Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new request | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Reconstruction add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.			Language treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

This page is designed to discuss moves (renaming pages), mergers and splits. Its aim is to take the burden away from the Beer Parlour and Requests for Deletion where these issues were previously listed. Please note that uncontroversial page moves to correct typos, missing characters etc. should not be listed here, but moved directly using the move function.

• Appropriate: Renaming categories, templates, Wiktionary pages, appendices, rhymes and occasionally entries. Merging or splitting temp categories, templates, Wiktionary pages, appendices, rhymes.
• Out of scope: Merging entries which are alternative forms or spellings or synonyms such as color/colour or traveled/travelled. Unlike Wikipedia, we don’t redirect in these sort of situations. Each spelling gets its own page, often employing the templates {{alternative spelling of}} or {{alternative form of}}.
• Tagging pages: To tag a page, you can use the general template {{rfm}}, as well as one of the more specific templates {{move}}, {{merge}} and {{split}}.

Note that discussions for splitting, merging, and renaming languages, once held here, are now held at WT:Language treatment requests.

2015

Continuation of #Category:en:Names into Category:English names

Reviving the earlier discussion, I'm still bothered by the fact that we have two different categories for names. But the previous discussion also made it clear that it's not as easy as just merging them.

• I think Category:en:Place names should probably be renamed to Category:en:Places, since it's really meant to contain terms for places. That is, since it's a topical/set-type category, the focus should be on the referent of the word, whereas part-of-speech categories like Category:English names focus on the word itself. A word is a name, and it refers to something bearing that name.
• Category:en:Named roads should probably be given some other parent than Category:en:Names; roads are not a subset of names, after all. We already have Category:en:Roads, so removing the names category would be enough.
• Category:en:Transliteration of personal names should probably be renamed and made to fit into Category:English terms transliterated from other languages somehow. Transliteration of a name doesn't seem particularly different from transliteration of any other word, so we might also just decide to get rid of the distinction and merge them entirely.
• Category:en:Demonyms is a bit more problematic and I brought it up before, though I don't remember where. "Demonym", again, is a term focused on the word, not the referent. A word is a demonym. Perhaps this could be renamed to something else? Category:en:Peoples maybe?
• Category:en:Languages could probably just be removed from the category.
• Category:en:Letter names seems like a good candidate to be renamed to Category:English letter names, to fit alongside Category:English letters.
• Category:en:Couple nicknames I don't really know about. I suppose it's thematically quite similar to Category:English female given names? So Category:English couple nicknames?
• Category:English surnames from Japanese, finally, should just be removed from the category, as it has more suitable parents already.

—CodeCat 00:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, what I am going to say is somewhat off-topic and maybe I'm minority on that, but I would not mind using the naming system "Category:English xxxx" for all topical categories: Category:en:Chess -> English terms related to chess. (or any better name along those lines) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Category:en:Transliteration of personal names" could be renamed to "Category:English names transliterated from other languages", I suppose. What's the matter with the demonyms category? It contains demonyms, as expected. Would it be better titled "English demonyms", on the model of "English phrases"? - -sche (discuss) 06:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Category:en:Transliteration of personal names" would be better named "English transliterations of (foreigners') personal names". Notice the existence of e.g.Category:Latvian transliterations of English names. Names of non-English speakers are not English names. I agree with CodeCat that place names belong to topic categories.--Makaokalani (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's the old discussion if anyone wants to read it. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 15:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:en:Place names was deleted by Equinox in 2017-05 because it was empty. Category:Transliteration of personal names (and its language-specific subcategories) were moved to Category:Foreign personal names in 2021-09 with the help of WingerBot. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 16:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Move Category:en:Demonyms to Category:English demonyms. This would be another job for a bot. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 04:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • cat:en:Demonyms has the same problem as cat:en:Exonyms (as explained in the discussion above): it is a child of cat:en:Places, so moving it will not be straightforward. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 03:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@ExcarnateSojourner There being no opposition here, only support (albeit mostly old support), and no opposition or interest when I brought this up in the BP, let's revise whatever needs to be revised to put (at a minimum) all given names and surnames into subcategories of Category:Names by language, instead of some of them being in subcategories of Category:Names. The split is haphazard and arbitrary; I see the intention — put a name that was given within English in one top-level category and a name transliterating a foreign name in a different top-level category — but in practice that's not maintained, since e.g. Alexandra in the context of discussing ancient Greek is transliterating the Ancient Greek name, Sergei has been given to babies born in the Anglosphere (and to characters in English fiction), and we don't maintain such a split with place names. - -sche (discuss) 16:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It making no sense to have Alexandra (in works about ancient Greece where it's romanizing a Greek name), Alexandra (in fiction about ancient Greece where it's a given name), Alexandra (as borne by British or American people today), Sonya, Vadim and Vladimir divided haphazardly into two different top-level categories, "Names" vs "Names by language", I'm now (attempting) editing the modules to consolidate them into "Names by language" subcategories. - -sche (discuss) 14:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

(Assistance solicited at Module talk:names#en:Russian_male_given_names,_etc.) - -sche (discuss) 14:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Recategorize Category:Demonyms and Category:Ethnonyms

Pinging some editors from the discussion above: @User:Rua, @User:Daniel Carrero

As I explained in the discussion about exonyms above, renaming the language-specific subcategories of cat:Demonyms properly will require removing it from the topic category tree and adding it to the set category tree. We should similarly recategorize cat:Ethnonyms, another child of cat:Names that did not yet exist when this discussion started. I propose recategorizing them into Category:Terms by semantic function subcategories by language, unless someone can find a better place, and renaming them cat:Demonyms by language and cat:Ethnonyms by language. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 06:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@ExcarnateSojourner @-sche I am going to take a stab at implementing this. Can you help with what the renames should be? I understand the separation between poscat categories and topic categories should be "lexical" vs. "semantic" but I sometimes have trouble putting this into practice. A tentative list based on what's already been proposed:

1. 'DESTLANGCODE:SOURCELANG male given names' -> 'DESTLANG male given names transliterated from SOURCELANG'; same for 'female given names', 'surnames', etc. This doesn't work; these are not DESTLANG names but SOURCELANG names rendered into DESTLANG. So I propose 'DESTLANG renderings of SOURCELANG male given names' or similar. ("Transliteration" isn't quite right; sometimes these are transliterations, sometimes respellings, sometimes mere borrowings (cf. Italian Clinton).)
2. 'LANGCODE:Foreign personal names' (a grouping category) -> 'LANG foreign personal names'
3. 'LANGCODE:Demonyms' -> 'LANG demonyms'
4. 'LANGCODE:Ethnonyms' -> 'LANG ethnonyms'
5. 'LANGCODE:Exonyms' -> 'LANG exonyms'
6. 'LANGCODE:Letter names' -> 'LANG letter names'
7. 'LANGCODE:Couple nicknames' -> 'LANG couple nicknames'
8. 'LANGCODE:Named roads' -> 'LANGCODE:Names of roads' and remove from 'LANGCODE:Names'
9. 'LANGCODE:Named prayers' -> 'LANGCODE:Names of prayers' and remove from 'LANGCODE:Names'

What about the following:

1. Subcategories of 'LANGCODE:Demonyms':
   1. 'LANGCODE:Armenian demonyms'?
   2. 'LANGCODE:Celestial inhabitants'?
      1. 'LANGCODE:Ufology' -> stays as a topic category.
   3. 'LANGCODE:Latvian demonyms'?
   4. 'LANGCODE:Nationalities'
   5. 'LANGCODE:Tribes'
      1. 'LANGCODE:Celtic tribes'
      2. 'LANGCODE:Germanic tribes'
      3. 'LANGCODE:Native American tribes'
      • See also 'LANGCODE:Mongolian tribes' under 'LANGCODE:Ethnonyms'.
2. Subcategories of 'LANGCODE:Ethnonyms':
   1. 'LANGCODE:Mongolian tribes' -> Goes wherever 'LANGCODE:Celtic tribes', 'LANGCODE:Germanic tribes' and 'LANGCODE:Native American tribes' go.
3. 'LANGCODE:Place names' -> Delete and reclassify the terms under them using {{place}} so they end up in 'Places in FOO'.
4. 'LANGCODE:Places' -> Leave as a topic category but remove 'LANGCODE:Names' as a parent?
5. Script-specific variants of 'LANGCODE:Letter names': 'LANGCODE:Arabic letter names', 'LANGCODE:Devanagari letter names', 'LANGCODE:Imperial Aramaic letter names', 'LANGCODE:Korean letter names', 'LANGCODE:Latin letter names'?
6. Subcategories of 'LANGCODE:Nicknames':
   1. 'LANGCODE:Nicknames' itself? This is a grouping category.
   2. 'LANGCODE:Nicknames of individuals'?
   3. 'LANGCODE:City nicknames'?
   4. 'LANGCODE:Country nicknames'?
      1. 'LANGCODE:Racist names for countries' -> Terminate with extreme prejudice, see WT:BP.
   5. 'LANGCODE:Sports nicknames' -> either 'LANGCODE:Sports team nicknames', 'LANGCODE:Nicknames of sports teams', 'LANG sports team nicknames', 'LANG nicknames of sports teams'
      • See also 'LANGCODE:Couple nicknames' above.
7. 'LANGCODE:Onomastics' -> stays as topic category but should not have 'LANGCODE:Names' as one of its parents.
8. 'LANGCODE:Language families'? Regardless, it should not have 'LANGCODE:Names' as one of its parents.
9. 'LANGCODE:Languages'? Regardless, it should not have 'LANGCODE:Names' as one of its parents.
10. 'LANGCODE:Taxonomic names' and subcategories:
    1. 'LANGCODE:Taxonomic names' itself?
    2. 'Taxonomic eponyms by language': Already a pos category.
    3. 'Specific epithets' -> 'Translingual specific epithets'?

Other topic categories not directly reachable through 'LANGCODE:Names' but needing consideration:

1. 'LANGCODE:Ships (fandom)' and numerous subcategories ('LANGCODE:F/F ships (fandom)', 'LANGCODE:M/M ships (fandom)', 'LANGCODE:Heterosexual ships (fandom)', 'LANGCODE:Homosexual ships (fandom)', 'LANGCODE:Polyamorous ships (fandom)', 'LANGCODE:RPF ships (fandom)'
2. 'LANGCODE:Horse given names'

Benwing2 (talk) 07:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@-sche Wondering if you missed my ping. I know my post is long, so take your time in responding. Benwing2 (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to ignore your ping, but got distracted by life after seeing it. As far as the categories for "English renderings of Ukrainian names" (or whatever), I have no strong preference for any particular name at this time. My immediate concern was just with addressing the odd point of bifurcation where "native English placename like Warwick or Alberta; English rendering of an Armenian placename like Stepanakert; English rendering of a personal name someone gave a baby born in Ukraine like Volodymyr" are in one top-level category system ("LANGCODE:Names", named like 'set' categories), and "personal name someone gave a baby born in Canada" is in a different top-level category system ("LANGNAME names", treated like a quasi-part of speech). It's hard to decide where exactly to split the spectrum of categories we're dealing with here, if we're wanting to keep e.g. "John" in "Category:English male given names" at that (part-of-speech-esque) category name, but wanting to consider some things like Category:en:Native American tribes to be clearly a set/list category (a set/list of tribes); my immediate point was just that I don't see a sound basis for considering "John, Jane" a POS-type (LANGNAME) category but "Volodymyr, Sergei" a LANGCODE:-set-type category — surely they're both one or both the other, and the greater momentum seems to be towards considering "names" a POS-type/LANGNAME category. But maybe we should think about that more carefully and consider them all to be "sets"? (But then, "Category:English verbs" is also just a category containing the set of English verbs. Hmm... should we perhaps allow only things that are truly "parts of speech" to have "Category:LANGNAME foobars" names, and make all the "names" categories that contain John and Volodymyr into set categories? Should that be the direction in which we eliminate the bifurcation of the 'John' vs 'Volodymyr' categories?)
I do think even keeping names in two subcategories like "English given names" vs "English renderings of Ukrainian names"/"English renderings of Chinese names"/etc [whatever we call those categories] based on, in effect, whether they were born in Ukraine vs to a Ukrainian family in Canada (or in China vs to a Chinese family in America) may be less than ideal; e.g. what do we do if a transliterated Ukrainian or Chinese name is common in English-language fiction? What about if it's a German name; does the fact that those names are "natively" Latin script make the threshold for considering them to have become "English names" lower? Does it make a difference if the fiction is set in lightly-fictionalized Germany or Ukraine or China, vs in a space future or a generic medievalesque Middle Earth / Westeros? But I don't have time to think through and suggest any proposal for any better approach to that yet.
"LANG foreign personal names" (e.g. "English foreign personal names") sounds a bit odd; would "LANG renderings of foreign personal names" (aligning with your proposed "DESTLANG renderings of SOURCELANG male given names") be better, iff we're sticking with moving "Names" categories to LANGNAME names and not LANGCODE names?
I will try to respond more, and to the rest, later. - -sche (discuss) 17:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@-sche Thanks for your comments. I have no issue with "LANG renderings of foreign personal names". I see your point about the line between nativized foreign-origin names and renderings of actual foreign names being fuzzy, but there does feel to me like a distinction, esp. in languages like Latvian that tend to respell foreign names according to Latvian spelling conventions, and the distinction is fairly clearly made in reality between e.g. the large number of Russian names respelled according to Latvian conventions (and used e.g. by the large population of Russians in Latvia) vs. the smaller number of Russian-origin names that have become nativized for naming of ethnic Latvians. In a multi-ethnic society like the US or Canada where nationality and ethnicity aren't always clearly distinguished, things get a lot fuzzier, although it still feels like there's some sort of distinction between names like Volodymyr or Volha that are unlikely to be borne by anyone other than someone who is Ukrainian (resp. Belarusian) or whose parents or grandparents are Ukrainian (resp. Belarusian), vs. a name like Vladimir or Olga that might be given to someone with no particular connection to Russia. As for whether these should use LANGNAME-type or LANGCODE-type naming, I'm not sure although I gather the distinction is supposed to be lexical vs. semantic, if that helps at all. Benwing2 (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I guess we should stick with LANGNAME naming for given names / surnames, then, at least for now. (Switching gears for a moment to address a different aspect:) Regarding "horse given names", we also have (but apparently don't currently categorize) dog given names likes Scruffy, Fido, and Spot, and we have Polly as a name for a parrot, and Mittens, Kitty, Socks for cats (also e.g. Miming in Cebuano). Perhaps we should merge all the different animals into one category for "animal given names". To me, at least, it seems intuitive to then handle this category in whatever way we handle the human given name categories—so, if we're naming the category that contains 'John' "English male given names", then 'Fido' goes in "English animal given names", or if we're using language codes, then use codes for both. (Back to the first gear:) We also have names that belong to specific individual people (Confucius, Cicero) or animals (Laika, and mythically Cerberus, Garm); we seem to put these in LANGCODE-set categories; I suppose the rationale is that the category that contains "Confucius, Cicero" contains a set of individuals, whereas "John" and "Jane" are 'less restricted'... in practice, people have undoubtedly also named babies 'Confucius' and 'Cicero', but if we demonstrate that, then we add a {{given name}} sense, so I guess we're fine leaving the individuals in LANGCODE-set categories and the {{given name}}s in LANGNAME categories... I guess this also explains the difference between nicknames (LANGNAME nicknames) and relationship names (the category contains a set of specific ships)...? nevermind, "Category:Nicknames" doesn't contain what I would've expected ("Bob, Jim, Tom" for Robert, James, Thomas) - -sche (discuss) 18:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@-sche This all sounds good to me. I think I'll start on the renames in a couple of days depending on how the comments go. Benwing2 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Just checking, when your "list based on what's already been proposed" includes "'LANGCODE:Demonyms' -> 'LANG demonyms'" but then your follow-up proposal is for Subcategories of 'LANGCODE:Demonyms': like 'LANGCODE:Armenian demonyms'?, you're proposing to not actually rename "'LANGCODE:Demonyms' -> 'LANG demonyms'", right? I'm just checking that we're going to handle "Demonyms" and the subcategories like "Armenian demonyms" the same way, either all using LANGCODEs or all using LANGNAME. I could see handling the categories that actually have the word "demonyms" in their name either way, but since some of the other subcategories like "LANGCODE:Native American tribes" do seem more like set categories, maybe it's best to consider the whole batch to be set categories and stick with LANGCODE names like they have at present? (But maybe move them out of the "Names" category?)
"Couple nicknames" is an interesting case, because intuitively it seems like those and (relation)ship names should be handled the same way, since they seem like the exact same thing: "Lumity" is the portmanteau name for the two specific individuals Luz Noceda and Amity Blight, and Billary is the portmanteau name for the two specific individuals Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton... maybe LANGCODE:Couple nicknames should be renamed "LANGCODE:Couples" to be more clearly a set category? and moved out from under the "names" category, since we don't categorize ship names as "names"? - -sche (discuss) 02:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@-sche Thanks for pointing out that inconsistency. Rua's point awhile ago was that 'Native American tribes' is named correctly as a set category because the contents are "names of Native American tribes" but 'Armenian demonyms' isn't named correctly as the contents aren't "names of Armenian demonyms". Rua suggested renaming 'Demonyms' -> 'Peoples' although that seems a bit strange to me as the term 'demonym' is fairly well established, and furthermore a distinction could be made between nominal demonyms and adjectival demonyms (note, we have {{demonym-noun}} and {{demonym-adj}} for these two, respectively), which is clearly a lexical distinction. That suggests maybe they should all be considered lexical categories, esp. since I think something like Category:en:Exonyms doesn't make sense as a set category (being an exonym is completely a lexical property. If we are to make Category:en:Armenian demonyms a lexical category, IMO it should be Category:English demonyms for Armenians as Category:English Armenian demonyms doesn't make much sense. As for CAT:en:Couples, that seems ambiguous so maybe it should be CAT:en:Nicknames of couples or something (which would be keeping with future names like CAT:Types of stars and such). Benwing2 (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"CAT:en:Nicknames of couples" works. Or should it even be "Nicknames of pairs", since it currently contains a few things like Bushbama {{subst:dash}} or should we remove those? (We don't categorize e.g. Republicrat as anything but "US politics".)
Good point about exonyms. "Demonyms", or at least the things currently in the "Demonyms" categories, seem to straddle the line between being a set category like "Occupations", vs being lexical like "Exonyms"... ugh, as you said earlier, it's hard to pin down and "put into practice" the difference, since so many of these categories exist in a grey area with characteristics of both. Like: it would not technically be wrong AFAICT to say "Category:English male given names and Category:English nouns are set categories containing the set of all English male given names or nouns respectively" (it would just be madness, heh). And in the other direction, isn't being a placename as much a lexical property as being a given name? But should they go into the same top-level "LANGNAME names" category, or is that madness?
Thinking aloud for a moment, I guess one difference is whether a term refers to one specific entity, or to an open-ended cast, which would rationalize why "John" and "Bob"—as names that can be given to an open-ended variety of people, new babies every day—are in (or belong in, in the case of "Volodymyr") "LANGNAME names" categories, whereas "Baghdad Bob" (individual's nickname), "Billary" and "Lumity" (real and fictional couples' nicknames) and e.g. "Saskatchewan" and "Yerevan" (placenames) refer to specific entities, and so are LANGCODE set categories...? So then, since demonyms like "Saskatchewanian" and "Yerevanian" also refer to an open-ended set of people (new babies born in Saskatchewan every day), and as you say, 'being a demonym' can be argued to be a lexical property like 'being an exonym', that justifies them being "LANGNAME demonyms" categories...? (Then the "type of"-set categories, like the category for "the set of all types of stars" or "the set of Native American tribes", are LANGCODE-set categories for a different reason.) - -sche (discuss) 19:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@-sche Yes, that seems to make a lot of sense. BTW I have written the script to move topic (langcode) categories to lexical (langname) categories and I'm probably going to run it on exonyms first. Benwing2 (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@-sche I have moved the exonyms and foreign-personal-names categories. Benwing2 (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Benwing2 Sorry for being absent here. I'm glad to see discussion happening and generally support your proposals. A few specific comments:

8. 'LANGCODE:Named roads': Why not 'LANGCODE:Roads' (and remove from 'LANGCODE:Names')?

9. 'LANGCODE:Named prayers': Why not 'LANGCODE:Prayers' (and remove from 'LANGCODE:Names')?

5. Regarding letter names, see also cat:Letters.

— excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 21:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@ExcarnateSojourner The main reason for including the word "named" is that otherwise it might not be clear whether the categories are set-type or related-to categories. Benwing2 (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Benwing2 Oh, I see. I support your suggestions for those, then. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 05:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Relevant to the discussion above about creating a general animal given names category, this discussion points out "Ralph" for a raven, as well as "Rover" as another dog name. Whenever the situation with human names is sorted out, I suggest moving "LANGCODE:Horse given names" ("is:Horse given names") to "LANGNAME animal given names" ("Icelandic animal given names"), unless anyone has objections... (or we could add a general "animal given names" category and retain subcategories for specific animals if one or more languages had a lot of names for them, as might be the case for dogs and horses...) - -sche (discuss) 17:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

2017

Move entries in CAT:Khitan lemmas to a Khitan script

The Khitan wrote using a Siniform script. Are these Chinese transcriptions of Khitan? —suzukaze (t・c) 02:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about what's going on here. Are you RFV-ing every entry in this category? Or are you just looking for evidence that Khitan was written using this script? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 12:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The Khitans had their own script. These entries use the Chinese script. —suzukaze (t・c) 17:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand that, but I don't understand what your goal is with this discussion. If you want to RFV every entry in the category, then I'd like to add {{rfv}} tags to alert anyone watching the entries. If you want to discuss what writing systems Khitan used, maybe with the goal of moving all of these entries to different titles, then I'm not sure RFV is the right place for the discussion. (Likewise with the Buyeo section below.) —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 17:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Moved to RFM. - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:jiajie

This should be handled with {{liushu}}, since jiajie is one of the six categories (liushu). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Can both of these templates be renamed to include a language code? —CodeCat 19:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

{{jiajie}} should be merged with {{liushu}}, which could be renamed as {{Han liushu}}, following {{Han compound}} and {{Han etym}}. It might not be a good idea to use a particular language code because these templates are intended for use in multiple languages now. They used to be used under Translingual, but we have decided to move the glyph origin to their respective languages. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You can use script codes as prefixes too. We have Template:Latn-def, Module:Cans-translit and such. —CodeCat 20:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

heavy

sense: Noun: "(aviation) A large multi-engined aircraft. The term heavy normally follows the call-sign when used by air traffic controllers."

In the aviation usage AA21 heavy ("American Airline flight 21 heavy") the head of the NP is AA21, heavy being a qualifying adjective indicating a "wide-bodied", ergo "heavy", aircraft.

Move to noun with any adjustments required. DCDuring (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@DCDuring You're proposing we move from noun to noun? Did you mean from noun to adjective? - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 05:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what I meant 5 years ago, but that's what I mean now: move it to adjective. Though it would be good to confirm that there is not sufficient attestation of heavies and/or [DET] heavy. DCDuring (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I can find the plural in reference to large (sometimes restricted to widebody) commercial aircraft and heavy bombers (sometimes 2-engine, always at least 4-). Also "heavy" motor vehicles (eg. large trucks, esp semis). I'm not entirely sure what heavy refers to when used by the pilot of a Cessna. DCDuring (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Keep everything where it is. We now have an appropriate adjective sense, and the plural of the noun has been cited. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 02:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Categories about country subdivisions to include the country name

This will include at least the following:

• Category:Abkhazia → Category:Abkhazia, Georgia
• Category:Alabama → Category:Alabama, USA
• Category:Alberta → Category:Alberta, Canada
• Category:Andhra Pradesh → Category:Andhra Pradesh, India
• Category:Aomori Prefecture → Category:Aomori Prefecture, Japan
• Category:Arizona → Category:Arizona, USA
• Category:Arkansas → Category:Arkansas, USA
• Category:Barisal Division → Category:Barisal Division, Bangladesh

Categories for certain things that are located within these subdivisions will also be named, e.g. Category:Cities in Aomori (Prefecture) → Category:Cities in Aomori Prefecture, Japan. —Rua (mew) 13:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. I oppose the existence of categories with language code like "en:" in the first place, but what is proposed here seems to be an improvement over the status quo. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I would have opposed a lot of these, but I was too late on the scene. DonnanZ (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support all except Category:Abkhazia, Georgia (for which I abstain as I do not properly understand the political situation explained by User:Palaestrator verborum). - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 03:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose all remaining (Category:Abkhazia, Georgia, Category:Alberta, Canada, Category:Andhra Pradesh, India, Category:Aomori Prefecture, Japan, Category:Barisal Division, Bangladesh). I've changed my mind; as DonnanZ points out, all of these categories are already named unambiguously (judging by Wikipedia's lack of disambiguation for them), and if someone doesn't know where Alberta is, all they have to do is check the category description or its parent categories. Also Wikipedia excludes the country names in its category names. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 23:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• US states were moved by MewBot (talk • contribs) in 2017. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 22:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The rename has been put on hold until there is a clear consensus either way. Please vote! —Rua (mew) 15:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rua It looks sane to me if politics are let out. But why is Abkhazia in Georgia though it is an independent state, statehood only depending on factual prerequisites and not on diplomatic recognition which has nothing to do with it? Where does the Crimea belong to? (article Sevastopol is only in Category:en:Ukraine because it has not really been edited since 2014.) I can think of two solutions: First possibility: We focus on geographical and cultural constants. Second possibility: We focus on the actual political power. I disprefer the second slightly because it can mean much work in cases of war (i.e. how much the Islamic state holds etc., or say the current factions in Libya). But in neither case Abkhazia is in Georgia. But the first possibility does not even answer what the Crimea belongs to, i.e. I am not sure if it is historically correct to speak of the Crimea as Ukraine. And geographical terms are often fuzzy and subject to editorial decisions. All seems so easy if you start your concepts from the United States, which do not even have a name for the region they are situated in. And even for the USA your idea is questionable because the constituent states of the United States are states in their own right (Teilstaat, Gliedstaat in German), as is also the case for the Federal Republic of Germany and the Russian Federation partially (according to the Russian constitution only those of the 85 subjects are states which are called Republic, not the Oblasti etc.). Is Tatarstan Russia? Not even Russians can agree with such a sentence, as in Russia one sharply distinguishs русские and россияне, Россия and Российская федерация. Technically Ceuta and Melilla are in Morocco because Spain is not in Africa. Also, Kosovo je Srbija, and it would become just a coincidence if a place important in Serbian history is listed as X, Kosovo or X, Serbia. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 16:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rua: Most of these categories like Category:en:Special wards in Tokyo are back on the {{delete}} list. I think these should be removed again for the time being. DonnanZ (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Starting with the above, I don't know how the Tokyo ward system works, but I imagine it's a subdivision of the city. In England wards are subdivisions in cities, boroughs, local government districts, and possibly counties. "Wards in" is the natural usage.

Municipalities similarly. For example in Norway there are hundreds of municipalities (kommuner) which are subdivisions within counties (fylker). Some of these can be large, especially in the north, but so are the counties in the north. To me "municipalities in" is the natural wording.

States and provinces in the USA and Canada: In nearly all cases it is unnecessary to add the country name as the names are unambiguous. The only exception I can think of is Georgia, USA. This could also apply to prefectures in Japan and states in India (is there a Punjab in Pakistan?). DonnanZ (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is, like there is in India. Maybe categorisations should be abundant? Cities can belong to Punjab as well as to Punjab, India, and the Crimea is part of administration of both the Russian Federation and the Republic Ukraine at least for some purposes in the Republic Ukraine. We can make the least thing wrong by adding Sheikh Zuweid (presuming it exists) as well to the Islamic State as to the Arab Republic of Egypt, because we do not want to judge morally and formally states and terror organizations are indistinguishable. On the other hand of course we need sufficient data to relate towns to administrative divisions and ISIS presumably does not publish organigrams. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 19:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

2018

Category:English words ending in "-gry"

This is extremely trivial, not to mention something that could be found even if it were not categorised. I think that it suits an appendix much better, so I propose that its contents be moved to Appendix:English words ending in -gry. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

A benefit to having it as a category is that theoretically it ought to be addable by the headword templates examining the pagename (like "English terms spelled with Œ"), which, if implemented (...if it could be implemented without excessive memory costs), would allow it to be kept up to date automatically. - -sche (discuss) 17:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That is true, but I don't really think we should be using headword templates to collate trivia. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete per proponent. --Per utramque cavernam 18:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there something like Category:English lemmas but sorted from the end, like anger, ranger, hunger, angry, hungry? --幽霊四 (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

At http://tools.wmflabs.org/dixtosa/ you can get a list of all entries in any category that end with any string you like. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Support the proposed move per nom. - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 05:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• On second thought, delete as useless and arbitrary. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 04:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Meh. Mehhhhhh. On one hand, I still like the idea of a category which can be populated automatically any time a new relevant entry is added. OTOH, it's very trivial. Well, it would be simple for someone to copy the current contents of the category over to the appendix and then remove the category from the entries (maybe with AWB to speed things up). - -sche (discuss) 09:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Compare Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Category:German_words_ending_in_-nf. If that gets kept, we should probably comparably keep this. - -sche (discuss) 19:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• See also Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/September § Category:English words ending in "-gry" and Category:English words ending in "-yre". — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 01:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Entries for Japanese prefecture names that end in 県 (ken, “prefecture”)

I would like to request the move of the content of entries like 茨城県 (Ibaraki-ken, literally “Ibaraki prefecture”) to simply 茨城 (Ibaraki, “Ibaraki”), cf. Daijisen. 県 is not an essential part of the name.

(Notifying Eirikr, Wyang, TAKASUGI Shinji, Nibiko, Atitarev, Dine2016, Poketalker, Cnilep, Britannic124, Fumiko Take, Dine2016): —Suzukaze-c◆◆ 03:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

As a counterargument, Shogakukan's 国語大辞典 entry for 茨城 (Ibaraki) has one sense listed as 「いばらきけん（茨城県）」の略 ("Ibaraki-ken" no ryaku, "short for Ibaraki-ken"), and the 茨城 page on the JA Wikipedia is a disambig pointing to 茨城県 as one possible more-specific entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 03:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems like a two-word phrase to me. I am not a native speaker, but I think that if someone asked "水戸市は何県？" ((in) What prefecture is Mito?) then "茨城です。" (It's Ibaraki) would be a correct answer. Entries such as 奈良 and 広島 should have both the city and the prefecture. (I see that 奈良 currently does.) Cnilep (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

茨城県です would also be correct and probably more common. At least 東京 and 東京都 are clearly distinguished. No one in Izu Ōshima would say he/she is from 東京. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, 茨城県 is also correct. And if someone asked どこの出身？ (Where are you from?) the answer would probably be 奈良県 rather than 奈良, or else expect a follow-up question. But I don't think that is necessarily a matter of word boundaries. Compare Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh, Kansas; the fact that it is usually necessary, and always acceptable to specify the latter doesn't mean that Pittsburgh on its own is not a proper noun. By same token, I think that 茨城 (et alia) is a word. That's the point I had in mind. I will say nothing about what is more common. I don't even have good intuitions about frequency in my native language. Cnilep (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree that 茨城 is a term worthy of inclusion. I also think that 茨城県 is a term worthy of inclusion. We have entries for both New York and New York City, and even New York State. Similarly, I think we should have entries for [PREFECTURE NAME], and also for [PREFECTURE NAME]県 and [PREFECTURE NAME]市 and [PREFECTURE NAME]郡, etc., as appropriate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 05:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe New York is a special case because there is both the state and the city. We have Washington State, but we don't have City of Chicago or State of Oregon. —Suzukaze-c◆◆ 18:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A lot (maybe all?) of the prefecture names minus the 県 (-ken) suffix are polysemous. Listing a few from the north to the south, limiting just to geographical senses, and just in the same regions at that:

• 青森 (Aomori): a prefecture and a city
• 岩手 (Iwate): a prefecture, a city, and a township
• 秋田 (Akita): a prefecture and a city
• 山形 (Yamagata): a prefecture, a city, and a village
• 宮城 (Miyagi): a prefecture, a county, a township, a rural area (ancient Japan), a village, an island, and a mountain
• 福島 (Fukushima): a prefecture, a city, and a township
• 新潟 (Nīgata): a prefecture, a city, a park, and a village
• 栃木 (Tochigi): a prefecture and a city
• 茨城 (Ibaraki): a prefecture, a county, and a township

Jumping south a bit to touch on Anatoli's example further below:

• 奈良 (Nara): a prefecture, a city, a township, and a village

I am consequently in support of including both the bare name, and the qualified name(s), much as we already do for similar situations with English terms. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

They are polysemic because most prefectures were named after their capital city during the abolition of the han system. Exceptions include 埼玉 and 沖縄, where cities are named after their prefecture. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Generally support. Less duplication is good, and it is not much different from Chinese etc. for which we generally delemmatise, if not completely hard-redirect, these forms. Wyang (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Support. For a dictionary, I think we don't need to keep entries with both prefecture name and prefecture, despite the usage but it's always helpful to provide usage notes (e.g. normally used with 県: ~県) and usage examples, e.g. 奈良県(ならけん) (Nara ken, “Nara (prefecture)”). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Bengali script and related

After some discussion on Category talk:Baybayin script (that went a bit off-topic), some of the Indian language editors (@Bhagadatta, Msasag and myself) have agreed that this category should be renamed to Category:Eastern Nagari script, the reasons being (1) several languages other than Bengali use this script, and (2) the Bengali alphabet is just a subset of this script and lacks some of the glyphs used by other Bengali-script languages (most prominently Assamese which has a separate r-glyph). I want to make sure that there are no objections to this by editors who were not in the discussion. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 02:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

google:assamese+site:unicode.org —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 02:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Asm sultan, Dubomanab Kutchkutch (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Support -- Bhagadatta (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• The result of the discussion is RFM-moved to Category:Eastern Nagari script. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – I had closed the discussion and renamed the category to Category:Eastern Nagari script, only to find out that there's a separate Category:Assamese script. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Sbb1413 Do "Eastern Nagari" and "Assamese" refer to the same script? I guess in that case we should merge the two categories? — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 04:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Mecayapan Nahuatl saltillos

A number of Mecayapan Nahuatl words are currently written with U+0027 APOSTROPHE, which is a punctuation mark and not a letter. And a couple are using U+02BC MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE, which is the wrong shape for this language. They should all be written with U+A78C LATIN SMALL LETTER SALTILLO instead.

• a̱'ti → a̱ꞌti
• babasoti' → babasotiꞌ
• cacahua' → cacahuaꞌ
• ca̱la̱' → ca̱la̱ꞌ
• coyo̱' → coyo̱ꞌ
• epaso̱' → epaso̱ꞌ
• hui̱lo̱' → hui̱lo̱ꞌ
• ichca' → ichcaꞌ
• ilhui' → ilhuiꞌ
• ocoʼ → ocoꞌ
• po̱cho̱' → po̱cho̱ꞌ
• sihua̱' → sihua̱ꞌ
• soqui' → soquiꞌ
• ta̱ga' → ta̱gaꞌ
• tepe̱' → tepe̱ꞌ
• ti̱lti' → ti̱ltiꞌ
• toca' → tocaꞌ
• tomaʼ → tomaꞌ
• to̱ca̱' → to̱ca̱ꞌ
• to̱to̱' → to̱to̱ꞌ
• tzi̱ca' → tzi̱caꞌ
• xo̱chi' → xo̱chiꞌ

--Lvovmauro (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Or perhaps they should just be moved to use the Modifier Letter Apostrophe, cf WT:RFM#Entries_in_CAT:Taos_lemmas_with_curly_apostrophes, to avoid over-proliferation of different apostrophe-ish letters. I think we should try to be consistent within the Nahuatl languages, at least, in which codepoint we use. - -sche (discuss) 20:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Most Nahuan languages don't use any sort of apostrophe. Mecayapan is unusual. --Lvovmauro (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• @-sche I can do this using the same scripts I wrote for Taos terms if we can come to a consensus on what best character is. (I have no knowledge of the language myself.) — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 19:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Japanese kanji by goon reading → Category:Japanese kanji by go-on reading

It’s not about goon but go-on. Most books on Japanese seem to use kan-on and go-on with a hyphen rather than the correctly Romanized kan’on and goon. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Korean determiners → Category:Korean adnominals

I propose to rename Category:Korean determiners to Category:Korean adnominals, just like Category:Japanese adnominals. Korean gwanhyeongsa are grammatically almost identical to Japanese rentaishi or adnominals, which may or may not be determiners. Gwanhyeongsa are generally divided into three classes: demonstrative gwanhyeongsa, numeral gwanhyeongsa, and qualifying gwanhyeongsa ([1]). The last ones are not determiners. (pinging @Atitarev, Eirikr, Garam, HappyMidnight, KoreanQuoter) — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Support. --Garam (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Tentatively Support. Let's check with User:Wyang who was also involved and had an opinion in a related discussion on the group of words ending in 적 (的, jeok). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel determiner is the more common name for this in English; the different definitions of these terms across languages should not be a concern - e.g. we also use adjective differently for Korean. adnominal may be confused with the -eun, -neun, -eul, -deon forms of Korean verbs and adjectives. Wyang (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang: The problem is that Category:Korean determiners contains words other than determiners. It will be all right to have both Category:Korean adnominals and Category:Korean determiners without renaming if you want, just like Category:Japanese adnominals and Category:Japanese determiners. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tibidibi, AG202 —Fish bowl (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

January 2019

Reconcile Category:#### terms derived from the shape of letters and Category:#### terms making reference to character shapes

See also Category talk:Terms making reference to character shapes by language.

Perhaps they could be merged, or perhaps both could be kept (Japanese: characters; letters?), but the naming should be consistent, at the least. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 11:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge, perhaps into Category:Terms derived from character shapes by language (a bit shorter, and inclusive of non-letter characters). - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 04:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

February 2019

Category:Deverbals by language, Category:Denominal verbs by language

Seems to be inconsistently integrated in so far as the latter in its name contains “verbs” but the former does not contain “noun”, and the latter gets categorized as Category:Lemmas subcategories by language but the former as Category:Terms by etymology subcategories by language. Outside the category structure we have Category:Taos deverbal nouns which nobody has noticed. I have no tendency towards any gestalt so far, and I can’t decide either. Furthermore somebody will have to make a complement {{denominal}} for {{deverbal}} – so far there is only an Arabic-specific {{ar-denominal verb}}. Fay Freak (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

A lot of this is redundant to our suffix derivation categories. In many cases, the suffix used already determines what something is derived from. For example, -ness always forms deadjectival nouns, it can't really be anything else. —Rua (mew) 18:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2018/May#основать. Per utramque cavernam 19:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

True, for “a lot”, and if you know the deep intricacies of Wiktionary’s category structure.

Category:Russian deverbals that contains now 53 entries has only entries the etymology of which consists in just removing the verb ending and using the stem. I see we have for this case Category:Russian words suffixed with -∅ – we just need to implement something like Category:Latin words suffixed with -o that is split by purpose of the suffix, Category:Latin words suffixed with -o (denominative), Category:Latin words suffixed with -o (compound verb) and so on, which is bare laudable. Now you only need to tell people, @Rua, how to create this id stuff, for to me it is a secret thus far.

However this does not work with non-catenative morphology thus far – you may link the previous discussions on those infix categorization matters here, but even if that pattern collecting is solved the derived terms listed at صَلِيب (ṣalīb, “cross”), for instance, would only be categorized by pattern but nothing would imply that the terms are denominal –, and the point I have made about the categorization and naming of these categories is still there. But I give you green light in any case, if you want to replace all those “[language] deverbals” and “[language] denominal verbs” categorizations by suffigation categories of the format “[language] words suffixed with -∅ [deverbal]”, as well if it concerns action towards categorization of noncatenative morphology language terms, since your idea of uniformity is correct. Fay Freak (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Nonconcatenative morphology is still an underexplored part of Wiktionary, which is kind of annoying. But quite often, we simply show the concatenative part as the affix, and then leave a usage note saying what other changes occur when this form of derivation is used. For example on Northern Sami -i and -hit. —Rua (mew) 20:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

How to create an affix category with an id: add the id to the definition line in the affix's entry with {{senseid|language code|id}}, add {{affix|language code|affix|id1=id}} (at minimum) to the etymology section of a term that uses the affix, find the resulting red-linked category and create it with {{auto cat}}. — Eru·tuon 20:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, this is easier than I imagined, so it takes the category name from {{senseid}}. I thought it is in some background module data. Now where to document it? Add it to the documentation of {{affix}} under |idN=? This is the main or even only use of this parameter in this template, right? Fay Freak (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not that {{senseid}} has any effect on the category name, but that a category with a parenthesis after it, such as Latin words suffixed with -tus (action noun), expects a matching {{senseid}} in the entry for -tus, in this case {{senseid|la|action noun}} because the link in the category description points to -tus#Latin-action_noun, which is the format of the anchor created by {{senseid}}. The |id= type parameters, including in {{affix}}, generally create a link of that type. In {{affix}}, the parameter also has the effect of changing the category name. Sorry, I am not sure if I am explaining this clearly. — Eru·tuon 22:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You explain this clearly. I just rolled it up from that side that I need to choose the name in {{senseid}} that I want to have in the category name so later with affix I will categorize in a reasonably named category because in other cases the id can arbitrary – not that {{senseid}} has an effect on the category name. Fay Freak (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Our affix system is not sufficient to handle morphological derivation we have to deal with (unless you want us to introduce lambdas...) Serbo-Croatian hardly has the intricacy of Arabic conjugation, but there are plenty of nouns that are created from verbal roots through apophony, and this needs to be categorized somehow. Crom daba (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Crom daba At least for Indo-European, we do have a system for handling combinations of affixation + ablaut, like on *-os (notice the parentheses showing the root grade) and -ος (-os). Our current system totally fails where there is no affix, though, a case which also exists in Indo-European. For example, there are some Indo-European forms of derivation, called "internal derivation", which are built entirely around changing ablaut grades and accents: *krótus (“strength”) > *krétus (“strong”) or τόμος (tómos, “slice”) > τομός (tomós, “sharp”). We have no systematic way to indicate this kind of derivation, but it is sorely needed. —Rua (mew) 23:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• We now have {{denominal verb}} as the complement to {{deverbal}}. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 05:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

April 2019

Category:Translingual numerals or Category:Translingual numeral symbols

Discussion moved from WT:RFDO#Category:Translingual numerals or Category:Translingual numeral symbols.

We currently have both Category:Translingual numerals and Category:Translingual numeral symbols. If there's a difference, I'm not sure what it is. If not, I'm assuming we should merge on into the other. -- Beland (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Numerals can be words (one, two in spelling alphabets), while numeral symbols are not (Roman numerals). The difference is subtle, but I think it is there. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 18:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Beland It sounds like this discussion would fit better at WT:RFM. Do you mind if I move it there? - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 22:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I've moved the discussion. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 19:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary:English entry guidelines vs "About (language)" in every other language

Some years ago, there was an RFM to rename all these pages, the discussion of which is archived at Wiktionary talk:English entry guidelines#RFM discussion: November 2015–August 2018. The original nomination mentions "and likewise for other languages", meaning that the intent was to rename these pages in parallel for every language. In the end, only the English page was moved, so that now the English page has a name different from all the others. User:Sgconlaw suggested starting a new discussion instead of moving the pages after the RFM has long been closed.

My own opinion on this is to rename the pages in other languages to match the English one. That was the original intent of the first RFM, and the new name better describes what these pages are for. The name "about" instead suggests something like a Wikipedia page where you can write any interesting fact about the language, which is of course not what they're actually for. Some discussion may be needed regarding the shortcuts of all these pages. They currently follow the format of WT:A(language code), so e.g. WT:AEN but also WT:ACEL-BRY with hyphens in the name. The original shortcuts should probably be kept, at least for a while, but we may want to think of something to match the new page name as well. —Rua (mew) 13:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Support. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Support renaming for accuracy and consistency. —Ultimateria (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Support – Jberkel 23:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Benwing2, would you be interested in executing this proposal? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Benwing2, checking in again, as it seems to be causing confusion, judging from a thread lower down on this page. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Apologies, I missed this from a year ago. I'll go ahead and rename. Benwing2 (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge FYI, this may take a little while. Lots of these pages have redirects to them and MediaWiki doesn't handle double redirects, so I have to find all the links to these pages (at least, those in redirects) and fix them. Benwing2 (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Benwing2: You mean you have to fix the redirects themselves, right? I hope that we can continue to use the WT:AFOO redirects even after the moves are complete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Yes, the redirects need to be fixed to point to the new pages. Benwing2 (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge One more thing: Some 'About' pages aren't just "About LANG". What should we rename the following?

1. WT:About Algonquian languages: Does WT:Algonquian languages entry guidelines work, or should it just be WT:Algonquian entry guidelines?
2. WT:About sign languages: Should it be WT:Sign languages entry guidelines, WT:Sign language entry guidelines, or something else?
3. WT:About Arabic/Egyptian, WT:About Arabic/Moroccan, WT:About Chinese/Cantonese, WT:About Chinese/Cantonese/Taishanese, WT:About Chinese/Gan, WT:About Chinese/Hakka, WT:About Chinese/Jin, ... (other Chinese varieties), WT:About Lingala/Old: Does WT:Arabic/Egyptian entry guidelines, WT:Chinese/Cantonese/Taishanese entry guidelines, etc. work, or should we normalize to e.g. WT:Egyptian Arabic entry guidelines, WT:Cantonese entry guidelines, WT:Gan entry guidelines (or WT:Gan Chinese entry guidelines?), WT:Hakka entry guidelines (or WT:Hakka Chinese entry guidelines?), WT:Old Lingala entry guidelines, etc.? Cf. also Wiktionary:About Contemporary Arabic.
4. Other subpages: Wiktionary:About Chinese/phonetic series, Wiktionary:About Chinese/phonetic series 2, Wiktionary:About Chinese/references, Wiktionary:About Chinese/tasks, Wiktionary:About French/Todo, Wiktionary:About German/Todo, Wiktionary:About German/Todo/missing a-d (and others), Wiktionary:About Greek/Glossary, Wiktionary:About Greek/Draft new About Greek, Wiktionary:About Hungarian/Participles, Wiktionary:About Hungarian/Todo, Wiktionary:About Japanese/Etymology, Wiktionary:About Korean/Romanization, Wiktionary:About Korean/references, Wiktionary:About Korean/Historical forms, Wiktionary:About Norwegian/Layout1, Wiktionary:About Norwegian/Layout2, Wiktionary:About Norwegian/Layout3, Wiktionary:About Spanish/Todo (probably completely outdated), Wiktionary:About Spanish/Todo/missing a-d (and others), Wiktionary:About Swahili/missing a-z, Wiktionary:About Tibetan/references, Wiktionary:About Vietnamese/references
5. Wiktionary:About Japanese-English bilingual: What about this?
6. Wiktionary:About Han script, Wiktionary:About Hangul script: Does WT:Han script entry guidelines work, or should it just be Wiktionary:Han script guidelines or something else?
7. Wiktionary:About International Phonetic Alphabet, Wiktionary:About given names and surnames, Wiktionary:About undetermined languages: Not languages.

Benwing2 (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

1. @Benwing2: 1. I don't think we need the word "languages". 2. The second option sounds more grammatically correct. 3 & 4. I would go with subpages, but you may want to hold off on those, as some of the pages are heavily used and links to them will have to be fixed. Opinions solicited: @Justinrleung, suzukaze-c, Atitarev, Tibidibi 5. It should be moved somewhere very inconspicuous; we could even delete it and nobody would miss it. 6. I guess the former? 7. The first one is now fine, the second can stay where it is, and the third seems somewhat useless (but @-sche may have an opinion). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

No opinion, although I am of the belief that many of our WT:<CJK> pages should be in the Appendix instead. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I would probably like WT:Chinese entry guidelines/Cantonese, WT:Chinese entry guidelines/Gan, etc. for the ones in 3 so that they are still treated as subpages of WT:Chinese entry guidelines. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Justinrleung WRT the Korean pages as well.--Tibidibi (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I think there's nothing on Wiktionary:About Algonquian languages that requires that page to exist, anyway, and am just going to make it a hard redirect it to the About Proto-Alg. page instead of the soft redirect which is currently its entire contents, keeping the old edit history and old talk page comments. - -sche (discuss) 18:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: There is another open discussion below on this exact topic. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 23:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

from Wiktionary:English entry guidelines to Wiktionary:About English (currently it's only redirect)

Reason: to align it with all other WT:About LANGUAGE pages, such as:

• WT:About Middle English
• WT:About Scots
• WT:About French

--幽霊四 (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

See “Wiktionary talk:English entry guidelines#RFM discussion: November 2015–August 2018”. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw, Rua: Partial closure of the RFM was clearly not the best solution. Someone with a bot should move all of these and update the redirects. Rua, would you be willing to do that? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Benwing2, would you be interested in helping out with this mess? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge I looked into this awhile ago and never finished it, sorry, because of various complexities. I will try to look into this soon. Benwing2 (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Any update on this? - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 18:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

You know a discussion page has become too large and stale when there are two open discussions on the exact same topic. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 00:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've moved this duplicate discussion to be under the same L2 heading as the original. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 07:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Support move Wiktionary:English entry guidelines --> Wiktionary:About English. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

May 2019

toponyms

See also: #Category:Eponyms by language

I think the categories for toponyms (e.g. English terms derived from toponyms) should be moved to a category just called [language] toponyms (e.g. English toponyms). It feels inconsistent to have English terms derived from toponyms while also having English eponyms. —Globins (yo) 01:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

A term derived from a toponym is an eponym, but is not a toponym itself. So the current names make sense. —Rua (mew) 11:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sense 2 for toponym is "a word derived from the name of a place," and the entry mentions eponym as a coordinate term. —Globins (yo) 00:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Globins Wiktionary's category structure only follows the first definition, which is the more common meaning. We shouldn't mix up the two definitions. —Rua (mew) 17:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rua: In that case, English eponyms should be moved to English terms derived from eponyms since our current category name follows the less common definition of eponym. —Globins (yo) 21:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really. An eponym is derived from a name. A toponym is a name. So a term derived from a toponym is derived from a name, but a term derived from an eponym is derived from another word that is then derived from a name. They're not equivalent. —Rua (mew) 21:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I think "eponymic terms" would be better if you want to preserve the "name that a term is derived from" sense of eponym (as opposed to the "term derived from a name" sense). "Terms derived from eponyms" seems odd, maybe tautological, to me because a name is not inherently an eponym, but only when we are discussing the fact that a term is derived from it. — Eru·tuon 21:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Globins Do you have any response to Rua or Erutuon? It would be nice to mark this discussion as resolved if it isn't going to go anywhere. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 03:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@ExcarnateSojourner I think I agree with Erutuon's category name suggestion then. —Globins (yo) 17:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Auto parts to Category:Car parts

This was previously submitted to deletion, but kept (why it wasn't RFMed instead I don't know). —Rua (mew) 18:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Support. DonnanZ (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: perhaps "Category:Automobile parts" would be better, to match the parent category "Category:Automobiles". — SGconlaw (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm ok with that too. @DonnanZ? —Rua (mew) 09:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rua, Sgconlaw: The word "automobile" is not common in British English, but I think "car" is used everywhere, hence my preference for Category:Car parts. DonnanZ (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

But car is more ambiguous. DCDuring (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind one way or another, but the whole category tree then needs to be renamed for consistency. (@Donnanz: how is car ambiguous? Do you mean it could be confused for, say, a train carriage or something?) — SGconlaw (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, car is used especially in US English for a railroad car (either freight or passenger), and can be used in BrE for a railway passenger carriage. I feel the word auto can be ambiguous as well; "auto parts" can be used in the UK, but "car parts" is preferred. The word "auto" isn't used for a motor car in the UK. There is another category, Category:Automotive, so Category:Automotive parts may be a solution. DonnanZ (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I was employed in the motor trade for many years, supplying car parts of all descriptions, even body shells on one or two occasions. DonnanZ (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

In that case it seems to me that "Category:Automobile parts" is least ambiguous. I'm not sure "Category:Automotive" is well named (why an adjective?); "Category:Road transport" would be better. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Nautical also uses an adjective, and there may be others. DonnanZ (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, not too hot on that one either. My suggestion would be "Category:Water transport". — SGconlaw (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

As long as I can type {{lb|en|car part(s)}} and get the topical category Category:en:Automobile parts, my increasingly arthritic fingers would be happy. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I can only sympathise. Depending on the outcome here, if you feel like fiddling around with modules I think Module:category tree/topic cat/data/Technology is the right one. DonnanZ (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support cat:Automobile parts. cat:Car parts is too specific. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 06:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

June 2019

have one's hands tied

As has been pointed out here, "have" isn't part of the term. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

As I see it, have isn't part of the metaphor, but it is part of an expression that is not in turn a form of tie someone's hands. The passive (one's) hands are/were/being/been tied are such forms, though none make for a good lemma entry or likely searches. DCDuring (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Thanks. Also the second meaning of tied: restricted (which even offers the quotation: but the county claims its hands are too tied) --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

It's still a metaphor: a county doesn't have directly have hands. DCDuring (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

For an example of tie someone’s hands being used in the active voice: “It will tie our hands for another nine years with respect to a labor contact [sic] with no layoff clauses and raises that are built in.”

In general, for any expression of form “⟨VERB⟩ someone’s ⟨NOUN⟩”, there is a corresponding expression “ have/get one’s ⟨NOUN⟩ ⟨VERBed⟩”. For example, cut someone’s hair → have one’s hair cut. Or knock someone’s socks off → get one’s socks knocked off. Or lower someone’s ears → have one’s ears lowered. If the expression is idiom, sometimes we have one, sometimes the other, and sometimes both.  --Lambiam 21:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Unless the active form is very uncommon, I'd prefer it as the lemma. I don't think that we would be wrong have both the active-voice expression and the have and/or get expressions, even though we could argue that it is a matter of grammar that one can transform certain expressions in the way Lambian describes. DCDuring (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Category:English oxymorons to Category:English contradictions in terms

We say ourselves in the entry for oxymoron that its use to mean "contradiction in terms" is loose and sometimes proscribed (despite the fact that many people use it this way nowadays). We say much the same thing at contradiction in terms as well.

The so-called oxymorons in this category are all or almost all contradictions in terms, where the contradiction is accidental or comes about only by interpreting the component words in a different way from their actual meanings in the phrase. An oxymoron in the strict sense has an intentional contradiction. I think we should be more precise about this, in the same way as we already are with using the term "blend" instead of "portmanteau", which has a narrower meaning. I therefore suggest we move this page to "Category:English contradictions in terms" (but see my second comment below). Likewise for any corresponding categories for other languages. — Paul G (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think this category should be retained but restricted to true oxymorons, such as "bittersweet" and "deafening silence". Ones such as "man-child" and "pianoforte" are not intended to be oxymoronic and are only accidentally contradictions in terms. — Paul G (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Support. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

September 2019

Church Slavonic from Old Church Slavonic

Discussion started at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2019/September#I_want_to_add_Church_Slavonic_terms. A new language code for a newer version of Church Slavonic? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

January 2020

'Cities in Foo' and 'Towns in Foo'

@Donnanz, Fay Freak, Rua I'm not sure what the real difference is between a city and a town, and I suspect most people don't know either. For this reason I think we should maybe merge the two into a single 'Cities and towns in Foo' category. Benwing2 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I oppose this merger. I would not think to look for a category with such an unintuitive name, and I do not know of any examples where this is problematic. Wikipedia seems to be able to choose which word to use without trouble, so why can't we? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Eliminating one of them is a good idea where there is no meaningful distinction between cities and towns. But that's going to be a country-specific decision: England makes the decision, the Netherlands does not. I think in cases without a distinction, we should keep "cities" and eliminate "towns". —Rua (mew) 10:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend merging them. It's a complex subject though, and the rules defining cities and towns can differ from country to country, and from state to state in the USA; I have come across "cities" with a population of less than 1,000 in the USA, sometimes around 50, but apparently they have that status. Cities in the UK have that status as granted by a monarch, towns can be harder to define in metropolitan areas, and villages can call themselves towns if they have a town council. Some villages large enough to be towns prefer to keep the village title. DonnanZ (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The odds that editors will accurately/consistently distinguish these categories when adding (the template that generate) them ... seems low. However, even if the categories are merged, that problem will remain on the level of the displayed definitions. And, apparently some users above want to keep them distinct. So, meh. - -sche (discuss) 05:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I can see arguments for both sides, actually. The idea needs a lot more thought, as you would probably have to drag in villages etc. as well. DonnanZ (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Could merge them into Municipalities in Foo and have the various alternatives point to that category. Of course there are some "cities" which contain several municipalities, but I don't think there is a word which comprises every form of village/town/hamlet/city/urban area. - TheDaveRoss 12:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

In New York State alone, we have cities, towns, villages (which are subdivisions of towns), and unincorporated places, all of which exist within counties, except NY City, which is coextensive with 5 counties, each of which is coextensive with a borough of the City. The identities and borders of these places in NYS are generally fairly stable, though subject to occasional revision. Legislative and judicial districts are separate, with legislative districts changing after each decennial census. Census-designated places form a parallel structure with relationships to the state systems. The census system has the virtue of being uniform for the entire US, but the borders of many census places do not necessarily correspond to the borders of larger governmental units such as states and counties. Within New York State there are lists of each type of jurisdiction. In principle each US state has its own names for classes of jurisdictions. Finally, in popular practice, place names for inhabited place can differ from the names of governmental units and tend to have different boundaries even when the names are the same.

In light of the lack of homogeneity even within the US, let alone between countries, I think we need to respect national and state and provincial naming systems. If there is a worldwide system for categorizing places, we could also follow that, but I have not heard of such a system. Does the EU have some uniform system?

In the absence of any generally accepted uniform universal or near-universal system for categorizing places, I think we need to accept the fact that nations and semi-sovereign parts of nations (eg, US states, Canadian provinces) each have their own naming systems, which are accepted within their boundaries. I think it would be foolish for us to attempt to have our own system for categorizing places and derelict for us to fail to use the various national and subnational categories.

If the categories then don't lend themselves to a uniform universal categorization system, too bad. DCDuring (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

go out on a limb

Merge with out on a limb. Canonicalization (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support DCDuring (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Nah not merged. GreyishWorm (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  • GreyishWorm (Wonderfool, now blocked) closed this without consensus or an explanation, so I've reopened it. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 07:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Even though "out on a limb" can be used without "go", I think "go out on a limb" =/= "go" + "out on a limb", so I think we should keep them separate after all. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 02:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

March 2020

centrifugal force

We have four definitions here and probably ought to have one; compare centripetal force, with its one, simple def. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

See w:History of centrifugal and centripetal forces. The article just lacks cites, dates, etc to support the historical definitions. I suppose that we should just give up on trying to cover the historical definitions and leave that to our betters at WP. DCDuring (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Retiring Moroccan Amazigh [zgh]

We renamed this code from "Standard Moroccan Amazigh" to "Moroccan Amazigh", but failed to note that the "standard" part was key. This is a standardised register of the dialect continuum of Berber languages in Morocco, promoted by the Moroccan government since 2011 as an official language. Marijn van Putten says this is essentially Central Atlas Tamazight [tzm], but most of the people producing texts in it are native speakers of Tashelhit [shi], so there is a bit of re-koineisation. However, if we move forward with good coverage of the Berber languages, every entry in [zgh] will be a duplicate of [tzm] or else a duplicate of [shi] marked with some sort of dialectal context label. By the way, the fact that there is an ISO code seems to be a political consideration rather than a linguistic one; compare the case of "Filipino", which we merged into Tagalog, or "Standard Estonian", which we merged into Estonian. @Fenakhay, -sche —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I see it's a rather recent attempt at standardization, too. I don't feel like I know enough about Tamazight to be confident about what to do, but it does seem like, if this is based on tzm, it could be handled as tzm (perhaps even, instead of putting "non-[ordinary-]tzm" entries at shi+label, they could be tzm+label, unless they're obviously shi words). - -sche (discuss) 15:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Generally, it seems the [shi] words are quite obvious; the main differences between [tzm] and [shi] are lexical (as far as I can tell, [tzm] has more internal diversity w/r/t phonology than differences with [shi]). But they're in a continuum anyway, and WP claims that there's debate on where to draw the dividing line. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

And “Moroccan Amazigh” does not sound like a language name anyway if you have not been told it is one, it seems like “Berber as spoken in Morocco”, another reason to remove it. Fay Freak (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

until one is blue in the face

to blue in the face (now a redirect to until one is blue in the face).

In addition of all the tense, person, and number variants (also contractions) of the current entry one can find variants omitting the pronoun, adding adverbs, using till or 'til instead of until; [VERB] oneself blue in the face; go|become|turn blue in the face; and blue-in-the-face and blue in the face as adjectives outside any of these expressions. The unchanging core of these is the set phrase blue in the face. It also has medical use (synonym cyanotic), which renders the figurative sense evolution and meaning obvious. DCDuring (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I might do it myself if I can think of a good way to phrase the definition. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 04:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

imek

The reconstructed infinitive form is useful to understand what the underlying verb is but it is never used in a sentence to convey meaning, like Azerbaijani *imək, Uzbek *emoq. —92.184.116.176 23:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade: Seems to me like reconstructions are not meant for this purpose. Is there a better way to lemmatise this verb? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: I agree, and I don't think it's needed for any purpose, at least not for Azerbaijani. There was a user (or anon?) who insisted on adding those "underlying" verbs and creating templates for them, but I never understood the linguistics behind this reasoning. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade: So can we just delete them? How should they be lemmatised? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You could lemmatize imiş as a free morpheme-form of -miş, i.e. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

May 2020

state's evidence

to turn state's evidence.

Most use of state's evidence is clearly of state + 's + evidence. I haven't found any use that is suggestive of a restriction to a witness's testimony, except with the use of turn. Also compare “turn state's evidence”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. with “state's evidence”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

They can't be state + 's + evidence when the phrase encompasses proceedings where the prosecutor is not a state (e.g., a municipality, county, or country). bd2412 T 05:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Sense 3 of state should cover it. I think if 3(a) doesn't cover it, then "Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it." is not an appropriate citation thereof; I think Einstein would consider national, state, and city governments all part of "the state".--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

play the victim card, play the race card, play the gender card

I wonder if these all ought to be merged into some entry akin to "play the ____ card" or something. There appear to be other words substituted aside from victim, race, and gender. Tharthan (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I lament that our way of handling snowclones is not optimal, banishing them to appendix-space, such that the choices here amount to 'have these multiple similar entries in the mainspace where users find them' or 'banish them to a tidy but less-findable appendix'. However, I see that we have a sense at card for this (although the definition could use some work), and between putting a link there and redirects from these entries, I suppose we could get by with migrating these to the snowclone appendix. Centralizing them does seem sensible since there are so many. ("Play the religion card" also exists.) - -sche (discuss) 23:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a title like play the prejudice card. — This unsigned comment was added by 2600:387:9:9::bf (talk) at 14:37, 2022 September 4.

Interesting idea. Perhaps there would be an extensive entry for play the (something) card, but with full entries for the main attestable instances (eg, race/gender and perhaps victim, derived terms, and a usage note about "(something)". Play the X card seems to be something that would be highly productive, unless its use in too many cases would be deemed a microaggression. Attestation for play the (something) card would have to be limited to "somethings" other than the forms that have their own attestation. Other instances that I can readily find are disability, oppression, and queer. The uses of feminist and bully don't fit the "victim" semantics, which might warrant a second figurative definition for play the (something) card in addition to a {{&lit}} "definition". DCDuring (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

BTW, we are not alone in having an entry for these, but MWOnline only has one for use/play the race/gender card. Collins and Cambridge Advance Learner's have only play the race card. DCDuring (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Besides those, there's "play the poverty card", "play the gay card", "play the abuse card", "play the disabled card", "play the rape card", etc., as well as ones which, as you say, seem like they may have different semantics (e.g. some uses of "play the Muslim card" in reference to legislation ?to get Muslim support?, and some uses of "play the Holocaust card"?) ... it seems too productive to have entries for every attested X (it becomes SOP). Should this be in the mainspace as play the something card, or at Appendix:Snowclones/play the X card like Appendix:Snowclones/X is the new Y? For snowclones like this that require placeholders other than "someone"/"one" in the title, we seem to in recent years prefer to put them in Appendix:Snowclones/ rather than in mainspace, but I do see a handful of mainspace titles where "something" is a placeholder, like give something a go. If we redirect all the variations people might search for, add usexes to the relevant sense we list at card, and maybe add a usex to whichever sense of play is relevant, it should be sufficiently findable. - -sche (discuss) 16:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd favor having a full entry for any term (presumably they would be attestable) that another dictionary had. It is unfortunate that our basic search engine searching for "play the disabled card" (with or without quotes) does not take a user to any of our existing play the X card entries. (I have added test entries for play the card and play the something card.) That would imply that we could use hard redirects for as many attestable instances of the snow clone as seem likely to help users. It may well be that the hard redirects should go to the snowclone appendix subpages, but there is no particular reason to do so in preference to a mainspace entry. Concern about the aesthetics of headwords with a placeholders seem misplaced. And (who knows?) someone might actually search for the expression using a placeholder and find it if it were in principal namespace. DCDuring (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, as the MWOnline entry shows play is not strictly essential; it can be replaced by use, among other verbs, such as deploy. So, perhaps a sense of card is an appropriate target for redirects. But I doubt that the entry for card is the right place for an intelligible presentation. For one thing, any etymology (sense derivation), usage notes, and derived terms or collocations (eg, race card) would necessarily be separated from the relevant definition for the polysemous noun, so as not to appear on the same screen. And, even if they did, that they belonged together would not be at all obvious. I realize that this kind of argument, if applied, might make for some inconsistency in our presentation of snowclones and might violate a strict reading of idiomaticity, but cases like this may merit exceptional treatment. DCDuring (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Onelook finds "play the race card" and "play the gender card" in various dictionaries, but "play the victim card" only in us, and it seems unlike the others in other ways, too: card seems unnecessary, as the same meaning is expressed by play the victim. As you note, all of these can also be found with other verbs, like "use". I am inclined to redirect play the victim card to either card's relevant sense or play the something card. It has a Swedish translation; if there are others, I would think play the victim would be the better THUB location. I'm not sure what to do about play the gender card and play the race card; on one hand, each is in other Onelook dictionaries; OTOH, you can swap out "play" for "use", "gender" for other things ("sexism", "sex", "woman", and with different meaning other things like "religion", etc), it's not a set phrase and the kernel of idiomaticity is obviously some smaller part, maybe just card, not the whole phrase. - -sche (discuss) 17:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

But the current definitions of both card and play the something card need improvement before anything can be sensibly merged there. - -sche (discuss) 17:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Is the entry for race card good enough? DCDuring (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

As to card, we may need two additional definitions, one for the general metaphorical sense, another (subsense?) for the more specific sociopolitical use. As Equinox observed elsewhere, the metaphor of a competitive card game must be understood for the expression to make any sense at all.

(figuratively) A ploy of potentially advantageous use in a situation viewed as analogous to a card game.

The only card left for him to play was playing dumb.

An invocation of an emotionally or politically charged issue or symbol, as in a political competition.

race card, gender card

HTH. DCDuring (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

you're on

I don't think this is a special phrase with "you're", it sounds like a phrasal verb be on. They want a fight? They're on! She issued a challenge, so she's on!. You can also use it in reference to the fight itself, e.g. the fight is on. 76.100.241.89 18:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Just noting to compare good on you→good on someone above. — 69.120.69.252 02:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You're on might be considered distinct because it is usually a speech act, indicating acceptance of a bet or dare. DCDuring (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps. But the IP is right that "on" can be used with other pronouns. I suppose the question is whether this is better viewed as someone is on, be on, or just on: we already have a sense for this at on, "(informal) Destined, normally in the context of a challenge being accepted; involved, doomed. "Five bucks says the Cavs win tonight." ―"You're on!" Mike just threw coffee onto Paul's lap. It's on now." - -sche (discuss) 04:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I have never heard the they're on or she's on examples given by OP, and the second one doesn't even fit, since it's about acceptance of a challenge. I've heard it's on, but that's slightly different. Theknightwho (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

July 2020

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/vьlkolakъ

I suggest that this entry be moved to Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/vьlkodlakъ, since the -dl- cluster in the Czech descendant vlkodlak indicates that the cluster was still present in the Proto-Slavic form and was reduced to -l- in the other descendants. --108.20.184.19 00:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Bezimenen, seems sensible? PUC – 12:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@PUC: I have no objections to the move, however, I'm not entirely sure that *vьlkodlakъ was the primary form. Semantically, it makes sense to analyze the lemma as Proto-Slavic *vьlkodolkъ = *vьlkъ (“wolf”) +‎ *dolka (“skin”) +‎ *-ъ with -ol- > -la- metathesis or possible *vьlkodьlakъ (less likely in view of East Slavic forms with *-olo-, e.g. Russian вурдала́к (vurdalák, “vampire”) /first recorded in written form in 18-19 cent./). You should consult with User:Rua in regard to which form should be created - *vьlkodlakъ or *vьlkodolkъ. I'm not so familiar with the style that Wiktionary likes to follows. Безименен (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

If the original form had -dl-, why do we not see it in the other languages that preserve it, such as Polish? —Rua (mew) 13:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure, but looking again at the entry, it seems not only Czech but also Serbo-Croatian and Slovene preserve the -dl- as well. --108.20.184.19 16:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian (and, I believe, Slovene) never preserves Proto-Slavic -dl- clusters, so the Serbo-Croat form indicates either some such form as Proto-Slavic *vьlkodolkъ or a later epenthesis of -d- by analogy with dlaka. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Scents, Category:Perfumes

An example of w:U and non-U English, which probably should be decided for the latter. While “scent” can possibly be broader, this category also has the danger of just about including anything that has a strong odour naturally. Hence I included بَارْزَد (bārzad, “galbanum”) and جُنْدُبَادَسْتَر (jundubādastar, “castoreum”). The English category has a weak six entries since created in 2011. But even Category:en:Perfumes includes dubious things. I doubt perfumes are something that can be categorized well – it’s basically anything smelly? –, maybe delete all? Fay Freak (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a case could be made for "scent" being not something that smells, but smell itself (like musk and maybe putridity). I don't see any reason why perfumes can't be categorized. I don't think it's meant to include anything that could be used as the scent of a perfume, but words that specifically describe perfumes. For instance, cologne isn't "cologne-scented", it's the name of a type of perfume; jasmine is a plant, but it is also used as the word for a perfume, not just to describe a perfume (you could say, "She always wore a liberal quantity of jasmine" and not just "She always wore a liberal quantity of jasmine-scented perfume". Of course, you could also say "She always wore a liberal quantity of Autumn Breeze" because it's a proper noun, but I don't think you could say "She always wore a liberal quantity of lilac". Instead you would say "lilac perfume".) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

So keep Category:Perfumes, in case I wasn't clear. I'd lean towards keeping Category:Scents as well, but I'd have to hear a few more opinions first. Hearing the value of having the category for other languages would be helpful. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep both per Andrew. They are related, but distinct. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 04:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2020

ungjetë to a new ungjet

Ungjetë is actually just a variant of ungjet, which is the standard form. ArbDardh (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)ArbDardh

be up to

Tagged but not posted here: Merge with up to something.

Be is not essential to the idiom. Some other copulas work, eg. seem, appear, look. DCDuring (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Category:Regional English, Category:English dialectal terms (NOT subcategories)

IMO it does not make sense to have some terms categorized directly into Category:Regional English (not its subcategories) and other terms categorized directly into Category:English dialectal terms, because in practice no-one seems to be maintaining a distinction as far as putting one kind of entry in one and another in the other, it seems haphazard as to whether an entry uses e.g. {{lb|en|US|regional}} / {{lb|en|UK|regional}} like pope, mercury, jack, snap, wedge, phosphate, tab, or gob, or else uses {{lb|en|US|dialectal}} / {{lb|en|UK|dialectal}} like pope (!), admire, haunt, on, sook, book, yinz, and gon. Many of the {{lb|en|US|dialectal}} / {{lb|en|UK|dialectal}} terms go on to specify which regions they're used in, like "Pittsburgh and Appalachia" or "Northern England" or "Scotland". And we put every more specific dialect category as a subcat of "Regional", not of "Dialectal". I'm not entirely sure which category the entries in the two top-level categories should be consolidated into, but I'm inclined to think they should go in one or the other. Or do we want to try to implement some distinction? (At the very least, entries that use "regional" but then go on to specify the regions, like "US, regional, Pittsburgh", can drop the unnecessary "regional".) The one situation I can think of where simply changing "regional" to "dialectal" would not work is that some entries are labelled "regional AAVE". Thoughts? - -sche (discuss) 01:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• I personally think that dialectal and regional terms should be separated. Since a term for something in a region from an out-of-region dialect should be categorize into both regional dialects. -- 65.92.244.147 16:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That doesn't make sense. It's not the thing referred to that makes it regional or dialectal, it's the term itself. Do you have an example in mind? Chuck Entz (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• I think the real problem is that it's not clear what we mean when we say something is dialectal. Linguistically, a dialect can be any speech variety that is separate from the rest of the language. With a language such as English that has multiple standards, you could say that much of the language is dialectal, though no one uses the term that way. I suspect there may be a value judgment involved: dialectal English is the way local people talk when they're not using proper English. Regional has less of that: I say potayto and you say potahto, but that's just a matter of geography. Theoretically, sociolects like AAVE and Cockney would be better described as dialectal than regional, but I'm not sure whether they're described as either. For a lot of people, though, it's probably whatever it's called in the references they check (or copy from). Chuck Entz (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

"dialectal English is the way local people talk when they're not using proper English".

What, pray tell, is proper English? General Australian? Standard Canadian English? General American (*had trouble including that as a suggestion with a straight face*)? Standard Indian English?

If someone were to suggest that whatever is arbitrarily declared to be the 'standard' dialect of the English in their country is thus "proper English", and every other dialect is not, then that is obvious nonsense. I get that that is the reason why you used the phrasing value judgement, but if what you suggest to be going on is actually going on, then that is a problem.

Wiktionary aims to be descriptive, not prescriptive. So if the category "Regional English" is being used to suggest that certain dialectal terms are more "proper" than others, then we need to get rid of one category or the other. Tharthan (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not agreeing with the value judgment. I was too lazy this morning to put everything in quotation marks. The basic problem is that this terminology goes back to earlier academic standards and it's hard to tell what it means in a more modern context. A dialectologist or other linguist would probably have a more rigorous definition, but we don't seem to. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Category:en:Artificial languages

This should probably be moved to Category:Conlangs, because:

• The term "artificial language" is ambiguous (see artificial language and w:Artificial language). While Category:Conlangs may be hard to parse for the uninitiated, opacity is better than ambiguity. There's also other categories with potentially opaque names, such as Category:Forteana, Category:Semiotics, and Category:Combinatorics.
• The term conlang/constructed language is generally more common than artificial language, especially within the community that makes/uses them. It's telling that Wikipedia uses w:Constructed languages for what the category covers, and the Language Creation Society doesn't mention "artificial languages" once on its homepage.
• Changing the name of the category will lead to greater consistency with Category:Conlanging, putting the contrast between the purpose of each category (names of constructed languages vs. conlanging terminology) in sharper relief.

. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 11:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The odd choice of wording was intended to avoid the topical category conflicting with Category:Constructed languages, which is a holding category for those languages. Given that our MediaWiki trappings make it impossible to resolve this conflict, I support this proposal as a better compromise. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Do you mean that Category:en:Constructed languages would conflict with Category:Constructed languages? Would Category:en:Conlangs be an option? - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 06:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it's not a conflict between Category:en:Constructed languages and Category:Constructed languages, but between two possibly versions of Category:Constructed languages. Our structure for topical categories (categories for entries associated with a particular topic) and set categories (categories for names of things) consists of an umbrella category that holds all the language-specific categories that are the same as the umbrella category, but prefixed with the language code of the language in question. In other words, you can't have Category:en:Constructed languages without an umbrella category called Category:Constructed languages. The problem is that Category:Constructed languages can't be both an umbrella category for language-specific categories and the container for things like Category:Esperanto language and Category:Volapük language. In order to have language-specific categories, you have to have an umbrella category that doesn't conflict with the container category for constructed languages. Currently that umbrella category is Category:Artificial languages, but the proposal here is to change it to Category:Conlangs. Thus,Category:en:Artificial languages would become Category:en:Conlangs. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

bainin, bawneen

One should almost certainly be an alt-form of the other. I’m not sure which is best as lemma or whether the pronunciations should be identical. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 05:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

de kat sturen

It looks like this is only citable with a pronoun, so the lemma should be zijn kat sturen. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

take advantage of, take advantage

Tagged by Adam78 in July 2019, but apparently never listed. The specific diffs for the taggings are Special:Diff/53620744 and Special:Diff/53620742. The entries seem to have some distinct definitions listed, with take advantage of having "To exploit, for example sexually." and take advantage having "To profit from a situation deliberately." They also seem to share the definition "To use or make use of."/"To make use of something." Of final note, take advantage has a quotation with a usage that is not followed by of. Feel free to move this entry into the 2019 section if appropriate. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

all out, all-out

Two assorted groups of adjective and adverb senses. Merge? Equinox ◑ 14:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd bet that you couldn't come up with definitions on the merged entry that were both complete and subsitutable as both adjective and adverb in such definitions. Also I'd expect that synonyms might need to be distinguished by PoS. DCDuring (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't mean that Adj and Adv should be merged, but rather that the two named entries should be merged. Equinox ◑ 21:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Support for the sake of deduplication. - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 06:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. I think the adjective is normally all-out. The adverb seems to mostly be "all out". So it seems like each POS is best situated where it is, on its own page...? - -sche (discuss) 05:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Netherlands_Malay

These are terms that were historically used in the Dutch East Indies, perhaps to some degree also in Malay-speaking territories of the Dutch East India Company. A rename to Category:Dutch_East_Indies_Malay makes the most sense. It is doubtful that a category "Netherlands Malay" is needed because the number of speakers of Malay in the Netherlands is not very high. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Support, assuming this can be demonstrated with cites for all the entries. Categories for polities that existed in the past is a good practice when merited; cf. Category:Rhodesian English. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

one-on-one, one-to-one

Significant overlap. Equinox ◑ 18:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

reconnoiter, reconnoitre

Merge (note that both have additional translations and reconnoiter was WOTD). J3133 (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I've merged the verb translations for reconnoiter and reconnoitre. They are all now on reconnoiter#Translations, and reconnoitre#Translations points to this with {{trans-see}}.Voltaigne (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

classic, classical

Not synonyms, of course, but certain senses overlap almost entirely (except people have edited one and not the other without realising). Equinox ◑ 04:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

An approach would be to put all and only the true definitions that are most commonly use a given spelling in that spelling and also have a definition in each saying that it is a synonym of the other spelling. That might not be exactly true, but would be close. To rely on the other term appearing in related terms seems a bit weak. DCDuring (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's what we may have to do, with glosses in the {{synonym of}}s to make clear that each entry being a {{synonym of}} the other is not (just) circular. Like egoist vs egotist (we are not the only dictionary to have a sense line defining each of those terms as the other, in addition to other definitions). - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If possible and if properly executed, the approach I advocate gets you out of circularity for each individual definition. DCDuring (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

banane Gros Michel to Gros Michel (French)

I would do this myself (it's SOP), but I don't know gender and other grammatical details. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

een sprong in het duister maken

I think this should be moved to sprong in het duister and converted to a noun. The forms with maken are not overwhelmingly common compared to other uses. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

slue, slew

There are several "rotation" senses that are patchily duplicated between these entries. Equinox ◑ 19:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

fight shy, fight shy of

The definitions are different (I think fight shy is better; the other is too vague) and it seems that the entries should be merged anyway. Note that fight shy can occur alone, without of. Equinox ◑ 02:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

spit in someone's face

Should be moved to spit in the face of, since one can spit in the face of, e.g., the law, the government, hip-hop culture, and other non-people nouns. Imetsia (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually it should be spit in one's face, as there are already many such set phrases involving a genitive construction where the variable object is represented as one's. For example: change one's mind—though there is also change someone's mind, which is redundant and should probably be deleted. — 69.120.64.15 02:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

In this case (spitting) it should be "someone's", because "one" spits in "someone" else's face. We use "one" where the phrase is constructed so that it happens to oneself. Equinox ◑ 20:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's conceivable that someone says, "How dare you spit in my face?", meaning that the person addressed has treated the speaker disrespectfully. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Spit in quoting is "TFFFF" or "PTFFFU". 155.137.27.93 15:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see now, the distinction is that one's constructions are supposed to be reflexive. The distinction in titling however is not obvious and I wish it were made clear somewhere. — 69.120.64.15 03:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

swaddler, Swaddler

Can/should the Irish religion senses at these two entries be merged somehow? Equinox ◑ 20:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Reconstruction:Proto-Tocharian/jä- → Reconstruction:Proto-Tocharian/yä-

All of the other Proto-Tocharian entries so far use ⟨y⟩ for this phoneme */j/, equivalent to Adams' ⟨i̯⟩. This is also the letter used on the Wikipedia article for Proto-Tocharian and in the standard romanization of Tocharian languages, which we use, not to mention for the corresponding phoneme in PIE, *y. It would be nonsensical and confusing to use ⟨j⟩ instead for the Proto-Tocharian stage only. The page was created recently (April), so presumably its creator just forgot to check the existing entries. — 69.120.64.15 03:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Wait, apparently there is a distinction in how Adams uses ⟨i̯⟩ versus ⟨y⟩ for Proto-Tocharian, but I have no clue what it is. (It has nothing to do with PIE *d versus *y, for instance, and nothing to do with laryngeals.) — 69.120.64.15 04:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, it seems to be non-phonemic and have to do with the following vowel. */jä/ (⟨ä⟩ ≈ IPA /ɨ/) and */jē/ are written ⟨i̯ä⟩ and ⟨i̯ē⟩ respectively, but /jV/ for all other vowels seem to use ⟨y⟩. I doubt this is a necessary distinction for Wiktionary to make, since it seems entirely predictable from environment, but I'm still unsure what purpose it is meant to serve. @GabeMoore, might you be able to weigh in? — 69.120.64.15 04:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail versus if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail

Suggest making when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail the primary and if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail the alt form. Rationale: sounds better and more hits on Google in a 4:3 ratio. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Support for the sake of deduplication. - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 07:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:English words without vowels → Category:English words spelled without vowels

I'm all but certain that one can't have a word without pronounced vowels, but I feel that it reads better if it's explicitly stated anyway. Johano★ 01:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

One can't? Hmmm... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Thanks for the chuckle. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 04:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha: Shhh...Chuck Entz (talk)

Those categories also have some questionable entries, particularly with Welsh loanwords like cwm and crwth... Seems like it just checks for the absence of a/e/i/o/u/y. – Guitarmankev1 ^(talk) 12:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe "Category:English words without vowel letters"? —Mahāgaja · talk 14:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah (except maybe "English terms"), that would also reduce how dumb it looks that the category includes lots of numbers which are quite regularly pronounced with vowels, and things where the vowels have merely been obscured (b****cks), and abbreviations that aren't even "words" per se, like BHD. - -sche (discuss) 22:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I support moving to Category:English terms spelled without vowels. - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 07:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I think the category should be renamed then. Ffffrr (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, why is it a subcategory of Category:English shortenings? Sure, a lot of shortenings omit the vowels, but the converse isn't true: hmm, grr, 1984 (unless every number is a shortening of its spelled out form, which doesn't seem all that useful). Do I need to start a separate request to remove a subcategory? Medmunds (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that was off topic here. Answered my own question; moving this to Category talk:English words without vowels. — Medmunds (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

July 2021

Reconstruction:Proto-Dravidian/cinki-wēr → Reconstruction:Proto-Dravidian/cinkiwēr

Like other Proto-Dravidian compound words, should not contain a hyphen. — 69.120.64.15 23:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

rubber-band, rubberbanding

A bit fiddly: one entry is a verb and the other a noun, and they both have multiple senses with slight distinctions that should be ironed out. Equinox ◑ 13:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

armenishte

Overlap with armenisht. Also, it may be an adjective not a noun Wubble You (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

checked tone#English, entering tone#English

Merge into checked and entering? —Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Saltillo in Rapa Nui

Previous discussion: User talk:Kwamikagami#Saltillo
Pinging @Kwamikagami, Metaknowledge as users that were already part of the discussion. For others, the following TLDR:

• User:Kwamikagami has moved a few Rapa Nui pages en masse from a straight apostrophe (U+0027) to a saltillo (U+A78C)
• The reason they give for this is that, since unicode classifies the apostrophe as a punctuation mark, rather than a letter, it shouldn't be used as a letter, and thus the visually similar saltillo should be used.
• The counter-reason given is that Unicode's classification is arbitrary and has little to do with actual usage in the language, which we as Wiktionary want to follow.
• There is one mention of the saltillo being open to usage, in Kieviet (2007).
• There is yet to be found at least one usage of the saltillo for Rapa Nui in the wild. since both Kieviet (2007) and schoolbooks published by the Chilean government use either a straight apostrophe (U+0027) [This one is most common], or a curly apostrophe (U+2018) provided with a font that renders it similar to a prime (U+2032). Other grammar books and dictionaries use any of the three characters.

I believe we should move these pages back to a straight apostrophe, and set the use of the straight apostrophe in stone at WT:ARAP. What do others think? Thadh (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

We have four sources:

We have Du Feu, who used a special font because the usual fonts available to her were inadequate for Rapa Nui, which required two special letters (the glottal stop and the engma). If the ASCII apostrophe were adequate for glottal stop, there would've been no need for a special letter.

We have Kieviet, who states that, now that Unicode provides for the saltillo, there is no longer a need for a special font.

We have the ministry dictionary, which uses an apostrophe letter -- not ASCII input with smart quotes, because it has the '9' shape at the beginning of a word.

We have the ministry educational material, which uses a hodgepodge of ASCII apostrophes, curly apostrophes and curly quotation marks -- that is, sometimes '1' shaped, sometimes '9' shaped and sometimes '6' shaped, with little consistency. Presumably we wish to aim for better than that, even if it is common.

In most languages that use an apostrophe-like letter for glottal stop, it's common to substitute a keyboard <'>, but that doesn't mean we should do the same. When writing Chechen, it's common to use a digit <1> for palochka, but again that doesn't mean we should do the same. When writing Ossetian, it's common to use a Latin rather than Cyrillic æ, but if you did that in a domain name, it would likely be tagged as phishing. The shortcuts people take with typography may be common, but a dictionary is expected to be more professional. kwami (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

To briefly summarise the important points of what I said on Thadh's Kwamikagami's talk page: This move should have been raised here first, so the weight of the evidence should have to point to the saltillo for us not to move it back. Kwami is from Wikipedia, and believes that we should be "more professional", even at the cost of ignoring all actual usage in a language community. (He has not, to the best of my knowledge, taken me up on my suggestion that he should go to the Wikipedias of languages like Rapa Nui and Hausa that use the apostrophe, and tell them that they're doing it wrong — just us.) I was open to the possibility that the saltillo might see actual use, but the fact that it doesn't makes this seem to be all about the Unicode specifications, which are not relevant to a descriptive dictionary. As I result, I support moving back to the apostrophe. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

There are several recent cases where @Mahagaja has advocated a particular Unicode character instead of a the straight apostrophe in such cases, but I don't remember the specifics off the top of my head. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

We do need to use Unicode correctly. The straight apostrophe (U+0027) and curly apostrophe (U+2018) are punctuation marks and should not be used as letters. That's what the saltillo (U+A78C) and modifier letter apostrophe (U+02BC) are for. If using punctuation marks as letters were acceptable, Unicode wouldn't have bothered creating those characters. Using punctuation marks for letters is as bad as mixing Latin and Cyrillic (which is something we used to do for Montenegrin Serbo-Croatian, but don't anymore), as Kwami points out, and just because other sources do it doesn't mean we should. We can, of course, have hard redirects from spellings with the more easily typable straight apostrophe, or put the correct page name in {{also}} if the spelling with the straight apostrophe exists (as a punctuation mark) in another language. But Kwami was quite right to move these Rapa Nui pages to the spelling using the correct character, and they should not be moved back. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: So if nearly everyone writing text in a given language (say, tens of millions of people) use a character that you consider "wrong", we should still avoid it because it doesn't respect Unicode? Whatever happened to descriptivism? (And if you think this is a silly hypothetical, it's not — I just described the situation with the apostrophe in Hausa.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It reminds me of when I started adding entries in the Cupeño language and had to figure out how to deal with a letter that the (pre-Unicode) main source defends as being very easy to replicate by filing bits off the $ key on a typewriter. People work with what they have available, and it doesn't always fit neatly into the right categories. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: If tens of millions of people used Rapa Nui, it would have its own keyboard layout and the saltillo would be easy to type for them. Descriptivism applies to language, not orthography. It's not anti-descriptivist to say that recieve is a misspelling, and using an apostrophe as a letter is also a misspelling. The only difference is that using an apostrophe instead of a saltillo isn't a mistake that can be made when writing by hand or by typewriter or that can be detected in a photocopy or a scan, so it's more subtle (like mixing Latin and Cyrillic), but it's still a mistake. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: As I said, my example wasn't a hypothetical. There are somewhere around 60 million native speakers of Hausa per WP. Mac offers lots of keyboards for lots of languages, including one for Hawaiian complete with ʻokina, but it doesn't provide a Hausa one. When I search for Hausa keyboards on Google, they provide the apostrophe and quotation marks, but no character designated by Unicode as a letter. So are you really maintaining that nearly all typed material in Hausa is misspelt? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, though of course that's not the Hausa users' fault, it's the fault of the software companies that care more about providing support for a minority language spoken by 24,000 people in the United States than about providing support for a language spoken by tens of millions of people in Africa (i.e. systemic racism). I don't blame Hausa users for doing the best they can with the materials available to them, and I know it's unrealistic to expect them all to type ʼ instead of just hitting the apostrophe key, but as a dictionary it's our responsibility to do things the right way rather than the easy way. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: Systemic racism is the root cause of lots of annoying things, but some of those things are set in stone. At this point, Hausa users have no reason to follow Unicode rules even when they can. I'm sure the editors at Hausa Wikipedia can figure out how to get the "correct" character if they wanted to, but I see that you too have no interest in going over there and telling them they're doing it wrong. I have a radical idea: let's respect their choices. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I have a better idea. We'll let Hausa Wikipedia worry about Hausa Wikipedia, and we'll worry about Wiktionary, which, as I said, has a responsibility to use Unicode correctly, even when other Wikimedia projects use it wrong. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I thought we had a responsibility to document languages, not be Unicode purists. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

If Wikitionary or our browsers represent the languages incorrectly, because they follow the Unicode definition that punctuation marks are punctuation marks, then we are not documenting the languages correctly. If a language commission chooses a specific Unicode point that is one thing, but that's seldom the case. Since we by necessity choose a Unicode point for each letter regardless, we might as well choose one that represents the language well. kwami (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to jump in quickly, as someone who is Nigerian and has had to go through the process of creating my own keyboards to be able to type properly in Yorùbá and as someone who is learning Hawaiian, while there definitely is systemic racism when it comes to African languages, I really would not pit them against Hawaiian. Hawaiian still lacks a ton of support, sometimes even less than Hausa, Igbo, & Yorùbá (see: spellcheck on PC Microsoft Word or language packs for Windows), and people are still trying to get more support for it. At the same time, Hawaiian is more than just "a minority language spoken by 24,000 people in the United States", it is an indigenous language that currently is the product of tons of effort gone towards revitalizing it and making sure that it's well-supported. And so, please do not pit them against each other saying that Hawaiian having more support (even though it doesn't) is systemic racism. The communities are aiming for very similar goals and are all dealing with racism in our own ways, not from each other.

Re: the main issue at hand. I would go with what the speakers of the language use. It's similar to what we do for Hausa, Igbo, & Yorùbá tones. No matter how annoying it can be, since the majority of speakers don't write tones out, we don't put them in page titles and only in headword lines, since we want people to be able to find words that they see "in the wild", which will often not be tone-marked. So it's a similar issue here, if the majority of speakers and majority of texts don't use the special character and it's not hard prescribed, then the page title shouldn't change, and the special character can be put in the headword line. That's my personal take on that issue. AG202 (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This isn't a case of leaving out elements like tone marks. All RS's for Rapa Nui use the glottal stop. It's a matter of deciding which Unicode point to use for it, not whether to include it.

Re. the poor support for W. African languages, that's not racism so much as bias in the interests of the people developing Unicode. When Unicode decided they would no longer accept precomposed Latin, there was a call for people to get what they needed in before the deadline. But the respondents were all working on European languages. After West Africans started complaining that Unicode didn't adequately support their languages, the Unicode people realized they'd fucked up. At least, the ones I've talked to say they wished they'd realized what was going to happen, and spent more time on major African languages than on minor European languages.

Now that there are supplemental planes, there's room for more precomposed Latin. But as computers improve, there's less and less need for it, so I doubt they'll start accepting precomposed letters again.

I find it amazing that you could write Yoruba without tone. I mean, you can write it without vowels as long as you include the tone! kwami (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

There are many reasons that folks don't write Yoruba with tones, partly because of a lack of solid education, partly because of a lack of technological support, partly because you can (usually) tell what you mean from context, and a ton more. There was a solid seminar done last year at the British Library about it actually, but yea it's complicated. I wish that precomposed characters could be brought back, but that's a pipe dream. I don't think that you can write it without vowels as long as you include the tone though, as Yoruba is very vowel-heavy, and it'd get confusing quickly.

In terms of the question at hand though, I brought up the comparison more of a way to show how proscribed writing & everyday writing can interact on Wiktionary. If the majority of speakers type/write one way in informal & formal registers, that way should be the way that should be primarily reflected on Wiktionary, while the proscribed way can be shown in the headword line or an alternative form or whatever. However, I don't know the specifics of the situation with Rapa Nui, so I won't comment directly on the specifics of addressing it. AG202 (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

My impression of Yoruba, from the very very little I think I know of it, is that in fluent colloquial speech the vowels tend to assimilate to each other, and even consonants sometimes drop out, so that you might be left with a long [ooooo] with a bunch of tones and just a few consonants. It's the tone that makes it comprehensible. But that's by ear; I guess it wouldn't work well in writing.

But Hausa, yeah, I can see omitting the tone without any problem, except maybe the need to dab an occasional word. You might learn to write those few words with tone, the way accent marks distinguish homonyms in Romance languages, and otherwise ignore it. And some languages mark changes in tone, rather than the tone of each syllable. But I doubt that would work for Yoruba either. kwami (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I have a suggestion that might be able to square this circle, but it's a bit awkward to explain so bear with me:

• There are situations when it makes sense to remember the difference between the orthographic character a person intends to write, and the Unicode character which they actually use. A good example of this is the full stop "." (U+002E), which is also used in English (and Translingually) to represent the decimal point. We all agree that a full stop and decimal point are two different things, because any competent French translator would have to treat them differently, but the important thing is that that remains true regardless of which Unicode codepoints we happen to use. Indeed, it's true whether or not we're even encoding the characters at all. The same is true in French with the decimal point and the comma, too. Equally, nobody who receives "A-" on their homework is receiving "A dash" or "A hyphen".
• Conversely, ｊｕｓｔ　ｂｅｃａｕｓｅ　Ｉ　ｗｒｉｔｅ　ｉｎ　ｆｕｌｌ－ｗｉｄｔｈ doesn't mean that any of us actually think "ｊ" has a distinct identity to "j" etc. There might be technical, historical and/or stylistic reasons why we have both, but the point is that we consider them to have the same orthographic identity.
• However, none of this prevents us from having a particular manual of style when it comes to certain characters. If we want to start using the en dash "–" (U+2013) or minus sign "−" (U+2212) in places where people intended to use them (i.e. intended characters with those orthographical identities), then that's fine. It would be no more of a problem than our choice to use a clear, black, legible font on white by default, when the original might be scrawled on a barely legible manuscript. Obviously there are no codepoints to interpret in cases such as that. Hell, a lot of the time the codepoints "used" are actually just whatever the OCR software vomited up anyway. Just like with misspellings, there needs to be some genuine intention, and it needs to be considered with respect to the orthographical identity of the characters, and not the codepoints they happened to pick.
• A final point is that writers of a language don't necessarily know their own language perfectly, or they might not perceive a conscious distinction between two characters that does actually exist, because the context usually makes it so obvious (e.g. the full stop and the decimal point). It's not enough to say "yes, they intended to write an apostrophe because that's what they used". Are they really treating it as one?

I don't know enough about Rapa Nui to know whether the saltillo is the most appropriate character, but I hope that's a framework that makes it easier to determine the answer. Theknightwho (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

-u

See WT:Etymology scriptorium/2021/September#korku, -u and -i

This Turkish suffix entry is probably the same as -i, and possibly -ı, due to vowel harmony. While I don't know much about Turkish, the fact that this was created as the only Turkish edit ever by this contributor and the other two were created by a veteran contributor who is a native speaker has to count for something. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

-u is a harmonized form of -i, as are -ü and -ı. The canonical forms of suffixes are those with i and e. I disagree with the current policy of essentially providing the same definition 4 (or 2) times, see for instance the situation with -im, -ım, -um, -üm where only one contains all meanings and etymological information. I'm in favor of keeping the harmonized realizations of the suffixes as separate articles but I'm strongly in favor of converting the non-canonical forms into simple referral pages (see -dük). --Fytcha (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

post-transition metal, poor metal

Apparently the same thing. Reduce one entry to a synonym? Equinox ◑ 16:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Sieng

Sundanese by @Rankf. I'm guessing this should be lowercase. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Bicycle types > Category:Bicycles

·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree. DovaModaal (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 07:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Appendix:Glossary of fighting games

Move to Wikipedia?
It's encylopaedic and not really about words, for example the etymology of footsies isn't explained (related to foot?). --Myrelia (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There is good stuff but it's mostly written like a long essay or book. Equinox ◑ 00:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This would almost certainly not survive on Wikipedia. I have mixed feelings about the Appendix namespace here, as it seems a lot of things go there that would never be acceptable in the main dictionary, but that appendix pages are so hard to find for the casual user that it doesn't really bring us down. —Soap— 11:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

If we do end up deleting this, i'd hope we could try to contact the editor who wrote most of it (see User_talk:DKThel). There are other wikis that could host content like this where they wouldn't be pushed into the background like our appendix pages are. Admittedly the trade-off for that is having ads and using a site that is itself harder to find. —Soap— 11:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

There's definitely no point in moving it to Wikipedia, since it was originally moved here from Wikipedia, so they already decided they don't want it and foisted it on us. That's why it's written so encyclopedically. If anyone's interested in it, they should clean it up to make it more dictionarian; otherwise we should just delete it. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

A lot of these, to be honest, should just have their own entries. AG202 (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

November 2021

Francian, Frankian

These two entries link to each other rather confusingly and there may be redundancy in it. Equinox ◑ 00:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Eŭkaristio > eŭkaristio

This entry seems to have been created in title case by mistake; while proper nouns are capitalized in Esperanto, "eŭkaristio" is not a proper noun and thus should be moved to eŭkaristio. --Martelkapo (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

What does actual usage look like? Eucharist is a capitalized common noun in English; maybe it is in Esperanto too. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

sfaccimma

Seems to be an alternative spelling of sfacimma, or the other way round. I don't know which should be made the main entry. --Akletos (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Sfacimma is an alternative spelling of sfaccimma, which is how the word has been mostly written in the past years; the IPA pronunciation of the word is nowadays always /ʃfat͡ʃˈt͡ʃimmə/, with the voiceless postalveolar affricate having always the gemination, hence the spelling cc. Antomanu14 (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

guaranty

Senses 1 and 3 seem to be the same thing. Maybe this could just be reduced to "dated form of guarantee", even. Equinox ◑ 10:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it's been an alternative form of guarantee for a couple of centuries. Only recently (this decade) has it become much less common than guarantee. DCDuring (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

OTOH, MWOnline has differing, but overlapping, definitions for the two terms. DCDuring (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

wanghee, whangee

(There's whanghee too, but that is suitably an alt-form stub entry.) Equinox ◑ 11:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

dormitive virtue, dormitive principle

Equinox ◑ 05:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022

second lady, Second Lady; second gentleman, Second Gentleman

Equinox ◑ 10:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

exoreic and exorheic

probably the same thing. Br00pVain (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

ecphoria, ecphory

Seemingly synonyms. Equinox ◑ 19:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁én

Tagged but not listed in August 2021 by User:Caoimhin ceallach, providing the reason:

I'm in favour of moving this page to *én. As {{R:ine:LIPP|page=221|vol=2}} shows, there is no evidence that points to an initial laryngeal and Greek and Vedic speak against it.

I've redacted the preceding quote by incorporating the reference in the superscript. Thadh (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

We reconstruct all PIE terms with an initial laryngeal on the project, per current PIE theory, so *én = *h₁én. Sidenote, {{R:ine:LIPP}} is an embarrassment in the academic community, and should never be used as a primary source. --Sokkjo (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

can you elaborate on why you think {{R:ine:LIPP}} is an embarrassment? --Ioe bidome (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ioe bidome: His hypothetical system of deriving roots from particles is largely considered crackpottery. --– Sokkjō 20:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sokkjo @Ioe bidome I don't care where we hold this conversation, as long as you reply. I'm the second person who has asked you to elaborate. If you can't, your concern will have to be dismissed. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I have elaborated to why accademics largely reject {{R:ine:LIPP}}, and referred you to this unfavorable review, DOI:10.1515/zcph-2019-0009. That's all neither here nor there, as on this project, we subscribe to larygeal theory, which also calls for word-intitial larygeals before vowels. If you wish to make an arugment for why we should do away with that standard, feel free to start a discussion in the WT:Beer parlour, but as is, your move request is unwarranted. --– Sokkjō 08:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sokkjo

• You seem to have not read that review. If you did you'd see that it is overwhelmingly positive:
  • "Ce sera un ouvrage de référence pour longtemps."
  • "Ces remarques ne retirent rien à l’importance de l’ouvrage, qui peut servir de base tant à une recherche synchronique éclairée consacrée à tel ou tel groupe de langues qu’à une étude proprement comparative."
• The other review I'm aware of is also overwhelmingly positive:
  • "In this massive, and truly monumental, two-volume work that was years in the making, author George Dunkel (henceforth D) draws on the extensive research, and the literally dozens of articles, that he has done throughout his distinguished career as an Indo-Europeanist, investigating the uninflected bits and pieces – the ἄπτωτα (áptota), the indeclinabilia¹ – of the Indo-European lexicon that are so indispensable to the phrasal and sentential syntax and to discourse and text structure in all the family’s languages." https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/dia.33.4.05jos
• Nothing about this thing takes away from laryngeal theory.
• I'm going to ask again: please elaborate on your misgivings about LIPP. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Since I'm guessing you don't have academic access to the second page:

Reste une réserve. Malgré la prudence de l’auteur, les processus de formation des grammèmes qu’il étudie relèvent, par définition, de la reconstruction, et l’ouvrage n’étudie pas de manière détaillée les processus qui ont lieu à date historique. Parfois le lecteur peut avoir l’impression que le système titué est d’une complexité qui le rend typologiquement invraisemblable; ainsi, vol. 1, pp. 24–26, l’auteur pense pouvoir reconstruire pour l’indo-européen quatre thèmes pronominaux qui relèvent de l’exophore proximale, deux qui relèvent de l’exophore distale, et quatre thèmes anaphoriques (George Dunkel écrit que les thèmes liés à l’exophore proximale et distale ne sont pas en contraste sémantique les uns avec les autres, mais seulement avec l’absence de déixis; ce point est obscur aux yeux du recenseur).Une telle richesse en thèmes démonstratifs nécessiterait une explication. Au demeurant l’opposition entre exophore proximale et distale n’est pas nécessairement suffisante pour couvrir tous les thèmes de l’indo-européen, qui a pu posséder par exemple trois degrés d’exophore.
En fait il peut sembler que la reconstruction des grammèmes indo-européens est vouée au flou, faute de données permettant d’étudier, notamment, la sémantique exacte des éléments concernés aux différents stades chronologiques et dans les différentes aires géographiques à prendre en compte.

Again, I'm not here to agrue about LIPP -- that's beside the point. The point is that the established convention we follow on the project for reconstructioning PIE is that #VC- only possibly exists in pronouns, if even there. See {{R:ine:IEL|52}}. – Sokkjō 23:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sokkjo, I read the whole review. I even quoted from the second page. As I said before, a reservation does not equal a invalidation.

The validity of LIPP is very much on point. I would like to mention an alternative reconstruction *én (and if others agree move the page), which is supported by evidence instead of on some misplaced assumption. You preclude any discussion by rejecting the evidence out of hand.

In addition, I would like to continue citing LIPP, so your violent objection to it ("embarrassment to the academic community") is relevant to me. I think it is fair to say that if you could back up your objection you would have done so by now.

I am of course aware that roots had a CₓVCₓ structure. There are good reasons for assuming this. However, this is not the case for suffixes, it is not the case for pronouns, it is not the case for adverbs and it is, indeed, not the case for particles.

Your "established convention" that #VC- entries aren't allowed, doesn't exist. If you think otherwise please point to it. WT:AINE does not mention the phonotactics of entries. And at any rate, WT:RECONS clearly says that "variants and disputed forms can then be addressed in great detail within the text of the pages themselves". If you don't want *én on the page, you need to have (at the very least) substantive arguments why the evidence supporting it is wrong.

But I'd ask you to please be more careful about your references. You keep quoting things which don't support your position. {{R:ine:IEL|52}}: "It seems that onsetless initial syllables (#VC-) were rare" ie not nonexistent. LIPP, the first systematically study of Indo-European particles, documents evidence for a substantial number of exactly these. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of what I cited, "rare" meaning they are limited to pronouns, and to continue on to the following sentence, "It is common practice now to reconstruct initial laryngeals even when not strictly provable". You seem to be under the impression that I, created this "common practice" and I set that convention here on the project. I'm honored you think I have that seniority, but despite contributing here for over a decade, it long preceeds me. If you want to argue against the status quo, not just on this project, but in academia at large, the weight is on you to do so. – Sokkjō 03:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

February 2022

mannerism, Mannerism

The art/literature senses are defined very differently at the two entries, which seems like a problem. One is already tagged for cleanup, so, good luck! Equinox ◑ 00:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

shnor, schnorr

Different spellings of the same word, from Yiddish. 70.172.194.25 19:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge Category:Classical Chinese, Category:Chinese literary terms

Category:Classical Chinese presently has ~270 pages.

Category:Chinese literary terms presently has ~8,000 pages.

(Thankfully, Category:Literary Chinese lemmas has 0 pages.)

Category:Classical Chinese is currently described as:

{{dialectboiler|zh|the 5th century BC to 2nd century AD, and continued as a [[literary language]] until the 20th century}}

[[Category:Old Chinese lemmas]]
[[Category:Middle Chinese lemmas]]
[[Category:Literary Chinese lemmas]]

Category:Korean Classical Chinese is a child category of Category:Classical Chinese, and may be a rationale for keeping Category:Classical Chinese in some form.

—Fish bowl (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fish bowl @Wpi @Justinrleung @RcAlex36 @沈澄心 I think we need to do something about this. I propose the following:

1. At a minimum, we should merge Category:Classical Chinese with the Category:Literary Chinese language by renaming the latter to Category:Classical Chinese language.
2. I also think we should demote the resulting Category:Classical Chinese language to an etym-only language of Category:Chinese language. It's purely a literary construct and not on the same level as the spoken varieties. Note for example that we don't have separate languages for Classical Latin, Koranic Arabic or Modern Standard Arabic.
3. Finally, we should consider merging Category:Chinese literary terms into Category:Classical Chinese, as proposed above, but I don't have the background to know whether this is a good idea.

Any objections if I carry out #1 and #2? Benwing2 (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: "Literary Chinese" is the generally regarded the same as "Classical Chinese", but reading w:Classical_Chinese#Definitions I think we might want to keep them separate for lexicalgraphic purposes, by treating Literary Chinese as the later stages. Note that Classical Chinese is also distinct from "literary Chinese" (note the capitalisation), although they overlap in certain places (such as Ming/Qing era usage).

Using the hypothetical conjunction "if" as an example, 誠 / 诚 (chéng) and 向使 (xiàngshǐ) are found in Qin-Han era Classical Chinese, but not in Ming-Qing era Classical Chinese (which uses words closer to modern usage instead, i.e. literary terms) - I wouldn't call the former ones as literary terms, instead more like obsolete or archaic.

Early Classical Chinese (Qin-Han) is significantly different from modern Chinese in terms of grammar and pronunciation, a reasonably educated person would have a hard time understanding a text even with annotations; Tang-Song era Classical Chinese is still somewhat incomprehensible with a couple of obsolete (in modern standards) terms; late Classical Chinese (Ming-Qing) is more fuzzy and one might simply call it literary Chinese; in early modern times these are all considered to be one thing, which is why we have the misnomer Literary Chinese.

I think #1 of your proposal would be relatively uncontroversial, though I would wait to see input from others.

#2 is questionable, depending on what do we regard Chinese to be. Because we have everything placed under Chinese, this corresponds to like stuffing everything from Old Latin (or even earlier) to Neo-Latin into a subvariety of a Latin-Romance language without treating Latin itself as a language, which is a very awkward thing.

Classical Chinese has its own quotations (and as Fish bowl have mentioned we have Category:Korean Classical Chinese and Category:Vietnamese Classical Chinese - the quotations for these varieties are also placed under the Chinese L2), which are categorised as Category:Literary Chinese terms with quotations. Changing Classical Chinese to etymology-only would mean these quotations have nowhere to go - it is often impossible to discern where they should otherwise be treated. I would rather counter-propose that Category:Old Chinese language and Category:Middle Chinese language be treated as an etymology-only variant of Classical Chinese - OC and MC are essentially just a snapshot of the sound system at a particular time point in the history of Chinese.

#3 is 1000% a no, though I would support it if one day we were to accept Altaic languages as valid :)

Fish bowl's proposal might have been motivated by the similarities between late Classical Chinese and literary terms in modern Chinese, but a more in-depth look would suggest that this is untrue. – wpi (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Wpi Old Chinese and Middle Chinese are more conventional languages, even if semi-reconstructed, so I would argue they should stay as full languages, whereas Classical Chinese is somewhat of an artificial construct, and normally we place those as etym languages. I think the issue here is that there is more than one Classical Chinese, whereas most Classical Foo languages are fairly unified. This suggests we should separate Classical Chinese into something like Old Classical Chinese or Early Classical Chinese (an etym language of Old Chinese), Middle Classical Chinese (an etym language of Middle Chinese), and Late Classical Chinese (an etym language of Chinese?). Benwing2 (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

A few issues here. I think we've been kind of sloppy when it comes to the literary/classical distinction. Most entries have been using "literary" since that was what was the norm back in the day. "Classical" came later as the "Classical" label was introduced to other languages, which is probably why we have fewer uses of this label. While I think the Literary/Classical distinction is useful, I wonder if in labelling how we should be making the distinction. If a term is used in both Classical Chinese and Literary Chinese, such as 首 "head" (now labelled "archaic"), do we have to label it with both? Whatever we decide on, I think we also need to think about how this is organized in {{zh-x}}.

In principle, I think #1 would be something okay to do. #2 doesn't seem okay per Wpi. The issue with Classical Chinese is that it cannot fit neatly in OC or MC because as Wpi said, these are snapshots of the phonology. There is also Classical/Literary Chinese works written way after the Middle Chinese period, but not necessarily able to be considered as any modern Chinese variety. #3 would probably need to be worked out entry by entry. Some entries should probably be moved to Classical Chinese, but others may be used in highly formal modern writing. It might be difficult to distinguish the two given our previous usage of "literary" as a label. We would need to set stricter definitions for what goes where. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Justinrleung @Wpi @Fish bowl Pinging the people who previously participated as well as @Theknightwho. I am trying to convert all the bespoke variety codes in {{zh-x}} to standard codes. I added zhx-lit for "Literary Chinese", specifically the later stage of Classical Chinese; but this conflicts with the name of zhx. I really think we should rename zhx, probably to Classical Chinese. The only issue with this term is that sometimes Classical Chinese specifically seems to refer to the 5th century BC - 2nd century AD period, as in Category:Classical Chinese, or some other similar time period. I'm thinking maybe we need a different term for this: Han Classical Chinese? Although strictly speaking, the Han dynasty only began in the 3rd century BC. Or "Late Old Classical Chinese"? Please note, I also added zhx-pre for "Pre-Classical Chinese" corresponding to the old CL-PC code; but I have no idea if this makes any sense, as it seems awfully similar to Old Chinese. Benwing2 (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I should add, I also added a code cmn-bec for "Beijingic Mandarin", which is the primary branch of Mandarin that includes Beijing and environs. This is described in Wikipedia under Beijing Mandarin (division of Mandarin) whereas Beijing Mandarin itself (code cmn-bei) is described under Beijing dialect. The term "Beijingic" comes from Glottolog. This was added to correspond to the M-UIB code added and used primary by User:Dokurrat. Since M-UIB is described as "dialectal Beijingesque Mandarin", I assume it approximately corresponds to the Beijingic primary branch. Note that the existence of Beijingic is somewhat controversial as some researchers place Beijing and surrounding dialects into Northeastern Mandarin. I also added labels (but not etym codes) for all primary Mandarin branches and many individual dialects under these branches; basically, any dialect that had 4 or more mentions among the labels as well as any dialect where I could find a corresponding English Wikipedia page describing it. (There are more dialects with Chinese Wikipedia pages but I haven't yet found them all.) Eventually I think we should assign etym codes to most or all of these dialects but for the moment I'm mostly just collecting them into labels; once I have a fairly complete set of labels it will be easier to assign codes in a semi-consistent fashion. Also, I am ready to push the code to allow both new (standard) and old (bespoke) variety codes in {{zh-x}} and then convert all uses to the new codes, but this can't run until my current run obsoleting {{zh-noun}} and {{zh-hanzi}} finishes. (It's run for ~ 22 hours so far and has maybe 14 hours to go.) Benwing2 (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

BTW here is the current mapping I have worked out from old bespoke {{zh-x}} codes to standard codes:

old_to_std_code_mapping = {
  "MSC": "cmn",
  "M-BJ": "cmn-bei",
  "M-TW": "cmn-TW",
  "M-MY": "cmn-MY",
  "M-SG": "cmn-SG",
  "M-PH": "cmn-PH",
  "M-TJ": "cmn-tia",
  "M-NE": "cmn-noe",
  "M-CP": "cmn-cep",
  "M-GZ": "cmn-gua",
  "M-LY": "cmn-lan",
  "M-S": "zhx-sic",
  "M-NJ": "cmn-nan",
  "M-YZ": "cmn-yan",
  "M-W": "cmn-wuh",
  "M-GL": "cmn-gui",
  "M-XN": "cmn-xin",
  "M-UIB": "cmn-bec",
  "M-DNG": "dng",
  
  "CL": "lzh",
  "CL-TW": "lzh-cmn-TW",
  "CL-C": "lzh-yue",
  "CL-C-T": "lzh-tai",
  "CL-VN": "lzh-VI",
  "CL-KR": "lzh-KO",
  "CL-PC": "lzh-pre",
  "CL-L": "lzh-lit",

  "CI": "lzh-cii",
  
  "WVC": "cmn-wvc",
  "WVC-C": "yue-wvc",
  "WVC-C-T": "zhx-tai-wvc",

  "C": "yue",
  "C-GZ": "yue-gua",
  "C-LIT": "yue-lit",
  "C-HK": "yue-HK",
  "C-T": "zhx-tai",
  "C-DZ": "zhx-dan",

  "J": "cjy",
  
  "MB": "mnp",
  
  "MD": "cdo",
  
  "MN": "nan-hbl",
  "TW": "nan-hbl-TW",
  "MN-PN": "nan-pen",
  "MN-PH": "nan-hbl-PH",
  "MN-T": "nan-tws",
  "MN-L": "nan-luh",
  "MN-HLF": "nan-hlh",
  "MN-H": "nan-hnm",
  
  "W": "wuu",
  "SH": "wuu-sha",
  "W-SZ": "wuu-suz",
  "W-HZ": "wuu-han",
  "W-CM": "wuu-chm",
  "W-NB": "wuu-nin",
  "W-N": "wuu-nor",
  "W-WZ": "wuu-wen",
  
  "G": "gan",

  "X": "hsn",
  
  "H": "hak-six",
  "H-HL": "hak-hai",
  "H-DB": "hak-dab",
  "H-MX": "hak-mei",
  "H-MY-HY": "hak-hui-MY",
  "H-EM": "hak-eam",
  "H-ZA": "hak-zha",
  
  "WX": "wxa",
}

Benwing2 (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

On a second thought, I don't think we should have yue-wvc and zhx-tai-wvc as they seems to be too similar to lzh-yue and lzh-tai, plus WVC-C is used only once in 萊苑 (and none for WVC-C-T). @Fish bowl who added the ux in 萊苑 for comment. – wpi (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wpi What is the difference between lzh-yue (CL-C) and yue-lit (C-LIT)? The former occurs 35 times and the latter 415 times. Benwing2 (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wpi WVC-C-T seems to be used 4 times: 亞利務, 交帶, 粗市畔 and 赤市. WVC-C is used on 10 pages: 公仔, 小粉紅, 市卜頃, 格仔, 正埠 (3 usexes), 羅生, 苛例, 菜苑 (2 usexes), 萊苑 and 葛崙. Benwing2 (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

WVC-C can probably be merged into C-LIT, but I don't have any particular suggestion for the *-C-T codes.

Mentioning this again: perhaps we should use a bipartite system giving the text language and the pronunciation language, such as lzh/cmn-TW (Literary Chinese in Taiwanese Mandarin pronunciation). —Fish bowl (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Fish bowl Thanks for bringing this up; I missed it last time. In fact my recent overhaul of Module:zh-usex/data implemented something very similar. Essentially, there is the variety code, which is typically an etym-only language code, and then for each such variety there is a second "norm code" that is used for romanization (i.e. pronunciation) purposes. There's nothing preventing us from implementing your suggestion on top of this, if it proves necessary. Benwing2 (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Fish bowl @Wpi Just to confirm: All three of WVC-C (yue-wvc) "Written vernacular Cantonese", CL-C (lzh-yue) "Classical Cantonese" and C-LIT (yue-lit) "Literary Cantonese" can be merged? This is based on @Wpi suggesting merging WVC-C with CL-C and @Fish bowl suggesting merging WVC-C with C-LIT. I assume that if these were different they would refer to different time periods (?), but I don't know if there's enough difference to warrant separation. Benwing2 (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Incorrect. I believe the problem here is that we have multiple understanding of the usage of the Cantonese codes. General speaking, there are these types:

1. modern spoken Cantonese
2. modern written vernacular Chinese (e.g. Hong Kong Chinese)
3. written vernacular Chinese from 19th/early 20th century
4. Classical Chinese that uses Cantonese pronunciation
5. spoken Cantonese from 19th/early 20th century (e.g. dictionaries from missionaries)

They are especially difficult to tell apart when the phrase/sentence is short and does not contain much grammatical features.

Justin, Alex and I uses C for #1 and #5 (or the newly added C-HK when applicable), C-LIT for #2, and C-CL for #3 and #4.

Fish Bowl uses C-GZ for #1, WVC-C for #2 and #3, and C-CL for #4. (Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect)

I think what we need to do here is to change WVC-C into C-LIT or C-CL according to the context. – wpi (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wpi OK thanks and apologies for my confusion, I haven't encountered before (as a linguist) the situation where there's a big gap between the written and spoken forms and multiple ways of pronouncing a given written form. Benwing2 (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I should add, does anyone mind my renaming the old {{zh-x}} codes to the new ones? As shown in the above table, no information will be lost because there is a one-to-one mapping between the old and new codes. Benwing2 (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't particularly support the usage of the C-GZ [Guangzhou Cantonese] tag, and think that (for zh-usex at least) it can be safely merged into C [standard Cantonese]. For 2 (modern HK) I also use C-LIT.

I'd also like to comment that "gua" in the replacement code "yue-gua" feels very foreign and unintuitive. —Fish bowl (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Fish bowl Hmm. Do you have a better suggestion in place of yue-gua? Benwing2 (talk) 08:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Fish bowl Is your thought that we should use just "Cantonese" (yue, or yue-can as suggested in the RFM discussion below) as the language code? This would be parallel to the normal handling of Latin, where Classical Latin terms are usually identified as just "Latin" (code la), although there's also a code for "Classical Latin" (code la-cla or CL.). The use of Guangzhou Cantonese specifically (yue-gua) as a code would then be restricted to cases where it's important to distinguish usage that is specific to urban Guangzhou speech as opposed to Standard Cantonese. I think this is also parallel to the use of cmn (Standard Mandarin) vs. cmn-bei for Beijing Mandarin. Benwing2 (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

yue-gua: maybe yue-gzh? Keeping the initials is more sane IMO but I also remember that you wrote your own guideline in one of the other discussion.

code: I think we are on the same page, yes. —Fish bowl (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

joged, joget

They look mergeable. Equinox ◑ 20:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Equinox Did you mean just the English sections? Both entries also have Indonesian sections. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 19:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the English sections. Merge request stands! Equinox ◑ 02:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

meat puppet, meatpuppet

Seems like meat puppet sense #6 is the same as meatpuppet. 70.172.194.25 06:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support – it's essentially the same meaning with a different spelling. AP 499D25 (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

ولا سيما

The conjunction وَ (wa) is not part of the phrase really. The phrase does occur frequently with it, but this is mainly owing to the "idiomaticness" of conjunctions in Arabic, mostly in prose. It is a sentence in itself, roughly "There is no(thing) equal to", not like the English adverbials that have comparable meanings (such as particularly and especially or above all). The entry should therefore be moved لَا سِيَّمَا (lā siyyamā), with the "variant" with وَ (wa) deleted. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

lustre, luster

There still seems to be a lot of overlap here, e.g. the chandelier sense. Is there any sense of the word that cannot be spelled both ways? Equinox ◑ 03:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Any English word ending with -er occassionally shows up as -re. It doesn't seem like this needs a tag and discussion, though. Some editor at lustre was just wrong: There's no reason to say "alternate form of luster" + 3 repeated senses that're already at luster. Maybe add a usage note if some American speakers tend to still use re unexpectedly more often in some cases.

That said, the luster entry is currently a bit off. 'Shininess', '5-year period', and 'den' all get spelled with an -re in standard British English but using it for 'one who lusts' would still seem like a misspelling. The alt form needs to be with each etym that uses it and not headlining like it is now. — LlywelynII 23:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge 參巴#Chinese, 叁巴#Chinese

—Fish bowl (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge lyme#English, lime#Etymology_4

—Fish bowl (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

sparrowhawk, sparrow hawk

Some circularity, with each form linking to the other for certain senses. Equinox ◑ 00:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I was trying to show that the open form was used more commonly for some definitions and the closed for others. Is there pure circularity remaining? DCDuring (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I have tried to make clearer the differences and have simplified the "Further reading" sections. I don't see why they should be moved, merged, or split, whichever it is that you are seeking. DCDuring (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

serynga, syringa

These look like the same word. 70.172.194.25 09:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not, just a doublet that came into the language by a different (rather convoluted) route. Serynga is listed as an alternative form at English seringa, but it looks like it's really a borrowing from French, where it's an alternative form of French seringa. The spelling is no doubt influenced by the taxonomic name.

From what I can gather, Latin syringa developed into Dutch sering, which was borrowed into Portuguese as the name for rubber plants in the genus Hevea and into French for the syringa, Philadelphus coronarius, both with an "a" added. English borrowed Portuguese seringa for the rubber plant and French serynga for the syringa.

If you're not confused by all of this, you're not paying atttention... Chuck Entz (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

So, are the definitions in both entries correct? Because they currently claim to both have the same first two definitions... in which case we should either have {{syn}} crosslinks between them or reduce both senses on one to {{synonym of}} (+gloss) of the other. - -sche (discuss) 08:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

bezoar, enterolith

Defined recursively in terms of each other. Equinox ◑ 22:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

נבילה, נבלה

70.172.194.25 09:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

No RFM needed for alternative forms. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Biolongvistul: On the contrary- one of these should be made the main entry and the other an alternative form (if you can call it that: it's really just two slightly different ways of writing the exact same thing). Chuck Entz (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Just did that. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

downward, downwards

Lots of duplicate information, including but not limited to translations. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

move Category:Japanese romaji without a main entry to Category:Japanese redlinks/ja-romanization of

in line with Category:Redlinks by language. —Fish bowl (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

move Category:Chinese terms with uncreated forms to Category:Chinese redlinks/zh-see

• Fish bowl (nom) created cat:Chinese redlinks/zh-see in April 2022. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 20:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't remember doing this lol. It makes sense though; 肉体的 points to 肉體的#Chinese which doesn't exist. —Fish bowl (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

decrescendo, descrescendo

Not sure whether "descrescendo" should be a misspelling or alternative form, though. It has quite a few hits on Google Books. 70.172.194.25 23:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

If it's kept at all, it should be a {{misspelling of}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Category:Administrative divisions and Category:Political subdivisions

Is there a difference? w:Political subdivisions redirects to w:Administrative division. —Fish bowl (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Even if there is, I’m doubtful that it’s relevant to Wiktionary. Theknightwho (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• The first category contains things like "state", "county", "province". The second contains things like "California", "Yorkshire", "Guangdong". 70.172.194.25 18:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Just found that there are two like categories. No. Editors can’t apply any distinction. Administration executes political decisions. Fay Freak (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The intended distinction (which, when I spot-check a few categories, actually seems to be decently well maintained) seems to be as IP 70.172 says. But I am inclined to agree that the current names don't convey a meaningful distinction. If we want to continue having separate categories for "county, burgh, kingdom, ..." vs "Mayo, Yorkshire, Idaho, ...", it would be better to devise more distinct names for the categories... - -sche (discuss) 23:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

IP is right. I just came here because Ottoman Turkish قضا (kaza) was in the wrong category, and pushed the panic button. The naming should be something more intelligent. Fay Freak (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the names are highly confusing. Maybe we should rename the first one “types of administrative division”, or something similar. Incidentally, that’s exactly the name of the corresponding en.wikipedia category. 70.172.194.25 03:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Now the yerba gave me the idea. We just name the latter “named political subdivisions”, to avert the exemplified mistake. The former shall not be renamed because it is added manually while the other is a mediate effect of Template:place etc. I also briefly thought about going to Wikipedia to see how they do but we don’t have the same problems. Fay Freak (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

point-blank, point blank

also Talk:point-blank#merge with point blank. – Jberkel 23:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Oxford and Collins list only point-blank for both adjective and adverb. DonnanZ (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Cantonese: main entry at 𧿒腳 or 䂿腳?

—Fish bowl (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

positronium

So far as I can tell, the two senses refer to the same thing. Is this a case where differing terminology between chemistry and physics means that it's worth keeping both to better aid understanding? If so, we should probably clarify that they aren't referring to different things.

If I'm wrong and they are actually distinct, could someone with more knowledge than I do make that clearer? Theknightwho (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The redundancy was added in diff, I've merged the senses. There may be another sense, to which the first etymology (positron + ium) would apply, for positronium conceived of in sci-fi etc as an element or substance a la uranium, polonium, unobtainium, etc. - -sche (discuss) 01:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

מ־שׁ־ך

To מ־ש־ך, to be consistent with other Hebrew entries. 70.172.194.25 18:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Witzelsucht

• Witzelsucht -> witzelsucht

This is only an English entry, and on English Wikipedia it is not capitalized inside the middle of sentences. The rationale for capitalizing it in 2007 was that it is a German language entry, except there has never been a German language section on this page. -- 65.92.246.142 03:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Science Direct: "witzelsucht"
• Prezi: "witzelsucht"
• MD Edge Neurology: "witzelsucht"

Category:Eponyms by language

See also: #toponyms

Man has taken a quick look and found that eponym is a term not restricted to words after persons, bare logically since ὄνυμα (ónuma) merely means name, i.e. in modern linguistic terminology proper noun, so we might reckon that our definition under eponym (inconsistent with the single adjective definition and Wikipedia) is a prescriptivist legend (of the dark mid 20·00s to which the categorizations and definitions date) and we rather have to move the category to Category:Terms derived from anthroponyms by language to attain consistency with Category:Terms derived from toponyms by language and mislead the public less. Fay Freak (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

a few or few

We have a few fries short of a Happy Meal (created by @Equinox) and few cards short of a full deck, few cards shy of a full deck, few sandwiches short of a picnic, few X short of a Y, which were moved/created by @TNMPChannel. J3133 (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

IMO these should all be at "a few...", since a few means something quite different from few. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Whichever form we lemmatize, I guess we might as well leave redirects from the other. Several of these also have variants like google books:"several fries short of a" Happy Meal / happy meal, google books:"several cards short of a" full deck / full pack, which presumably need hard or soft redirects. - -sche (discuss) 19:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I definitely agree that all of the headwords mentioned should be at "a few ...". Unfortunately there are probably more (attestable?) alternatives besides what -sche has found. Redirects from "few ..." are especially useful because many with beginning knowledge of English seem to have problems with English determiners. DCDuring (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a good issue to raise. I've mentioned before that, with proper nouns, we don't seem to have (or at least we don't consistently use) anything about the determiner/article: I mean it's the Eiffel Tower and the Cold War, but ∅ Dijkstra's algorithm and ∅ Greenpeace. Proper nouns aside, I usually drop the determiner/article from entry titles unless it seems absolutely 100% necessary all the time. But that's pretty vague and comes out of my wacky head. Equinox ◑ 01:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox: Yes, but it's [ a few ] [ cards short of a full deck ], not [ a ] [ few cards short of a full deck ] (note the alternative form one card short of a full deck, where "one" replaces "a few" ) Chuck Entz (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe. Yeah. I would imagine "some few..." etc. might be possible. But even I have better things to do than attest them. Just an observation. Equinox ◑ 02:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a snowclone with many possible variants. I dont think many people are going to look up few or short of expecting to find this full phrase. And those words arent in every variant anyway ... one can also say "two cards shy of a full deck" which uses neither of them.

What would be nice is if the Appendix namespace was in the default search space so that the snowclone page might at least turn up in a search. As it stands, I don't think we need all these mainspace pages since they are all exact synonyms of each other, but if we delete them there will be no way for a naive user to find the snowclone pages unless they somehow know that it's tucked away in the Appendix. —Soap— 20:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2022

دلکو

I've created the page using the wrong character. It should be moved to دلكو instead. Dohqo (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dohqo: Because there's already a Persian entry on the same page, and the character is correct for Persian, it doesn't make sense to move the page. Just delete the Old Anatolian Turkish section from this page and create it on the correct page. You can do it all yourself, no admin rights needed. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:Flat earth

Given that our planet's name is usually capitalized, I think this should be moved to Category:Flat Earth. Binarystep (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• We have flat-earthism and flat-earther, but Wikipedia has flat Earth. Hmm. I support the move proposal.- excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 01:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

carhop, car hop and also car-hop

Duplicate definitions and potentially missing parts of speech. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• The hyphenated form is now defined as an alternative of the spaced form (but the solid and spaced forms still need to be merged). — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 21:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Dependent territories of France

Delete and merge into Category:Places in France or some appropriate equivalent. France does not have dependencies: all its overseas territories are integrated into the French Republic. See also: Category:ca:Dependent territories of France, Category:zh:Dependent territories of France, Category:nl:Dependent territories of France, Category:en:Dependent territories of France, Category:fi:Dependent territories of France, Category:fr:Dependent territories of France, Category:de:Dependent territories of France, Category:el:Dependent territories of France, Category:hu:Dependent territories of France, Category:ga:Dependent territories of France, Category:it:Dependent territories of France, Category:ja:Dependent territories of France, Category:lv:Dependent territories of France, Category:nrf:Dependent territories of France, Category:nb:Dependent territories of France, Category:nn:Dependent territories of France, Category:pl:Dependent territories of France, Category:pt:Dependent territories of France, Category:rar:Dependent territories of France, Category:ro:Dependent territories of France, Category:ru:Dependent territories of France, Category:es:Dependent territories of France, Category:sv:Dependent territories of France, Category:tr:Dependent territories of France, Category:vi:Dependent territories of France, and Category:vo:Dependent territories of France —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf What do you call New Caledonia, French Polynesia and such if not dependent territories? Benwing2 (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

New Caledonia is a sui generis overseas collectivity of France. It has membership in the French parliament and France's rule of law and citizenship extends there just like in Corsica or Guadelope or Lyons. None of these are dependencies: they are all first-level administrative divisions of the French Republic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I want a category for all overseas territories of France, and I don't much care about the technicalities. What is the right category? Benwing2 (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I would have absolutely no objection to Category:Overseas France as a subcat of Category:Places in France and that can include everywhere other than Metropolitan/European France (the mainland, Corsica, and other nearby islands). Seems sensible to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That is hard to do in the current framework without major hacking. There used to be Category:Collectivities in France populated by these entities, will that work? Are they all collectivities? Benwing2 (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Guadeloupe, Mayotte etc are not collectivities. Unfortunately Justin is right, we need CAT:Overseas France if we're going to be strictly correct here. This, that and the other (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requested entries (Chinese)/Xiang Chinese

Wiktionary:Requested entries (Chinese)/Teochew Chinese

These were recently moved by @Apisite from their own user namespace to the Wiktionary namespace under "Requested entries (Chinese)". All of these pages are not requested entries but pronunciation requests. I'm not entirely sure where these should be moved instead, but I don't think they're in the right place currently. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems like they should be subcategories of Category:Requests for pronunciation in Chinese entries. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

fibre -> fiber

Duplicate content, move all to fiber. Ngram — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha: A word of caution: anything involving pondian variation should be handled carefully. There are good arguments for going either way on most of these, and we don't want to start any kind of conflict. Our general practice has been to arbitrarily go with whichever version was first, though it's been a while since one of these came up. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

In this case, fibre is older, but by only 14 hours. Also, the translation tables are all already at fibre, so I feel like making fibre the primary spelling and fiber the alternative spelling will be less work. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

From Google N-Grams: Since 1911 fiber has been more common. As of 2009 it is about three times as common. DCDuring (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

We don't apply that when it comes to AmEng/BrEng differences. Theknightwho (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Who says? DCDuring (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, since 2016 fiber has been more common in Google's British English N-Gram corpus andsix times more common in American English corpus. DCDuring (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: I see. If that is de facto policy then the meat should go to fibre. However, if I could have devised the policy, I would have made it so that it always aligns with the frequency because that way the users land on the non-redirecting spelling more often. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

We actually had an attempt by a Russian internet troll (geolocating to Crimea) to get us arguing about UK vs. US issues, but it went nowhere. At the time I just thought it was odd, but with the revelations after Trump was elected I finally put two and two together and realized what was going on. I still have no idea why they even bothered, since our discussion forums aren't exactly the center of the universe. I do know that the mutual respect between our US and UK editors, helped by this kind of practice, was the main reason it was such a non-issue. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz I have it on my to-do list to build a template that duplicates the material from the "primary" entry, which should hopefully circumvent issues like this anyway. I've done something similar with Tangut already (e.g. see 𗁘 (*rjijr²), 𗁩 (*tẽ¹), 𗀏 (*par²)), though the implementation would need some tweaking. Theknightwho (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Fytcha Both of these entries have sections for English, Danish, and Norwegian Bokmål. Can you confirm that you are only talking about the English sections? — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 21:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  @ExcarnateSojourner: Yes. Only English. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 14:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

July 2022

Inconsistent capitalization of I/internet slang

We capitalize it as a label — (Internet slang), but not in the category name — Category:English internet slang. When I was adding this category I thought it would also be capitalized, like in the label (but it was a red link). J3133 (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Not just for English slang; see Category:Internet slang by language and Category:Internet laughter slang by language.  --Lambiam 15:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I am aware that the slang category is not exclusive to English; however, @Lambiam, what is our solution? J3133 (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The regular approach is to list these at WT:RFM. This seems, however, a place where proposals go to linger in limbo: there is an unresolved category move request (WT:RFM § Category:WC) from 2015. The sledgehammer approach is to create a vote at WT:VOTE.  --Lambiam 17:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Good point; I have moved it. J3133 (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@J3133 What did you move? Category: English internet slang has not been moved since 2019. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 00:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@ExcarnateSojourner: I moved this discussion from the Beer parlour. J3133 (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter Dunderdool (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  It would be good if we fixed it, as we have with category and label inconsistencies previously. If not now, I am sure someone will bring this issue up and fix it sometime. J3133 (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Also if it would not matter I would fix this without a discussion but it would matter to someone. J3133 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I would lowercase the label (and anything else). On the other hand, Google Books Ngrams suggests Internet is more common. That said, it's less work to lowercase the label than to move all the categories... - -sche (discuss) 23:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

According to capitalization of Internet, cited by excarnateSojourner, the trend of capitalising the I in internet is decreasing. So I'll support lowercasing the I in the label. The higher rank of Internet in Google Ngram Viewer is maybe because internet sometime occurs at the beginning of a sentence and is thus capitalised. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it was originally capitalized. Mnemosientje (talk • contribs) lowercased it back in 2019. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 00:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The capitalization of Internet is a whole thing, but for what it's worth Wikipedia does capitalize it. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 00:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@ExcarnateSojourner: Wikipedia's inconsistent too. Compare Category:History of the Internet and Category:People related to the internet. However, the capitalized spelling does seem to be more common in category names, so I support capitalizing Category:English internet slang. Binarystep (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It should be capitalised. There is such a thing as "an internet" or internetwork (generic; although you very rarely hear this terminology any more), versus "the Internet" (the global thing we all use all the time). Same deal with "the Web" versus (I suppose) "a web" although I don't remember even the most braggart webmasters using the latter. As always, citable usage trumps what I say, but I am historically correct. Equinox ◑ 03:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

almond furnace and almond-furnace

One is tagged as obsolete and defined as A kind of furnace used in refining, to separate the metal from cinders and other foreign matter., another not obsolete defined as A furnace in which slags of litharge left in refining silver are reduced to lead by being heated with charcoal.. Good luck to the potential merger Dunderdool (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Category:DoggoLingo → Category:English DoggoLingo

DoggoLingo is the jargon used in doge memes. This should be changed to "Category:English DoggoLingo," since it contains only English terms, and to remain consistent with similar categories (e.g. Category:English 4chan slang). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@WordyAndNerdy: 4chan is not only English: see DoggoLingo: “A form of English-language Internet slang related to dogs”. Compare Category:Rotwelsch, etc. J3133 (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"Category:[Language] [word type]" is the standard naming convention of lexical categories. Category:English irregular nouns, Category:English onomatopoeias, Category:English fandom slang, etc. This category contains only English-language DoggoLingo terms, and thus the correct name should be "Category:English DoggoLingo". German-language DoggoLingo terms would go under "Category:German DoggoLingo", French DoggoLiggo would go under "Category:French DoggoLingo", etc. (Presuming this meme has spread to other languages.) WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@WordyAndNerdy: I just stated why it does not have “English” in the title: see DoggoLingo: “A form of English-language Internet slang related to dogs”. For the same reason, Category:Rotwelsch is not “German Rotwelsch”, etc. J3133 (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

We could use some empirical data here. Does DoggoLingo or a close equivalent actually exist in German or French? If it does, that provides some reason to approve this proposal (and possibly to update the relevant articles). If not, it provides some reason to reject it. 98.170.164.88 06:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. WordyAndNerdy, do you have proof that Internet slang related to dogs (i.e., of the type of DoggoLingo) exists in other languages, and would use the same name derived from English slang? J3133 (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

*deep existential sigh* English-language lexical categories have an established naming convention. I have never seen an English-language lexical category that was just "Category:Word type" (e.g. "Category:Fandom slang", "Category:Military slang", etc.) in 10+ years of contributing. Can't speak for lexical categories in other languages, but if someone wants to change an established convention, they need to do so by obtaining consensus, not by unilaterally imposing a new standard. This is an extremely straightforward request and having to get bogged down in bureaucratic discussions like this means less time for doing productive things like attesting Internet slang. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The difference is that “DoggoLingo” is a proper noun, not just another word type. J3133 (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

*deeper existential sigh* This reasoning is, to be perfectly frank, bizarre and arbitrary. Twitch-speak is a proper noun too. Guess what the relevant English-language lexical category is named? There's an established convention, and this category's name doesn't follow it. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

A proper noun that specifically refers to English, if you are not already aware. Like Rotwelsch is a proper noun referring to German. J3133 (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article defines DoggoLingo as an "Internet language" and doesn't specify that it's limited exclusively to English in said definition. In any case, this is completely perpendicular to the issue of what the category should be named. No one had to prove the existence of Dutch Twitch-speak, Korean Twitch-speak, etc. to create "Category:English Twitch-speak." That's what the category ought to be named following the established naming convention of English-language lexical categories. (And given that you haven't incorporated this category into the category tree module -- which is like step two of creating a new category -- maybe it isn't prudent to act as if you have special expertise or authority in this area.) WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

You are the one acting you have authority here, though. Category:Rotwelsch is not in the category tree either, not sure what is your point. J3133 (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Let consensus decide, instead of assuming this is a “straightforward request”. J3133 (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Support. I'm reminded of the discussion I started about how to handle Category:Thieves' cant. Binarystep (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

And the consensus of that discussion seems to be that "Thieves' cant" is a strictly English historical example of criminal slang, and that the non-English entries in Category:Thieves' cant should be moved to language-specific criminal slang subcategories- the opposite of this proposal.

It's true that there's a naming convention to put language names in category names, but that doesn't apply to this kind of entry, and saying it does shows a misunderstanding of the convention. While there's nothing to stop other languages from having their own equivalents to DoggoLingo, it seems to have been created by English-speakers using humor based on the peculiarities of the English language. If other languages come up with their own equivalents, I sincerely doubt that they would be called DoggoLingo. DoggoLingo is a variety of English, just like pig Latin and double Dutch, and "English DoggoLingo" would be redundant. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Funny you should mention Pig Latin, since the category for that is called Category:English Pig Latin terms. Binarystep (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

For the record, that category is very poorly formatted unsurprisingly. There’s no overarching Category:Pig Latin or Category Pig Latin terms, nor does there seem to be other languages linked to it, so there really shouldn’t be an English label there. AG202 (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the English label should be removed; see the RFM. J3133 (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

As I did not vote: oppose per Chuck Entz. J3133 (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

Category:English Pig Latin terms → Category:Pig Latin terms

As AG202 stated in the DoggoLingo category RFM, “There’s no overarching Category:Pig Latin or Category Pig Latin terms, nor does there seem to be other languages linked to it, so there really shouldn’t be an English label there.” This was after Chuck Entz used the argument there that “English DoggoLingo” would be redundant, “just like pig Latin”, then Binarystep pointed out that the Pig Latin category does use the English label—redundantly. J3133 (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Move as redundant. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

don't try to teach grandma how to suck eggs > teach one's grandmother to suck eggs

This idiom is far more versatile than the specific and somewhat informal phrasing we have here (which doesn't even match the quotation we have), it's a fully fledged verb phrase — see the examples at Teaching grandmother to suck eggs.

Two points: there is such a wide range of familiar terms for grandmother that can be used in this phrase so I think it's best to stick with "grandmother". However I think it's worth investigating if it's more common with or without the possessive pronoun (here "one's"); to me it sounds more natural with it but there are citations both ways. 86.145.59.120 18:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

We also have teach grandma how to suck eggs. J3133 (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm somewhat inclined to pick a most common or general negative form to lemmatize like not teach grandmother how to suck eggs, and also have the positive form (maybe teach grandmother to suck eggs since a possessive doesn't seem required? or if a pronoun is more common, then redirect the pronounless form to the pronouned form, either works). This is both because it's unclear how many translations can have the negative removed and because in general, as I said in the discussion of all it's cracked up to be further up this page, when we redirect a negative expression to a positive one or vice versa there's a risk that a reader who doesn't notice they were redirected will come away thinking the phrase means the opposite of what it actually means. To avoid duplication we could make the negative form almost a soft redirect, defining it like "To not teach grandmother to suck eggs (“presume to give advice to someone who is more experienced”)" or even "To not teach grandmother to suck eggs (see that entry)"; I don't know, I don't like splitting content across multiple pages, but I also think it's risky to silently strip away the negative polarity with a seamless little redirect and expect IPs who sometimes don't even notice they're on Wiktionary and not Wikipedia to notice and understand that the polarity of the headword has changed and thus that the definition of the term they looked up is the opposite of the one we're giving them. - -sche (discuss) 15:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Negative polarity is "licensed" in many forms, starting with the negative being separated from the rest of the expression: conditionals, questions, infinitives with certain verbs (eg, try to) or other expressions (eg. hard to). These might lead someone to look up the positive form. I think that a "negative-polarity item" label (with link to WP or our Glossary), usage examples with adjoining and disjoint not and n't, and redirects would enable us to use the positive form as the lemma. I don't see how to use redirects in the other direction. Even usage examples would be problematic with not in the headwords. DCDuring (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

What I mean is, I'm somewhat inclined to have both "not teach grandmother to suck eggs" defined as "not give advice to someone more experienced", and then also "teach grandmother to suck eggs" defined as "give advice to someone more experienced", redirecting all the various negative forms to the first one and the positive forms to the second one. But I'm not opposed to only having the positive form and redirecting everything to it; I do dislike splitting content across multiple pages, I just also think there's always a danger when someone types "not teach grandmother to suck eggs" into the search bar and as seamlessly sent to "teach grandmother to suck eggs" where they read a definition that's inverted from that of the term they typed in and which they think they looked up. - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

have one's heart in one's boots, throat, or mouth

Should have one's heart in one's boots be moved to just one's heart in one's boots because it also occurs without have (e.g. when someone stands/waits/etc google books:"with her heart in her boots")? That is why have was dropped from one's heart in one's mouth, according to the edit history. FWIW all three expressions can be found without even the pronouns, as in google books:"heart in throat". - -sche (discuss) 10:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• The throat form has been moved to omit have, and is defined as a synonym of the mouth form. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 22:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

September 2022

bighorn sheep and bighorn

Plenty of overlap, spesh with translations. Maybe there's just one species called this, maybe two... something for the animal nerds here... you know who you are Almostonurmind (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Not finding evidence that O. dalli is ever called "bighorn" or "bighorn sheep". It's called Dall sheep or thinhorn sheep AFAICT. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Formally, that's probably true, though I doubt most people make the distinction consistently colloquially. But that wouldn't be particular to bighorn. I think people who didn't make the distinction would be just as likely to use bighorn sheep when describing Dall's sheep. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I have split both into two subsenses and RfVed the O. dalli subsenses. I have not yet found any evidence that either term is applied to O. dalli. I would include O. dalli and thinhorn sheep under See also at both of these entries. DCDuring (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

duck decoy and decoy-duck

Probably some crossover here. And alternative forms like duck-decoy and decoy duck to be made. GreyishWorm (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Black Book

Split into black book GreyishWorm (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

no chill

It would seem that have no chill is the proper lemma for this verb. (Probably not possible to instead treat no chill as a noun phrase because it's very awkward to define other than as the lack of the definition for chill, which would be SOP.) 86.144.233.189 13:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Not always "have". "I got no chill" is also heard, for instance. Equinox ◑ 19:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Kiowa, Kioway

Are these the same? The Kiowa language does not appear to be related to Shoshone, nor does the Wikipedia article on the Kiowa people claim that they are from North Platte, Nebraska. I have a hunch that Kioway is an alt form of something, and this seems like the most obvious answer, but someone should check and try to make sense of this before merging them. 98.170.164.88 07:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, it's likely that Webster was referring to the North Platte River and not the specific city of North Platte, NE (which is where our entry Kioway currently links). But the rest of the confusion remains. 98.170.164.88 08:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Shoshonean is an old term for the northern part of the Uto-Aztecan languages, from Shoshone. Many of the names for the Numic languages are only loosely correlated with linguistic reality, so terms like "Shoshone", "Paiute" and "Ute" are kind of hard to pin down without qualifiers. There is a Shoshoni language, but peoples like the Timbisha and the Bannock are also called Shoshone.

Kiowa is part of the Tanoan languages, which may very well be related to Uto-Aztecan as the Aztec–Tanoan languages, but linguists have yet to completely connect the dots. It was speculative in 1913, and it's still not definitively established in 2022. It reminds me of the Achilles and the Tortoise paradox.

It's all part of the confusion that results from early efforts to classify wide-ranging nomadic peoples who have moved into different regions and adopted different cultural patterns and lifestyles. Just as the Comanche were Great Basin Numic people who moved to the Great Plains and adopted a Plains Indian culture, The Kiowa also moved from the pueblos into the Great Plains and adopted a similar culture.

I would make Kioway a simple alternative form of Kiowa and lose the Interesting Facts™ in the definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Distinguish slang terms from terms with slang senses

I think it is worth splitting cat:Terms with slang senses by language (and subcategories) out of cat:Slang by language (and subcategories) similarly to how we have cat:Terms with dated senses by language distinct from cat:Dated terms by language and cat:Terms with uncommon senses by language distinct from cat:Uncommon terms by language. I am developing a crossword game that uses Wiktionary data (which I do not wish to link as it is associated with my real-life identity), and it would be useful to me if the categories made this distinction for English in particular. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 02:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Examples of English terms that have non-slang primary senses, but are currently in cat:English slang because of less common slang senses: aardvark, absolute zero, AC/DC, acid. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 02:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• I have since changed my Python script to read labels as well as categories, so this no longer makes much of a difference to me. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 00:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

November 2022

Taishanese, Toisanese, Hoisanese

The definitions we give for all three terms are essentially identical, but the forms differ because they are borrowed from different Chinese lects (Mandarin, Cantonese, and Taishanese itself, respectively). Should these use {{alt form}} or {{syn of}}? 98.170.164.88 23:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Oof, yes; as it stands, the entries make it seem like these refer (respectively) to the inhabitants of three different places. - -sche (discuss) 02:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Merged into the first form which, per ngrams, is the most common. (For the place rather than the -ese, Taishan is particularly lopsidedly more common than the alternatives.) - -sche (discuss) 07:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

食住花生等睇戲 and 食花生

These two are essentially the same phrase sharing the same meaning, with the more common 食花生 being derived from the other. – Wpi31 (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

snowsquall

Requesting to move snowsquall to a space-separated form snow squall. The unspaced form doesn't appear to have been used purposefully or frequently, if at all, in the past or present. It also does not appear to be used by either the US-American NWS or the Canadian MSC, and hasn't appeared in any online news coverage. Bailmoney27 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I support this. I've never seen the bunched spelling before and I've been following winter weather for many years. It does seem to be in use, but distinctly less common. Wikipedia's favoring of the bunched spelling seems to be largely a matter of the article having been created early in Wikipedia's lifetime, and with a radar scan from 2004 featuring that bunched spelling. Essentially, we had a model to follow and we stuck to it, but it happens that most people, including the national weather services of both the US and Canada, prefer the two-word form. —Soap— 21:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Support. Binarystep (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, I decided to just move the page myself, as it's been up here unopposed for six months, and because I want to fill in the usual "see also" hatnote which would require that both spellings exist. Since this would make a non-admin move impossible, I moved the page before I put in the hatnote. —Soap— 11:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:English terms where the adjective follows the noun

(And its sister categories in other languages.) This is currently a subcat of English terms by orthographic property, but this is not an orthographic property. I suggest moving it, but I don't know whither.​—msh210℠ (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd say CAT:English terms by lexical property. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Mass#Etymology 1, mass#Etymology 2

These are just alternative case forms, but they have slightly different glosses and large translation tables on both pages. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

No, the two have different etymologies (one from Latin missa and another from Latin Massa), and obviously the two have different meanings too איתן קרסנטי (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

They look like alternative case forms to me, with almost identical etymologies and definitions. It may be difficult to tease out whether the upper- or lowercase form is more common, based on collocation searches. As a start, since 1870 Holy Mass has been more common than than holy mass, holy Mass, and Holy mass (probably mostly sentence initial) at Google N-Grams and much more common since 1940. (Is Holy Mass SoP???) And o'clock mass and o'clock Mass have been roughly equal since 1900. DCDuring (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

haha, ha-ha

Etymologies 1 and 2 (including translations) should be merged. J3133 (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure this is a good idea. Etymology 1 is directly imitative; etymology 2 is from the French. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: I meant that “Etymology 1” and “Etymology 2” (but not “Etymology 3”) in one entry should be merged with the respective etymologies in the other entry. J3133 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@J3133: mmm, I'm seeing only one etymology section in ha ha, and only two in ha-ha (for English, that is; all the other language sections have only one etymology section as well). — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Sorry, I meant haha (which has three etymologies), not ha ha—fixed. J3133 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@J3133: ah, ha ha! I take it you mean that etymology 1 in haha and ha-ha duplicate each other, so one entry should be made the main lemma and the other converted to an alternative form; and likewise for etymology 2 in those entries. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that’s correct. J3133 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

swateg

Shouldn't this be in the Reconstruction namespace? Tbh I'm not sure why we need an entry for this at all, even granting that the suffixes -iġ and -eġ are alternative forms of each other. If this specific non-attested form were mentioned in secondary literature then I could see a case for it, but I can't find anything. To be generous, it's plausible that a version with an /e/ vowel existed in Anglo-Saxon speech, if the versions of the suffix were interchangeable. For now at least, I'll just leave this at RFM, but feel free to send this to RFD if desired. 98.170.164.88 10:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

𐎶𐎼𐎯𐎢𐎴𐎡𐎹

Shouldn't this be in the Reconstruction namespace? Special:PrefixIndex/Reconstruction:Old Persian already includes plenty of other entries for names not directly attested in Old Persian sources, but found in Greek, Elamite, Semitic, etc. 98.170.164.88 11:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Skiulinamo. Seems like IP has a point, but I don't know enough about the topic. Thadh (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

can't be arsed

Currently this redirects to arsed and, further to the discussion in the Tea Room, I propose that we undo the redirect. After all we aren't currently redirecting can't be fucked or can't be bothered. It seems better to have stub entries for all synonyms of can't be bothered listing them as alternative forms only, with all the synonyms and translations listed on the same page. Though I'm not suggesting creating be arsed and be fucked, we should probably keep be bothered as a translation hub and for the purpose of distinguishing it from the rare word bebothered as we currently do. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I hate these redirects to single words - they rarely make sense without the rest of the term, and they're unintuitive even for experienced users. Theknightwho (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree — Saltmarsh^🢃 08:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Support undoing the redirect. lattermint (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to redirect can't be bothered to an appropriate sense of bother#Verb.

I don't know whether there are any other uses of fuck to mean "bother", nor of arse with that meaning.

Why wouldn't we RfV arse#Verb "To make, to bother" if the redirect doesn't seem right? If virtually the only usage with the "bother" sense is can't be arsed there is no reason for this not to be a lemma. DCDuring (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@DCDuring It is possible to use it separately, but it's not common, and I strongly suspect it's a back-formation(?) from can't be arsed. For example, "can you be arsed with this? Me neither." You can do the same thing with fuck, too. Theknightwho (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I've RfDed can't be bothered. — This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) at 14:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC).

Monophysite, Dyophysite, miaphysite

The capitalization of these entries is inconsistent, even though they are all coordinate terms for different views on the same issue. Note that Miaphysite and dyophysite don't (currently) exist, while both capitalizations of monophysite do. Also, some of these have adjective senses and some don't. Not technically a request for a move, merger, or split, but it's a similar issue to what often comes up here, so this seemed like a fitting venue. 70.172.194.25 11:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, they should have the same capitalisation for the main lemmas, and lower-case makes most sense IMO. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

banana bird and bananabird

It seems the two terms are sometimes (erroneously?) used interchangeably. But maybe not. Flackofnubs (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

sirkar, sircar, sarkar (+circar)

Each of these entries contain overlapping definitions (and similar etymologies), and they should probably be merged into a single entry as they seem to be alternative spellings of the same term. OED2 has sirkar and circar. Einstein2 (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Einstein2 as a speaker of Indian English, I confirm that sirkar, sircar, sarkar, circar are all alternative romanisations of Hindi/Urdu/Persian sarkār. I'll make sarkar as the main entry if there are no objections, as virtually all modern romanisation systems of Hindi/Urdu/Persian provide sarkār (formal) or sarkar (informal). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Done (not by me) Whalespotcha (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

January 2023

one fell swoop, one foul swoop, in one foul swoop

The entry one fell swoop is lemmatized at the noun phrase. one foul swoop redirects to that. Meanwhile, the prepositional phrase in one foul swoop has its own separate entry. I think the latter should drop the "in" for consistency. Perhaps it could even be given as an {{alt form}} or {{syn of}} the main entry, but I'm not sure. 70.172.194.25 08:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, at the very least, one foul swoop needs explanation and therefore needs a full entry. Also, it has a distinct pronunciation and [[[fell]] and foul are not close cognates, so they don't seem to be alternative forms of one another. One foul swoop seems to refer to (be derived from) one fell swoop. If one foul swoop gets the main entry I think it deserves, then in one foul swoop should redirect thereto. DCDuring (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that one foul swoop deserves a separate entry and that in one foul swoop should redirect thither. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. As in one fell swoop redirects to one fell swoop, redirecting in one foul swoop to one foul swoop would seemingly be the only logical and consistent course of action. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

parlez vous, parleyvoo, and parley-vous are all treated as separate words

parlez vous, parleyvoo, and parley-vous whilst having the exact same meanings and roughly the same pronunciation, all have their own pages and the others are listed as synonyms. Two have the meaning of “a Frenchmen, one has “the French language” and all of them have “to speak a foreign language, especially French”. Are these all not the word, with differing spellings? -CanadianRosbif (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

We should probably merge them into parlez vous but list the other two spellings as alternative forms. There is also the song 'Mademoiselle from Armentieres' aka 'Hinky Dinky Parley Voo'[2] which has the form parley voo, the spaced version of parleyvoo, though I don't think this bawdy WW1 song would be a good example to include in our entry, fun though it is, as it's not clear what the final refrain of parley voo at the end of each line is actually supposed to mean. There is also a version that appears in the final credits of Peter Jackson's film They Shall Not Grow Old which can be found on YouTube and which is where I first came across the song. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• It's lemmatised as parleyvoo in the OED, and this is indeed how their most recent citations spell it (well, with or without a hyphen). Ƿidsiþ 10:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Etoña

The correct is “Etóña” with an acute diacritic as written on [Wikipedia] 100.undentifieduser (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Split Category:European politics into Category:EU politics

Currently, {{lb|de|EU politics}} categorizes as Category:European politics and the lede in Category:European politics says "terms related to politics of the European Union." I don't dispute that this ridiculous misnomer is widespread but we don't do ourselves any favors by leaning into it. I propose that we repurpose Category:European politics and make it the category of all European (i.e. taking place in or relating to the continent of Europe) politics categories and entries, not just those related to the politics of the European Union. Entries and categories pertaining to EU politics should instead be part of Category:EU politics which itself should be a subcategory of Category:European politics. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 08:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Support. That makes sense, especially since CAT:Swiss politics is currently a subcategory of CAT:European politics even though Switzerland isn't in the EU yet. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Support. It wouldn't make sense to have Category:en:UK politics moved to Category:EU politics post-Brexocalypse but it would make sense to have both of these as subcategories of Category:European politics. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Support. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 10:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Support Vininn126 (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Support J3133 (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Support although maybe it should be called 'European Union politics' as we tend to avoid abbreviations in category names. Benwing2 (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Support Prefer Benwing's variant. As a matter of curiosity, would the current unpleasantness in Ukraine belong in thye repurposed Category:European politics? DCDuring (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Support But the EU politics version. It's consistent with Category:US politics, which does use an abbreviation. Theknightwho (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Theknightwho This is true but at the same time we have CAT:New Zealand politics not #CAT:NZ politics. In general I actually think we should replace 'Fooan politics' with 'Politics of Foo'; this is keeping with CAT:History of the United States, CAT:Languages of the United States, CAT:Political subdivisions of the United States, etc. Besides the politics categories, there are no categories that abbreviate US or UK except for a few odd stragglers (e.g. Category:Upper Midwest US English), while there are hundreds of categories that spell out 'United States'. Similarly, we already have CAT:European Union (not #CAT:EU). Benwing2 (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. We should probably change "US politics" to "United States politics" and "UK politics" to "United Kingdom politics", in that case. Best to be consistent with country/supranational entity names. Theknightwho (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Support and prefer Benwing's variant. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 05:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Support, and apparently both EU and UK need to be spelt out for consistency, but this is a secondary issue. Fay Freak (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I created the split in the modules, but haven't diffused all the entries. Once this is done I'm not sure if there will be enough entries to sustain Cat:European politics. This, that and the other (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

February 2023

pompom, pompon

Personally, I'm from the US and I've only ever seen/heard "pompom". Ultimateria (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/(s)mal-

Merge into Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/(s)mel-. Most modern sources agree these are part of one and the same root. The only descendant that (traditionally) requires PIE *a is Latin malus, which fits semantically better with the gloss at *(s)mel- anyway. In fact it is unnecessary to reconstruct *a at all, in light of *mo > *ma unrounding in an open syllable with coda resonant (see de Vaan:2011 p. 8: 7.1; p. 360), the same process that resulted in mare (“sea”) < *móri. In any case the reconstruction of the vowel is irrelevant to whether the Latin, Slavic and Germanic words are cognate, despite the last sentence of the Latin etymology 1 described at malus. — 69.121.86.13 19:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Template:Navbox and Template:navbox

No idea why there are both templates existing where the only difference is lower and upper cases on N/n. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and have raised this issue before. I think they should be merged. @Erutuon? — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Rename the lowercase one. They have distinct purposes, and are both useful. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 23:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  So, rename to what? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

glottocode

The prefix is from Glottolog, which is a proper noun. The capital G should be included in the article's name

18:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• This request was opened by Akalendos. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 03:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The Boot

English. As the entry says "capitalization varies". I see no compelling reason that this shouldn't be a noun sense at boot with "always with 'the'", or something of the sort. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

(BTW the Saatse Boot is also referred to as "the Boot".) - -sche (discuss) 23:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The Boot meaning the Saatse Boot should be somewhere uppercase, I think, whether Boot or the Boot or The Boot I'm not entirely sure, because it functions as a proper noun place name. I'm not familiar with how the (b/B)oot meaning Louisiana is used; in the one cite in the entry, or others I can image like referring to LA as America's boot, it seems like a metaphorical general sense for something or somewhere boot-shaped. So it may be an RFV question, does Saatse-style use as a proper noun place name exist (for either place ... I can't actually find the Saatse one in books, either, only online). - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

:-), :-( → :), :(

The forms with noses are pretty dated at this point and not in widespread use. I think it'd be better if the noseless forms were the main entries, perhaps with a note on the older forms indicating that they were used first. Binarystep (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 23:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support but i think all emoticons are somewhat dated now, because people prefer to use emojis when possible. —Soap— 11:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Abstain While the noseless variant seems to be used more frequently in English, I am not sure whether it is similarly common in other languages. Maybe we could have a proper definition line for both forms and add {{alti}}/{{syn}} to link to the other variant. Einstein2 (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Noseless variants are also more common in East Slavic languages, albeit eyeless-and-noseless variants are more frequent. However I can’t find data regarding this, I am speaking solely from my experience. БудетЛучше (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

March 2023

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/vьśegъda and Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/vьsegъda

We have two different entries for the same thing, while links generated with {{m}} or {{l}} like *vьśegъda link to the latter (vьsegъda) as they seem to ignore ś in Proto-Slavic reconstructions which IMO is unexpected. This makes the former (vьśegъda) being ignored and forgotten recently. I guess both entries should be merged and the language modules should be tweaked to make Proto-Slavic stuff ś-aware? // Silmeth ^@talk 12:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Silmethule Converting ś to s seems intentional, and asserts that there's no separate ś phoneme in Proto-Slavic. Reconstructing ś seems ahistorical to me; it's rather that the third (and second ...) palatalizations occurred post-Proto-Slavic. Benwing2 (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: but it has different reflexes in different branches. So, either those palatalizations happened post-Proto-Slavic and *ś is a valid dia-phoneme projected back and reconstructing *s in those places for Proto-Slavic is wrong, or it was an actual Proto-Slavic phoneme with some value separate from both *s and *š that merged with those at a later stage – in which case we’re justified to reconstruct *ś and *s is wrong. In either case, unless we undo all progressive and 2nd regressive palatalizations of *x (and all the other sounds? there are traces of non-palatalization in *otьcь in the east too), we need to treat *ś as a (dia)phoneme of its own and *s is wrong. Also WT:About Proto-Slavic seems to treat *ś as a separate phoneme (and even ascribes a specific IPA value to it). // Silmeth ^@talk 10:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Silmethule What do the primary sources say? Benwing2 (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: What primary sources? Proto-Slavic is a reconstructed, not directly attested, language.

If you mean etymological dictionaries and historical linguistic papers – depends, you get all sorts of things (*vьšь in Polish dictionaries, *vьsь in some southern ones, non-palatalized *vьxъ in Vasmer, etc.) – although in general progressive and 2nd regressive palatalizations are commonly marked. But *x is problematic as it has different reflexes in the west vs south+east; hence Derksen’s notation with *ś, as he puts it:

The introduction of *ś, on the other hand, could not be avoided, cf. *vьśь ‘all’ vs. *vьsь ‘village’

// Silmeth ^@talk 17:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Silmethule We need some other people to weigh in. The current situation with no ś was done intentionally so we shouldn't change it willy-nilly. Benwing2 (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

OK. I’ll leave some pings then: @Fay Freak, Ivan Štambuk, Sławobóg, Thadh, Useigor, Vorziblix, ZomBear. // Silmeth ^@talk 20:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I already agreed that we should use ś. Third palatalisation is only absent in Old Novgorodian and most of our entries already do apply the sound law to stops, so I don't see why we should treat the sibilant any differently. Thadh (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that *ś should be used. Make the main reconstruction - *vьśegъda, and the form *vьsegъda (maybe?) as a redirect. ZomBear (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/vьśegъda and delete Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/vьsegъda. Old Polish wszegdy proves it can't have been ^×vьsegъda. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

heave to and heave-to

They are defining the same thing, using various grades of nautical jargon Van Man Fan (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this would normally be spelled with a hyphen, at least not as a verb. heave-to with a hyphen looks like a noun, probably meaning "the act of heaving to", though as a landlubber I don't know if such a noun exists. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

kaffir and kafir

kaffir should probs be the main form It is probably (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

You may be right as kaffir seems to be slightly more widely used than kafir, though oddly enough we (and Wikipedia) have an entry for Kafiristan and not Kaffiristan (which is a far more prevalent form on GoogleBooks). Though on a raw Google search 'Kafir' is twice as popular as 'Kaffir' and 'Kafiristan' is a lot more popular than 'Kaffiristan' and there does seem to be a slight tendency of late to differentiate the 2 words so that 'kaffir' is the Souh African insult and 'kafir' is the Islamic one. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Splitting Haketia from Ladino

So from doing a lot of research and hearing testimonies from elders who speak this North African Judeo-Spanish language, I think there should be a separate list and code for Haketia. It has been associated as just a dialect of Ladino but that is not the case. Haketia has consonants and words directly from Arabic that are never used in Ladino as well as an array of different phrases and spellings. It is a separate language. Let me know if this can be done. I have a lot of words, pronunciations and phrases ready for adding to it after it is set up. Shukur/thanks. Nevermiand. (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

od's niggers → Od's niggers or Odd's niggers

Looking at google books:"od's niggers" and google books:"odd's niggers", it seems like the O is always (or almost always?) capitalized, as if treated as a name, like Odd, which we currently only have as Norwegian but which is also attestable in English—as a non-God-related given name, I mean. Odd might also be attestable as a minced oath for God, given the variety of other oaths like this I see used or mentioned in old books, including Odd's pittikins, Odd's blood, Odd's hounds, Odd's dickens, Od's fish, Od's heft. For od's bobs the hits are more split, but that entry too should possibly be capitalized. - -sche (discuss) 04:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

IMO these are usually uncapitalised in later use, though it's quite hard to tell because it's usually the first thing in a sentence so gets a capital anyway. And older texts, pre-mid-19th century, would capitalise nouns fairly commonly anyway. But conventionally ods bodikins, od rat it, odzooks etc. are written with small Os. The OED and Chambers both lemmatise od and derivatives uncapitalised. Ƿidsiþ 13:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

akrasia and acrasia

“akrasia” is currently listed as the alternative spelling of “acrasia”, which contradicts Wikipedia, as well as the fact that “acratic” is (correctly) listed as the alternative of “akratic”. Also, “akrasia” has 4.5× as many Google results as “acrasia” does. (There’s probably a better metric I could cite, but oh well.) IMO we should swap the two and make “akrasia” the main one. —⁠Will ⁠• ⁠B ^[talk] 23:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

be up to and up to something

Tagged a long time ago, I'm just bringing it here. I tend to think they should be merged to be up to, as all of the citations include a form of to be. 76.100.240.27 19:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note that both of these terms now have open RFDs: be up to, up to something. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 01:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Other static copulas can replace be. Should we consider be a generic static copula as we might consider do a generic transitive verb and something a generic NP? DCDuring (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

put behind one

Should be put behind oneself methinks. 76.100.240.27

Also whip it on someone should be at whip it on and trust someone to should be at trust to. 76.100.240.27

• @76.100.240.27 How is the idiomatic meaning of trust someone to used in a sentence? Would one say, "I trust her to spend all day reading" to mean "It is predictable for her to spend all day reading"? If so that makes our current gloss unsubstitutable. Is it ever used without any words between trust and to? If not I think we should not move it. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 16:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• @76.100.240.27 I don't think so: "It was a rough time, but I've put all that behind me now." Cambridge Dictionary has, "You need to put it behind you now". — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 16:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with ExcarnateSojourner about put behind one.

I agree that trust to is a worse location for the expression than trust someone to, though both are worse than trust + to, IMHO.

Doesn't whip it on require a person (or personified object) as complement? I suppose we could handle that with a label. Also. it is possible that there might be another meaning involving inanimate objects or other expressions. I would probably then be easier on users to be able to compare meanings. DCDuring (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I would not move this entry. People say "I put it behind me" and "You need to put it behind you and move on", not *"I put it behind myself" and *"You need to put it behind yourself and move on". —Mahāgaja · talk 06:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Move to put behind with an explanatory note and a ditransitive tag P. Sovjunk (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with the anon nom about oneself, but the other (direct) object has to be between put and behind, so I'd advocate put something behind oneself as the target of the move. DCDuring (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

molly-mawk

molly-mawk is given as an alternative form of mollemoke, and not of mollymawk. The etymologies given for those two are half-different too, while both mention fulmars. There's probably some obsolete taxonomy in there too, so a taxo-specialist's eyes would be more than welcome. Skisckis (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Chinese English and Category:Mainland China English

English. There seems to be some conflation between the two. {{lb|en|China}} categorizes into the former, though people often do meant the latter, which only has 3 entries. For example, typhoon shelter, Hong Kong foot, add oil, and aiya are labelled as both {{lb|en|China}} and {{lb|en|Hong Kong}}.

Also, "Chinese English" technically includes Hong Kong English by the criteria of geography, but linguistically and lexicographically speaking, there is very little influence on HKE from the mainland, which means there are not many instances where we actually need to categorize into both; the existing ones in the category that I'm aware of are (excluding the four already mentioned above) joss stick, Ins, KMT, and ACG. Note that this also causes abominations like the one at ACG, which is meant to include Taiwan as well. (We can ignore Macau for the sake of simplicity, since the English used there is basically a toned down version of formal HKE) – Wpi (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic: In my opinion, KMT and joss stick are not regional forms of English; indeed, the latter is currently not labelled as such. (Indeed, 'joss' is not so labelled, though it's not part of my active vocabulary.) --RichardW57m (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Vulcanian

English. Needs splitting into vulcanian. Probably some crossover Elevenpluscolors (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Elevenpluscolors Per the OED entry, no, it shouldn't be split but geological senses (and probably the cuckold sense too) should be separately listed as appearing with a lower-case initial letter. Whichever is currently the more common form should be the main entry. The other one should still have those senses but use the template for alternative case form of. — LlywelynII 22:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Merging Category:English terms suffixed with -cide and Category:English terms suffixed with -icide

Should these categories be merged? Many terms in the -cide categories end in -icide, and thus should be moved, unless we decide not to make this distinction. J3133 (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Support -icide isn't really even a real suffix, it's just -i- + -cide. Ioaxxere (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

What (s)he said. Nicodene (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Support unless someone comes up with a really good argument otherwise. DCDuring (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• Merge into -cide. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 23:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

pinnulated

English. Theres gotta be some overlap between pinnulated and pinnulate. Someone smarter than me could have a go at fixing it Sub zero Temps (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

queer someone's pitch

The pronoun doesn't have to be present: google books:"queer the pitch". Should the lemma be moved to queer the pitch, or should that be a synonym, ...? - -sche (discuss) 18:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I am familiar with the similar queer the deal, defined by "NetLingo" as "To ruin a potential business deal or arrangement despite all favorable odds. For example, 'They are a liberal company, so don't queer the deal by letting them know our conservative tactics.'" The "deal" version is more common with "the" than with possessive pronouns. But I wonder whether the right approach isn't to make both the "the"" and the "someone's" versions redirect to the right sense of queer#Verb, adding usage examples there. DCDuring (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Sense 4 of queer#Verb is the right definition for these. I wouldn't have called these dated, but then I'm dated. DCDuring (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

cotton on to

English. cotton, cotton on, cotton on to, cotton to. – Jberkel 18:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the only quotations for cotton could be moved to one of the other two. Unless someone has a quote without a preposition/with other prepositions, that would seem to be the best solution. Then the verb entry at cotton could simply be deleted. Mazzlebury (talk)

the bee's knees

English. Move to bee's knees: like shits for "the shits". 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but does bee's knees attestably occur other than as a part of the bee's knees? DCDuring (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Are attestations needed to leave "the" out? Other entries seemingly just always leave "the" out, like United States。 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It would be better if we had some evidence for all similar cases. OTOH, if we think new normal users are able to use the failed-search page, then they would find [[bee's knees]], even if they searched for "the bee's knees" (and vice versa). I personally think that normal users can't be assumed to make good use of that page. DCDuring (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

We are quite inconsistent about whether we include the or not, e.g. cat's pyjamas redirects to the cat's pyjamas, contrary to the direction of the the shits → shits redirect. It would be better to try to decide on a general approach rather than move entries piecemeal. DCDuring, you argued in favor of redirecting verb oneself to verb even when it's never attested other than with a reflexive pronoun; it seems to me the same logic would make it better to centralize content at bee's knees, too. "The" is dropped from constructions like this when they're used attributively and in certain other cases (peruse the cites at google books:"and bee's knees"), and in headlinese ("Mayor Says New Parks Are Bee's Knees"). I pointed this out about Talk:The Rock, too. - -sche (discuss) 16:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Note that this entry was already moved to the bee's knees, per a previous RFM discussion (see the talk page for a link to it). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

save your clicks 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

bee's knees

Suggest merging the bee's knees into bee's knees. Per redirect at the the cat's pyjamas. I'm not sure of Wiktionary SOP, so noting here. HTH. Quiddity (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest, instead. merging the other way: is bee's knees ever used in any other combination than with "the", as in the bee's knees? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I too would suggest unifying them as the bee's knees. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Moved. - -sche (discuss) 04:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• It seems we are missing an alcoholic beverage sense. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 23:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Template:circa2 into Template:circa

@-sche, Sgconlaw {{circa2}} was created apparently to work around the fact that {{circa}} adds (or added) a comma automatically. Now that I'm changing {{circa}} (along with {{ante}} and {{post}}) not to do this, I don't see any use for {{circa2}} and propose merging it into {{circa}}. Benwing2 (talk) Benwing2 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: it seems like {{circa}} and {{circa2}} serve different purposes. The template {{circa}} (and {{ante}} and {{post}}) appear to have been created for quotations in entries that do not use quotation templates. That is why the year appears in bold and there is a comma after the year. On the other hand, {{circa2}} is for adding circa or c. before a year in other contexts, such as in etymology sections or image captions. I suppose {{circa}} and {{circa2}} could be merged, but then some parameter would have to be added to allow for switching between the two formats. Alternatively, if all quotations using {{circa}}, {{ante}}, and {{post}} were replaced with quotation templates, then {{ante}} and {{post}} could be eliminated and {{circa2}} could be renamed as {{circa}}. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw I have eliminated the aftercomma from {{circa}}, {{ante}} and {{post}}. What differences remain? Just the boldface? That seems a pretty small thing to have two templates for, esp. given the horrible naming. Benwing2 (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

BTW {{ante}} etc. frequently appear inside of quotation templates. What is the way to do without them? Benwing2 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: can you give an example of {{ante}} being used in a quotation template? I haven't come across this before. — Sgconlaw (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

E.g. in cornuto:

{{quote-book|en|year={{ante|1597}}|first=William|last=Shakespeare|authorlink=William Shakespeare|title={{w|The Merry Wives of Windsor}}|section=Act 3, Scene 5|passage=No, Master Brook, but the peaking '''cornuto''' / her husband, Master Brook, dwelling in a continual / 'larum of jealousy, comes me in the instant of our / encounter, after we had embraced, kissed, protested, / and, as it were, spoke the prologue of our comedy}}

I am cleaning all of them up to use e.g. a. 1597 instead. Note that |origyear=, |year_published=, etc. now support a., c. and p. prefixes. Benwing2 (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I would not merge these as things stand now, with them having the differences re bolding that they do, and the differences in where they're used: they currently serve different purposes. (Since we don't normally bold years in etymologies, descendants lists, etc, a template used in etymologies to qualify a year as circa shouldn't bold the year either, whereas we do normally bold years at the start of quotation metadata, so a template that supplies circa there should bold the year.) However, if we replace all of the relatively few (~680) uses of {{circa2}} with just the spelled-out word "circa" — formatted however: "circa", "c.", whatever we decide — rather than a template, we could just delete {{circa2}}. And/or if we made sure all uses of {{circa}} were inside quotation templates (not manually-formatted quotations), then we could presumably have the quotation templates know that if year={{circa|####}}, then format #### in bold (but don't bold circa?), and then if {{circa}} and {{circa2}} stopped differing in the formatting they apply, they could be merged. - -sche (discuss) 16:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2, -sche: strange, I've just received a ping from -sche relating to this discussion from 2023. What's happening with {{circa2}}, anyway? — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Was the ping specifically to this discussion? Fascinating. (If it was just to this general page, I might speculate that my recent removal-then-readdition of a bunch of discussions pinged people somehow, even though it shouldn't because I think you have to add four tildes at the same time as linking someone's username to ping them.) Pings seem to be wonky lately; AG202 pinged me in an edit summary on this entry recently and I didn't get the ping, only noticing that it existed because I had the entry in my watchlist and was looking at the edit history. - -sche (discuss) 14:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@-sche @Sgconlaw I just got a bunch of pings that claim to be from -sche but were actually old responses of mine *TO* -sche. Strange. As for {{circa2}}, I am not sure anymore; I think when I looked into this awhile ago, I concluded they indeed serve slightly different purposes, although the naming is definitely bad. Benwing2 (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I notice all the pings are from 6 hours ago and are in WT:RFM specifically, so I think they are indeed related to your removal/readdition of discussions at that time. Benwing2 (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: when I clicked on the notification I was led to this discussion. Anyhoo, about this discussion, @Benwing2: what about changing {{circa}} to {{circa-quote}}, and {{ante}} and {{post}} similarly since they are all intended only for use with quotations (though they should be phased out in favour of the {{quote-*}} templates), and then renaming {{circa2}} to {{circa}}? Would that be confusing? — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Welp! I apologize to everyone who just got a bunch of pings from that, then. 😮😅 - -sche (discuss) 20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Ecclesiastical terms by language

Should be merged into Category:Christianity. Ioaxxere (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere No: the category covers terms mainly used by religious figures, not terms that merely relate to Christianity. Many of the terms in Category:Thai ecclesiastical terms, for example, have nothing to do with Christianity. Theknightwho (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

(Merged from a request to merge into Category:en:Christianity)
Not clear to me how these are supposed to be distinguished. The boilerplate description at Category:Ecclesiastical terms by language says "terms used only by religious figures", but that's manifestly wrong for the terms at Category:English ecclesiastical terms which are also variously used by commentators like historians or musicologists who may or may not be religious themselves. In reality the category, certainly for English, seems to just contain terms topically related to Christian churches—not just religion in general—and these should be listed under Category:Christianity instead. The "ecclesiastical" label should perhaps also be made an alias of "Christianity". @Andrew Sheedy —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

This is actually already on this page! See Ioaxxere's discussion above. It was pointed out that not all the terms are related to Christianity. However, I do agree that "ecclesiastical" is not the best label. Simply labelling according to religion would be preferable, I think. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Sheedy: Oops, completely missed that. I'll merge the discussions (and add a template to save anyone else making the same mistake). @Theknightwho The Thai category is very interesting, looking through it, but it seems to be describing a very different thing from the English category—maybe the problem is specifically how the English category is being used? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems like everything which is in this category would be better off in a specific religion's category or, if pan-religious, in the "religion" category. (But many things currently in the "religion" categories are Christianity-specific, as I raised at Wiktionary:Information desk/2023/August#Christianity_terms_labelled_broadly_"religion" and intend to deal with at some point.) The widespread misuse of the label / category for terms that are better in other categories means we might be better off retiring it, although the other possibility is making it an alias of "religion" and then trying to monitor misuse, which we have to do with "religion" already anyway. - -sche (discuss) 16:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

In the Thai case it might be useful to distinguish between terms that are topically relevant to religions and terms used in religious contexts. I'm not convinced that distinction is generally useful, though: stuff like PBUH would certainly fall into the latter category but I think the (Islam) context label does the job (and labelling it "ecclesiastical" would come off as decidedly odd in general). My inclination would also be to merge it in the way you describe, so moving it to the relevant religion(s) or to the overall religion category if it's non-specific, but that leaves more complicated stuff like the POS subcategories at Category:Thai ecclesiastical terms up in the air given that we don't generally do that kind of breakdown for topic categories. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Do the Thai POS subcategories make any sense or can they simply be deleted? "to kill (a god, high priest, or royal person)." does not seem to be an "ecclesiastical verb"-as-different-from-a-"verb", any more than deicide is an "English ecclesiastical noun", it seems to just include religions figures in its scope. And if specific verbs are only used by Buddhists (or whatever), then using the usual POS categories and then also using {{lb}} would seem to be the normal way of handling that, right? - -sche (discuss) 03:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Template:lj and Template:jaru into Template:rja

Both {{lj}} and {{jaru}} are aliases for {{ruby/ja}}, which calls {{ruby}} and wraps it using {{lang|ja|...}}. Now, why doesn't {{ruby}} take a lang code in the first place? That is strange. But the aliases are terrible; I propose eliminating them both in favor of {{rja}}, which is a logical shortening of "ruby/ja". We could have for example {{rko}} for Korean ruby, if it is so needed. Pinging the Japanese work group (Notifying Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, Fish bowl, Poketalker, Cnilep, Marlin Setia1, Huhu9001, 荒巻モロゾフ, 片割れ靴下, Onionbar, Shen233, Alves9, Cpt.Guapo, Sartma, Lugria, LittleWhole, Chuterix, Mcph2): , sorry for the wide ping. Benwing2 (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

All three -- {{lj}}, {{jaru}}, and {{ruby/ja}} -- were the creations of Fumiko Take. They did very little to document any of the templates or aliases they created, and if dim memory serves, they were even aggressively oppositional when asked to provide documentation.

• Stepping back -- what is the use case for this infrastructure? Do we not already have functional ruby text provided by {{ja-r}}?

Granted, {{ruby/ja}} offers the ability to specify arbitrary ruby text -- but I struggle to think of when we'd actually want that. It's used to great effect in manga, when authors will not uncommonly spell a word to convey a particular sense, and gloss it with ruby to indicate a different word entirely -- but for a dictionary, this is aberrant behavior outside of direct quotes of such texts. I suspect that, in most cases, {{ja-r}} would do just fine for our needs.

• Stepping back a bit further -- do we need ruby text at all?

Serious question. Tiny kana over the kanji is something that only provides value to people who can already read kana, and is otherwise likely to confuse anyone unfamiliar with Japanese typography (which is probably the greater part of our user base). If a given user can already read kana, they are likely to be savvy enough to be able to match up any provided romanized string to the kanji, much as we get when using {{m|ja|TERM|tr=romanization}}.

I argue that kana ruby text over kanji is snazzy, but it also presents usability issues.

At any rate, I would welcome an overhaul of the listed {{lj}}, {{jaru}}, and {{ruby/ja}} templates. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 08:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Eirikr I'm in full agreement that these are superfluous to {{ja-r}} (and {{ryu-r}}), but I disagree that we should be getting rid of rubytext. I think the aim should be to incorporate rubytext into {{l}}, {{m}} (et al). The infrastructure for language-specific formatting in links already exists (and is already used by Chinese and the Chinese lects to generate simplified forms), so we could add something for the Japonic languages that essentially reimplements {{ja-r}} (for the relevant language). Theknightwho (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Forgot to ping Benwing2. Theknightwho (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to add a bit further to this - I'd also like to automate much of the kanji/kana mapping which is currently necessary with {{ja-r}}. It won't be possible to do away with it entirely, due to redlinks or when there are multiple possibilities, but {{ja-pos}} (and all the other headword templates) are able to do this already by looking at the input for {{ja-kanjitab}}, so there's no reason why link templates shouldn't be able to do this as well.

This would greatly simplify a lot of the complexity encountered when adding Japanese links, which would help with the usability issues Eirikr mentions. Theknightwho (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@TheknightwhoIs there a way to automatically convert {{ruby}} to {{ja-r}}? There are over 1,000 uses of {{ruby}} (often appearing as {{lj}}) and I'd like to get rid of them if possible. Benwing2 (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2 It doesn’t look like it’ll be straightforward, as the syntax is pretty different unfortunately. I’ll need to look at it more in-depth to get a better idea. Theknightwho (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Blah. So much crappy East Asian code (and templates) out there. Even if the conversion is possible auomatically in only say 80% of the cases, that would probably be good enough, as we can do the remainder by hand or just leave them. If for example there are cases that can be handled using {{ruby}} and not with {{ja-r}} that is probably fine, but we should not have two ways of doing the same thing and randomly use one or the other. Benwing2 (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Yeah, I suspect a conversion is possible, and as a last resort 1,000 uses is doable manually if a few of us handle it.

On the subject of crappy East Asian templates (and before I forget), it’s worth you having a look at the templates reliant on Module:th and Module:km as well. Theknightwho (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theknightwho, my usability concern is not about editing, it's about reading, and about accessing the text as it is rendered in the browser.

• On the reading side, things like 漢方(かんぽう) (kanpō) are visually unclear to anyone not already somewhat familiar with Japanese typography -- it looks like the entire block of kanji + furigana together is the Japanese "word", ruby and all, when in fact the Japanese term is 漢方. Even if a reader understands that the ruby text is not actually part of this term, the kana are only useful for someone who already knows how to read kana. The kana are also superfluous, as we already include a romanization, which provides the same information just in a different script.
• In terms of the accessibility of the rendered text, for reasons obscure to me, the <ruby> element in the HTML seems to render the Japanese term un-copyable. If I select the text "things like 漢方(かんぽう) (kanpō) are" as rendered, and hit CTRL+C and then try to paste that somewhere, I only get "things like (kanpō) are" -- the Japanese text itself is missing entirely. Meanwhile, if I select the text "the Japanese term is 漢方." and do the same, I get "the Japanese term is 漢方." -- the pasted text includes everything I expected.

I'm curious, why do you think we should use ruby more? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Eirikr I think realistically, most Japanese entries are going to be used by people already familiar with Japanese enough to know what the function of the rubytext is. Although we’re a dictionary in English, that doesn’t change the reality that most dictionary entries are of little use to a complete novice.

You’re right about there being an issue from a copy and paste point of view, and it’s something that it would be good to solve if at all possible. I’m sure there is a solution, but I’d need to look into it. Theknightwho (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, just adding that the rubytext does actually serve an additional purpose to the romanisation, as it shows the reading for each kanji; romanisation can’t do that (unless we used rubytext for that instead, which I don’t think would be very helpful as it wouldn’t show semantic word breaks). Theknightwho (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

If folks are familiar enough with Japanese to where they understand both kana and how furigana (kana used as ruby text) work, then they also have some idea of how Japanese phonemes break down, and how kanji readings work -- so again, furigana wind up largely superfluous to the only audience that knows how to use them.

I really think we (speaking generally) get too caught up in technical details and the coolness factor, and lose sight of usability and usefulness. Outside of those manga-esque cases were the spelling and the intended reading are really orthogonal, like 騎士(ナイト) (naito), I honestly don't think that furigana are useful enough to offset the negative impacts on usability.

... One idea occurs to me. Is there any easy way of toggling ruby display on and off? Thinking further, would there be any way of indicating in the wikicode if ruby is really needed (as in the 騎士(ナイト) (naito) example, otherwise anyone who can read Japanese that looks at 騎士 would expect to read it as kishi), or if the ruby is optional (such as when the ruby just indicates the regular reading of a given spelling)? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Eirikr I know next to nothing about Japanese but I can see how ruby text is useful. For example, I can read Cyrillic but I don't know the ins and outs of irregular pronunciations in Russian; in cases like that we show a respelling in Cyrillic as well as give the IPA, and I think the Cyrillic respelling is useful. I imagine there are plenty of Japanese learners who will be able to read Hiragana (it's probably one of the first things taught) but have difficulty with Kanji (keep in mind it takes around 10 years for native speakers to learn to read and write Kanji, and probably only a few weeks to learn Hiragana). Benwing2 (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I was afraid of some confusion, and indeed, here we have it.  :)

Speaking specifically about ruby for Japanese -- I grant that there are plenty of other use cases in other languages. By no means do I advocate for getting rid of {{ruby}}. I'm looking solely at the use case for {{ruby/ja}} and redirects.

→ For Japanese itself, how is ruby using kana any more useful than simply providing the romanization in parentheses? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Eirikr The ruby text seems to allow for convenient markup of running Japanese text without interrupting the flow; putting romanizations in parens in the middle of a sentence would interrupt the flow, which is why it gets added at the end. I could imagine putting romanization in ruby text but it seems that isn't conventional. Benwing2 (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

{{usex|ja}} and {{ja-usex}} put romanization afterwards, not mid-text. I can't think of any case where a romanization would be inserted in the middle of an otherwise-running Japanese text.

• {{usex|ja|これは見本です。|This is an example.|tr=Kore wa mihon desu.}} →

これは見本です。

Kore wa mihon desu.

This is an example.

• {{ja-usex|これは見本です。|これ は みほん です。|This is an example.}} →

これは見本(みほん)です。

Kore wa mihon desu.

This is an example.

We could also leverage {{ja-r}}.

• {{ja-r|これは見本です。|^これ は みほん です。|This is an example.|linkto=-}} →

これは見本(みほん)です。 (Kore wa mihon desu., “This is an example.”)

In terms of the wikicode used to call the templates, I'd argue that {{ruby/ja}} is more of a mess, and the syntax is confusingly different from the rest of our Japanese infrastructure.

From the markup example on the Module:ja-ruby page (what {{ruby/ja}} actually invokes):

• [[振る|[振](ふ)り]][[仮名|[仮](が)[名](な)]]

Yuck. Granted, part of the problem here is borderline link abuse, but by way of comparison, we could use {{ja-r}} to similar effect, with a more straightforward syntax:

• {{ja-r|[[振る|振り]][[仮名]]|ふりがな}} →

振(ふ)り仮名(がな) (furigana)

Separately, in looking for examples of {{lj}} just now, I'm finding cases where {{lj}} seems to have been used as a replacement for {{lang|ja}} -- there are no ruby characters provided. See this snippet of the wikicode source at 会う#Japanese, for instance:

• {{quote-book|ja|year=1923|author={{lj|夢野久作}}|title={{lj|約束}}}} →

This kind of template misuse should probably be cleaned up as part of this overhaul. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Eirikr I completely agree. BTW I have added language prefix support to the quote-* templates, so you can just write this:

{{quote-book|ja|year=1923|author=ja:夢野久作|title=ja:約束}}

and it produces this:

1923, 夢野久作, 約束:

which ought to be the same as (ab)using {{lj}}. Benwing2 (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you! That looks to be much more elegant of a solution. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Eirikr For reference, on MacOS, using Chrome, when I copy the text with Ruby in it and paste it into TextEdit I get this:

things like 漢方

かんぽう

(kanpō) are

The same thing happens using Safari, which suggests it's an OS issue, although possibly there are carriage returns in the underlying text that are leading to this. Benwing2 (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Geez. I asked this one in February and again in March to update the documentation of Module:languages/data/2 for the "generate_forms" stuff that is otherwise largely unexplained. With the promise "I'll add it shortly" half a century passed and the documentation is still nowhere to find. Now he suddenly jumps out and complains how Japanese does not follow the Chinese model... -- Huhu9001 (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Huhu9001 Not interested in your drama. Theknightwho (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

"Eliminating them both": does "both" mean t:ruby/ja and t:ruby, or t:lj and t:jaru? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Huhu9001, Eirikr My original proposal was to rewrite {{lj}} and {{jaru}} into {{rja}} as a shortcut for {{ruby/ja}}, but given what Eirikr says, maybe we don't need either of them, or {{ruby/ja}} for that matter. It sounds like maybe the best thing is for {{ruby}} to take a language code and use it to wrap the generated text appropriately, and to simply use {{ruby|ja|FOO}} when you really need to display arbitrary ruby that can't be handled by {{ja-r}}. Then we can get rid of {{ruby/ja}} and its shortcuts. Thoughts? Benwing2 (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a saner approach (using something like {{ruby|ja|FOO}}), but I say this in ignorance of the implementation details. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

T:ruby sometimes serves to prevent double wrapping of language HTML classes, mainly in |title= or |chapter= of quotation templates, like this one |title={{lw|ko|s:님의 침묵/생의 예술|{{ruby|[生](생)의 [藝](예)[術](술)}}|tr=Saeng-ui yesul}} in 열.

If anyone wants to get rid of t:ruby and replace it with t:ja-r entirely, that could mean you will have to type {{ja-r|.....|linkto=-|tr=-}} every time you want just pure text but nothing else. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Huhu9001 We seriously need to avoid having to wrap one template in another. Maybe we need to make {{ruby}} smarter so that it can handle cases like the one above. Can you enumerate other cases where {{ruby}} gets wrapped in another template, or vice-versa, that can't simply be replaced by the equivalent of {{lang|FOO|{{ruby|...}}}}? Benwing2 (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

There are some cases when you want to ruby only a part of text. Then it can be done like: {{lang|LANG|unrubied text, blahblah, {{ruby|somehow rubied text}}, more blahblah}}. One such usage is in 閣下. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Huhu9001 Assuming that {{ruby}} is modified to do lang markup, why can't you just wrap the whole text in {{ruby}} and only annotate the portion of text you want the Ruby stuff added to? Benwing2 (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

1. Sometimes wrapping the whole text produces repetition. It may become:

   {{lang|LANG|unrubied text, blahblah, {{furigana|text to be rubied|ruby}}, more blahblah}} vs

   {{furigana|LANG|unrubied text, blahblah, text to be rubied, more blahblah|unrubied text, blahblah, ruby, more blahblah}}

2. Sometimes the wrap is not t:lang. It may be t:quote, like when you have {{quote|ja|text=(ruby text)...}}. How do you "wrap the whole text" for this one?

-- Huhu9001 (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Huhu9001 You need to think outside the box a bit. For #1, we're talking for the moment about {{ruby}} not {{furigana}}, but {{furigana}} can be made smarter like {{ruby}} is, so that you can annotate part of the text. For #2, {{quote}} should be modified not to language-tag text that already is language-tagged, so it's OK to write {{ruby|ja|...}} inside of {{quote}}; and/or we make a ruby-quote template, similar to how we already have {{ja-x}}; and/or we add built-in support to {{quote}} for ruby text. In general, having to manually wrap using both {{lang}} and {{ruby}} inside of each other is super ugly and should be avoided. Benwing2 (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Huhu9001 What I'm probably going to do is modify {{ruby}} so it takes a language param, but you can write {{ruby|-|...}} to force no language wrapping, so that if you really want to embed one template in another, you can do it without fear. Benwing2 (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not think inside or outside the box. I just tell you the current situation because you asked. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any real need for {{lj}} or {{jaru}}, but I haven't looked at any current uses. It seems to me that {{ruby|ja|}} should suffice. As regards e.g. {{ja-r}}, it makes sense to me to use hiragana ruby with kanji, as this is fairly commonly done in Japanese-learning materials. It seems to me (again naively, without having done any specific research into the question) that users are likely to include a fair number of Japanese language learners. Cnilep (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Commonwealth of the Bahamas, Commonwealth of The Bahamas

We state that Commonwealth of the Bahamas is the official name; however, I created the alternative form Commonwealth of The Bahamas, which Wikipedia states is the official name, providing a reference to “The Constitution of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas”. Per this, I capitalized the at Bahamas (i.e., “Official name: Commonwealth of The Bahamas”). Which should be the main entry? J3133 (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

อ‍ย

Translingual.

Asked to request a move because this is not attested as 'translingual', being so far found only in Northern Thai. I don't know why we'd want to request a move rather than just fixing the section header. kwami (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

ฺSee WT:Beer parlour/2023/July, especially Chuck Entz's reply of 01:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC) in WT:Beer parlour/2023/July#Translinguality of Characters in Thai Block. --RichardW57 (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: The analogy is that we would be moving อ‍ย#Translingual to อ‍ย#Northern Thai - and such things are ultimately likely to become pages of their own. --RichardW57m (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

If that's what this forum is for, then sure. I thought 'moving' meant renaming pages. kwami (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

That's why this is a test case, to confirm that it is indeed an appropriate forum for such changes as @Chuck Entz advised. For precedent, see #busy above, whose main-space alerting template is {{rfm-sense}}. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

hinge, hinge on

The same sense is in both places; it shouldn't be. Either leave it at hinge where it has a usage note about the "(up)on", or move it to hinge upon and reduce the relevant sense-line at hinge to a {{used in phrasal verbs|en|hinge on}} pointer. - -sche (discuss) 01:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

'Druther have a redirect from hinge on to hinge. Personally, I am loath to assert that hinge on is a phrasal verb. If it really is one, we should have an entry for it.

OTOH, MWOnline has entries for both hinge#Verb and hinge on. They have a definition that says "used with (up)on" and other dictionaries (not just idioms/phrasal-verbs dictionaries have hinge on entries. DCDuring (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

second

There are two sense for "To agree as a second person to", which are even acknowledged in the entry itself. One's enough, I guess Jewle V (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I would vote for putting the sense under the top one, because that's where people will look for it. Additionally, even if the true etymology is from Latin, it's certainly not widely seen that way, since people will say "I second this" ... "I thi0rd this", and so on, rather than using whatever the appropriate Latin word would be. —Soap— 16:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

All senses are from Latin, displacing native twoth. The problem here is that the "agree" sense is partly (and originally) from Etymology 3, and partly rederived from Etymology 1. Rather than reduplicating the sense a better solution would probably be to stick to one section and note the reinforcement in the etymology. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Rather, it muscled in on the territory of native other, for which at Wiktionary we have to go back to Old English ōþer. I can only find twoth as part of a compound ordinal, which is a new function for the meaning 'second'. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

portass and porteous

They're the same word. While you're at it, Middle English porthors, which I just sloppily created to house to Chaucer quote, needs a tidy too. This, that and the other (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Hope - valleys

There are two senses which are probably the same. Etymology 3 - A hollow; a valley, especially the upper end of a narrow mountain valley when it is nearly encircled by smooth, green slopes; a combe. and Etymology 4 - A sloping plain between mountain ridges Jewle V (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

going to

English. To be moved to be going to. Most modern grammars and some dictionaries treat be going to (" ~ will") as an idiom. The inflection line for [[going to]] has long been "(be) going to". Edit summaries show that contributors here have thought the expression included be. I can't think of another copula that could substitute for be. I also can't picture anything other than adverbials like yet, still, later, and some other short temporal adverbs (with or without not) appearing between be and going to. IOW, it's close to being a set phrase. The adverbial insertions would look good in some of the usage examples. DCDuring (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Support. (Though it occurs to me that the pronunciations and "gonna" altforms will need to be handled if it's moved.) —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. DCDuring (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I think colloquially the "be" can be elided (especially when there's pro-drop), so it would be best to keep it at going to IMO. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I did wonder about that after writing the above and apparently in Early Modern usage (according to the chapter I cited as a source for the etymology) it appears without be as well. So I'm not sure. It might be worth first collecting attestations without "be" to verify how to treat the elided use (e.g. it could be moved and the elided version turned into an informal altform). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Aren't are our normal users better off with a main entry at an unelided form with redirects from any elided forms. In this case, were we to have an additional entry at going to, we should have at least three definitions at going to, to wit, 1., "elided form of be going to; 2. Used other than figuratively or idiomatically: see going,‎ to.; 2.1 "moving toward" (subsenses for 2.1.1 progressive verb, 2.1.2, for gerund?); and, possibly, 2.2, et seq. DCDuring (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm thinking of the "be elision" kind of as "be elision" in other cases, such as with "be" + adjective. In other words, the "be" is not core to the construction. But perhaps this is debatable. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I would consider this expression to be distinguishable from, say, about to/be about to because there are copulative verbs that can occupy the be slot (seem and the other perception copulas.). DCDuring (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it should probably stay at going to, with be going to as a redirect. We just moved be supposed to back to supposed to (where it started out) since supposed to can sometimes occur without be, and it feels to me similar to the going to case. Sometimes people use going to without be; it may be an ellipsis but it's common. Benwing2 (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Surface comparisons can be misleading. English has lots of collocations that seem word-by-word analogous, but behave differently. I think supposed to is a false parallel. Supposed to can (infrequently) be used with other copulative verbs. I'd like to see evidence that going to is used without be in recent (~200 years) English. The few (2) other OneLook dictionaries (MWOnline, Collins) that cover (be) going to cover it at be going to. DCDuring (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

under one's wing

English. to under someone's wing (now a redirect to under one's wing), per recent discussions on use of one for reflexive verbs and other cases where a subject is identical to the referent of one. I don't care whether we would keep the (new) redirect after the move. DCDuring (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

on one's way

English. I have moved senses (and their translations) between on the way and on one's way, making on the way a lemma with most of the definitions from on one's way rather than an alternative form. It occurs to me that there might be a pondian difference that would account for the previous arrangement. In any event, please review the changes. DCDuring (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Category:Top-level domain codes et al

At least some categories which were thought (at the time they were created) to be restricted to a single language exist at "one-off" names, e.g. we have Category:Top-level domain codes and Category:European food additive numbers as direct subcategories of Category:Translingual language, instead of them being name Category:mul:Top-level domain codes and Category:mul:European food additive numbers and being in the set-category system. I have two questions:

1. If a set category is truly restricted to one language (e.g. Translingual), should we leave it at whatever prefixless name it may have, or move it to "mul:" (or whatever other language code is appropriate) and put it into the "set category" system, even if it only exists for one language?
2. Do the categories named above actually only exist in one language (Translingual)? Should .გე, .հայ, .한국, etc go in the same category as .de, or would they belong in "ka:Top-level domain codes" (and "hy:", "ko:", etc)?

- -sche (discuss) 23:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@-sche My current tendency is to only create topic and set categories if they exist (or may exist) for more than one language. However, I think is probably the wrong thing to do. The poscatboiler system supports language-specific categories like Category:Bulgarian conjugation 2.1 verbs and I don't see why we can't do the same in the topic category system. (BTW the poscatboiler system now handles all categories of all sorts except for topic and set categories. I've been thinking for awhile of making it handle topic/set categories as well and eliminate the separate topic category system; this would make it possible to consolidate the generic category code into the poscatboiler system, so there's only one unified category system.) For #2, I'm not really sure, but my instinct is that non-Latin-script top level domains should also be translingual. Note for example that Korea created Korean-specific Latin-script TLD's like .kia, .samsung and .hyundai (see .kr on Wikipedia); if these are translingual I don't see why the Korean-script ones shouldn't be. Benwing2 (talk) Benwing2 (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I just added this category to the list template {{ccTLD}} which goes in TLD entries so that all the mainspace transclusions will be in the category. I figured we might as well have the category full until we decide to change it. That means there will be some entries with the category both hard-coded and template-generated. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Australian slang -> Category:Australian English slang and similarly for Category:American slang, Category:British slang, etc.

Yes, English is the primary language in Australia, the US, Britain, etc. but certainly not the only one. So I propose:

• Category:American slang -> Category:American English slang
• Category:Australian slang -> Category:Australian English slang
• Category:British slang -> Category:British English slang
• Category:North American slang -> Category:North American English slang

Note that Category:Irish slang refers (logically) to the Irish language, not to Irish English. (For some reason there is no Category:Canadian slang or Category:New Zealand slang.) Benwing2 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support This, that and the other (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Support —Mahāgaja · talk 08:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Constellations split off Category:Chinese constellations

There are multiple constellation systems, but we only have one category for all constellations - contrast this with Category:Chinese astronomy which is a subcategory of Category:Astronomy. In the label tree there is already {{lb|zh|Chinese constellation}} which categorises into Category:LANG:Chinese astronomy and Category:LANG:Constellations, and therefore makes these categories very messy (see e.g. Category:zh:Constellations where terms ending in 座 are in the European system while the rest are the Chinese ones - I'm in the progress of adding more for the latter). Also note that there are still a bunch more that have been incorrectly categorised, e.g. Ox which has {{lb|en|astronomy}} rather than {{lb|en|Chinese constellation}}, so there would be a decent amount of terms to warrant a split.

I think we can just make said label categorise into Category:Chinese constellations, which would be a subcategory of Category:Chinese astronomy and Category:Constellations. (technically they can be called asterisms but the distinction isn't really clear so I'll just go with constellation) – wpi (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

sparling, sperling, spirling, spurling

This, that and the other (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep as is. Each entry has some unique definition or other feature. DCDuring (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@DCDuring what makes you think the entries are correct? I find it hard to believe these are four clearly distinguishable terms. This, that and the other (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

They must be correct or else you would have challenged one or all of them at RfV. DCDuring (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, WF did RFV sparling and spurling, but perhaps he didn't find the other two entries.

Anyway, you've prompted me to do a deeper dive into these words. It gets a little confusing, because smelt and young herring are both primarily of interest as bait fish, but here's what I was able to come up with:

• sparling currently has senses "smelt" (no labels), "young salmon" (no labels) and "tern" (Scotland). The etymology is at this entry. I ran out of time to look for cites of this form.
• sperling currently has senses "smelt" (UK dialect) and "young herring" (US dialect). I can find US/Canada uses where it means "small herring" (e.g. [3] [4] a mention) and Scottish texts where it means "smelt" ([5] [6] [7]) - although this spelling seems rather rare in the Scottish context.
• spirling currently has one sense, "sparling" (UK dialect). I can find US uses where it means "small herring" (e.g. [8] [9]) and Scottish texts where it means "smelt" ([10] [11]).
• spurling currently has senses "tern" (UK dialect, obsolete) and "smelt" (no labels). This one is harder to find, but I can find a US use where it means "smell herring" ([12]) and another unclear use ([13]). In this Scottish text the meaning is unclear ([14]) but this indexer concluded that Robert Chester used it to mean "smelt" ([15]).

For none of the forms did I find anything relating to terns.

All this leads me to conclude that we should just pick one entry as the primary form, and make all others {{alternative form of|en|...}}. This, that and the other (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this is  Done. Sparling does not appear to be used in the US, so I made sperling the main form for the latter two spellings. I'm RFV'ing the "young salmon" sense at sparling. This, that and the other (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Football (American) -> Category:American football

We have 5 football codes under Category:Football:

1. Category:Australian rules football
2. Category:Canadian football
3. Category:Gaelic football
4. Category:Football (American)
5. Category:Football (soccer)

I imagine this was done this way because in the US, "football" universally refers to American football (or occasionally Canadian football, which is quite similar), and never to soccer (except in the names of certain soccer clubs, which often call themselves "football clubs" (F.C. for short) in imitation of European football clubs). But it looks out of place, and Canada similarly refers to Canadian football as just "football" but our category is Category:Canadian football not Category:Football (Canadian). Wikipedia has its article on American football at American football (logically) and similarly for Commons. BTW once we rename Category:Football (American) to Category:American football, we might consider renaming the soccer category to Category:Association football (consistent with Wikipedia), but that's a separate can of worms. Benwing2 (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I would think that our contributors could tolerate a lack of parallelism in topical categories where the base terms reflect common usage and the differentia are in parentheses. This seems like overtidying, letting one's own personal preferences for parallelism override broader, user-oriented considerations. The (non)problem only appears in the Category:Football page. DCDuring (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I would've guessed it was done this way so someone typing "Footba..." into Hotcat (or typing "Category:Footba..." into search) would notice that they needed to specify rather than just using bare "Football". I'm not wedded to the current names, but I don't see a compelling reason to change them, either. - -sche (discuss) 05:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Football categories

the following categories should be moved for name harmonisation, as well as their child categories.

• Category:Football (soccer) --> Category:Association football
• Category:Football (American) --> Category:American football

Juwan (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Juwan I've moved this discussion to be under the same heading as a very similar discussion that's still unresolved. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 03:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  didn't see it, cheers! Juwan (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Articles with national anthems

Compare Afrikaans Die Stem and English The Call of South Africa with French Marseillaise (instead of La Marseillaise) and English Star-Spangled Banner (instead of The Star-Spangled Banner). J3133 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

to one's taste

English. To to someone's taste.

Don't or shouldn't we restrict the use of one's to reflexive definitions? DCDuring (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Reflexivity is a property of verbs. This restriction appears to be the practice for verbs: do one's utmost, eat one's fill, wrap one's head around. As far as I can see this has not been codified in any guideline. Of course, *do someone's utmost rubs one’s grammar judgement the wrong way. No such rule is systematically applied for other categories than verbs. E.g., we have over one's head, at one's fingertips, one's turn in the barrel, ..., but at someone's service, none of someone's business, up someone's alley, ... .  --Lambiam 18:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe so. But no OneLook reference has to one's taste, whereas MWOnline has to someone's taste. I wonder what the OED does. DCDuring (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The 1933 OED has a sense

7. The fact or condition of liking or preferring something; inclination. liking for; † appreciation.

Under that sense, there is a quotation

The other girl is more amusing, more to my taste.

 --Lambiam 04:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

So OED 1933 did not have even a run-in entry for any form of this as an idiom. Did they have any illustrations of the sense used without to ((some)one's)"? Also, they didn't seem to care too much about substitutibility either. DCDuring (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• done' (not by me) Whalespotcha (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

pro-shipper to proshipper

proshipper seems to be the more common formatting. pro-shipper is less searched on Google, for example. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Support Binarystep (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – The citations for both senses almost exclusively feature the hyphenated form. Google Trends results shouldn't be the guidepost here. This would also create unnecessary asymmetry with the antonym anti-shipper. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@WordyAndNerdy: The citations for the second sense are from print media, which doesn't reflect common usage of the term. If we included social media citations (which we could, per current policy), proshipper would outnumber pro-shipper 10-to-1. As for the asymmetry, this assumes that anti-shipper is more common than antishipper, which isn't necessarily true either. Hyphens in general are becoming increasingly uncommon in English, and slang terms like proshipper are naturally some of the first to reflect this trend. Incidentally, this is why I don't think the citations for the first sense should be counted in this discussion – that sense is rather dated, and not really used anymore in fandom spaces. I don't think it benefits readers to have the lemma form be at a spelling that they're unlikely to even encounter in the first place. Binarystep (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Unhyphenated forms may occur more in online spaces less for orthographic reasons and more as a product of often-poorly-punctuated informal Internet speech. We wouldn't have entries for hannigram or dni based on Internet-speak all-lowercase tweets like "proshippers dni, hannigram sucks" (the links are to the standard forms). This seems like a solution in search of a problem. The current weight of evidence supports the prevalence of the hyphenated form. I don't think we should set out to tip the balance in the other direction for prescriptive reasons. Readers can easily locate the current lemma through the unhyphenated redirect. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@WordyAndNerdy: There's a difference between all-lowercase typing (which is inconsistent with standard English orthography) and using prefixes without hyphens (which isn't grammatically incorrect). You're right, we wouldn't have entries for hannigram or dni – but we do have an entry for proshipper, because it's an equally valid spelling, not a mere error resulting from informal speech. Further proof is the fact that one can easily find plenty of uses from people who use standard spelling and punctuation. I also find it rather ironic that you'd characterize my reasoning as prescriptive, given that my argument is based solely on frequency of use; if anything, it's more prescriptive to invalidate proshipper on the basis of it being "a product of often-poorly-punctuated informal Internet speech". Binarystep (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Something I discovered while attesting comship/comshipper is that a not-insignificant number of people seem to regard proshipper (unhyphenated) as a blend of problematic + shipper. This strikes me as a rather unlikely folk etymology. Forgive the prescriptiveness but I now favour retaining the hyphenated form to avoid creating confusion over which etymology is more likely to be accurate. The pro- + shipper interpretation is better supported by evidence. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose based on the cites. Google results are notoriously unreliable (they'll say a search finds X hits, but only display far less); I don't know if Trends are any better. - -sche (discuss) 04:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose (provisionally) - I have never seen or used the word, but I do see that Teen Vogue used the unhyphenated version at least once- see [16]. I would like to see more citations on the unhyphenated version before a final analysis be made. I am always wary of downplaying of hyphenated words in favor of unhyphenated words because of what I dimly perceive to be a "systemic bias" (accidental or intentional) against hyphenated words on Wiktionary caused by various factors. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

November 2023

Cat:English Reddit slang: merge to Cat:English internet slang

The description of Cat:English Reddit slang reads:

English slang terms whose usage is typically restricted to users of the website Reddit.

However, I am not sure that "Reddit slang" is a particularly viable subcat of "Internet slang"; a lot of these terms didn't originate on Reddit and aren't actually restricted to Reddit. It probably only seems that way because of the prominence of Reddit as a site where people use Internet slang heavily.

The only terms that genuinely seem to belong in this category are downdoot, updoot, and AITA and its related terms (ESH, NTA, NAH, YTA). This isn't enough for a slang category IMO. The terms AMA and karma farm can persist in Cat:en:Reddit without being in this category, because the denotation has to do with Reddit itself. This, that and the other (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@This, that and the other Support. I agree with your reasoning and I imagine there are few terms with currency on Reddit that haven't "escaped" into the wider Internet. Benwing2 (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom. - -sche (discuss) 18:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I would say karma farm is another one that's Reddit-specific, given it references Reddit karma (upvotes). Theknightwho (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I support, I guess. Heyandwhoa (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: You're right that "Reddit slang" isn't a discrete category in and of itself (aside from the few you mentioned), but there are plenty of terms which are restricted to particular subreddits. Therefore I Oppose this proposal as written. Maybe the category should be moved to Category:English Internet slang originating from Reddit? By the way, karma and its derivatives aren't actually Reddit-specific, as the concept exists on (and possibly originates from) Slashdot (see e.g. karma whore). Ioaxxere (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Even if "Reddit" isn't enough for a category, isn't it enough for its own label. And if a usage or, at least, a term originated in Reddit, shouldn't there be an etymology saying so? DCDuring (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Category: Hebrew phrases and Category: Hebrew multiword terms

They seem to be the same. 212.179.254.67 08:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

They're not. Not all multiword terms are phrases by our reckoning, and the multiword term category contains more than 10 times as many entries as the phrase category. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The descriptions in the categories are

Hebrew groups of words elaborated to express ideas, not necessarily phrases in the grammatical sense.

and

Hebrew lemmas that are an idiomatic combination of multiple words.

If those are different to each other, the descriptions should say how they are different. 212.179.254.67 09:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree the descriptions aren't clear, but "phrases" in Wiktionary are a grammatical concept and indicate things that can't be clearly classified as nouns, verbs, adjectives and the like, while any POS can be multiword. Benwing2 (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Then can someone update the category descriptions? 212.179.254.67 15:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

God rest his soul et al and rest one's soul

Some overlap here Jewle V (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

シービーエス, エヌエッチケー

Japanese. Move to CBS#Japanese and NHK#Japanese. —Fish bowl (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• NHK done. Sorry if this is controversial, but no one has objected in nine months. Cnilep (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I found 460 hits for "CBSテレビ", versus only one hit for "シービーエス・ソニーグループ" (CBS/Sony Group), in archives for Mainichi Shimbun. I would say the romaji is the common form, and should be used, if the proper name is kept. Cnilep (talk) 04:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. I moved both to the respective romaji pages, leaving ja-see at the katakana pages. Cnilep (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

December 2023

Template:→

Move {{→}} to {{borrowed arrow}} (or some other English words). Wiktionary:Templates § Naming templates says, "If you can, try to avoid using characters outside the ASCII encoding". A single character, non-ASCII template name with no aliases makes it hard to use, hard to link to, and hard to search for (at least for people like me with ASCII keyboards). — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 20:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Support but let's please keep {{→}} as an alias. Catonif (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• For sure. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 18:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

සංස්කෘත

Sanskrit.

(Notifying AryamanA, Bhagadatta, Svartava, JohnC5, Kutchkutch, Inqilābī, Getsnoopy, Rishabhbhat, Dragonoid76): The attested orthography for Sanskrit does not use naked hal karima to form consonant clusters. Instead, it uses touching letters or ligatures. (The spelling can be viewed properly using Noto Sans Sinhala.) The spelling should therefore be සංස‍්කෘත, not සංස්කෘත. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Also pinging @AleksiB 1945. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Shanghainese → Category:Shanghainese Wu, to distinguish from Category:Shanghainese Chinese

I am re-starting this discussion with a clearer proposal: move Category:Shanghainese to Category:Shanghainese Wu, to distinguish it from Category:Shanghainese Chinese. Support, oppose, comments? - -sche (discuss) 08:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Benwing2 (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. @Musetta6729 and I have discussed this previously in private and have already cleaned up Shanghainese Chinese, which we both found unnecessary as most of the terms in it can be classified as either "chiefly Shanghainese (Wu)" or just plain Shanghainese. As correctly identified previously, the Chinese category contained mostly Wu terms, which we have already dealt with. We have already dealt with the majority of the category's pages, and left four that could also be removed:
  • 鄉下人／乡下人 (shián-gho-gnin), 硬盤／硬盘 (ngan-boe), and 硬盤人／硬盘人 (ngan-boe-gnin) are all generally "xenophobic" terms that can be classed as "chiefly Shanghainese (Wu)" (or something similar)
  • 三環／三环 (sé-gue) is a geographical term that pertains to the city of Shanghai. We can simply remove the Shanghainese Chinese label and deal with it much like the other geographical terms, cf. 筲箕灣／筲箕湾 as just one example

If we implement these two measures, the Chinese category will be completely vacated and can potentially be removed. Even if we do not remove it, I would like for at least some dignity to be given to Shanghainese, as the to-be completely unused label will get the succinct "Shanghai" name while the language of urban Shanghai will be relegated to the term "Shanghainese Wu", which to be frank, we both found somewhat insulting. — 義順 (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@ND381 I am confused why you think "Shanghainese Wu" is insulting, unless you deny that Shanghainese is a variety of Wu. As for the label, that is an orthogonal discussion and we can change it any way we want. Benwing2 (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Wu is a grouping of languages. No one speaks "Wu". We treat it as part of Chinese for practical reasons, but the Wu languages are quite divergent from the rest of Chinese, and presumably fairly distinct from each other. I suppose they see it as analogous to "English West Germanic" or "Ukrainian East Slavic". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz If there is a disambiguation issue, I don't see the problem with adding the language family onto the end, compare CAT:Silesian East Central German (to distinguish it from CAT:Silesian language, which is Slavic). Maybe their point is rather that they think just "Shanghainese" should refer to the Wu variety, and anything else have a qualifier. Benwing2 (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like to add a bit onto what has already been said here. Shanghai is incredibly complex sociolinguistically, and what is referred to as "Shanghainese" (on wiktionary as much as elsewhere) tends to be the city-centre varieties that developed during the course of the last centuries as a lingua franca between the original Shanghai locals and migrant populations from nearby areas who now constitute a major part of Shanghai.

But Shanghai in fact has a whole range of regional languages - a range of Wu varieties, in fact, which can all be fairly divergent from each other but still very much maintain mutual contact and influence internally. When someone speaks of "Shanghainese", if they don't specify non-city-centre Shanghainese, then one would usually assume they are talking about city-centre or something adjacent to that. But "Shanghainese Wu" feels then more vague somehow as to whether it refers to any dialect, sociolect or topolect that can be considered "a Wu variety of Shanghai which is not necessarily city-centre", a label which is not in itself necessarily useful, and can potentially even be quite confusing in my opinion.

As of now we have been adding modifiers such as "urban" or "suburban" in front of "Shanghainese" when we come across situations where we need to clarify, and that's been working alright. But coming back to the original point, I think it is also just that "Shanghainese Chinese" - which currently is used as "Standard Mandarin terms found in Shanghai" (the language itself not being native to Shanghai, simply spoken in Shanghai for being the official national language) - should arguably not take precedence to the Chinese varieties that are native to Shanghai instead. — Musetta6729 (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is very much more of a footnote, but the fact that the significantly more irrelevant category gets the label that the language is meant to have (ie. I would prefer for S’nese the language to get "Shanghainese" or even just "Shanghai" like how other non-top level groups/lects are handled) and instead we have to settle for the (intentionally obtuse?) mouthful that is "Shanghainese Wu" — not even Northern Wu à la Quanzhou Hokkien or Hong Kong Cantonese. Again, this is very much not the main point and from your profile I'm assuming you don't know that much about socioling and language politics in the area so it would be I suppose easier to leave the discussion here

The main problem is still just the category: S’nese Wu is unnecessarily obtuse and if we can get back to the point of whether or not we can just clear S’nese Chinese’s four remaining pages we can have a more fruitful consensus — 義順 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@ND381 Thanks for your comment. I am fine with your proposal to empty the remaining four terms from the category and remove or rename it. Benwing2 (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

As there has not been any negative comments regarding the vacating of Category:Shanghainese Chinese, I have removed all four remaining entries in the category.

Regarding the situation of the naming convention, unless there are any further objections, the current Category:Shanghainese Wu should be renamed to just "Shanghainese", and S'nese Chinese is to be either kept as is, renamed to something like "Standard Chinese in Shanghai", or deleted. Of the three options, I believe the last one would be best, as there genuinely isn't a need for it: "chiefly Shanghainese" would cover for most if not all cases of words in Standarin that are used in Shanghai, as those terms almost/always originate from the local variety anyways. Misspellings or Shanghainese-influenced sayings in Standarin that are not found in Shanghainese should perhaps be labelled with "influenced by Shanghainese", if, again, is necessary, which I highly doubt.

For the time being, the "Shanghainese Wu" label will be renamed to "Shanghainese" as per above discussions, and to stay in line with other "-(n)ese" labels (cf. Hainanese, Sichuanese). If for whatever reason S'nese Chinese (ie. Standarin used in Shanghai that isn't "chiefly Shanghainese") is actually needed, unless there are any objections, something along the lines of "Standard Chinese, Shanghai" or "influenced by Shanghainese" (if appropriate) is to be used, though again, there really aren't any words that would warrant this designation. — 義順 (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply; I too am fine with renaming or removing "Category:Shanghainese Chinese" (and updating Module:labels). In some similar situations we've used noun forms instead of adjectives to make this kind of distinction, e.g. "Category:Switzerland German" (for de) was renamed to that name to distinguish it from "Swiss German" the Alemannic lect, so if we need a category for "standard Chinese / Mandarin terms chiefly found in Shanghai", it would fit the overall schema to name it something like "Category:Shanghai Chinese"... but if people just don't want such a category, and want {{lb|zh|Shanghainese}} / {{lb|cmn|Shanghainese}} to throw an error and put the entry in a cleanup category so someone can re-code it as a wu entry, that works too... - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@ND381 @-sche I have deleted the empty category Category:Shanghainese Chinese. {{lb|zh|Shanghai}} does not currently categorize into Category:Shanghainese Wu, but IMO it probably should, for consistency with the labels Changzhou, Hangzhou, Huzhou, Ningbo, Suzhou, Wenzhou, all of which categorize into the corresponding Wu category (Category:Changzhounese Wu, Category:Hangzhounese Wu, Category:Huzhounese Wu, Category:Ningbonese Wu, Category:Suzhounese Wu, Category:Wenzhounese Wu). ND381 (I think) suggested renaming Category:Shanghainese Wu -> Category:Shanghainese; I am not opposed to this but if we are to do it we should (a) rename some or all of the other *nese Wu categories, (b) come up with a consistent and clearcut rule for which lects get called Foonese and which ones get called Foo Wu (possibly the separation is for major urban varieties vs. all others?), (c) harmonize the resulting category names (whatever they are) to the names of the corresponding etymology-only varieties in Module:etymology languages/data. Also if for some reason we find the need to create Category:Shanghainese Chinese, it should have a corresponding label that makes its scope clear, i.e. NOT Shanghai but either Shanghai Mandarin or Shanghai Standard Chinese, depending on the contexts in which the term is used and found. Benwing2 (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Old, less-focused discussion which evinced some support for this:

(Notifying Atitarev, Tooironic, Suzukaze-c, Justinrleung, Mar vin kaiser, Geographyinitiative, RcAlex36, The dog2, Frigoris, 沈澄心, 恨国党非蠢即坏, Thedarkknightli, Michael Ly): I have no idea what the intended difference between these two categories is, but in practice there's none. The former gets triggered by the Shanghainese Wu label while the latter gets triggered by either Shanghai or Shanghainese. They should be merged. Benwing2 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: If we are trying to make a distinction, one category should be referring to Shanghainese Wu, and another should be referring to any variety spoken in Shanghai (i.e. both Shanghainese Wu and Mandarin). I don't know if this distinction should/can be made, though. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Can 硬盤人 be an example that is used in "general Chinese in Shanghai"? --沈澄心✉ 07:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@沈澄心: Yes, I think so. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess the issue then is, do we have native Shanghainese speakers here who can make this distinction? It looks to me like most entries in both categories are Wu terms. Benwing2 (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If we have any entries that make this distinction (and one such entry has been convincingly adduced above), then merger would result in losing information. Do you want Shanghai-specific Mandarin terms to go uncategorised as such? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2, Metaknowledge: @Thedarkknightli probably knows the Mandarin terms and may know some of the Wu terms. For Shanghainese, we have some resources we can consult, so it's the Mandarin terms that are more difficult to figure out. The terms that are in CAT:Shanghainese are Wu for sure (and I would prefer to call the category "Shanghainese Wu" to make it clear). We would need to sift through the CAT:Shanghainese Chinese category to check what's actually Wu and relabel them with "Shanghainese Wu" or just "Wu". BTW, there might be some need to revamp other labels/categories, like "Sichuan" displaying as "Sichuanese" and categorizing to CAT:Sichuanese Mandarin, which could be confusing when we introduce terms in Sichuanese Hakka or Xiang (which we might have some already). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A native Shanghainese speaker would be User:辛时雨 but he is not very active.

What we lack with regional labels, which is specific to Chinese since the merger needs to work for varieties and subvarieties is the ability to add variety specific categories, {{lb|zh|Shanghai|Wu}} is meant to not only label a term but also categorise it as Shanghainese Wu but {{lb|zh|Shanghai}} is for general Chinese, esp. Mandarin. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you would need to use {{lb|zh|Shanghai Wu}} or something, not {{lb|zh|Shanghai|Wu}}, since I don't think the same label ("Shanghai") can categorize into two categories. Anyway, add my voice to those saying that if there is intended to be a distinction here, the category names (and, probably, boilerplate texts) should be made clearer. We could also consider "see also"-style crossreferencing them, like Category:Louisiana French and Category:Louisiana Creole French language. - -sche (discuss) 17:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Shanghai Wu (阿拉) and Category:Shanghai Chinese (硬盤人). —Fish bowl (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

list of entries to examine

Special:Search/incategory:"Shanghainese" incategory:"Mandarin lemmas"

• 㑚 (nuó)
• 內在美 / 内在美 (nèizàiměi)
• 冰塊 / 冰块 (bīngkuài)
• 哪能 (nǎnéng)
• 弗 (fú)
• 水蛇 (shuǐshé)
• 洋涇浜 / 洋泾浜 (Yángjīngbāng)
• 淨水 / 净水 (jìngshuǐ)
• 渠儂 / 渠侬 (qúnóng)
• 燂
• 純水 / 纯水 (chúnshuǐ)
• 脫 / 脱
• 阿拉 (ālā)
• 麻將 / 麻将 (májiàng)

 

Special:Search/incategory:"Shanghainese Chinese" incategory:"Mandarin lemmas"

• 乃 (nǎi)
• 來得 / 来得 (láide)
• 哈哈 (hāhā)
• 四季豆 (sìjìdòu)
• 囡 (nān)
• 外加 (wàijiā)
• 套子 (tàozi)
• 差頭 / 差头
• 後年子 / 后年子
• 意粉 (yìfěn)
• 拆白黨 / 拆白党 (chāibáidǎng)
• 拿摩溫 / 拿摩温 (námówēn)
• 歐巴桑 / 欧巴桑 (ōubāsāng)
• 特意 (tèyì)
• 盡頭牙 / 尽头牙 (jìntouyá)
• 硬盤 / 硬盘 (yìngpán)
• 硬盤人 / 硬盘人 (yìngpánrén)
• 站頭 / 站头 (zhàntou)
• 童子雞 / 童子鸡 (tóngzǐjī)
• 老娘
• 老虎窗 (lǎohǔchuāng)
• 蒲桃 (pútáo)
• 討生活 / 讨生活 (tǎoshēnghuó)
• 辣 (là)
• 飛機票 / 飞机票 (fēijīpiào)
• 飯單 / 饭单 (fàndān)

 

Venus' comb

Needs merging with Venus's comb and possibly Venus comb. Ultimateria (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, according to Google NGrams, since about 1960 Venus comb is the most common form, with the others more of less in a tie. DCDuring (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

But there are two species with the common names, one a plant, the other a shellfish. I'll see whether “Scandix pecten veneris”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. and “Murex pecten”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. can help resolve this. DCDuring (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Still not sure about Murex pecten's vernacular names.

The main issue here is strictly a matter of orthographic rules: how do you spell the combination of the possessive clitic, 's, with a word that ends in "s" in the singular? I was taught " s' ", but it looks like professionally edited works have used " s's " as well, or just avoided the issue by omitting the clitic. There's variation along those lines for both the plant and the mollusk. I suspect the differences in occurence of the spellings has as much to do with time and place of publication as with any difference between usage of the plant name vs. the animal name. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Template:⇒

Move {{⇒}} to {{reshaped arrow}} (or something similar) to make it easier to type, as with #Template:→ above. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 22:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Template:asdfg

Move {{asdfg}} to {{protologism warning}}. I found the name of this template confusing when I stumbled across it. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 23:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

January 2024

open-pit mine

English. Move to open-pit (POS??) This, that and the other (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be an adjective, but is anything other than mines ever called open-pit? —Mahāgaja · talk 08:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Mining can also be open-pit, as can work in older texts.

(In my part of the world people sometimes talk of open-cuts (open-cut mines, a synonym we don't have - I wonder if it is highly regional). So I was really wondering if open-pit could be a noun that is used attributively in open-pit mine. It's hard to tell.) This, that and the other (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a cleanup operation, covering several entries and potential entries.

No other OneLook dictionary has open-pit mine. MWOnline, Oxford, Dictionary.com, and Collins have open-pit, Collins having it as a noun. (Attestable as noun, but SoP?) Also we have some of opencast, open-cast, open cast. We should use GoogleNGrams to determine the most common for each of the -pit, -cast, and -cut forms, use Google Books/News to determine which are attestable, include all attestable forms as alt forms, and make sure that at least the main forms show the main form of the other groups as synonyms. There is also the possibility that some of these are used adverbially. DCDuring (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• openpit, open-pit, open pit - “open*pit”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. - Google Ngram Viewer

• open pit is most common

• opencut, open-cut, open cut - “open*cut”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. - Google Ngram Viewer

• open cut is most common, but sample includes many about wounds

• opencast, open-cast, open cast - “open*cast”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. - Google Ngram Viewer

• opencast is most common

Not checked to confirm that most usage is about mines and similar. DCDuring (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

eon

Move definition to aeon and mark eon as an American alternative spelling of aeon, so as to align with Wikipedia and as aeon was borrowed from the Latin aeon, not eon. eonian, eonic and light eon included. A Westman talk stalk 03:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't. eon is demonstrably (at GoogleNGrams) more common: eons recently thrice as common as aeons and eon more common than aeon. (Plural is nearly three times as common as singular. DCDuring (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. As a general rule we don't change the spelling of terms with Pondian differences once the entry has settled on one spelling or another. (There are exceptions, e.g. if British spelling allows both A and B equally and American spelling prefers B, I think it would be reasonable to move a term spelled as A to B.) Benwing2 (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

If we check frequency, we should be ready to change which is the main entry. Google NGrams makes it easy, though it covers books (only?). Whether the criterion should be recent usage or all usage is a matter of judgment, at least for now. One can also search in News for usage by location (nation, province/state?) of the source. DCDuring (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

English 's and -'s

I understand that the distinction between 's and -'s is that the former is a contraction of is, was or has and the latter is a possessive, but I think this distinction is likely to be lost on the majority of Wiktionary users and is better made by merging both pages to 's and making the distinction using different Etymology sections. As it is, there is some duplication between these two entries. Benwing2 (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

We should be able to have something at -'s#English that directs users to the appropriate etymology section at 's. (Is -'s an alternative form, as we use the term, of 's?) DCDuring (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

(Oppose unless it can be demonstrated that we don't normally lemmatize suffixes like this at titles with hyphens.) I'm very sympathetic to the fact that content being somewhere that some people don't expect is a problem, and to need to prominently flag when content is on a different page than some people expect, not just in this kind of case, but also e.g. when we usually lemmatize singulars but occasionally put some senses at the plural, or usually lemmatize without the but occasionally have some senses at separate the X entries, or when we lemmatize phrasal verbs outside the main verb entry. I'm a big fan of Template:used in phrasal verbs and "See..." links like at message. But if lemmatizing the possessive at -'s is technically correct and is consistent with how we treat other suffixes, then we should continue lemmatizing at -'s and just take whatever other measures we can to obnoxiously prominently crosslink it to and from the other page... because if we make an exception and lemmatize this page at an incorrect title, it's inconsistent with other entries... do we also move -'#English? What about -'s#German and -'#German? What about -s? And that inconsistency confuses other users and editors who do understand our system, and look in the right/expected place, only to find that the content isn't there because we moved it to an incorrect/inconsistent place to try to outsmart them. I think we have to do things consistently (e.g. if suffixes usually start with hyphens, do so here too), and use prominent "See also..." links where necessary. For verbs linking to phrasal verbs, and for things like message, such links can just be on definition lines; here, I'd be fine with the link taking the form of a big T:LDL-esque yellow box or something if people want, if people feel a ===See also=== link is insufficient. Obviously, any incorrect duplication should be cleaned up. - -sche (discuss) 14:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/atta

Proto-Italic. Identical to Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/attā. The two should be merged at this page.

March 2024

merge 翖侯, 翕侯

Originally at 翖侯, copied to 翕侯. I do not remember why I chose 翖侯.

Should the 翖侯 entry point to 翕侯 instead? And if so, can the page history be merged from 翖侯 to 翕侯? —Fish bowl (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Split/move Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/kwh₂et-

I can't find anyone reconstructing *kwh₂et-. Most sources seem to have trouble deriving the Slavic, Latin, and Armenian words from the same root. They probably don't belong here, but I don't know enough about these languages to decide. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Old Armenian քացախ (kʻacʻax) is certainly not an inherited term, I will remove it. Vahag (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Recategorize terms with "uncertain" etymologies outside of Category:Terms with unknown etymologies by language

Terms that use {{uncertain}} should have their own category, separate from the terms that use {{unknown}}, as they are on separate levels. There should be a new category like Category:Terms with uncertain etymologies. I'd also personally prefer the term "unclear" over "uncertain," but that's a separate issue. AG202 (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@AG202 What about renaming Category:Terms with unknown etymologies by language to Category:Terms with unknown or uncertain etymologies by language (although I suppose this somewhat nullifies the point of having two templates)? In practice, people are not maintaining the distinction between "uncertain" and "unknown" but use both terms fairly promiscuously. Benwing2 (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The distinction is too vague to warrant two separate categories. -- Sokkjō 03:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree there is not enough distinction. I think the distinction some people hope for is "unknown means no-one has any ideas, uncertain means people have ideas" (?), but I'm sure I've seen even other dictionaries use "Uncertain." as the complete etymology for a word they have no ideas about, and conversely I've seen things like "Unknown. Theories include..."; there is no logical or maintainable distinction; if you're not certain what the etymology is, you don't know (with certainty) what it is (you just hypothesize), and conversely if it's unknown you're not certain what it is. I would not object to renaming the category as Benwing proposes, but I would also not object to just merging "unknown" into "uncertain" (or vice versa). - -sche (discuss) 15:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The argument is fallacious because editors regularly do not have precious knowledge about existence and extent of previous attempts, so template application is quite a guess and theology. Given that the different categorization invites wasteful concerns of editors (adding to the learning curve load), I do not only not see the utility of if but also reckon it harmful, and am also sure that Metaknowledge would position himself likewise, as confronted by my argument about underspecified species names vs. uncertain meaning words on Talk:بركة. If you go from unknownness to uncertainty you can also visit underspecification and other more “science-theoretical” details that can only be left to philosophy papers nobody will actually want to write. Fay Freak (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. This is not a clear-cut distinction. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Categories for entries "spelled with" Ideographic Description Characters

Such as Category:Translingual terms spelled with ⿰.

Is there any use to separating these categories by the exact character used? Would it not be better to have an overarching category Category:Translingual entry titles using ideographic description sequences or similar. This, that and the other (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• @This, that and the other Support. The existing categories are especially problematic when you have multiple ideographic description characters, such as ⿰⿳⿰SIR木阝. However, why are you proposing to use "entry titles" in the category instead of just "terms"? Benwing2 (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the term itself is not spelled with the ideographic description character. That's just a consequence of the fact the character is not encoded in Unicode. Nobody would consider these characters to be part of the spelling of the term. Moreover, it's ludicrous to say that ⿰亻尭 is spelled with ⿰ when 侥 is not – they are both equally composed of two CJK characters placed side-by-side (not sure of the technical CJK term for that). Compare this to Category:Translingual terms spelled with ◌́, which includes terms that use the combining accent character as well as those using precomposed Unicode characters, hence truly containing all terms spelled with the accent. This, that and the other (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Hah, I see you didn't actually argue for the use of the word "spelled". Whoops! I guess my argument against "terms" still runs along the same lines though. The terms themselves do not use these sequences, it is their Unicode encodings of the entry titles that do. This, that and the other (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Benwing2 what do you think of my (admittedly somewhat confused) points here? This, that and the other (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  @This, that and the other Well, it still seems a bit nitpicky to me. There are no other categories that I know of that use the term "entry titles"; it's either "terms" or "entries". The distinction between "terms" and "entries" is often blurred in any case and I'd rather not introduce yet another term. Overall I'm not sure I really see a problem with a category name like Category:Translingual terms spelled using ideographic description sequences ("using" sounds better than "with" here). We could say Category:Translingual terms encoded using ideographic description sequences maybe if you don't like "spell", but in plain language, "encoding a term using such-and-such characters" *is* what spelling is, and the distinction seems a bit pedantic. Benwing2 (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Benwing2 I see this situation as unique, on the grounds that no other category tree picks so heavily on the specific Unicode encoding of the entry title at the total exclusion of the term's actual, human-centred visual appearance or orthography. Even Category:English terms spelled with ◌́ includes titles that use the precomposed characters like é.

  Anyway, I'm not going to press the point any further - a merger is the most valuable outcome here. I'd be satisfied to merge to "Category:Translingual terms spelled with/using ideographic description sequences" or any similar name. This, that and the other (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  @This, that and the other All right. @Theknightwho do you have any opinions here? Benwing2 (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Benwing2 @This, that and the other There are two ways to handle these: where possible, I think we should do what Module:zh-pron currently does by constructing the character (e.g. see Category:Chinese terms spelled with ⿰氵厶). Where that isn't possible, either the term is a mistake, or the IDS characters are being used for some other purpose (i.e. the term actually contains them as characters), so they should retain the current separate categories. I can only imagine the latter case coming up with emoticons. What I would oppose would be any kind of category like "terms using IDS" or whatever - the IDS are just a tool to represent unencoded characters; we, as a dictionary, only care about them insofar as they help us create entries, but the terms are in no way actually spelled with them (with the exception of the emoticon example I mentioned before). TTATO isn't being nitpicky by pointing this out, imo - it's actually a crucial distinction. Theknightwho (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Theknightwho The reason I proposed this merge is that it seems valuable or useful to have a category keeping track of entries using IDS in their titles - the Han characters using IDS are necessarily unusual or exceptional in some way and it somehow makes sense to me to group them into the category. Splitting by the individual IDS character used doesn't seem worthwhile, but an overarching category may be. (Perhaps farfetched, but I could imagine it being useful for people looking for new Han characters to propose for inclusion in Unicode!) This, that and the other (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  @This, that and the other I have no problem with having an IDS category, but it should be “entries with IDS in the title” or something, not “terms spelled with”, since that’s just factually wrong, as the IDS is only there due to the fact these characters haven’t been encoded yet.

  I don’t think there’s a problem in having separate categories for them - they’re still separate characters in their own right, and the only thing that unites them is the fact they aren’t encoded, which isn’t lexically relevant. Chinese and Japanese already do just fine with them, and the general headword template only creates those categories when the title consists of more than a single character anyway (note that I’m taking a complete IDS sequence to be one character). Chinese and Japanese have language-specific reasons for creating categories for single-character entries, but most (maybe all) our IDS entries wouldn’t create Translingual categories for this reason in the first place. They only exist now because the headword module doesn’t know IDS sequences are special. Theknightwho (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Channel (the Channel), the Channel

Hub (the Hub), the Hub

J3133 (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Merge into Channel and Hub (compare Bible, Titanic). — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 04:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
•  Done. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 02:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ExcarnateSojourner: There is also The Island (see Island). J3133 (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The Island, Island

(Unarchived discussion; see above.) J3133 (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:en-decades/documentation

English. Move/convert to Appendix. Any red-linked item included in this automatically causes that page to be "wanted" thereby clogging Special:WantedPages with pages almost all or all of the "wants" for which are created the template. There are now 13 such redlinks.

Other templates of a similar nature exist, but should probably be handled one at a time. DCDuring (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:French French and other redundancies

I propose to rename such categories (e.g. Category:French French, Category:English English, Category:German German, etc.) to less redundant and silly-sounding names. I have already eliminated Category:Spanish Spanish in favor of Category:Peninsular Spanish and am now doing the same for Category:Portuguese Portuguese in favor of Category:European Portuguese, in both cases using the preferred terminology in Wikipedia. (Note: Even though these appear to be slightly changing the scope of the categories, no information is lost as it's merely a recategorization in the labels module. Furthermore, the new category names either didn't exist formerly or, in the case of Category:European Portuguese, had no members.) I propose in general using the country name if there isn't a better/more standard term of some other format, e.g. Category:France French, Category:England English, Category:Germany German. Wikipedia has varying and inconsistent solutions for these cases, namely French of France, English language in England and German Standard German. The format like "French of France" etc. is possible but is inconsistent with the general Wiktionary naming practice of varieties of a given language, which put the language at the end. Benwing2 (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Support. "France French" fits existing practice, as you say; we already use nouns rather than adjectives in some other cases, like "Switzerland German" to avoid the ambiguity of "Swiss German".
In fact, now that it's possible to have labels categorize differently for different languages, we could consider changing "Switzerland French" and "Switzerland Italian" back to "Swiss...", since those two are not ambiguous and were just collateral damage of people wanting to rename the German category.
But in the other direction... I wonder if we should consider changing not only "French French" but also e.g. "French Yiddish" to "France Yiddish", and "Vietnamese Chinese" to "Vietnam Chinese": I wonder if we should in general try to avoid categories that look like "[language name] [language name]". But that's probably a bigger discussion... - -sche (discuss) 05:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@-sche OK, I'll change Switzerland French/Italian back to Swiss French/Italian. I should note that there are other cases to prefer the noun country form over the adjective one. For example, there used to be a category 'British Indian English' capturing terms used in British India, but then User:نعم البدل created a label British Pakistani and Category:British Pakistani English intended for terms used by modern British Pakistanis (i.e. British people of Pakistani origin), and that made me realize there could easily be a parallel "British Indian English" consisting of terms used by modern British Indians, so I renamed the existing category to Category:British India English, which is hopefully unambiguous. (However, if we ever create Category:British Indian English for modern usage, it could still be ambiguous, so maybe in that case we should consider either renaming the putative Category:British Indian English to something like Category:Modern British Indian English, or conversely rename Category:British India English to something like Category:Colonial British India English.) Benwing2 (talk) 06:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

In keeping with avoiding "[language name] [language name]", we should change CAT:Luxembourgish French and CAT:Luxembourgish German to CAT:Luxembourg French and CAT:Luxembourg German. "Luxembourgish German" especially could be interpreted as being a synonym of Luxembourgish since it is a High German variety (although that term is rarely if ever used, unlike Swiss German). —Mahāgaja · talk 08:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

In the vein of "Peninsular Spanish", it occurs to me that "French French" could be "Metropolitan French" (though then people unfamiliar with that term might think it means French spoken in metropolises, so I don't know if that's better or worse than "France French"). "England English" seems to be an actual term I can find in use (contrasted with e.g. "American English" and "Australian English"). - -sche (discuss) 15:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ǵʰer-

*ǵʰer- (“to yearn for”) should be moved to *gʰer-. *ǵʰer- (“bowels”) should be moved to *ǵʰerH- (suggested June 2019). —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Both roots have been moved. Exarchus (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

tail wagging the dog

We give this as a noun, but our cite shows it's a verb that can occur in other tenses. Do we move it to tail wag the dog? Or do we consider it too awkward to find a tail-containing title for the verb to live at, leave the verb on wag the dog, and make this entry a phrase "the tail is wagging the dog"? Either way, it needs to be moved and re-POSed, no? - -sche (discuss) 06:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd rename it [[the tail wags the dog]] rather than "is wagging". —Mahāgaja · talk 09:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

As worded it is clearly and correctly an NP headed by tail.

The lexicographic issue is the appropriate headword, which, in our case, is influenced by our avoidance of the idiom PoS, MWOnline has "the tail wagging the dog" as an idiom. Most OneLook dictionaries don't seem to cover this at all. DCDuring (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Support User:Mahagaja's suggestion. Benwing2 (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Benwing2 I think we should have a policy for phrases in English which can take multiple tenses, as this comes up relatively often and it would be nice to have something to point to (e.g. time stand still was recently moved to time stands still after quite a long thread at WT:RFDE). As with other parts of speech, I’d prefer we had a consistent lemma format, even if it’s not usually said that way (e.g. lemmatising at kiss one's ass goodbye, which I can only find one durable use for with the pronoun one, despite being relatively common). Theknightwho (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

What should be the lemma? Should there be entries, redirects, or nothing for classes of the often-numerous alternative forms (variations in verb inflection, number, pronoun, determiners, grammatical structure, licensed adjective or adverbs, etc)? Do we have to research relative frequency of the forms to make these decisions? How should the variations be acknowledged on the lemma entry? What differences by language type or individual language? DCDuring (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing that, I believe, other dictionaries cover in a style guide. We could use Wiktionary:Style guide as a location for a set of subpages on relatively narrow lexicographic issues, so that they would be easy to find. Entry types, like this one, that recur would benefit from some principles inferred from examples and will probably generate disagreement, but not major conflict. We could have votes and make individual subpages policy, but that should not be necessary. DCDuring (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho I totally agree. Sometimes I've moved pages to try to make them more consistent, which sometimes led to complaints, so I think a style guide or whatever would be very helpful. For example:

1. try to avoid "one" or "someone" in a lemma unless it's unavoidable, e.g. it's in the possessive; so kiss goodbye not kiss one goodbye or kiss someone goodbye;
2. if "one" or "someone" needs to be expressed, use "one" if it is the same as the subject, "someone" otherwise; hence kiss one's ass goodbye is correct, not kiss someone's ass goodbye; take someone's word for it is correct, not take one's word for it (which is correctly a redirect); but someone's ass off should be one's ass off (the latter is incorrectly a redirect to the former);
3. use the infinitive for verbs occurring at the beginning of an expression (in a verb-object phrase), but the simple present for verbs occurring with a subject (hence the tail wags the dog not the tail wagging the dog; time stands still not time stood still, time standing still, time stand still, etc.
4. there should be something about whether to include the word "the", e.g. in tail wags the dog or the tail wags the dog.

Benwing2 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Those seem like good rules to me. There is an interaction with what I think is our preference not to have headwords with leading the. Also, to clarify, when you say infinitive you mean the 'bare infinitive', not the 'to infinitive'. When should something be used instead of someone? (Does it depend on the relative frequency of use of the expression with non-gendered things? Threshhold?) Are there circumstance in which we would go with a different lemma headword? Should we have alt form entries for some of the inflected and other variant forms or just hard redirects. I don't know how complete we should try to be. To much detail might delay implementation and course correction. DCDuring (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@DCDuring These are good questions. You are right that I mean "bare infinitive" rather than "to-infinitive". As for something vs. someone, I think if it can reasonably occur with both, one should be a soft redirect to the other. Generally I prefer soft redirects over hard redirects, although I understand that hard redirects are easier to enter. Another issue is, what's the inanimate equivalent of one's? Is it its? I will bring these rules to the BP and see what people say. Benwing2 (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Peraia

It seems like this is just a capitalization of the lowercase common noun peraia when referring to a specific one. See Citations:peraia (one cite explicitly says ""The peraia" is not a place name but a common noun"). Should Peraia be moved to lowercase and redefined as a common (rather than proper) noun, maybe with the capitalized form left as an {{altcase}}? (Or, compared to e.g. "the boundaries of the (City|County|State|Province|Duchy|Kingom) in the area of the river", does the Greek-ness or some other factor make the meaning of the capitalized entry different or unintuitive enough that we should have both?) - -sche (discuss) 18:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Support your suggestion of putting the main form at peraia and making the other forms use {{alt case}}. Benwing2 (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:spelling of, Template:alternative spelling of

There seems to be no semantic difference between these two. I propose a merger into Template:alternative spelling of, which is more used and has shortcuts so it won't be any longer than Template:spelling of. Note that Template:spelling of is mostly but not exclusively used for alternative spellings in different scripts, and has special support for categorizing such spellings according to the script, but there's no reason that support can't be integrated into Template:alternative spelling of. Benwing2 (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: {{spelling of|lang|Foobar|term}} becomes {{alt sp|lang|term|from=Foobar}}. Benwing2 (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good.

While we’re at it, could we add an experimental parameter (to this and {{altform}}) that disables “standard” categorisation (like POS, gender, etc) and dumps words into a “[language] alternative forms and spellings” category? Nicodene (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nicodene I don't think such a parameter on these templates would work. The parameter would have to go in the headword instead. Benwing2 (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Benwing2 How would you suggest going about it? With frp-headword for example. Nicodene (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nicodene There would have to be an extra setting passed to full_headword() in Module:headword that indicates that the term is an alt form, which would change the categorization to Category:Franco-Provençal alternative forms and spellings (or whatever) and would disable all the normal categorization into lemmas, by gender, etc. You'd then need to thread a param for this through the various frp-* templates. This is assuming you want whatever inflections/etc. get auto-generated by Module:frp-headword; if not, you could just say {{head|frp|alt form}} or whatever. Benwing2 (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thesaurus:female genitalia (vs Thesaurus:vulva and Thesaurus:vagina)

Looking at the contents of this page vs Thesaurus:vulva vs Thesaurus:vagina, I am doubtful that a three-way split is sensible or maintainable. I suggest splitting the contents of Thesaurus:female genitalia between the existing Thesaurus:vulva vs Thesaurus:vagina pages. (Terms which refer to both can be listed on both pages, as is already happening. I take no position at this time on whether the vulva and vagina pages themselves would be better off merged.) - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe have Thesaurus:female genitalia, with subsections for those terms that are more specific. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

That would also work. - -sche (discuss) 16:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Support doing something about it. Fay Freak (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Merge some child categories into parent categories

Beer Parlour discussion here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#c-Ysrael214-20240523124100-Categories_of_child_languages_also_be_a_subcategory_of_parent_language

I guess admins should still decide which languages (like Chinese) shouldnt be merged but have borrowed terms of a child language must be a subcategory of the parent language. Already working in derived terms, just need to be implemented with borrowed terms as well. 𝄽 ysrael214 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Here's an unbroken link to the Beer Parlour discussion. The request is to make e.g. cat:Tagalog terms borrowed from Mexican Spanish a subcategory of cat:Tagalog terms borrowed from Spanish. As Ysrael points out, cat:Tagalog terms derived from Spanish already contains cat:Tagalog terms derived from Mexican Spanish. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 02:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

contranym to contronym

See contronym, contranym at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. Wikipedia uses contronym, and this would also be consistent with contronymy (contranymy [also less common] is an alternative form; both created by @Kiwima), and contronymous, which I have just created (and could not find enough quotations for the -a- form). J3133 (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want to treat these alternative forms differently than other alternative forms that have their own entries.... Kiwima (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kiwima: What do you mean by “treat differently”? J3133 (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You want to merge these two. Usually, alternate forms have separate entries like these ones do now. Kiwima (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kiwima: No, they would still be separate entries, but contronym would be the main entry instead. Compare § cringy to cringey, § eon. J3133 (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I thought you were wanting to merge them. Kiwima (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:clipping of, Template:aphetic form of; Template:clipping, Template:aphetic form

"Aphetic form" is just a fancy way of saying "clipping at the beginning". I doubt we need to make such a fine distinction, and using opaque linguistic jargon is IMO not helpful. I propose eliminating "aphetic form (of)" in favor of "clipping (of)". Pinging User:PUC (creator of {{aphetic form of}}, with only 60 uses) and User:Adam78 (creator of {{aphetic form}}, with only 71 uses). Benwing2 (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Might as well merge ‘syncopic form’ into ‘clipping’ while we’re at it. Nicodene (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nicodene What about {{apocopic form}}, {{apocopic form of}}? Benwing2 (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

BTW the usage counts (mainspace only) are {{syncopic form of}} (86), {{syncopic form}} (145), {{apocopic form of}} (1023), {{apocopic form}} (33). Benwing2 (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

That too, now that you mention it.

‘Clipping’ covers all of these, is a proper term used in linguistics, and is much more comprehensible to the average person. Nicodene (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

To me, clipping has a slightly different connotation. Aphesis, apocope, and syncope suggest that the word was reduced slightly by rapid speech or "laziness" whereas a clipping has been shortened in a much more substantial way, like favourite > fave or unprofessional > unprofesh (where an entire chunk of the word has been "clipped" off). Ioaxxere (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere: They are, formally, subsets of clipping. The following are synonymous (confirmable by searching them):

• aphesis: initial clipping, fore-clipping, front-clipping
• syncope: middle-clipping, mid-clipping
• apocope: final clipping, back-clipping, hind-clipping, end-clipping

Nicodene (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone would ever consider the Ancient Greek apocopic forms, for example, "clippings". Yes, they both involve removing the end of a word, but there's a world of difference in intention and function between saying δύνατ’ (dúnat’) for δύνατο (dúnato) and saying fave for favorite. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  No, there really isn't. It's entirely accurate to call them clipped forms. Nicodene (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's not strictly incorrect to call them clipped forms, but it's not how people actually think of them. Anyone seeing the Ancient Greek forms labeled "clippings" in a dictionary would be baffled by it, and would want to correct what they would perceive as either mistaken or laughably pedantic. I'm trying to think of a parallel case where something that's technically accurate falls so short of common sense that we can't realistically expect anyone to do it. The best I can think of right now off the top of my head is the fact that we categorize CAT:Birds directly under CAT:Vertebrates and not under CAT:Theropods < CAT:Dinosaurs < CAT:Reptiles. Yes, birds are technically theropod dinosaurs, but classifying them as such here would fly in the face of how people actually think. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know where you got this impression? I do think of them as clipped forms, because that is what they are. And of the two words clipping and apocope, the latter is infinitely more pedantic– the average person wouldn't even recognize it.

  If it's useful to have a specific subcategory for forms produced by regular final clipping in Greek (or Italian), that's fine. Nicodene (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm, the average person wouldn't recognize the term "apocope"? That doesn't make it pedantic, that makes it unfamiliar. If only there were a website that provided definitions of words so that people who were unfamiliar with them could look them up and find out what they mean. Something like a free online dictionary, maybe. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know what definition of pedantic we're supposed to be operating with, then, because in my world, insisting on fine-grain distinctions and the usage of unnecessarily obscure terminology is in fact more pedantic than not doing so.

  As I've said, if it's useful to have subcategories of this sort, so be it. That is an entirely different matter. Nicodene (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  The technical terms are used for phonologically-induced changes. Most of what I would call clippings are more a matter of style than necessity. There's no phonological process that changes "brother" and "sister" to "bro" and "sis"- otherwise we'd be calling parents "mo" and "fa". Chuck Entz (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  There is nothing about phonological regularity (nor for that matter style or necessity) in the actual definition of apocope. Likewise syncope, aphesis, and clipping. Nicodene (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Mahagaja There is already a problem with editors having a hard time keeping apart ellipses from clippings, and having three more subvarieties of clippings just adds to the confusion, not to mention the opaqueness of using Greek-origin terms that few people have ever heard of. Possibly we could keep apocope of referring specifically to loss of a single final vowel, since this occurs frequently in Greek and Italian, but I would be definitely opposed to keeping aphesis and syncope, which are underused and I would posit are even more obscure than apocope (since apocope is somewhat well-known specifically in the context of the languages where it is a regular process). Benwing2 (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Benwing2: "There is already a problem with editors having a hard time keeping apart ellipses from clippings." Actually, by a cursory scroll through User:Ioaxxere/ellipses I couldn't find a single instance where {{ellipsis of}} was used improperly. Also, I would like to note that not all syncopic forms are "clippings" by our definition ("a short form created by removing syllables"), since (for example) collard and its etymon colewort have the same number of syllables. Ioaxxere (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Ioaxxere I found plenty of examples (e.g. in Vietnamese) where {{clipping of}} is used for ellipses. Benwing2 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:pcp-cmp

This template appears restricted in its use to Azerbaijani entries. If so, it should be at least renamed to {{az-pcp-cmp}}. I suspect there is still room to improve on that name. This, that and the other (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Dungan loanwords — lemmatize at Cyrillic or at Han?

ex. 耶提目, 康比尤特; related discussion: Module_talk:zh-usex#Dungan (regarding retranscription of texts into Han).

My understanding is that Han script forms are typically only used by Chinese researchers for convenience; while they can be defensible for Sinitic morphemes under our current "unified Chinese" scheme, keeping them for loanwords seems forced and unnecessary. —Fish bowl (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

God Save the King

God Save the Queen

Shouldn’t the interjection be at “God save the King”? The entry has the usage example “The Queen is dead! God save the King!”, with a lowercase s. J3133 (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Also added God Save the Queen. J3133 (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. Theknightwho (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Me, too. DCDuring (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Me three. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Korean nativising coinages

Korean category; probably should be renamed or otherwise integrated into the Category:Puristic terms by language tree, perhaps as Category:Korean puristic terms. However, there is extra text on the to-be-merged category that should be accounted for, if we want it. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

logatome

Merge into logatom, the spelling used by OED and compliant with the etymology logo- + atom. I dont think an alternative term page would be necessary. Anatol Rath (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The question is not whether an alternative term page is necessary (It is.) but which form is more common. We also need an English L2 for logatom. DCDuring (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

See logatom#English. A case could be made for either based on Google N-Grams. DCDuring (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

In that case I suggest making th lemma the form which more clearly indicates the etymological roots of the term. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Japanese syllables and Category:Japanese combining forms

I'm really not keen on these two categories, because they don't really make sense with the way that Japanese is traditionally analysed (and the way we treat it everywhere else on Wiktionary). For instance:

1. き (ki) is described as "the seventh syllable in the gojūon order", but the etymology section clearly refers to the origin of the kana itself (i.e. the glyph), not the development of the sound in Japanese. The distinction is clearer if you remember that あ (a) and ア (a) are distinct kana that refer to the same mora (a).
2. キャ (kya) is described as a "katakana syllable", and while it can function as a syllable, if you were to analyse Japanese syllabically, you could rightly say that キャン (kyan, “kiang”) consists of one syllable that can be broken down into two morae: キャ (kya) and ン (n). I don't think anyone would support having a syllable entry for キャン (kyan), though, since there's nothing meaingful about that. This is in contrast to every other language in Category:Syllables by language, where you can't subdivide their syllables into component units (other than letters, in some cases).
3. Category:Japanese combining forms is used as a kludge to get around the problems caused by calling (full-size) kana syllables, as it's a dumping ground for the kana (and other glyphs) that can't be analysed as syllables. This is mostly okay for vowels like ゃ (-ya), which is described as a "combining form of や (ya) used in yōon mora ...", but it makes a lot less sense with っ and ー, which are full morae in their own right, and therefore function in a completely different way to the small vowel kana. However, because they can't form independent syllables, they've been shoved into the same category. I can also see that 酒 and 水 have been put in there as well, for some reason, which suggests this category just causes confusion at best.

I therefore suggest the following:

1. Allow a "kana" part of speech (as an alias of "letter", in the same way "kanji" is an alias of "Han character"), which should be used for full-size and small kana. The definitions should refer to the glyphs themselves, so the kana entries for あ (a) and ア (a) would be distinct, since they belong to different systems and have different origins, even though they refer to the same sound. This also goes for any hentaigana etc.
2. Allow a "mora" part of speech, which should encompass yōon like キャ (kya), but also the gojūon as well, which are written with a single kana. In that respect, きゃ (kya) and キャ (kya) both refer to the same mora, so it's fine for one or other to be an alt form.

As a side point, I also think these entries need serious cleaning up, as I'm not convinced some of these morae actually exist. For instance, ゐゅ (wyu) claims it is "rarely used, with うゅ seeing more use", but is うゅ (wyu) even used in the first place? Seems like someone just got overexcited and created all the theoretical syllables they could think of.

Pinging (Notifying Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, Fish bowl, Poketalker, Cnilep, Marlin Setia1, 荒巻モロゾフ, Shen233, Cpt.Guapo, Sartma, Lugria, LittleWhole, Chuterix, Mcph2): . Theknightwho (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Category:Japanese syllables seems like an inappropriate way to categorize what are orthographic representations of mora. I'm not totally convinced that kana and mora are "parts of speech" in the sense of grammatical roles, but as categories for things in a broad dictionary, they are probably better than calling e.g. え a "syllable". Similarly, the small kana are not "combining forms" in any real sense – though I would argue that things such as 酒 and 水 really are. I think those were categorized automatically because the lemma entries use {{com form}}. So in the latter case, the problem may how the category is currently used rather than the category as such. To the side point, I can't recall ever seeing ゐゅ and can't imagine it being used, but one never can tell. Advertising, for example, sometimes uses bizarre forms to capture attention. Cnilep (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cnilep I completely agreed that "mora" and "kana" aren't part of speech in the strict sense, but I don't think it's possible to craft a definition that excludes them while still including "syllable" or "letter", which we use quite widely cross-linguistically (especially "letter"). If we still want to keep using the "combining forms" category for 酒 and 水 then I have no issue with that, but that's quite a different meaning of "combining form" (more akin to an affix). Theknightwho (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

For my part, the inclusion of 酒 (saka-) and 水 (mi-) in Category:Japanese_combining_forms looks like a mistake, brought on by unclear definitions.

As I understand it, Category:Japanese_combining_forms is intended for combining orthographic forms, while the saka- and mi- readings for 酒 and 水 are combining morphophonemic forms, relating (in part) to still-poorly-understood vowel-fronting behavior seen in certain ancient nouns when used as standalone nouns or the latter element in a compound, versus when used as the first component in a compound; and (in part) to how certain ancient nouns could appear in compounds in abbreviated forms (perhaps the original words? or perhaps as contractions? uncertain).

Similarly, the inclusion of ん in this category also appears to be a mistake -- this glyph is not a combining orthographic form, nor does any such exist (AFAIK).

Not entirely sure how to fix things, however. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Eirikr Do you have thoughts on the initial proposal? Theknightwho (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

If you mean the "I therefore suggest the following:" part above about new pseudo-POS headers and consequent entry restructuring, I support your proposal 👍, with the addendum that I think we need to treat combining orthographic forms separately from combining morphophonemic forms, regarding 酒 (saka-) and 水 (mi-).

About the spellings ゐゅ, ヰュ, and うゅ, these are not used at all, as far as I'm aware. Unless we can find sufficient evidence of use, I think we must delete these as imaginary, only-found-theoretically spellings; indeed, the phonetic sequence these purport to spell, /wju/, does not exist in Japanese, and arguably never has. I think we must also delete the related empty categories, Category:Terms_spelled_with_うゅ_by_language, Category:Terms_spelled_with_ゐゅ_by_language, and Category:Terms_spelled_with_ヰュ_by_language. (Apparently there isn't any entry or associated category for the katakana spelling ウュ.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Eirikr Thanks - good to know. Re the categories, they can be deleted right now tbh, since they’re empty. If we do discover any bizarre terms using those morae and add them, they’ll get populated/readded automatically anyway. Theknightwho (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

このざま

Japanese. Move to Latin-script konozama (konozama)? —Fish bowl (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Poking around briefly in online search results, it looks like the katakana form is amply confirmable for this sense of reverse-"Amazon OK". The hiragana, however, appears to be just the straightforward SOP of この (kono, “this”) + ざま (zama, “pitiful appearance / situation / state”), and as SOP should probably not have an entry.

Rather than outright moving, I'd suggest keeping コノザマ (konozama) as an alt form and having the lemma at konozama (konozama). (Can anyone explain why the heck {{m|ja|konozama}} is outputting romanization on a romanized term? Not wanted.) For instance, compare:

• google:"コノザマは" -- 226 hits for me
• google:"konozamaは" -- 1,530 hits for me

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

dogs bark

The current title is awkward (IMO). I would tentatively suggest moving to dogs are barking with redirects from any other commonly-attested forms like dogs were barking. Perhaps someone has a better idea, or even wants to defend the current name as best. - -sche (discuss) 03:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Merging 𐌃𐌄𐌃𐌄𐌕 and dedet

Both these articles duplicate their Faliscan content. Perhaps the articles should be merged? Graearms (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, not literally merged, but one of them should be listed only as an alternative spelling of the other. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with महागज. Latin spellings of Faliscan are more rare here, so it's better to move it to the original spelling i guess. Or do you find it problematic? Tollef Salemann (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Moving Reconstruction:Gaulish/Wenicaros to Reconstruction:Gaulish/Wenikaros

I am requesting that a user with the required permissions move Reconstruction:Gaulish/Wenicaros to Reconstruction:Gaulish/Wenikaros, which is currently occupied by a redirect page. Antiquistik (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's give Mellohi! a chance to explain why he moved it from *Wenikaros to *Uenicaros in the first place before moving it back. And why do we need a separate page for the Gaulish reconstruction at all when we have RC:Proto-Celtic/Wenikaros? The latter can list a Gaulish reconstruction without a link and then put Latin Venicarus under that. Having a whole separate entry for the Gaulish reconstruction feels unnecessary. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I was basically moving all the Gaulish reconstructed entries to match up with the orthography of actual Gaulish inscriptions (many Latin-script Gaulish inscriptions exist). Latin-script Gaulish inscriptions basically used U for /w/ (and rendered with the letter U in scholarly mentions of words with the glide) and C for /k/. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the whole page is superfluous. It contains no new information. A page RC:Gaulish/caros with declension and derived terms would be great though. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mahagaja A discussion was held, and it the majority of votes was in favour of using phonetic-based Romanisations for certain reconstructions including Gaulish ones. The conversation on this present request continues here below. Antiquistik (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:English terms spelled with numbers, Category:English terms containing Roman numerals

Should “Category:English terms containing Roman numerals” (and related categories) be renamed to “Category:English terms spelled with Roman numerals” for consistency with “Category:English terms spelled with numbers” (which is in fact only for Arabic numerals)? J3133 (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively “Category:English terms spelled with numbers” should be renamed to an Arabic-numeral category and instead be a supercategory for Arabic- and Roman-numeral subcategories. J3133 (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not convinced that there is any need for action on either issue:

• The "spelled with" categories call out the specific characters used to spell the term, with no concern for what they are being used to represent. The entries featuring Roman numerals in their titles are "spelled with" I, X, etc.
• Looking at the situation in English in isolation, the term "number" is not ambiguous and changing it to "Arabic numerals" seems somewhat pedantic. The situation could be different in languages which use other systems of numeration, but I'm not familiar with these and can't comment.

This, that and the other (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Compare Category:Latin terms spelled with numbers and its subcategory Category:Latin terms containing Roman numerals; should Arabic numerals be the default “numbers” for all languages? J3133 (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Removing the "Scottish" from regional varieties of Scottish Gaelic

I suggest we remove the word "Scottish" from the following categories, as it is redundant and in most if not all cases less common than the name with just plain "Gaelic":

• CAT:Argyll Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Argyll Gaelic
• CAT:Arran Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Arran Gaelic
• CAT:Badenoch Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Badenoch Gaelic
• CAT:Barra Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Barra Gaelic
• CAT:Canadian Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Canadian Gaelic
• CAT:Deeside Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Deeside Gaelic
• CAT:Easter Ross Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Easter Ross Gaelic
• CAT:Harris Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Harris Gaelic
• CAT:Inverness-shire Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Inverness-shire Gaelic
• CAT:Islay Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Islay Gaelic
• CAT:Lewis Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Lewis Gaelic
• CAT:Lochaber Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Lochaber Gaelic
• CAT:Mull Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Mull Gaelic
• CAT:Perthshire Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Perthshire Gaelic
• CAT:Ross-shire Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Ross-shire Gaelic
• CAT:Skye Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Skye Gaelic
• CAT:Strathspey Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Strathspey Gaelic
• CAT:Sutherland Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Sutherland Gaelic
• CAT:Tiree Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Tiree Gaelic
• CAT:Uist Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Uist Gaelic
• CAT:Wester Ross Scottish Gaelic → CAT:Wester Ross Gaelic

Pinging @SaoiDunNeachdain, Silmethule, Embryomystic, Linguoboy, Crynwrdrwg, Konanen, Moilleadóir, Qwertygiy, TheSilverWolf98; feel free to notify any other Scottish Gaelic editors I haven't thought of. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I agree Scottish in this context is redundant. (Arran Gaelic might be slightly confusing to some due to Aran islands being a Gaeltacht area in Ireland… but I don’t think the impact of this would be significant anyway, the spelling is different and specific dialects of Ireland are rarely referred to with the word Gaelic) // Silmeth ^@talk 00:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

"Canadian Gaelic" might be confusing for similar reasons: without knowing about Scottish immigration in Canada, it might not be clear which Gaelic. Also, I hope the module isn't just tacking the language name to the end of the variety to make the category. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Canadian Scottish Gaelic is the one in the list for which I am most amenable to keeping "Scottish" in the name. And yes, Module:labels/data/lang/gd lists regional_categories = true, which means it is just tacking the language name to the end of the variety to make the category. But we can change it to plain_categories = "Argyll Gaelic", etc. to change the category name. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It would seem highly strange to me to have the categories for dialects of a language not contain the actual name of the language. Scottish English is a dialect of English; it's not at all necessary to speak of a given sub-dialect as Glasgow Scottish English. The Scottish is absolutely redundant there. But Scottish Gaelic is not merely a variant or dialect; it's a fully standardized language of its own. To me, logistically, this idea feels somewhat equivalent to, for example, renaming Gotlandic Swedish to Gotlandic Norse.

There's a few other reasons, as well. At least in the United States, Gaelic sans modifier is almost completely synonymous with Irish, unless the context makes it explicit that one is discussing Scottish Gaelic or the Goidelic family as a whole. (Which is why individual dialects would most often be referred to as simply Gaelic; they're not being presented in a multilingual context like Wiktionary.) I feel like the possibility for innocent confusion isn't too dangerously high, given the fairly niche nature of the language and the lack of Irish spoken natively in Scotland; but to Chuck Entz's point, there was also a dialect of Newfoundland Irish, extant all the way into the 1900s, that could rightly be deemed Canadian Gaelic. Qwertygiy (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Qwertygiy: It's really a very different case from Gotlandic Swedish. Swedish is never called simply "Norse" the way Scottish Gaelic is frequently – even usually – called simply "Gaelic". As I mentioned above in my reply to Chuck, I am most amenable to keeping the word "Scottish" in Canadian Scottish Gaelic, but even there, I think "Canadian Gaelic" is a more common name for it; and in the literature "Canadian Gaelic" refers only to Scottish Gaelic spoken in Canada. As for Newfoundland Irish, Irish language in Newfoundland says "The Irish language was once spoken by some immigrants to the island of Newfoundland before it disappeared in the early 20th century", suggesting it may have been extinct before 1949, when Newfoundland joined Canada. In that case, Newfoundland Irish really couldn't reasonably be called Canadian Gaelic (quite apart from the fact that it never is). —Mahāgaja · talk 09:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, we also need to ask ourselves whose standard we want to follow:

For a majority of speakers in Ireland and the UK, saying "Gaelic" automatically and exclusively refers to Gàidhlig na h-Albann, while "Irish" automatically and exclusively refers to Gaeilge na hÉireann. As @Qwertygiy reports, this is not the case in the U.S., where "Gaelic" seems to refer to Gaeilge na hÉireann.

I think it is redundant to denote that Argyll, Perthshire, Uist, etc. are all in Scotland by adding "Scottish", but we should be aware of the fact that this has the potential to cause confusion for less well-informed people.

P.S.: I was never before confused by the term "Canadian Gaelic", because I didn't even think a variety of Gaeilge might have ever been spoken there, but I stand corrected! The potential for confusion abounds everywhere, it seems.

-Konanen (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I really think the potential for confusion is minimal, especially since these aren't L2 language headers we're talking about, but just labels next to terms under a ==Scottish Gaelic== header and the corresponding categories that are all inside CAT:Regional Scottish Gaelic. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, well, in that case I am in favour of the Request. -Konanen (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me — these all sound bizarre at the moment, a bit like ParisFrance. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 02:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I am cautiously in favour. Gaelic really isn't used to refer to either of the other members of the family (in English), and those category names are what those subvarieties are habitually called (including Canadian Gaelic). embryomystic (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Thadh (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons cited by User:Qwertygiy. In general we do include the full name of the language in categories containing varieties of that language, and I at least would find it confusing to see something like Category:Harris Gaelic, as I would not know if this is a variety of Scottish Gaelic or Irish. For similar reasons, varieties of e.g. 'Walser German' should be 'Foo Walser German' not just 'Foo German'. Benwing2 (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You wouldn't be confused for long, since anything in CAT:Harris Gaelic would be under a ==Scottish Gaelic== header, and the category itself would be within CAT:Regional Scottish Gaelic. The comparison with Walser German is poorly chosen, since "German" unmodified refers to a different language (de), while "Gaelic" does not refer to a different language. Or consider the varieties of Regional Ancient Greek, which with the exception of Egyptian Ancient Greek are called "Foo Greek", not "Foo Ancient Greek" (despite the fact that "Greek" unmodified refers to the modern language). I ran some Google Ngrams searches:

• Arran Gaelic vs. Arran Scottish Gaelic
• Barra Gaelic vs. Barra Scottish Gaelic
• Canadian Gaelic vs. Canadian Scottish Gaelic
• Inverness Gaelic vs. Inverness Scottish Gaelic
• Islay Gaelic vs. Islay Scottish Gaelic
• Lewis Gaelic vs. Lewis Scottish Gaelic
• Lochaber Gaelic vs. Lochaber Scottish Gaelic
• Perthshire Gaelic vs. Perthshire Scottish Gaelic
• Skye Gaelic vs. Skye Scottish Gaelic
• Sutherland Gaelic vs. Sutherland Scottish Gaelic
• Uist Gaelic vs. Uist Scottish Gaelic

In every single instance, the "Foo Scottish Gaelic" variant was too rare to be plottable on an ngram. In the cases not listed above, both "Foo Gaelic" and "Foo Scottish Gaelic" were too rare. There was no case where "Foo Scottish Gaelic" was common enough to be plotted at all, let alone being more common than "Foo Gaelic". —Mahāgaja · talk 10:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m not a Scottish Gaelic editor. But what about a compromise like “Scottish (Arran) Gaelic” or “Scottish Gaelic (Arran)”? Just a thought. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

A tough one. I feel that a good analogy would be if we called English "Modern English". Then we'd end up with regional categories like "Australian Modern English" instead of "Australian English". This name isn't wrong, nor is it even confusing. It would just be a Wiktionary-ism; readers could easily make the connection to the formal language name and realise why we were using an unusual name for the dialect.

On the other hand, this project has seen fit to call the category "Attic Greek" instead of the Wiktionary-ism "Attic Ancient Greek". I would prefer the latter name, but if we make exceptions for Ancient Greek it's difficult to justify why we shouldn't do so for Scottish Gaelic too. This, that and the other (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I tried to implement this, but the module in charge of {{auto cat}} can't figure out what language "Argyll Gaelic" belongs to, and I don't know how to tell it. I suspect it would work if someone created Module:category tree/poscatboiler/data/lang-specific/gd, but doing so is beyond my comprehension of modules. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Given that several people have either expressed outright opposition, suggested alternatives that are don't involve removing the word "Scottish" or given at most grudging acceptance, I would not recommend doing this at all. Benwing2 (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

WiFi

wifi is the main spelling today, methinks. Denazz (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you meant Wi-Fi; WiFi is an alternative form. J3133 (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Twitter

Move this + subcats to Category:X? Vilipender (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• See also the open Wikipedia move request for arguments on both sides. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 16:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - "Twitter" is still the most common name, and Category:X is way too ambiguous. Theknightwho (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

We could use something like "Category:X (formerly Twitter)". — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for all the reasons it's still at "Twitter" at Wikipedia. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

pearl-ash / pearlash

Different? Denazz (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention the well-attested pear-lash, with a similar meaning. DCDuring (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem of division of pearlash has been observed. The following is from Riddles and Conundrums (1924):

My first's a precious stone;

My next a well known tree;

Or call my first a fruit,

The next a thong will be.

Whichever way you choose:

This puzzle to divide,

You still will find my whole

A powder will abide.

Pearl-ash, or Pear-lash.

Ash is used in combination to form names of a range of natural alkalis (made from vegetable ash), refined versions, and their synthesized replacements, soda ash, kelp ash, potash.

My hypotheses:

1. pearl ash may have gotten its name not from the product being derived from mollusk shells but by being a refined (white, shiny?, more valuable?) form of potash; hence, pearl-ash, then pearlash
2. I have yet to find any discussion of mollusc shells being used in the manufacture of potassium carbonate. Therefore, I am skeptical of the definition in our entry for pearl-ash, which is sourced from "Universal Dictionary of the English Language [UDE], 1896; under snuff.". Looking it up I found a use of pearl-ash in a discussion of the adulteration of snuff. UDE's definition of pearl-ash did not mention shells or molluscs, just plant ashes. I wondered a jesting or naive folk-etymologist contributor is responsible for the entry.
3. pear-lash is like a norange. DCDuring (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Uncomparable adjectives by language → Category:Incomparable adjectives by language and Category:Uncomparable adverbs by language → Category:Incomparable adverbs by language

Google Ngrams shows incomparable to be over 400 times more common than uncomparable. I appreciate that incomparable is often used with the meaning "beyond compare", rather than "not comparable" but it is trivially easy to find examples of it in use in terms like incomparable adjective and incomparable adverb, while Ngrams doesn't even register uncomparable adjective when I try to compare them ([17]). While it's certainly possible to find some examples of uncomparable being used as a grammatical term ([18]), results for incomparable are much more numerous ([19]).

For some reason, our entry at incomparable had had the "not comparable" sense marked as "rare" by an old admin since 2008 ([20]), so I think the current situation stems from their misconception that uncomparable was the proper term when talking about grammar, which does not seem to be the case. Theknightwho (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support for better readability. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 00:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: "incomparable adjective" (presumably pronounced "incompárable") sounds wrong to me because of the clash with "incomparable" pronounced "incómparable". Benwing2 (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Replace -ferous with -iferous

There is only a single word suffixed with -ferous that doesnt have a preceding i (indigoferous); it especially bothers me how many pages have "|-i-|-ferous}}" (which also clutters up the category of -i-interfixed terms). Could somebody make a bot replace all "|-i-|-ferous}}" and all other "|-ferous}}" (except indigoferous) with "|-iferous}}" if thats possible?
-form could also be moved to -iform along with most of its derivations (there are about 17 latinate adjectives in -form without i I think) but i dont think its as pressing.
"|-i-|-stan}}" could also be replaced by a new entry -istan Suryaratha03 (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

In general a policy would be useful about whether or not to add -i- to etymologies of the structure "Latin lemma + English suffix" because a linking -i- is something of a default but there are enough exceptions Suryaratha03 (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Your first sentence is false. MWOnline has isidioferous "bearing isidia".

That there are also several at Urban Dictionary suggests that -ferous is productive.

We don't normally adjust category names because someone is bothered. DCDuring (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I just feel its relevant that none of these words have entries on here. Like we might as well keep -ferous as an alternative form of -iferous, but all the "-i- + -ferous" are still unjustified in my perspective, just from a lexicographical view. Suryaratha03 (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Suryaratha03 It isn't relevant at all - what's relevant is whether they could have an entry, which they could. Theknightwho (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but as I said in my second sentence, we can keep -ferous but is there any argument against changing -i- + -ferous to -iferous in all these pages? And potentially also -ferous to -iferous in all these lemmas that do end in -iferous? Suryaratha03 (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Wiktionary seems to be a little inconsistent about dealing with suffixes that are often but not always paired with infixes. On one hand, we have (e.g.) both Category:English terms suffixed with -ification and Category:English terms suffixed with -fication (even though AFAICT we could theoretically decide to view all -ification words as -i- + -fication), and we have both Category:English terms suffixed with -ology and Category:English terms suffixed with -logy (containing, I note, quite a few terms spelled ...ology). On the other hand, we treat redophile and neutralophile as -o- + -phile and don't have -ophile. (As a related issue, I sometimes see people removing any mention of infixes and linking vowels from etymologies: i.e. not changing foobariferous: foobar + -i- + ferous to foobariferous: foobar + -iferous but just changing it to foobariferous: foobar + ferous and leaving the i unaccounted for.) - -sche (discuss) 02:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

*bʰrewh₁- and *bʰrewH-

@Victar, @Mahagaja, @Bezimenen, @GabeMoore These pages should be merged. In addition, we need a root *bʰer- (“to flow”) and a root *bʰeru- (“to boil”). The best account of this cluster of roots is {{R:la:Schrijver|pages=252-56}}. Opinions? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Foolishly, User:Illustrious Lock moved a draft entry from my sandbox to the mainspace. Moved back. --{{victar|talk}} 07:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:non-gloss definition -> Template:non-gloss and remove aliases 'ngd' and 'non-gloss definition'

Per Discord discussion with @Fenakhay, @Vininn126, @Theknightwho I propose the following:

1. Make {{non-gloss}} host the canonical name of the template currently found at {{non-gloss definition}}; the latter name is way too long.
2. Bot-rename occurrences of {{non-gloss definition}} to {{non-gloss}} and eliminate the former template. {{non-gloss definition}} appears to have around 8,500 uses.
3. Bot-rename occurrences of {{ngd}} to {{ng}} and eliminate the former template. {{ngd}} appears to have around 3,100 uses.

After this, we will have a canonical template {{non-gloss}} for non-gloss definitions, and two shortcuts {{ng}} and {{n-g}}. Benwing2 (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Vininn126 (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• The proposed move has been made, but many uses of the old template names still exist. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 05:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Moving Gaulish reconstructions

Several Gaulish pages were recently renamed last month without consultation. And since this discussion regarding reconstructions, specifically regarding Gaulish, received enough votes in favour of Romanising reconstructions (including in Gaulish), I am formally requesting for moving:

• RC:Gaulish/Bodiokassos to RC:Gaulish/Bodyokassos,
• Reconstruction:Gaulish/Adiantumaros to Reconstruction:Gaulish/Adyantumaros,
• and Reconstruction:Gaulish/Wenicaros to Reconstruction:Gaulish/Wenikaros. Antiquistik (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

But that's the opposite of romanising (in the sense of using the prevalent Latin-based orthography)! —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Caoimhin ceallach We clearly meant it in the sense of using the Latin script in the discussion. I apologise for any misunderstanding. Antiquistik (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

paddleboard

overlaps with paddle board. Denazz (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

merge Template:taxfmt, Template:taxlink and Template:taxlink2

@DCDuring, JeffDoozan, Theknightwho AFAICT, the only difference between {{taxfmt}} and {{taxlink}} is that the former is intended for when we do have a Translingual entry for the taxon in question and the latter for when we don't, and {{taxlink2}} seems to be a failed experiment to replace {{taxlink}}. Whether there's a Translingual entry can easily be autodetermined, so I propose merging all three into a new {{taxlink}} template that autodetermines whether there's a Wiktionary entry and acts accordingly. If necessary, we can add a flag to override the autodetermination. Benwing2 (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Support - doing all of this manually has been a massive waste of time. Theknightwho (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Support replacing {{taxlink2}} with {{taxlink}}, Abstain merging {{taxlink}} and {{taxfmt}}. There's no technical reason to keep them separate, but I understand that doing so would break an important process used by the biggest contributors of taxon stuff, although now that wantedpages has been cleaned up, it might be possible to use that instead. See the first few posts at Template_talk:taxlink#Convert_to_Lua for more details. JeffDoozan (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@JeffDoozan: Wantedpages is worthless for "Translingual" and English and probably many other reasonably well-covered languages because it is limited to 5,000 items. The least "wanted" page is wanted on 53 pages. The most wanted taxonomic name is usually wanted at most 20 times and necessarily fewer pages than that. DCDuring (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I have a couple of questions:

1. How will I be able to collect lists of taxonomic names that do not have entries and the counts of their uses? Such lists don't have to be available in real time.
2. Are we now a point where Moore's Law has brought the cost of checking for the existence of entries down so far that we can have lists of hundreds of species without appreciable burden? That was one of the reasons for the existing arrangement. I do not add lists of hundreds of species, but some genus entries have lists of such size, sometimes commented out completely or in part. DCDuring (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@DCDuring As for #2, according to @Theknightwho there are Chinese-language pages that scrape over 1,000 other pages for transliterations without problem, so I don't expect this to be a major issue. I'm pretty sure fetching page contents is not considered an "expensive" operation so we aren't limited by the limit of 500 expensive operations per page. As for #1, there will be categories automatically generated in real time that list all the wanted taxonomic names. For a specific nonexistent taxonomic name, you can check the transclusions in real time using Special:WhatLinksHere to see how many other pages are using the nonexistent taxon, but I don't think it's possible to generate a real-time sorted list of pages by use. However, this can definitely be done offline. It's very similar to the weekly lists already generated by User:This, that and the other, and I imagine if they don't already have a list that will suffice for this purpose, they can easily modify their scripts to generate such a list. Benwing2 (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Benwing2 is the intent for the new {{taxlink}} to do an existence check on the target entry every time it is invoked? If it also adds something that gets stored in the database link tables (like a WT:Tracking transclusion or even an external link to a fake domain) upon finding a nonexistent target entry, then DCD can manually navigate to WhatLinksHere or Special:LinkSearch to find transclusions of a specific name (although basic search would probably suffice in that case), and I can easily create a new weekly SQL-based todo list. Without the special transclusion or link, I would have to do it by parsing dumps, which is more tedious. This, that and the other (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other Yes, the intent is to merge {{taxfmt}} (which is intended for the case where the target entry exists) with {{taxlink}} (which is intended for the case where the target entry doesn't exist) and check automatically for existence (which means there should be a Translingual section with the appropriate name, and maybe also checking that it has a {{taxoninfl}} header — which BTW we should rename to {{taxonhead}}). I was planning on adding a category for the taxonomic term uses that link to nonexistent entries but I can easily add a tracking page as well. Would it suffice to have a single tracking page for all nonexistent entries or do you want one tracking page per nonexistent entries? If it's easy for you to create essentially a list of nonexistent but tracked Translingual entries on a weekly basis, sorted by number of uses, that would be great. Benwing2 (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Benwing2 if we want to find the most commonly occurring broken taxlinks, there would need to be a distinct Tracking link for every missing target page. Also that template should really be called {{mul-tax-head}} or {{mul-taxon}}... but I don't care about that too much! This, that and the other (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other OK, sounds good. Benwing2 (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

As it is now, pages often have multiple instances of {{taxlink}} for a given taxon, because multiple languages can use the same spelling for the vernacular name for the taxon and the taxon ought to be part of the definition. That seems like something that will be lost using categorization, which is page-oriented, not L2-oriented.

The lists generated by Special:WantedPages, sorted by incoming links were flooded by links from User pages. I commented out most of such pages that were from my user pages, but there are many others that have been run periodically that repeatedly show the same entry, even when blue-linked. The value of the capability to sort ANY searchbox results by the number of incoming links is obviously compromised when User pages and indeed any pages outside principal namespace are included by default.

It is amazing to me that everyone is so solicitous of me wasting my time, without asking me whether I thought I was wasting my time. I actually found that the erroneous uses of {{taxlink}} led me to L2s that had other problems, both errors of commission and of omission. But, obviously others know better whether and how I am wasting my time. Dare I say that perhaps others are wasting their time worrying about me wasting mine. DCDuring (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

When someone has a well-established workflow, it's always a good idea to think carefully about how to avoid this. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That assumes that person is the only one using the templates, which is a bad assumption to make. Benwing2 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@DCDuring This isn't just about you - it's about the fact that having completely manual infrastructure for taxonomy makes it very difficult for anyone else to get involved unless they want to dedicate as much time as you do. I also don't understand your point anyway: what exactly would be lost on pages where multiple languages point to the same taxon with {{taxlink}}? The thing it would be checking for is whether the taxon page exists, so the entry's language isn't relevant. Theknightwho (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: The only reason we have "manual" elements of the taxon infrastructure is that nobody seemed to care enough to actually understand, 1., the process I think Wiktionary needs to follow with respect to adding taxonomic name, 2., taxonomic name formatting, and desirable style for taxonomic name entries. I think the number of "wants" is good for prioritizing taxa, so we avoid having too large a proportion of orphan taxonomic name entries. At present we have, almost always, the right formatting if the person adding the taxon has the right taxonomic rank (or equivalent) for the taxon. I don't see how we can usefully automate definitions very much.

I am interested in the number of "wants" from languages, not pages. If five languages use the same spelling for a vernacular name of a taxon, I count that as being worth as much as five pages that refer to the taxon once. DCDuring (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@DCDuring (a) It's possible to automate it by language, and (b) those templates don't currently distinguish by language anyway, so I'm just as confused as @Benwing2 about what the actual problem is here. Theknightwho (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't need to differentiate by language in which the entry exists, so I don't do that with the script that tallies the number of {{taxlink}} (not {{taxfmt}}) occurrences for a given taxonomic name. Once the list is compiled, I add the taxa from the list in decreasing order and change {{taxlink}} to {{taxfmt}} for the taxon in question, reviewing the L2 sections as I go, sometimes adding vernacular names, derived terms, incoming and outgoing links, images, etc.

@DCDuring I agree with @Theknightwho. You're not the only one who uses these templates. In particular I've been using {{taxlink}} and {{taxfmt}} myself to clean up formatting on several pages and find it very awkward to have to manually look up each term. You will need to explain to me what benefits the current system provides that are lost when making it automatic. How does the current system distinguish languages? I doubt it does. (For that matter, it's possible to automatically fetch the current section's language and use it in categorization if so desired.) Benwing2 (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Benwing: I am not sure what it is that you manually look up for each term. If an ordinary wikilink for a taxon is red, then it needs {{taxlink}}; if it is blue, we have lately decided it needs to be formatted using {{taxfmt}} to remove the need for anyone other than module programmers to master taxonomic formatting. DCDuring (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@DCDuring It is possible to automatically check (a) whether the page exists, (b) if so, whether a Translingual entry exists and (c) if so, whether that entry is a taxonomic entry. The check would be whether all of those conditions are satisfied. It may be possible to make it even more specific, if necessary. Theknightwho (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: I assumed that (a), (b), and (c) would be possible. I assume that you are talking about real time.

Please tell how the single template will differentiate between names with Wiktionary entries and names missing them in a way that yields a list of missing taxonomic names ordered by the number of occurrences of the taxon enclosed in the template. Can that be done in real time? Does it need to be done by dump-processing (as it is done now)? DCDuring (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@DCDuring Okay, how about you tell me how you're achieving that now? Plus, going by your comment above, you only need to compile that list in order to manually change the template, which would no longer be necessary anyway! Theknightwho (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You miss the point. I add taxa in order of descending number of instances of occurrence of the taxon enclosed in {{taxlink}}. I do a run occasionally of a perl script against a dump that picks out occurrences of {{taxlink}}, groups them by taxon, and orders the taxa by the number of taxlink instances for each taxon. I add entries for the most "wanted" taxa when I have the enthusiasm to do so. DCDuring (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I admit that I selfishly assumed responsibility for taxonomic entries and use of {{taxlink}} when its creator seemed to cease being interested. I was (and perhaps am?) the only one who regularly removed redundant {{taxlink}} and, now, who converts them to {{taxfmt}}. I also seem to be the only one adding taxa based on the number of "wants", though I have advertised User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa a few times over the past dozen or more years. I have offered help to any users who come to my talk page.

The 'workflow' for adding taxa is dispersed among a small number of people who add {{taxlink}} when a bare link (or {{taxfmt}}) is red. We apparently want either {{taxfmt}} or {{taxlink}} to be added for the taxon formatting. {{taxlink}} also provides a means to meliorate over our very modest coverage of taxa by referring people to Wikispecies. It also provides a way to count "wants" for a taxon. In the absence of an explicit proposal (not hand-waving) for dump-processing to identify missing taxonomic names by their number of wants with the merged templates, I don't see how combining these templates offers any reduction in workload to anyone. DCDuring (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@DCDuring I'm completely confused as to how having two templates the choice of which depends on manually checking for a red vs. blue link is superior to doing the same automatically. Maybe you're not understanding my technical proposal, because what you're saying doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If {{taxlink}} does A, and {{taxfmt}} does B, my proposal is simply to have a combined template that automatically does A when the link is red and B when it's blue. How does {{taxlink}} allow us to count "wants" for a taxon that a combined template won't? This doesn't make any sense technically to me so I will need a detailed technical explanation of how this works. Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@DCDuring BTW you explicitly mention that some people (not you) use the wrong template, and you have to then go and clean this up. This is exactly the sort of work that will vanish by having only one template. With only one, there's no way to use the wrong one. Benwing2 (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Often, using the wrong template is an indication of other problems. DCDuring (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Please tell how the single template will differentiate between names with Wiktionary entries and names missing them in a way that yields a list of missing taxonomic names ordered by the number of occurrences of the taxon enclosed in the template. If this can been done, why not do it for {{l}} (and {{m}}, and all the column templates and make ordered lists of missing entries in order of "want" for all of our languages? DCDuring (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@DCDuring I do think this is possible offline. However, the more pertinent question is, can you do this currently? If so, please explain how it's done currently and I will explain how to do the same in the new system. If you can't do this currently, why are you insisting on it when you can't do it in any case? Benwing2 (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Benwing2: I run a perl script against a dump that picks out occurrences of {{taxlink}}, groups them by taxon, and orders the taxa by the number of taxlink instances for each taxon. DCDuring (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@DCDuring I created WT:Todo/Lists/Wanted taxa, which seems similar to your existing list in your userspace, but may be of use to you nonetheless. (Note this is a dump-based list just like yours, so the todo list infrastructure will automatically regenerate it twice a month.) If it is, please let me know and I will try to fix the problems currently present in the list. Otherwise I will retire it. This, that and the other (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

If it matches mine, having it outside of user space is better. It's also a little quicker to use because one can scan the 'wanting' pages to get an English vernacular name or other indication of a part of a potential definition. Adding items from these lists at least means that the added items are not orphans, which are often a waste of contributor time. DCDuring (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

move I'm passing the phone to to pass the phone

The expression appears to be used outside of the first person. It's also the name of the challenge, #PassThePhone. This leads me to believe that the definition would be best fit in the infinitive and without the preposition, as it's written in the hashtag — and isn't that how people search for things on the internet? They'll read I'm passing the phone to but google the lemma pass the phone. The move can also be to a different title; pass the phone is just an example. Polomo47 (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Moved by Flame, not lame (the creator of the entry). — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 06:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Berber/Hasw

Hello there, fellow wiktionarians. This page was tagged for moving with the reason given being "This is a terrible StarLing reconstruction that needs to be moved, but I don't know what the correct form is". So I have been digging around through the Internets and found this paper from Maarten Kossman which gives the reconstructed root as √swʔ, the Aorist as *ăswəʔ, the Imperfective as *săssăʔ, and the Verbal Noun as *-săs(s)eʔ; I couldn't find a reconstruction for the lemma, perhaps because of too much variability in the daughter languages? - I don't know. I don't know what's the current policy/preference for reconstructions with just the root consonants; most proto-semitic ones have the full word instead of the root; I did find one with just the root - Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/w-r-d- (which, however, seems to me to be relatively easy to reconstruct as *warad-, but I'm just an amateur)

Anyway, all this to say that, if there's no objection, an admin could do that thing where you move a page without leaving a redirect, moving this one to Reconstruction:Proto-Berber/swʔ or Reconstruction:Proto-Berber/s-w-ʔ, whatever seems better, and I would then correct the links to this page manually, since they're not that many. Assalam aleikum. Sérgio Santos (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Merge Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ǵʰrem- with Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/gʰrem-

I propose to move the relevant forms at *ǵʰrem- to *gʰrem- insofar as they aren't there already. In practice this means moving the Sogdian forms, but only after correction. Then the forms at *ȷ́ʰárati and subpages would need to be disentangled as different roots are given for those by Cheung (and others).

See also etymology scriptorium. Exarchus (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I've moved the relevant forms at *ǵʰrem- to *gʰrem-. So the *ǵʰrem- page can be deleted. Exarchus (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge T:R:Oxford English Dictionary and T:R:OED

... and perhaps move to a more appropriate title like {{R:OED1}} or {{R:NED}}, as these templates are specifically referencing the first edition of the OED from more than 100 years ago. Ping @Sgconlaw This, that and the other (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Let’s see whether there’s consensus on a new name. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hitsuji777, This, that and the other: I guess I have no objection to "R:OED1" or "R:NED" (the latter probably being more technically correct), but since most people know the work as the Oxford English Dictionary I wonder if it is worth actually changing the template name? Also, I would suggest leaving the template at the long form, and making "R:OED"/"R:OED1", etc., shortcuts (i.e., redirects). — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I probably would go with making {{R:OED1}} the main entry and leaving the long one as a redirect to encourage people to use the shorter one (a redirect from {{R:NED}} could be made as well, but personally I don't think it's worth it). Numbering the entry seems more intuitive as well, as it's not just any OED. That's only what I would do myself, I wouldn't mind settling on something else as long as the duplicate problem gets solved. Hitsuji777 (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't really mind what the template is renamed to. I would note that the modern OED refer to its own first edition as N.E.D., and we often use that abbreviation at RFVE too. But "OED1" makes sense too. This, that and the other (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw These reference templates are specifically referencing the first edition of this work, as opposed to the work in general, or the modern edition, which is still called the "Oxford English Dictionary". I think it is quite important to distinguish this. This, that and the other (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Support moving {{R:Oxford English Dictionary}} to {{R:NED}}. I would just delete {{R:OED}} as lacking functionality and neglecting to distinguish the two-and-a-bit editions of the dictionary. 0DF (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Support moving as well. Now that you mention it, that seems like the option that makes the most sense. {{R:OED}} could be turned into a redirect to {{R:OED Online}}, similar to Spanish's {{R:DRAE}} linking to the latest online version of the work and not the first edition.

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Hitsuji777, 0DF, This, that and the other: More than a month has passed after the start of the discussion, so I have moved this template to {{R:New English Dictionary}} and made {{R:NED}} a shortcut to it. After all uses of the old name have been replaced, I will redirect {{R:Oxford English Dictionary}} and {{R:OED}} to {{R:OED Online}}. — Sgconlaw (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:U:en:non-rhotic rhymes

This is not a usage template, so it should not be named like one. It is actually used on English rhymes pages such as Rhymes:English/ɑː(ɹ)b. I'm open to suggestions for the new name, but I propose {{en-non-rhotic rhymes}}. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 22:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:U:en:other rhymes

Same deal. I propose {{en-other rhymes}}. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 22:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:su-script, Template:su-sunda

These form-of templates appear to serve the same purpose and are implemented nearly identically, but I have no idea which name might be preferable. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 23:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Portuguese pre-reform spelling categorization

I'd like the Template:pt-pre-reform to be used more precisely in categorizing "old" Portuguese spellings. Here's my proposed categorization:

1. Portuguese obsolete forms
2. Portuguese archaic forms
   1. Portuguese forms superseded by the 1911 agreement
   2. Portuguese forms superseded by the 1943 agreement
   3. Portuguese forms superseded by the 1945 agreement
3. Portuguese dated forms
   1. Portuguese forms superseded by the 1971 agreement
   2. Portuguese forms superseded by the 1973 agreement
4. Portuguese superseded forms
   1. Portuguese forms superseded by the 1990 agreement
      1. Brazilian Portuguese forms superseded by the 1990 agreement
      2. European Portuguese forms superseded by the 1990 agreement

Forms that were obsoleted by spelling reforms would go under the respective category — they should all be switched to use the pre-reform template instead of simply (and sometimes wrongly) being called obsolete or otherwise, and this also standardizes the categorization between obsolete, archaic, dated, and superseded when it comes to spelling. Forms that fell out of use prior to 1911/1943 would go in the Portuguese obsolete forms category. The subdivision of the AO1990 category could also be useful — dunno if those should be subcategories or if there shouldn't be a parent AO1990 category at all.

Summarizing: I'm proposing that Template:pt-pre-reform would assign entries to a category pertaining to the specific reform instead of what is currently done (there is the AO1990 category, and depending on the year it gets assigned to archaic...). The template usage should be made more consistent (I'm doing my part) so that entries get properly categorized.

CC: D6596, Ortsacordep, theknightwho, Trooper57 Polomo47 (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

We first need to make sense of whatever is happening in {{pt-pre-reform/internal}} before doing any change. Trooper57 (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. MedK1 (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Support, tho pre-1971/1973 forms with a dieresis or grave accent may be better labeled archaic instead. Davi6596 (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Support after sense was made of whatever was happening in the template. Trooper57 (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Moved. However, [[Category:Brazilian Portuguese forms superseded by AO1990]] and [[Category:European Portuguese forms superseded by AO1990]] aren’t displaying correctly. I’d appreciate help setting them up. Polomo47 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Cat:Citations by language → Cat:Citations pages by language, Cat:LANG citations → Cat:LANG citations pages, etc

The categories do not contain citations per se, but Citations: namespace pages. There are plenty of citations in the main namespace, which are not in these categories.

There is a question over whether the new name should be "Citation pages", "Citations pages", "citation pages", or "citations pages". Wiktionary:Quotations#Citations pages uses "citations page(s)", so I went with that. This, that and the other (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

multidimensions --> multidimension

Singular should existP. Sovjunk (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Multidimension seems to be an adjective instead of a noun. J3133 (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Appendix:Fandom slang

Move to Appendix:English fandom slang, since not all appendices are about English. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

tomrig → tomrigg

English. Allegedly the more common spelling. @85.48.184.106 Binarystep (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

ἔθω

Ancient Greek. The page already says "The present is used only as a participle", but according to Beekes ἔθων is not related to εἴωθᾰ. I suggest both get their own pages. If there is to be a page for 'ἔθω', I think it should be as reconstruction *ἔθω, like Beekes gives under 'εἴωθα' (p.395). (moved from rfv) Exarchus (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello M @Exarchus. I tried to concentrate on attested forms and expressions as we would do at our exams. I do not do Etymologies. Participles have their own pages in en.wikt anyway. (Most of the many quotations seen are for participles, not for the verb). εἴωθα (eíōtha) may have its own page (without repetitions of material) with its own Etymology. The unattested ἔθω (éthō) may have in front of it an asterisk (lemmatised or just added in-page, according to en.wikt's policy for such cases, perhaps with a little template for * with tooltip). Admin @Mahagaja could review. Thank you. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 21:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Now I remember: Category:Ancient Greek reconstructed terms. They are dealt like e.g. Reconstruction:Ancient Greek/φυλακέω. But they are just unattested. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 21:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/falljō

To be moved to what is reconstructed by the references (hint: they don't reconstruct 'fellō'), or to be removed altogether as a Frankic etymon is just one of several etymologies for Latin fellō (“criminal”). I already explained why the Dutch 'descendant' shouldn't be there. Exarchus (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

See also here. Exarchus (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Iranian/hwápati

After I removed a few terms, there are only nouns now (as there were originally). Rastorgueva & Edelman reconstruct *xʷāpa- for those, so maybe the page should be moved to *hwāpa (possibly related to Sanskrit स्वाप (svāpa), but maybe independent creations as the Sanskrit term occurs fairly late). The verb that should be reconstructed for Proto-Iranian is rather a verb on -sati: R. & E. give "*hufsa-, *xʷafsa-", LIV gives the zero grade as original. Exarchus (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

merge Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/krā́mHti + Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/krā́mHati

These are basically two competing reconstructions for the same thing. I'm inclined to think the reconstruction should be *krā́mHti. Exarchus (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

History merge: I have no preference on the direction. --{{victar|talk}} 08:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

{{R:ine:HCHIEL|1908}} gives *krā́mH- ~ *krámH- ‘step, walk’ for PII Exarchus (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/Háwǰʰati

I think this should be moved to an athematic deponent verb. Sanskrit ओहते (ohate) is given by Lubotsky as sometimes 3pl.ind. and sometimes 3sg.subj., see {{R:inc:IAIL|page=352}}. The Avestan verb is pretty clearly athematic, see for example {{R:ira:Cheung|page=169}}. This means {{R:grc:Beekes|page=486}} is simply wrong when suggesting those are thematic verbs.

This verb is generally reconstructed to come from a reduplicated present and {{R:ine:HCHIEL|1879}} happens to reconstruct the following: "PIIr. *Ha(H)ugʰžʰa,*Ha(H)ugʰdʰa 2,3sg.inj.med." Exarchus (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/ȷ́ágrastay

This is in any case wrong (see here), and maybe this should simply be moved to PII root *gras- Exarchus (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Surely there is a better alternative than moving it to a root entry. --{{victar|talk}} 07:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't see why can't we allow PII root entries when we allow Sanskrit ones. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 12:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mellohi!: It is allowed, we do have PIIr root entries. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪^{(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)} 14:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

how dare you

Move to how dare someone, since e.g. "how dare they!" is also used. I would just do this myself but there are translations to adjust. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 03:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. There's also "how dare s/he" MedK1 (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

schleem

Yiddish. If this does exist it's in the wrong script. The third quote suggests it's actually a Hebrew word (it's on Hebrew Wikisource...), but I'm not sure. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 22:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The English quote uses it as a nonsense word parallel to "dinglebop". The "Yiddish" has links to what seem to be rabbinical texts in some variety of Aramaic or a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic, of which the first two use שליימ"ל or שלימל with an extra syllable at the end, and the other uses what looks like Yiddish שלײַם (shlaym), which is closer to slime than membrane. I'm far from fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic or Yiddish, but at best they're sprinkling Yiddish terms into running text in other languages (though the first labels שליימ"ל as ""Ashkenazic", which no doubt means Yiddish), and two out of the three aren't even the right number of syllables. I could be wrong, but I don't think any of them are evidence for a Yiddish word that can be transliterated as "schleem" rather than something like "schlaim" or "schlaimel". Chuck Entz (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I created it on EN wiki because the term (or at least a homograph) also appears in English, in "Rick and Morty". Secondly, this word is a possible etymology for English "slim" =thin, which has never been convincing traced to the cognates meaning "bad" or "crooked". See the struggle of Anatoly Liberman, Word Origins p. 200. Also this wiki is much more active that Yiddish, and easier for me to edit.

Editors who are not familiar with these languages should not be wildly speculating here. There is no question that these three Rabbinic Hebrew quotations use a Yiddish word. The first explicitly describes it as "בלשון אשכנז"=in the language of Germany. This is the normal way for books of the period to cite Yiddish, and it does not seem to have existed in other German dialects, so far as I can tell from dictionaries. The second describes the word as "בל"א" which is an acronym for the same phrase. The third spells it with a diacritical mark known as "gershayim" which is the equivalent of English italics, used here to mark the word as foreign. Admittedly, there is nothing explicitly to say that it is Yiddish as opposed to Polish here, except for its connection to the previous quotations.

It cannot possibly mean slime. I have translated the Hebrew in each of the three quotes into English on the page, leaving the loanwords in transliteration, so anyone should be able to see that "slime" is an impossible translation in context. The first reference tells you that it is a type of "membrane" (Hebrew קרום) and that it is equivalent to French teile, which is what French rabbinic texts use for "membrane". The second and third references give the nearest Hebrew equivalent as "thin skin" (Hebrew עור דק). I don't know what the modern anatomical terms for these exact bits of flesh are, but it seems to be a general term because it's used for 3 different bits in the 3 different quotes.

As for the pronunciation, we can't be certain, and schleim is possible. But schleem or schlim is much more likely, because the normal way of spelling the ei vowel in Rabbinic Hebrew transliterations is with a double yodh. The printer of the version of Sirkis's book I linked to has seen fit to insert a second yodh into his text (שלימ"ל in the first edition) so I assume that he recognized the word and thought it should be pronounced schleimel. By contrast, the third quotation is spelled שלי"ם, with only a single yodh.

I don't know of any book in Yiddish which uses this term. Yiddish printing until the modern era was restricted to certain genres, and did not include technical anatomical works or Rabbinic studies of anatomical subjects. I couldn't find any modern work in any language which uses it. The use of loanwords with survive in Rabbinic Hebrew is a completely standard practice for reconstructing historical dialects. Old French dictionaries, for example, are deeply indebted to Rabbinic Hebrew works of the period (anatomical teile seems to have been missed). GordonGlottal (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't contending your transliteration. The script it's in is objectively wrong, no 'wild speculation,' and nothing you said in that comment addresses the concern I brought up at all. Our Yiddish entries are in the Hebrew script. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 21:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal: more to the point: our entries are organized by spelling: schleem, Yiddish שלײַם (shlaym), Yiddish schleimel, Yiddish שליימ"ל (shleym"l), Yiddish שלימל (shliml), etc. belong on different pages, though a case could be made for ignoring the vowels that are only present as diacritics, and perhaps the variation in yods- though I think Yiddish is less permissive in that respect than Hebrew (I would have to read through WT:AYI (and maybe WT:AHE) to be sure. Some of the entries would be "alternative form of" soft redirects, but having the main form at a spelling that's different from anything in the quotes supporting it would only work if the editors for the language in question had decided to organize things that way. What you did there would be like having a Hebrew entry at shalom with quotes like "יִשָּׂ֨א יְהוָ֤ה פָּנָיו֙ אֵלֶ֔יךָ וְיָשֵׂ֥ם לְךָ֖ שָׁלֽוֹם".

While I'm at it, I might as well point out that most of the early Rabbinical writings such as the Talmud are written in what we treat as Jewish Babylonian Aramaic: though the writing system is the same as Hebrew and they discuss a lot of Hebrew texts and the concepts in them, so there's lots of overlap. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Template:da-conj and Template:da-conj-reg

These two templates for Danish verb conjugations could hardly be more different. Not only is the visual appearance completely inconsistent, but the structure doesn't match either: {{da-conj}} has present/past across the top, while {{da-conj-reg}} has active/passive. They don't even have all the same forms.

To add to the confusion, we have some Danish verbs that don't even have a conjugation box at all, like smile.

Honestly I am very confused; @Helrasincke or any other Danish editors, can you help? This, that and the other (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I have read some Danish grammar books and now I am less confused. It seems that we need to show:

• infinitive and imperative (trivially related)
• present tense
• past tense (five types: add -te; add -ede; vowel change and add -ede; strong verbs; irregulars)
• passive infinitive, passive present, passive past
  • Note: {{da-conj}} shows the active infinitive but not the passive infinitive. This seems counterintuitive. Putting active/passive as the columns of the table allows space for this form.
• present participle
• past participle
• the auxiliary verb to be used (missing from {{da-conj-reg}})

We also need a table for deponent verbs like enes.

The grammar books I looked at don't mention a gerund, but both our templates identify this form. Is it obsolescent?

Anyway here's my first draft of a replacement, merged Danish verb template, using {{inflection-table-top}} to get the benefits of a sensible width and dark mode support:

Conjugation of ...

active passive present ... ... past ... ... infinitive ... ... imperative ... — participle present ... past ... (auxiliary verb have) gerund ...

When viewed on mobile, the participle box automatically moves to sit below the other box.

Obviously this needs feedback from someone more knowledgeable about Danish! This, that and the other (talk) 11:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other Yes, I agree, quite a mess... I started drafting an Appendix to gather my thoughts on the matter before revamping the templates but life got in the way and I'm not sure I'll get back to it in the immediate future.

The situation with the -s form (probably better referred to as middle voice than passive, as elaborated by the pdf linked below. Mediopassive is also occasionally used in the literature and I would prefer either to passive since many are not at all passive and it's also not even the only passive in North Germanic) is further complicated by the fact that the -s forms actually have several different functions, depending on verb, and it can be difficult to tell when a given usage is being used in a passive, anticausative or reciprocal function even when one knows the language well. For instance, see the examples here and at Mediopassive voice. I don't remember off the top of my head but have a vague feeling that some verbs also do not have an -s form, though we should probably confirm that with a native speaker or someone more qualified before acting on that hunch. Additionally, as you mentioned there are a handful of deponent verbs (such as enes, synes), which occur only in the -s forms. Depending on dictionary, -s forms may get their own independent entries, or they may be subsumed under the active form, where possible (for instance Den Danske Ordbog has [21] redirecting to se, but [22] with its own entry; in the Politikens Nudansk Ordbog, both get their own entry). So, what do we call them and should we automatically generate them for all verbs?

Regarding what might be described as the gerund, the so-called centaur constructions or centaur nominals, this seems to be a topic deserving of more academic research (which is obviously beyond our scope here). I believe they are theoretically possible for many (all?) verbs, although I cannot comment on the actual frequency of their usage in the contemporary language. They are certainly very rarely covered by grammar books, with at least one large English work outright denying the existence of a gerund. Full disclosure, I was the one who translated that wikipedia page on centaur nominals from Danish. Helrasincke (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other And the table layout looks fine, but I don't like the loud colour. I would prefer something more subdued like we have for, say, Russian (e.g. сказать (skazatʹ)) or Polish (e.g. mówić), but that's just my two cents. Helrasincke (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

barlafumble

The two dictionaries I could find which gave a time frame for this word – besides OED, which just calls it obsolete and Scottish – attribute it to "Old Scots":

• Slang and Its Analogues Past and Present: "BARLA-FUMBLE! intj. (old Scots)"
• Google Books also says it's found in A Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue: From the Twelfth Century to the End of the Seventeenth, volume 1, but I don't have access to it.

The earliest use is in Christis Kirk on the Green, from around 1500 and which is in Middle Scots. And James Maidment's A Book of Scottish Pasquils has a quote for it dating from between 1568-1715 (or maybe he authored it himself? I can't really tell, but if it's not him quoting it then it's from 1868), firmly in the range for Middle Scots. The latest use I could find, in the form barley, was in Walter Scott's Waverley, in 1814, which I think would place it in Scots. It should probably be under Middle Scots. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 16:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Saph668: you do have access to A Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue [here]. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I was just looking on Google Books which didn't have a preview. Thanks. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 18:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It should be under Middle Scots Rakso43243 (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Split Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/ȷ́ʰŕ̥dayam and Reconstruction:Proto-Iranian/jŕ̥dayam

There should be a separate reconstruction for forms like Sanskrit हृद् (hṛd) (with Vedic nominative/accusative हार्दि (hārdi)) and Avestan 𐬰𐬆𐬭𐬆𐬛 (zərəd). In {{R:inc:IAIL|page=230}} Lubotsky gives "j́ʰārd-/j́ʰard-/j́ʰrd-; j́ʰrdaia-". I guess most Iranian forms come from the form without -aya-, one example that does come from the latter is Ossetian зӕрдӕ (zærdæ) (says Lubotsky). Exarchus (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Portuguese reflexive forms

This is about Portuguese verb forms ending in -se, e.g., suicidar-se. A discussion regarding those forms in Spanish, Galician and Portuguese was previously held at WT:RFDI#curvar-se (see there for more information), but this proposal is only about our handling of Portuguese forms so that a resolution may be achieved more simply.

I propose the following, after discussing with other editors.

• If entries exist for both the forms with -se and without it, they will get merged under the page without -se. Thus, the entry at the page with -se will be deleted.
• If an entry exists only at the page with -se, it will be moved to the page without -se.

I ping the Galician-Portuguese Alliance! @Davi6596, JnpoJuwan, MedK1, Ortsacordep, Polomo47, Stríðsdrengur, Trooper57, Jberkel, Rodrigo5260 Polomo47 (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This deserves more compiled context. So, the primary argument for this move is that picking the forms with enclitical -se shows an illogical preference for enclisis, while proclisis is just as acceptable (arguably more acceptable). The reason why entries are currently listed under the enclitical forms is, of course, because those take a hyphen while proclitical forms don’t. However, having a hyphen does not automatically make an entry meet CFI: Idiomaticity rules apply to hyphenated compounds in the same way as to spaced phrases. — though this excerpt talks about compounds, it should definitely apply in this context too.

In comparison, the argument in favor of keeping reflexive-only verbs at the versions with -se is that those verbs are only used reflexively. But that doesn't take into account that they can well be used with proclisis instead. Additionally, it leads to a complicated situation when dealing with verbs that are used reflexively in addition to other manners — do the senses get split into different entries? They shouldn't, but if they don't it's inconsistent with how reflexive-only verbs get treated. The best solution is to not put anything under -se! Polomo47 (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per Polomo. Juwan (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Ping also other editors, @Protegmatic, Ultimateria, Fabiola7, OweOwnAwe, Jberkel to discuss. Further discussion is in the RFD page, so it is worth reading, but I summarized the arguments in favor of the move above. Polomo47 (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak support. I'm fine with this going either way tbh. Frankly it'd just really suck if Portuguese loses these and then they're kept for every other Romance language. But it'd be super cool if all those redundant non-lemma entries went away; I just hope that this is the first step toward eradicating them and not just, well, it. MedK1 (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I support the first bullet point and oppose the second. I agree that we need consistency. I have mixed feelings about pages like despedir-se; I wouldn't mind it being deleted, but does the hyphen make it so different from Spanish despedirse (which is allowed under CFI)? As for the second point, I believe readers are much more likely to search for reflexive-only verbs with -se in the search, and will find it strange to see the bare infinitive as the page title. This is consistent with the Romance dictionaries I'm familiar with. Looking up suicidar/se, I see -se in the title at Infopédia, Michaelis, and Aulete, but not at Priberam (and not because there's a transitive sense). Personally I'm happy with the Spanish approach; put all definitions under the non-reflexive form unless it's reflexive only, in which case the definition is under the -se form and the bare infinitive is a soft redirect (see agripar). Ultimateria (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s critical to note that, though the dictionaries you mentioned include the enclitical reflexive form in their pages’ headwords, such pages are listed under URLs without the -se, invariably, for all dictionaries. I am not necessarily opposed to, in the headword line, listing a combined form, as long as the actual page the word is under does not include the enclitic.

The reason why I don’t want the enclitic is the same as the reason you mentioned for keeping it: usefulness to readers. In Brazilian Portuguese, absolutely no one used enclitical forms instead of the proclitical ones, so I really doubt they would Google the combined form with the enclitic. They either search for the proclitic form, or a form with no clitic — I think I mostly stick to the latter myself, when Googling.

Further, like I mentioned above: proclisis is used in both Brazilian and European Portuguese, while enclisis is very restricted to European Portuguese — mainly in speech, but in writing too, even if it results in nonstandard writing. (Implicitly) prescribing one form over the other is questionable, and prescribing the latter, which sees less use, even more so.

Regarding consistency with Spanish, I don’t see an immediate need for it myself. While yes, it’s true that CFI says those terms can stay — though, isn’t that something that could be changed by vote? even if it’s unlikely —, it’s also true that CFI says the Portuguese equivalents cannot. Given all the arguments in favor of removing the Portuguese entries, the best way forward should be to do this for Portuguese only (which is why I brought it up) and later, if the community still wants “consistency”, it can instead look into changing how Spanish, Italian, etc. do it. Though MedK’s proposal to straight-up delete is a possibility, another possibility is to move the lemma forms to the version without the enclitic, while keeping the enclitic combined form as, well, a combined form.

Polomo47 (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per Polomo. Davi6596 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I talked with Polomo over Discord, just mentioning that I believe reflexive-only verbs should be lemmatized at their reflexive form and this should apply to all languages with reflexive verbs, at least those with floating reflexive verbs. Possibly the ones with fixed clitic reflexives (Russian, Icelandic, etc.) can be different. Benwing2 (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. I agree the lemma should always be the infinitive without any pronouns, but reflexive verbs need to show the proper conjugation. Currently, it's done with {{pt-conj|TERM-se}}, but I've seen it in very few pages (and you need to write it twice, unlike {{es-conj}}). Trooper57 (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Taxonomic name and Category:Taxonomic names

There are currently two different category trees for taxonomic names

• Category:Taxonomic name is a variety of Category:Translingual language (language code mul-tax) that's based on the concept of taxonomic nomenclature as a language: its members are all names in the standard taxonomic nomenclatural systems. Aside from the names of viruses, taxonomic nomenclature is basically a rather artificial construct formed from New Latin. It's new and was made possible by the expansion of the capabilities of language varieties a.k.a etymology-only languages. Right now it's a redlink, and I haven't figured out how to get {{auto cat}} to recognize it as valid.

Besides which, the name is kind of silly, since no one uses it to refer to taxonomic names as a group or a system, let alone a language. It would have been better named "Category:Taxonomic names", but the name has been taken by the following.

• Category:Taxonomic names is a name category, part of the topical category system, and based on the concept of taxonomic names being something that different languages have. This system has been developed over the years in an ad hoc fashion, so it's a real mixed bag.

Prescriptively, "taxonomic name" refers only to names that are part of past and present systems used to create and manage the official names of biological taxonomic entities. All the names in specific languages as opposed to "translingual" or "multilingual" terms shared across all languages can't be referred to that way. That's because modern taxonomy is done by scientists acting as taxonomists, who have all agreed to abide by the taxonomic codes that dictate what valid taxonomic names are.

The language-specific subcategories mostly violate that. Many of their members are just adapted borrowings of the "real" taxonomic names, equivalent to "cervids" in English from the family Cervidae, which are deer. Others are vernacular names from within the languages that coincide with the taxonomic entities referred to by the official taxonomic names.

There are very few of the language-specific categories. The Chinese and Japanese ones were started by Fumiko Take (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks). The Hindi one seems to be solely from DerekWinters (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), who is permanently banned from Wikipedia for trying to foist non-Latin-based/Anglish names of sciences on them under another account (what I called "lore abuse" when another sock tried it here) and for sockpuppeteering. Of course, most of the entries in those subcategories were added in good faith by competent people, though none of them seem to have had much of a clue about taxonomy.

The Category:Taxonomic eponyms by language subcategories are really language-based derivation categories, and would be better under the other category tree as "terms derived from" subcategories or subcategories of Category:Eponyms by language.

Likewise, the Category:Specific epithets and Category:mul:Taxonomic names categories would be better in the other category tree.

Most of the entries in the main category were created by SemperBlotto while he was mass-creating entries for terms scraped from scientific journals.

So, what should we do with these categories? I think we should:

1. Convert Category:Taxonomic names to a variety of Category:Translingual language with the language code "mul-tax" to replace Category:Taxonomic name
2. Remove all the entries from subcategories that aren't either taxonomic names in the strict sense or derived from taxonomic names in the strict sense.
3. Move the "terms derived from taxonomic name" categories to "terms derived from taxonomic names" categories under the new Category:Taxonomic names
4. Convert the language-specific categories to "terms derived from taxonomic names" categories and move them under the new Category:Taxonomic names, or merge them with any of the categories in the previous step if they would have the same name.
5. Convert the Category:Taxonomic eponyms by language subcategories to "terms derived from taxonomic names" categories, but also add all their members to the appropriate Category:Eponyms by language subcategories.
   1. Either that, or leave them as they are, but move them under the "terms derived from taxonomic names" categories in the new Category:Taxonomic names and also make them children of the Category:Eponyms by language subcategories
6. Move the Category:Specific epithets category under the new Category:Taxonomic names
7. Move the Category:mul:Taxonomic names subcategories under the new Category:Taxonomic names, but without the "mul:" prefix.
8. Merge the current Category:Portuguese terms derived from taxonomic name with Category:Portuguese terms derived from taxonomic names, which should already be under the new Category:Taxonomic names

Note: I notice that while I was working out the details and composing this "magnum opus", someone did some module work to get Category:Portuguese terms derived from taxonomic names out of CAT:E, so some details may be out of date. I also may have missed a few details. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a good program to rationalize what has grown a bit like Topsy, fitting in to the existing framework, however awkwardly. I'll look at the individual-entry category cleanup today and report back if there are any problems.

I think it is clear that "Translingual" is too big a wastebasket. Segregating taxonomic entries and CJKV characters would leave us with a much smaller wastebasket, itself to be rationalized eventually. DCDuring (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Just saw this. It was me who fixed the issue with Category:Portuguese terms derived from taxonomic names, but the fix is only partial. We need some more work to handle the 'taxonomic name' vs. 'taxonomic names' vs. 'Taxonomic names' issue. @Theknightwho and I were discussing this over Discord. But I agree with your approach of treating all the taxonomic name stuff under mul-tax. Benwing2 (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

have a bun in the oven

Should be moved to bun in the oven - the citation given doesn't even include the "have"! Translations will need to be checked. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

husenica

It should be moved to húsenica with an accute accent on the u. Explosivo (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)