I have started a discussion on this issue at "Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Are spaces in abbreviations significant?". We should see if there is consensus on the matter one way or another before proceeding. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


Part of speech, definition. DTLHS (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


For some reason an IP has worked on this entry a lot, adding references in definitions and a bunch of entries in other languages (all under translations) that they probably don't know enough to actually add entries correctly in. — surjection?⟩ 06:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


I reverted the deletion of one of the senses with the edit comment "Removed wrong meaning". The fact that someone did so shows that either this is indeed wrong, or at the very least it needs tweaking of the definition and/or a label/usage note to deal with the sensitivity of the issues involved. I haven't rfved it because it seems to hinge on matters of fact and interpretation as much as usage. This needs the attention of someone who knows more about this than I do. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020Edit


An IP added a length marker to the consonant. Do we do that for Norwegian? If so, this is fine; if not, revert the edit... - -sche (discuss) 19:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

ja (Swedish)Edit

Multiple competing etymologies and pronunciations and it's not clear what refers to what. DTLHS (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

babayeng ikoganEdit

The etymology, second def, and a quick Google Images search lead me to think the first def is meant to say a trans woman, to a trans man. The second def is not entirely fluent, but seems like it seems redundant to the first def (assuming the first def means what I just said), since it seems to be saying "a woman who is not trans but is mistaken for a trans woman is also called this". (Then again, at what point does calling someone something insultingly become a separate sense? Calling every "lame" thing "gay" is a separate sense of gay. But are bullies who shout "lesbian!!" at a straight girl who has a mannish/butch haircut/clothes using a different sense?) - -sche (discuss) 10:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020Edit


A recent (apparently plausible) edit to the etymology, which I copyedited, made me notice that this entry has a big manual declensin table complete with "albanian" being mis-capitalized until a moment ago, and each cell having its own font specified. - -sche (discuss) 17:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Ditto Afërdita, Afërdit, Afërditi. - -sche (discuss) 17:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


The first three senses seem very similar. Though they are technically distinct definitions, the minute differences between them seem to have little practical importance or effect on meaning. Maybe they could be merged into one definition? Imetsia (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. The singing sense is probably much older than the saying sense. Upforhim (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


Citation format is nonstandard and has been since 2012. Dates or estimated dates are missing. English translations are missing for some. DCDuring (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


Exceedingly stubby. —Suzukaze-c 19:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

(Notifying Atitarev, Tooironic, Suzukaze-c, Justinrleung, Mar vin kaiser, Geographyinitiative, RcAlex36, The dog2, Frigoris, 沈澄心, 恨国党非蠢即坏, Michael Ly): Soon two years. --Fytcha (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


Suzukaze-c 23:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I mass-deleted them just to be safe. There were too many in ranges marked as proposed, or with module errors, or with definitions saying they were only used in a given notation without saying what they were used for. I'm sure I deleted a few valid entries, but the wasted volunteer time to sort through all the bot-style mass-created pseudo-content was too much. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: I thought they were salvageable, and already started. —Suzukaze-c 08:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c Undeleted. Sorry for misunderstanding. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
It's totally fine. —Suzukaze-c 07:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Done-ish, except for 䶶#Vietnamese. —Suzukaze-c 07:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

(Notifying Mxn, PhanAnh123): Can somebody please fix the last remaining one? Thanks in advance. --Fytcha (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


When it comes to 6-legged teeny wingless crawling things, we live in interesting times. This entry is a poster child for the problems that come from our reliance on public-domain sources for rapidly-changing technical topics. I apologize for throwing around a lot of taxonomic names, but you can't really understand what's wrong with this entry- let alone fix it- without at least a very basic knowledge of the taxonomy.

The original definition:

  1. Any of various small active insects of the order Thysanura, that have two or three bristles at the end of their abdomen and that do not have wings.

This definition is correct as of a century ago, but is now seriously wrong. Here are the groups that I'll be referring to:

All of these have 6 legs, and are currently grouped together as Hexapoda. The "bristles" are appendages called cerci sticking out of the last segment on the tail end, along with a terminal filament sticking out in the middle. The proturans have none of these, while the diplurans have only the two cerci. The springtails have the terminal filament folded against and fused with the body, and the cerci modified into a structure called the furcula. The furcula acts like a spring: it's kept against the body, but when released catapults the springtail into the air. The most primitive insects have all three structures, others just cerci (they're the pinchers in the earwigs), and the more advanced have nothing.

Linnaeus classed all the arthropods as insects, and grouped them at the broadest level according to their wings. His Aptera included crabs and lobsters, spiders, scorpions, mites, ticks, lice and fleas, as well as the groups above.

By the end of the 19th century, the crustaceans and arachnids were split into their own groups and fleas and lice were recognized as winged insects without wings. All the 6-legged arthropods were classified as insects. These were divided into the winged insects, Pterygota, and Thysanura (all the rest). The proturans were only discovered in the first decade of the 20th century, so weren't included. Springtails were recognized as quite distinctive, so the Thysanura were referred to in those days as springtails and bristletails.

Our original definition is based on Thysanura as it was known then: all the hexapods that weren't winged insects, springtails, or proturans. The fact that it mentions "two or three bristles" proves that diplurans were included (nothing else has 2 tails).

By the latter part of the mid-20th century, the entognath orders were split off from the insects and no longer included in Thysanura, leaving just the archaeognaths and zygentomans. Toward the end of the 20th century, the archaeognaphs were recognized as different from all the rest of the insects, so Thysanura was broken up:

Even this is probably going to change. The trend seems to be toward treating insects as closest to, if not part of, the crustaceans, and not as close to the other hexapods- which would make the Hexapoda obsolete. The exact relationships of the different hexapod groups to the crustaceans or other arthropod groups and to each other is still not settled, however.

Recently @DCDuring changed Thysanura to Zygentoma in the definition. It's true that the only species that are widely familiar to non-entomologists are in this order, but that leaves out the the diplurans and the archaeognaths. He also changed the translation table to say Zygentoma instead of Thysanura, which means that all of the translations could potentially be for the wrong definition. The translations that I can figure out seem to be mostly for specific species in Zygentoma (silverfish, mostly), but it's hard to say whether they can also refer to Zygentoma (or anything else) as a group. I don't know know the languages well enough to fix these.

I've now split the definition into a primary one referring to "small, active six-legged arthropods" rather than using a taxonomic name, with subsenses for each of the orders. Given the magnitude of the taxonomic changes, I figured it was better to avoid details that would be invalid for at least some historical stages of the taxonomy.

The easiest sense to find in Google Books (since everything from that period is in the public domain) is the older one covering all the hexapods except for proturans, springtails and winged insects. The sources for this usually refer to "bristletails and springtails". I suspect that one exists for archaeognaths as opposed to zygentomans, since the zygentomans are better known as silverfish. The diplurans are usually referred to as "two-pronged bristletails" and the archaeognathans as "jumping bristletails", but there are a uses of just "bristletails" for each. I'm not sure if our definitions should try to reflect those differences.

Another issue is that older works tend to hyphenate the name, while modern references tend to be written solid. It's hard to say whether the lemma should be at the hyphenated or the solid form.

Sorry for the length. I needed to lay everything out to make sense of it all. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The original definition was probably from MW 1913 or Century 1911. I have made no substantive edits to this entry other than the one you mention.
I suppose that, since we sometimes claim to be a historical dictionary, it might be desirable to show the definitions that applied at different times, but I don't know that we can find citations that would well support any refined set of historical definitions. A gallery of photos might suggest why the vernacular term has been applied to so many relatively distinct taxonomic groupings. Since taxonomists often don't use vernacular names in their writings, it may be a hopeless task to follow the twists and turns of possible referents of such a vernacular term. I think the most important thing is to have the most common definition applicable for non-specialist literature.
If some of the groups are usually vernacularly referred to by a name like X bristletail, then coverage in derived terms might be enough, especially if we actually have entries for those terms. OneLook references have three such derived terms: jumping bristletail, true bristletail, and two-pronged bristletail.
I would use Google NGrams to provide some guidance about which term should be the lemma. Otherwise, a lot of work for the value gained.
In short, I don't think that we can achieve taxonomic precision in a vernacular name entry and shouldn't expend too much of our effort in that direction, as frustrating as it may be to leave such vagueness behind. DCDuring (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Kana Supplement blockEdit

The entirety of Category:Kana Supplement block, except for 𛀀 and 𛀁, has defective formatting.

Frankly I would like to see them deleted. They can be easily regenerated by a bot if someone truly cares enough. —Suzukaze-c 07:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


(Latin) The quote needs to be formatted. J3133 (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@J3133 I don't get what you want here. This, that and the other (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Entries by LeornendeealdengliscEdit

  • Vuldar: Volume? Year? (Vol. 1 from 1856?) What's "1338"? (col., and not e.g. p. or num.?) It's not "Dr. Förstemann Ernst" but "Dr. Ernst Förstemann" (Ernst is the forename, Förstemann the surename).
  • Wothen: Wrong title (as the title page shows it's "praecipui, ex" and not "praecipui : ex"). Year? (It's 1596.) Page? (476.)
  • Aldger: Year? (1867?) What's "2."? (The page and not for e.g. vol., col. or ed.?) Also: Why is "Aldgēr" given as sense/translation, isn't it rather the head: ({{head|osx|proper noun|head=Aldgēr}})?
  • Adalmar: "Dr. Heyne, Mortiz". The person's name is Moritz. This occurs in many other entries as well; in some (e.g. Alburg) it was fixed already.
  • Irmina: It's not "Forstemann" but "Förstemann". This occurs in other entries as well.
  • Irmindrud: This should be checked, probably it's not "Diocesis" but "Dioecesis" as in this google snippet.
  • Haostarpald: Title is wrong; it's "Grammatik der deutschen Mundarten. Zweiter Theil. Das bairische Gebiet. – Bairische Grammatik." And as usual for Leornendeealdenglisc: Year, and what's "74"?
  • Angandio: Edition/Translator? What's "1716"? (Page and not year as Grimm lived after that?) Possibly the Volume is lacking as well.

--Sally Buns (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

See also Aginesheim. J3133 (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

April 2020Edit


The "masculine plural transmiss" seems wrong. The "verb form: participle" and "participle" sections seem redundant. Beyond just fixing the entry, someone might want to look into whether other entries with the same kind of error exist. - -sche (discuss) 22:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this is generated by the code in Template:fr-past participle. Currently, that template requires the manual addition of the past participle form for masculine plural forms that aren't formed by the addition of s to the singular form. So this example can be fixed by adding the parameter "mplural=transmis". I think it would be better maybe to add more logic to the code, since it is regular for masculine singular forms ending in -s to not take an additional s. (If this isn't done, though, I don't think it's infeasible though to add all of these manually, since past participles ending in "s" in the masculine singular constitute a small and fairly closed category in French.)--Urszag (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020Edit


This user seems to label every single word as a noun. Some of them are defined as verbs. DTLHS (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


Do we...normally list UK rhotic pronunciations? Do we want to? This entry does, on their own line, not even using the parenthetical r format. - -sche (discuss) 01:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't normally, but there's no particular reason we shouldn't. That said, I do wish people would stop using "UK" and "US" as accent labels and use something more specific. Is the "UK rhotic" accent being shown that of the West Country? Scotland? Northern Ireland? All three? —Mahāgaja · talk 07:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Dievoort, DievoetEdit

Reported to me by User:J3133. Generally messy. — Eru·tuon 07:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020Edit

sit out, sit-out, sitoutEdit

Another three-way tangle, where each entry gives the others as alternative forms. Should be centralised on one form as far as possible (at least for the noun; I don't think sit-out or sitout can be verbs, only sit out). Equinox 20:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


In simplified Chinese, bad formatting, definition needs to be worked on. RcAlex36 (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Formatting: fixed.
Definition: ??
Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2A02:587:4100:0:0:0:0:0/40- AgainEdit

For many years this self-important person located somewhere in Greece has been trying to force their amateurish attempts at philosophy and theoretical physics into our English entries. They think up definitions that make sense to them- but no one would ever use in real life- and try to sneak them into the entries. When stopped, they rail about the ignorance, stupidity and bias of anyone who disagrees with them- using their own made-up and incomprehensible "English". They're very persistent and take advantage of the fact that we can't permanently block most of an entire country's IP addresses to keep coming back with more of the same.

Some of us have been reverting and deleting their edits all the while, but it gets tiring and there's lots we've missed. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

v s l mEdit

The quotations are formatted incorrectly, with some text having changed opacity. J3133 (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

That was on purpose: the OP was trying to be fancy. My guess is that the transparent parts are supposed to represent lacunae in the original inscriptions. I'm not so sure inline css formatting is a good idea in a wiki, where someone could move things around and ruin the effect. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is on purpose but it is hard to read. J3133 (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Are the Leiden Conventions applicable? —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I was the one who did the formatting. I had tried several ways of representing lacunae (including the LC, brackets, smaller type and just dots) and this was by far the clearest way. As for the concern of things breaking when things move around, I have tried to address that by positioning everything relative to the local text position. I'm not sure if ‘hard to read’ refers to the opacity or the ligatures. I suppose we could up the opacity a little; the use of ligatures in the time period was the way it was and we should just accept that. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 19:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC).
Should be changed to use [brackets] like other entries. - -sche (discuss) 08:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

July 2020Edit


The verb section would require some clean-up: the senses repeat and overlap each other and some examples seem to be under a wrong sense. Also, some "obsolete" senses are defined with almost same wording as the "current" ones. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Latin/Romance edits by Special:Contributions/2601:601:0:6A70:803B:66B9:E03B:12F3/64Edit

Somebody in Washington state in the US has been working lately with Latin and various Ibero-Romance languages. They're not wildly wrong, but their edits are unformatted, not matching our standards, and a bit amateurish. Since they seem to have a different IP address every day, I'm not sure how to communicate with them. Pinging @Ultimateria to make sure they're aware of this. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Redirect Template:Documentation and Template:Documentation subpageEdit

I can’t redirect those two pages to the uncapitalized versions because they are protected. Can an admin do it please? They are frequently capitalized in templates copied from Wikipedia. DemonDays64 (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

You'll find that there are lots of people here that consider lack of compatibility with Wikipedia templates a definite plus. Wiktionary isn't- and doesn't want to be- just like Wikipedia. This is not simply a technical problem- you should first ask whether the community here wants the templates you're importing. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Isn't DemonDays64 just suggesting that the templates mentioned be made into redirects, so if someone does use the incorrect capitalized version it will not show up as a red link? Or is there some advantage for the latter to happen – so that the editor will be prompted to use the correct uncapitalized template name? — SGconlaw (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz @Sgconlaw I mean that I'd like for someone to redirect them to Template:documentation and Template:documentation subpage, two existent templates. DemonDays64 (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I've created the redirects, as there's no harm in having them, but the point was that they ease the import of templates from Wikipedia, which is something that you're doing and which we generally don't want. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Icelandic pronoun entriesEdit

I haven't even bothered signing them with the tag, as there are far too many of them to adequately sign. These entries (for example hon or ek are very messy, including the template that they use. The modern Icelandic personal pronouns include only those seen in this template (apart from inflected forms of course). The rest are obsolete spellings, only referenced in ancient sagas (is it even Icelandic or Old Icelandic? Or Old Norse?), yet they have enormous entries with little additional information. Furthermore, the pronouns that aren't obsolete are in such shape that I frankly cannot expect any user to actually read them. See diff to see to what lengths I had to go to make the entry on það somewhat acceptable to the eye. Please help. Thadh (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, on second thought, perhaps an overstatement, but they are messy. Thadh (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020Edit

Cracker Jack, Cracker JacksEdit

The singular and plural definitions reference each other. Victionarier (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the redundant sense 2 at the plural. The distinction at the singular seems to be the universal grinder. Equinox 09:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2020Edit


Fix quotes.

  • Author?
  • Page?
  • Maybe volume as that appear to be book-series.
  • Maybe even work-title as of a work inside of a book-series.
  • Correct year? google often bundles different volumes and only gives the year of the latest volume

Clarify definition, possible split quotes by senses, cp. the multiple etymologies and senses at claviform.

--10:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC) —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:3723:2f58:f492:61db:e97b:9a7f (talk).


Two issues:

  • w:Strč prst skrz krk claims this term is an artificial occasionalism. Is this the case? If so, the entry should have usage notes explaining how it is used.
  • The external links lead to non-existant dictionary entries.

Ungoliant (falai) 15:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


As mentioned in the RFC notice in the entry, there are various problems.

  1. The obsolete form of i is distinct from modern usage to represent yi. These two use cases should be split into separate etyms.
  2. There are various other issues as cataloged at User_talk:LittleWhole#Problems_at_𛀆_(yi).

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


I added the Latin definition "Habsburgus." Anonymous "" added a request for sense cleanup tag. Anonymous failed to create a request for sense cleanup post here. There doesn't appear be anything that needs "cleaned up" sense wise. Aearthrise (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

1. There is also a comment in the entry: "Which sense of Habsburg is meant?" The definition in Habsburgus is only "Habsburg", and English Habsburg has f