text:
Wiktionary talk:Votes/2009-12/Proposed inclusion of words and abbreviations with meanings established by recognized international bodies and formally adopted by multiple national governments

Initial discussion
It's not a terrible idea, but I don't think I'll support it. Still, hasn't even started yet. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Care to give reasons? Conrad.Irwin 23:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I'd like to see this generalized. Perhaps we choose to accept all such technical vocabulary prescribed by standards bodies, and consistently label it as such.  On the other hand, maybe we accept none.  I'd like to see us articulate a the principal for treating this kind of stuff, and then how to treat it should become more obvious.

 * In either case, and in light of Wiktionary's other policies on inclusion, I see no reason to make a particular exception for the SI. —Michael Z. 2009-12-18 23:32 z

 * The best reason is that otherwise, what we're going to end up with - what we already have, to a degree - is a very messy hodgepodge of those terms/abbreviations that can be attested in accordance with the CFI, and those that can not. We will have permanent red links in any table covering all the terms, and we will have some gaps, where a larger unit or a smaller unit meets the CFI, but an intermediate unit that would properly be placed between them does not. We will also likely have instances where we have an abbreviation for a term, but not the term itself, or the term itself, but not the abbreviation. If we end up importing definitions from our foreign language counterparts which include all these terms, we will have the terms in other languages, but not the English translations. bd2412 T 03:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I plan to vote yes. If it's prescribed in the SI, then the word is usable and understandable. —Internoob (Disc.•Cont.) 01:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see unused SI words as any different from other theoretical words that "might" be used but aren't. Equinox ◑ 01:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Neither do I. Some of these are completely hypothetical and not even allowed by laws of physics. --Ivan Štambuk 01:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

 * What "other" theoretical words do you mean? In any case, these are words that exist as a result of an important international convention. Just because the technologies and inventions that would use them have yet to be developed does not make them theoretical, they are simply not yet in use. There are numerous verb forms in the Spanish and other conjugation paradigms that are not in use, but it would be silly to try to purge those forms that aren’t used. They exist and are available to any author who someday might need them, and we have them as we should have.
 * If someone can show that certain of these units are not allowed by the laws of physics, those could be put into an index of impossible terms, with an explanation of why they are not allowed. —Stephen 01:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I surmise that under "other theoretical words" Equinox, as I, was referring to the class of words coined by applying any other set of well-defined prefixes and a lexical stem. Even lots of these SI prefixes (e.g., ) are in fact normally applied to a variety of common adjectives and nouns, usually intensifying/weakening their "normal" meanings, in effect coining new words by themselves, which abide by CFI independently of their original stems/senses.
 * What I was referring to as "hypothetical" was a concern that some of the words coined by all possible combinations of SI prefixes and units are not only unlikely to ever be attested in usage, but also make no physical sense whatsoever, except maybe in some fringy theoretical considerations (like string theory). There are both lower and upper bounds for physical properties of objects and measures in terms of units that we assign to them. You can't get charge smaller than that of electron, or speed higher than that of light. There is also so-called Planck scale under which it makes little sense to speak of "time" or "length" in ordinary senses. However, if some the terms coined in this way can be attested in actual usage (e.g. in SF writings or some silly post-modern physics), that's completely another matter. But I'd rather see them substantiated with citations than simply automatically generated under the assumption that one day humans might develop supraluminal propulsion or alter the fundamental properties of universe. --Ivan Štambuk 03:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if, for example, the smallest physically possible object is many times more massive than a zeptogram; if someone were to ask you to quantify the mass of a theoretical object of that specific magnitude, you couldn't just make up a new word for it, because one already exists. The only reason you are able to tell me that nothing can ever be as small as a zeptogram, or as short as a zeptometer, or absorb a zeptogray of radiation, is because these words have specific set meanings that can be contrasted with phenomena at higher scales. bd2412 T 03:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...you couldn't just make up a new word for it, because one already exists - It "exists" in the same sense that words listed in Appendix:Invented phobias "exist". There are countless philias, phobias and similar theoretical constructions that can be coined in a unique way with a strictly-defined meaning, and which, if the necessity for their introduction to the language arises, will likely be coined as such. I see absolutely no difference between these constructs for which CFI is applicable and these hypothesized combinations of SI prefixes and units. --Ivan Štambuk 03:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One very important difference is that those philias and phobias were not agreed upon by an international committee of representatives designated by different national governments, and they were not then formally adopted as correct terms by almost every nation in the world. bd2412 T 03:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No international committee or world government dictates words' meanings in their usage. They might define their meanings in certain formal registers (e.g. legal, military, or physics in this case; purism is in the same category), but it's up to the people whether they would use it or not in the prescribed senses, or whether they used the word at all. The meanings of SI prefixes and units is in no way "less defined" or "less important" than either of those equally unlikely phobias or philias. If the word not only has no CFI-passing attestion, but is also unlikely to ever be used, I see no point in including it in a dictionary as it would serve no purpose. --Ivan Štambuk 04:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the question at issue here. Does formal international adoption of a meaning for a word matter if the word is not demonstrably used? The words still have correct definitions, and are of a limited set (I can think of very few other examples of words whose meaning has been established in this way), so why should we ask for more? bd2412 T 14:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Does formal international adoption of a meaning for a word matter if the word is not demonstrably used? - As I said, there is no such thing as "formal international adoption of a word meaning. These are some pieces of papers signed by politicians that suggest that certain professional lingo should adopt certain words/meanings as a form of international convention. Whether they'd be actually used or not is not up to them, but the language end-users (i.e. speakers/writers) to decide. Wiktionary is principally a descriptive dictionary and adopting this breach of CFI would seriously undermine its basic policy (all words in all languages), because for the first time we'd be adding non-words. I don't see any fundamental difference between this and e.g.
 * Addition of names of chemical compounds not yet discovered
 * Additions of various philias/phobias coined for fun
 * Addition of words appearing in any other kind of prescriptive documents published by some kind of "authority", but which have never gained usage. This esp. concerns never-to-be-used neologisms appearing in some purist dictionaries publish by language academies.
 * I see this as a dangerous precedent with implications that are likely to be abused in the future. --Ivan Štambuk 16:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 * How about ununennium and unbinilium? They exist as a words only because of an international agreement that they are the placeholder names of the as-yet undiscovered (possibly undiscoverable) 119th and 120th elements on the periodic table. I know of no recognized international body that has decreed a list of "coined for fun" philias and/or phobias (perhaps there is such a body that has formally established names for recognized phobias such as claustrophobia and agoraphobia, but we do not question the legitimacy of these words). You are reacting to what is not being proposed here, regarding "purist dictionaries" and "prescriptive documents" by "some kind" of authority. It will generally be very difficult to demonstrate that a word has been coined by a recognized international body and (more importantly) has been formally adopted by national governments (that's governments, in the plural. I'd gladly entertain refinements of the language as needed to clarify what constitutes a recognized international body, or a national government, or to specify some minimum number of adopting governments as necessary to make it clear that words "just made up for fun" are not within our reach. I also happen to think that a word formally recognized as having a particular meaning by even a handful of governments would merit inclusion in the dictionary. However, that is not this case. The SI Units have been formally adopted by well over a hundred countries. bd2412 T 17:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 * No, ununennium and unbinilium exist as words not because of some kind of international agreement, but because they're used as words. Thousands of internationalisms are shared among world's languages, with or without some body regulating their meaning, but the only thing that matters with regards to their adoptions is actual usage. If ununennium and unbinilium are not used as words, they should also be deleted.

 * but we do not question the legitimacy of these words - no but it's perfectly valid analogy. Both of them are 1) unique coinages 2) not used. There is no difference in whether they're coined by Joe Sixpack or some board of big-shot scientists. None of them decides which term will gain actual usage.

 * You are reacting to what is not being proposed here, regarding "purist dictionaries" and "prescriptive documents" by "some kind" of authority. - I'm drawing analogies to what you're proposing here. Principally, there is no difference between them. If this passes, someone will sooner or later suggest some absurd idea that we generate tens of thousands of imaginary words following the same logic, using this vote as a precedent.

 * It will generally be very difficult to demonstrate that a word has been coined by a recognized international body and (more importantly) has been formally adopted by national governments  - As I've repeatedly stated, there is no such thing as "formal adoption of words by national governments". They're not the ones deciding on whether the word would be used or not. Hence, such proof cannot exist, and doesn't exist here either. Word cannot "exist" just because some politician put his name on some sheet of paper. Governments are not people, and their signature and decisions are from a lexicographical perspective worthless. --Ivan Štambuk 19:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 * How would ununennium and unbinilium come to have exist as words at all if not for their coinage by international agreement? They certainly didn't enter the lexicon through popular use, and clearly it did make a difference that those "big-shot scientists" coined the word. As a matter of personal integrity, I reject the slippery slope fallacy offhand, as nothing in this proposal will compel anyone to vote for anything more expansive in the future. bd2412 T 14:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Chemical elements' names are usually coined by scientists who discover them. The act of coining (assigning a name to an object) itself in no way guarantees that the nascent neolgisms would actually be adopted at some time in the future by language speakers. And you again abuse terminology: Governments or international officials don't "coin" words, the only thing that those ignorant politicians do is signing some sheets of paper whose actual affect might be adoption of some new words in the language, or it might not. This vote is major circumvenction of our CFI policy because for the first time we're including non-words, sequences of letters which have never been used by anyone, an thus have absolutely no meaning at all. --Ivan Štambuk 00:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't think it makes sense to describe a term as "not even allowed by laws of physics". Perhaps there's no particle whose mass would be given in zeptograms, but any particle's mass could be, and we can certainly make sense of a sentence like, "For his invention to be usable, it would have to weigh less than a zeptogram." (In other words, is impossible in the same way that  is, but not in a way that should have any bearing on whether we include it.) —Ruakh TALK 02:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Modify WT:CFI, or supersede it?
BD2412, please clarify: Would this vote modify Criteria for inclusion, or supersede it? If the former, then what exactly is the proposed textual change? If the latter, then is the idea just that we could point people to this vote page when they try to RFV or RFD an affected term? —Ruakh TALK 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My intention is to supersede - this would simply place SI Units and their abbreviations outside of the CFI altogether. If it's a unit created in accordance with the SI standards, it's an attested word that gets included in the dictionary. bd2412 T 03:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd much rather we took a more generic approach (as below) and fixed WT:CFI at the same time. Conrad.Irwin 03:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this would be better if it modifies CFI rather than supersedes it. --Yair rand 05:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that, but what's the difference between saying that such words are exempt from the CFI, or that such words will simply be deemed to meet the CFI? bd2412 T 05:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Over-specific?
I find this category of words to include too narrow - it reminds me of the slightly icky "exclude all Modern English possessive forms" criterion (which we should probably overrule so that we can regain our lead on fr.wikt before 2,000,000? :p). I thought about counter-proposing "all words that are generated by a well-followed convention" but that seems too broad, with numbers and chemistry easily generating an infinite number of entries; how about "all words in managably finite sets generated by a well-followed convention". This leaves well-followed convention and managably finite for a bit of argument (should be qualified further before voting, probably using some % of items on the list are citable?), but I'd say things like ISO language codes, paper sizes, SI units, airport codes, unicode symbols and similar things that seem to be implicitly includable anyway. (No doubt someone will find a bazillion counter examples, I'll just redefine "well-followed convention" and "managably finite" until they go away). Conrad.Irwin 03:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, we could go with "words with meanings established by recognized international bodies and formally adopted by multiple national governments". bd2412 T 03:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be much better. --Yair rand 07:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. There will be a fairly small set of words that meet this criteria (other than SI Units and some medical terms, I can't think of any). I have changed the proposal accordingly. bd2412 T 14:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the case of, say, zΩ, how do we know that it was formally adopted by national governments? —Ruakh TALK 14:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is part of the specific and precisely defined set which has been adopted - z as an abbreviation for zepto- and Ω as an abbreviation for ohm are within the set of terms that have been adopted, so (by the terms of the adopting bodies, at any rate) there is one, and only one, abbreviation for a measure made in units of 10−21 ohms, and that is the zΩ. In this regard, it it no different than a km or an mmol. bd2412 T 15:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How do we know that? —Ruakh TALK 19:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To expand a bit: firstly, I'd like to figure it out what our evidence is for the belief that the SI abbreviations have all been formally adopted by national governments, because if we're pinning our CFI to it, then ideally we should be able to cite it to a reliable source; and secondly, I'd like to know what else was covered in the same adoption(s). The English and French names? The Finnish and Hebrew ones? —Ruakh TALK 19:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a fair question, and one that I think is addressed by the materials hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is an agency of the United States government within the Department of Commerce. The NIST has a collection of pages discussing various aspects of the SI Units. They identify the seven SI base units and 22 derived units, and they identify the twenty exponential prefixes with the specific note that:
 * It is important to note that the kilogram is the only SI unit with a prefix as part of its name and symbol. Because multiple prefixes may not be used, in the case of the kilogram the prefix names of Table 5 are used with the unit name "gram" and the prefix symbols are used with the unit symbol "g." With this exception, any SI prefix may be used with any SI unit, including the degree Celsius and its symbol °C.

They also have a neat checklist of usage rules (which, being in the public domain, we could copy directly into Wiktionary as an appendix), and a discussion of the historical context of the SI, stating:
 * The International System of Units, universally abbreviated SI (from the French Le Système International d'Unités), is the modern metric system of measurement. The SI was established in 1960 by the 11th General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM, Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures). The CGPM is the international authority that ensures wide dissemination of the SI and modifies the SI as necessary to reflect the latest advances in science and technology. The CGPM is an intergovernmental treaty organization created by a diplomatic treaty called the Meter Convention (Convention du Mètre, often called the Treaty of the Meter in the United States). The Meter Convention was signed in Paris in 1875 by representatives of seventeen nations, including the United States. There are now 51 Member States of the Meter Convention, including all the major industrialized countries. The Convention, modified slightly in 1921, remains the basis of all international agreement on units of measurement.

So, taking the NIST as a reliable source (although doubtless others could be found), these units are the law of the nations that are party to that treaty, although they have been adopted by almost every country - note that they are used in the sciences in the United States, and by U.S. entrants into international commerce, even though we still measure things in miles and pounds and degrees Fahrenheit. With regard to the matter of translations, note that the abbreviations are truly translingual, used everywhere in the world, including in countries that do not use the Roman alphabet (bearing in mind that the abbreviations themselves contain a µ for micro- and an Ω for ohm). The unabbreviated prefixes and base units are generally translated for different writing systems, and there are some local differences - Americans write meter (along with the Dutch, the Swedish, and Tatars, among other), the British write metre, the French write mètre, the Spanish write metro; the Germans capitalize all the unit names as nouns. Aside from variations due to differences in writing systems, there is much less variation among the prefixes, with some languages substituting a "k" for the English "hard c" in pico- (piko-) and hecto- (hekto-) and the like. I take the U.S. government website as evidence of the accurate prefixes, base units, and derived units in English, and note that there are plentiful resources on the web to find the official translations (as here, the prefixes in French (English and French seem to be the most popular in terms of results), here, in German (with a notation, "Um die Zahlenwerte in einer praktikablen Größenordnung zu halten, hat man Vorsätze zur Bezeichnung dezimaler Vielfache und Teile von Einheiten geschaffen" indicating that the prefixes are attached to the units to designate decimal multiples and parts of units), and two in Mandarin (here is the second). Here's a Russian documentation of prefixes and units, but I can't tell whether it's an official government document.

Since the CGPM is headquartered in France and their website reports all of their official proceedings in English and French, we have authority for the terms in at least those two languages being recognized (if not adopted) by the adopting countries. The links to government websites in other countries indicate the local variations, but in every instance where the Roman alphabet is used, at least some of the prefixes and units are identical to the English. Note also that the Chinese government websites use the English prefixes and then translate them into Chinese, but also use only the Roman alphabet abbreviations. Does that suffice to address your concerns? bd2412 T 21:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Do I move the page now?
Since the proposal has changed, should I move the proposal to a name that reflects the new scope? bd2412 T 17:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I would also advise removing the words that have been crossed out. (They show up in the table of contents, which looks really weird. ) --Yair rand 02:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Specific change
This vote doesn't seem to have the specific text for what will be added/changed in CFI. This vote starts in ... 6 hours. Should the vote be delayed until the specifics are drawn up? --Yair rand 18:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to that, although I think the change to be made is just a reorganized statement of what would be included thereby. The CFI would be amended to state that attestation includes "words and abbreviations with meanings which are established by recognized international bodies, and which are then formally adopted by multiple national governments". bd2412 T 20:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But where, specifically, in WT:CFI would that be? Under one of the options in the "Attestation" section? In the paragraph below it? (I know that the location is really trivial, but it's good to figure it out in advance anyway.) --Yair rand 20:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that it should be in the "attested" list:
 * “Attested” means verified through
 * Clearly widespread use,
 * Usage in a well-known work,
 * Appearance in a refereed academic journal,
 * Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year, or,
 * Establishment by recognized international bodies, and adoption by multiple national governments.
 * —Internoob (Disc.•Cont.) 21:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. bd2412 T 21:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That'll work. Should it be displayed in the vote page itself? --Yair rand 22:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just the last line, I think. I'll do that now. bd2412 T 23:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Why this vote is wrong and dangerous
For the first time we're allowing to circumvent our descriptive CFI policy by including "words" which
 * 1) Have never been used by anoyone.
 * 2) Are not likely to ever be used by anyone.
 * 3) Whose meaning is purely an intellectual masturbation and which have no practical meaning at all: All basic and derived SI units have ranges in which they make physical sense, beyond that they're meaningless. We live in a quantum and finite universe folks, you cannot shrink and magnify everything ad infinitum at your whim.

This vote is especially delusive because of its fancy legalish new wording "words and abbreviations with meanings established by recognized international bodies and formally adopted by multiple national governments". This is misleading in several levels:
 * 1) Words and meanings cannot get established in any other way but by actual usage. Signing some sheet of paper by some politician in no way actually obliges people who he formally represents that they start using new words with new senses. Our current CFI policy proactively forbids neologisms, protologisms and other *isms confined to author's imagination, and even certain cases of actual usage which are not widespread. There is no difference between them and the neologisms this vote aims to include.
 * 2) Arguing that e.g. zeptojoule is unlikely to ever mean anything else than 10−21J is as meaningless to argue that aurophobia is as unlikely to mean anything else other than "fear from gold, aversion to gold". But until they're attested in actual usage, we really can't know for sure. Both are equally proper coinages ("established" prefix and a unit, "established" combining forms), but none of them wouldn't really pass CFI. You can create millions of such coinages in any language. But until they gain actual usage, they're not real words.

Another major concern for this is the precedent this vote sets (if it passes): What if some day someone wants to similarly create thousands of such pseudo-words, by combining some "legally established" affixes and lexical stems? From a lexicographical perspective it's all the same whether the word-coining document is officially adopted in only one country, or 200 of them, as the only things that matters is its influence, i.e. whether these words will actually be used one day or not. --Ivan Štambuk 00:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We actually have a policy point addressing the slippery slope argument: Criteria for inclusion. It states: "There is occasionally concern that adding an entry for a particular term will lead to entries for a large number of similar terms. This is not a problem, as each term is considered on its own based on its usage, not on the usage of terms similar in form." I would also point out that the CGPM states, and the NIST affirms, that the SI prefixes and units may be combined in any way. A zeptojoule is a zeptojoule, irrespective of whether anyone ever puts it in a book or a paper, and we are a less complete dictionary for lacking it. bd2412 T 01:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that pertains to individual terms, this vote pertains to entire classes of terms, possibly encompassing millions new entries being added. The very CFI quote you cite "This is not a problem, as each term is considered on its own based on its usage, not on the usage of terms similar in form." is contradictive in its nature to this vote, because according to this vote none of such terms are considered on their own usage, but on the basis of external legality criteria.
 * "A zeptojoule is a zeptojoule, irrespective of whether anyone ever puts it in a book or a paper," - Well until someone actually puts it to the paper, it's as meaningful as aurophobia or billions of other unused coinages that are formed by the application of elementary well-defined morphological devices.
 * and we are a less complete dictionary for lacking it - As I said above, by not including words which are not used by anyone we're not losing much. In fact, we're not losing anything, because nobody will ever look up such words. OTOH, Wiktionary might even influence their creation and propagation elsewhere by including them, which would be very problematic. --Ivan Štambuk 01:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A zeptojoule is a standard unit of measure, whether or not is has ever been used. Standard units are clearly words, which means that Wiktionary should include them. --Yair rand 01:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Word is a minimal meaningful unit that is used in spoken or written language. If some sequence of letters/sounds is not used in a meaningful speech for communication purposes, than it is not a word, regardless whether it's in the international law or not. If someone someday used a word like zeptojoule it is likely to be in the meaning its straightforward morphological decomposition would indicate, but until it's used it's not a word any more than aurophobia. --Ivan Štambuk 02:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to add that Wiktionary is still Wiktionary. If these particular entries are permitted, given their nature they can all be added by an approved bot, with a usage note indicating that they are governmental constructs and have not been used otherwise (to the extent this is the case). They can therefore be put in with minimal human effort. They will certainly not make the dictionary less complete or less accurate. I doubt that anyone will make the effort of hunting down some more questionable class of comparable government constructs and fritter away their time making entries for the same. bd2412 T 02:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not governmental constructs but our own constructs. No government created these words. Politicians signed some papers served to them by committees who agreed on the points addressed in an attempt to establish an international convention. Which might or might not be succesful. Our inclusion criteria is independent of legislative constructs as we are strictly a descriptive dictionary. We must not add imaginary words used by no one, and especially not allow a policy that would allow inclusion of possibly infinite number of such coinages. --Ivan Štambuk 02:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

 * There is definitely a difference, while an established scientist could happily use yoctometer in a scientific journal without anyone blinking an eye, the same is not true of ablutophobia or w/e. As far as I can see this vote merely codifies current practice, we include any unicode symbol, regardless of whether we could cite it (chances are there's no way we have the technical ability to cite some characters); we include ISO codes, possibly citable, but very very hard to do so. These terms have a well-defined meaning already, we don't need citations to show it.
 * Again this descriptivism ideal, I agree with it and see this vote as perfectly fine with that. Providing we can justify the limits of what we are interested in describing, we can include any set of words we like - if we were going to be purely descriptive (as I understand the linguistics term) we would have to abolish, , and abolish the arbitrary exclusion of the internet as a source for citations. Yes it is ok to be able to describe how words are actually used, yes it is also ok to describe how standards bodies say words should be used.
 * I will acknowledge one problem with this proposal and that is that for the above to be true we need to maintain a clear distinction between "this is a word, it is used", and "this would be the word, according to ISU" - we do this for ISO codes cr and airport codes DCA, but not really for units zeptometre, zm. Conrad.Irwin 02:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

 * There is no difference if the word is used by Einstein or by Joe Sixpack, in a prestigious scientific journal or local agricultural newspaper. Scientists regularly coin thousands of neologisms, especially in the ever-emerging fields such as medicine, on the basis of combining well-defined lexical stems, combining forms and affixes. aurophobia might as well one day discovered as a psychological disorder, and described in some peer-reviewed journal without anyone blinking an eye.

 * The current practice of including Unicode symbols is a completely different and unrelated issue. This are not words, but symbols. There is a great difference between the inherent word (spelled in whatever script, orthography or encoding) and its representation. This is not comparable to any of our existing practices in that area.

 * Misspellings redirected by menas of are not words (they do not categorize). We might as well completely abolish it one day if the Wiktionary search-feature acquires the capability to redirect such misspellings. Neologisms are words, actually used and citeable, but only recently being coined (or in another meaning of that term, coined whenever for some particular purpose, e.g. puristic, but never really spread).  is a context label describing word's meaning from a standardological perspective, similar to, ,  etc.

 * "it is also ok to describe how standards bodies say words should be used." - That is OK only if the words being described are use. In which case, that becomes a particular register of meaning. Many common terms have specialized well-defined meaning in law, science etc., and it's perfectly OK to include them if they are used. If they are not actually used they are empty meaningless coinages. --Ivan Štambuk 02:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Who are we to decide what is a misspelling? How can we using purely descriptive analysis determine whether a word is mispelt or alternatively spelt? I don't think it's possible - however it would be much less useful to our readers to class all alternatives the same way. Same with neologism, what makes a neologism, where is the boundary? We can easily decree such a boundary but this is imposing an artificial definition on neologism.
 * What is wrong with saying "cr is the ISO 639-1 code for Cree"? - it's a factually true, provably true sentence. It may not be what you would like in a dictionary, in which case vote against this proposal. I do agree with you that these words cannot be assumed to have a meaning, but it certainly can be said that they have been assigned a meaning. Conrad.Irwin 03:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

 * We primarily determine that on the basis of some prescriptive works (e.g. orthography books, as well as other dictionaries). Misspelling is usually a typo, non-reoccurring hapax, which can be sampled against other written works of the same writer, or other writers in order to determine its spread and whether it qualifies for inclusion. We include misspellings only as an educational device that would point users to "proper" spellings (as well as to prevent creation of commonly misspelled terms). This is a relatively complex issue very dependent on language in question. I seriously doubt that there are any entries on Wiktionary which are doubtful as misspellings vs. alternative forms, especially in languages with morpho-etymological orthography such as English. In languages that are "maintained" by some language institutions, usually of national character, it's very easy to determine what is a misspellings. In some other instances it would require some research.

 * What constitutes a neologism - well, that is a vaguely defined term by itself, mutable in time and space. It's undeniable that some coinages are strongly felt as neologisms in certain circles, and that there is some utility to that label (e.g. user might wanna browse a category of terms coined in the last X years).

 * I cannot really see the connection in the discussion of misspellings and neologisms to this vote. Both misspellings/alternative forms (however you perceive them) are in a big advantage here, because they're actually used as words. The status of a work being a misspellings pertains to its usage regularity and "properness" with respect to some prescriptive work (if it exists for the language in question), and the status of neologism pertains to the date of the term being coined, its spread and status with respect to other synonymous or nearly related terms. Both of these categories are completely mutually orthogonal (word can be both neologism and a misspelling), and orthogonal to this proposal (e.g. misspelled neologism could be included on the basis of this policy).

 * There is really nothing wrong with saying "cr is the ISO 639-1 code for Cree". There is also nothing wrong with saying "zeptojoule is smaller than a joule". But until words such as zeptojoule can be actually verified in that usage, they don't exist. Words don't exist until they're used. I would not vote against the proposal because it would include real words that can be used, I'm voting against it because it would include words that are not used, and are unlikely ever to be used. In the proposed wording, any number of such terms could be added in the future on the basis of external, non-usage criteria, and that is something that I see as very problematic. No one can "assign meanings" to words other than speakers/writers. --Ivan Štambuk 04:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm not so sure there's consensus to allow all Unicode characters and ISO codes. See WT:RFV where a programming-only character probably will fail as it's not used in natural languages. If it fails, the same will probably be true of the whole APL block of Unicode. Just before this vote started, I thought about RFV'ing an ISO language code to see what the community thought. I'm leaning against including symbols and codes not used (as opposed to mentioned) in natural language. While there are definitely facts and meanings associated with those entities, I don't think a dictionary is where those facts should be spelled out. The issue at hand with this vote, however, is slightly different. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 09:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we'd be that "less complete". None of the major English dictionaries (AHD, OED, MW) include any zepto- term except zeptosecond and they all think they're pretty complete. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 09:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no dictionary thinks it's complete (or I hope so, because it's impossible).
 * I would simplify this vote by extending it to all words (including set phrases) with an official or legal status (either internationally or in some country, or region, or town...), or proposed or recommended by an official body, even before they are actually used. Even if they are never used, including them is interesting for historical reasons. We want to include all words, and knowing that a word has been proposed and defined officially is something interesting.
 * An example of a word which could be accepted with such a rule and might be refused with current CFI: the French word vionnet (meaning small path). This is a very rare regional word derived from the Latin word via, and used in vionnet de l'Eglise in a French village, which makes it an official word (vionnet de l'Eglise is an official odonym). Lmaltier 10:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that I don't propose that governments should be considered as lexical authorities. Not at all. We must be descriptive. But we have to reason not to describe words with an official status (with all appropriate comments explaining that they are not in actual use, if needed). And I don't propose to remove words one they lose their official status. Once a word is included (with a good reason), it must be kept, if only for historical reasons. Lmaltier 21:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawal of the proposal.
Perhaps it would be appropriate at this point to withdraw this proposal. Would anyone object? bd2412 T 16:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. Perhaps the original proposal to just have an exception for SI units was better... --Yair rand 20:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And it is too complex (see KISS principle). Why multiple national governments? Is a word more a word when an additional government adopts it? The objective of CFI should not be to select which words are worth inclusion (as we accept all words), but to prevent people to include "words" they have created themselves. Independent attestations is a good enough reason to include a word. And when a word has an official status (anywhere), it's also a good enough, simple, easy-to-verify, reason to include it (see above). Lmaltier 09:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Compromise formatting
Since this vote did not pass, I would like to propose an alternate format for these types of terms. As I mentioned on the main page, I'd would be listing the terms on the prefix and base unit pages (so they can be searched for) and then linking to an existing entry if it exists and otherwise the Appendix. See peta- for a trial. This could work for full terms and symbols. In cases where the entry already exists for some other sense, a link can be left on a See also section. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 22:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


text: opuntias

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: opuntias


text: Rhymes:Icelandic/aːtʰiːna

title: Rhymes:Icelandic/aːtʰiːna


text: 傩戏

title: 傩戏


text:
User:Klisz/vector.css

.Hani, .Han { font-family: serif; }

title: User:Klisz/vector.css


text:
patína

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1)  paten (plate for the host during Eucharist)

title: patína


text:
einen runterholen

Verb

 * 1)  to jerk off
 * 2)  to jerk off; to give a hand job
 * 1)  to jerk off; to give a hand job
 * 1)  to jerk off; to give a hand job
 * 1)  to jerk off; to give a hand job

title: einen runterholen


text:
lexicographically

Adverb

 * 1)  In a lexicographical way.
 * 2)  From the perspective of lexicography.
 * 3)  In lexicographical order.
 * 1)  In lexicographical order.

Translations

 * Czech: slovníkářsky, lexikograficky
 * Finnish: leksikografisesti
 * French:
 * Italian: lessicograficamente
 * Russian: лексикографически

title: lexicographically


text:
lausnarhraði

Etymology
From +.

Noun

 * 1)  escape velocity

title: lausnarhraði


text:
googlage

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  googling (the use of Google to find information on the Internet)

title: googlage


text: googlages

title: googlages


text:
nerve growth factor

Noun

 * 1)  a functional protein complex required for the survival, growth and specialization of certain types of neurons in vertebrates.
 * 2) * 1999 Landreth, Gary E. Growth Factors. In: Siegel, George J.; et al. Basic Neurochemistry. Philadelphia: Lippincott–Raven Publishers; 1999 [cited 18 December 2009]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=bnchm&part=A1358#A1364
 * Nerve growth factor is the prototypical member of the neurotrophin family.
 * Nerve growth factor is the prototypical member of the neurotrophin family.

title: nerve growth factor


text:
окарина

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) ocarina

Noun

 * 1) ocarina

Noun

 * 1) ocarina (musical instrument)

title: окарина


text: weatherwise

title: weatherwise


text:
geomrian

Etymology
From, from , equivalent to. Cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Verb

 * 1) to complain
 * 2) to be sad, lament
 * 3) to bewail, moan

title: geomrian


text:
User:Robert Ullmann/CS redirects with links/19 December 2009

19 December 2009

 * Comparative (links: Frequency lists/Project Gutenberg 20001-30000)
 * Concealment (links: secrecy, User:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages)
 * Concordance (links: Concordances, Concordance talk:Sherlock Holmes, Wiktionary talk:Concordances, Category:Concordances)
 * Connotation (links: Beer parlour archive/January-March 05)
 * Contraction (links: it's, níl, något, εμένα, εσένα, User:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages)
 * Coppersmith (links: User:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages, -smith)
 * Corporation (links: Concordance:Holmes C, Appendix:Types of companies, Frequency lists/Project Gutenberg 20001-30000, Frequency lists/Project Gutenberg 90001-100000, Concordance:Legend of Sleepy Hollow, Remembrancer, User:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages, User:Msh210/underived/a, User:Matthias Buchmeier/German frequency list-10001-15000)
 * Counterfeit (links: bogus, chiviado, User:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages)
 * Creationist (links: baraminology, Darwin fish, User:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages)
 * Crucifixion (links: triclavianism, triclavianist, Holy Grail, Frequency lists/Project Gutenberg 50001-60000, calvary, User:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages, stabat mater, User:Msh210/R'n'B/12, Talk:Destot's space, User talk:DABallMD, User:HippieBot/Entries in Encarta online not in Wiktionary/cov-cst)
 * Cunnilingus (links: Project - German/missing a-d, User:Matthias Buchmeier/German frequency list-80001-85000)
 * Depravation (links: Project - German/missing a-d)
 * Description (links: Frequency lists/Project Gutenberg 20001-30000, User:Connel MacKenzie/redirects/Other, Talk:sarcasm, UDDI)
 * Desecration (links: deconsecration)
 * Destruction (links: nuke, Frequency lists/Project Gutenberg 30001-40000, User:Sewnmouthsecret/CoolAir, User:Matthias Buchmeier/German frequency list-135001-140000)
 * Development (links: Frequency lists/Project Gutenberg 20001-30000, User:Matthias Buchmeier/German frequency list-25001-30000)
 * Dichotomous (links: dichotomic)
 * Dreadnought (links: battle cruiser, User:Matthias Buchmeier/German frequency list-60001-65000)
 * Drunkenness (links: )
 * Dutch uncle (links: Dutch, uncle, in Dutch, User:Brian0918/Hotlist/D5, Appendix:Glossary of idioms - D, User:HippieBot/Entries in Encarta online not in Wiktionary/dre-ear)
 * Dydd Gwener (links: Index:Welsh, dydd, Gwener)
 * Dydd Mawrth (links: Index:Welsh, dydd)
 * Dydd Sadwrn (links: Index:Welsh, dydd)
 * Ecuadoriaan (links: Ecuadorian)
 * Electronics (links: filter, Category talk:Physics, User:Matthias Buchmeier/German frequency list-50001-55000)
 * Enchantment (links: Citations:enchantment)
 * Engineering (links: engin., Frequency lists/Project Gutenberg 50001-60000, BE, User:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages, User:Matthias Buchmeier/German frequency list-135001-140000)
 * Entertainer (links: entertainer, impersonator, User:Matthias Buchmeier/German frequency list-35001-40000)
 * Eradication (links: averruncation)
 * Eucharistic (links: User:Brian0918/Hotlist/E3, real presence, User:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages)
 * Experienced (links: Appendix:webster 1913:523, traveled, travelled, User:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages)
 * Family name (links: Appendix:Persian given names (2), Appendix:Swedish surnames)
 * Festschrift (links: festschrift, User:Brian0918/Hotlist/F, Project - German/missing e-m)
 * Francophile (links: Appendix:Types of love, User:Brian0918/Hotlist/F3, Francomania, Tea room/Archive 2006, Talk:phil-, Talk:-phile, Talk:-philous, Talk:-philic, User:HippieBot/Entries in Encarta online not in Wiktionary/fly-fre)
 * Francophobe (links: Interesting new words/Archive, User:Brian0918/Hotlist/F3, User:HippieBot/Entries in Encarta online not in Wiktionary/fly-fre)
 * Frenchified (links: Frenchify, User:Brian0918/Hotlist/F3, Frenchification, User:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages, infrancesato, infrancesarsi)
 * Ghostbuster (links: Requests for deletion/Archives/2006/03, Requests for verification archive/March 2006, User:Matthias Buchmeier/German frequency list-320001-325000)
 * Girl Friday (links: Friday, User:Hippietrail/Current reading, User:Hippietrail/A Void)
 * Green party (links: grön)
 * Immediately (links: Appendix:webster 1913:731, Frequency lists/Project Gutenberg 1-10000, User:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages)
 * Inclination (links: Frequency lists/Project Gutenberg 60001-70000, User:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages, User:Sewnmouthsecret/CoolAir)
 * Incredulity (links: incredulousness)
 * Joyeux Noël (links: Noël, Index:French/j)
 * Kelly green (links: Interesting new words/Archive)
 * Kuiper Belt (links: User:Długosz/vocabulary, Appendix:List of astronomical terms, plutino, Beer parlour archive/2007/July, twotino, Cinto de Kuiper)
 * Minor scale (links: Appendix:Glossary of bagpipe terms)
 * Objet d'art (links: User:Connel MacKenzie/apostrophe, spelter)
 * On or About (links: OA)
 * Peculiarity (links: )
 * Peeping Tom (links: voyeur)
 * Performance (links: Frequency lists/Project Gutenberg 80001-90000, Project - German/missing n-s, User:Sewnmouthsecret/CoolAir, User:Matthias Buchmeier/German frequency list-25001-30000)
 * Perspective (links: Frequency lists/Project Gutenberg 80001-90000, Tea room/Archive 2005)
 * Perspicuity (links: Concordance:Federalist Papers)
 * Plagioclase (links: 斜長石)
 * Portmanteau (links: User:Qubit, Wiktionary talk:Entry layout explained/archive 2002, Wiktionary talk:Entry layout explained/archive 2003, User:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages, Talk:privet)
 * Probability (links: User:Dcljr/Statistics)
 * Programming (links: Tea room/Archive 2005, User talk:SemperBlotto/2005, functional programming)
 * Punctuation (links: exclamation mark, period, User:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages, Talk:period)
 * Pyracanthus (links: pyro-)
 * Qui lo sape (links: who knows)
 * Real estate (links: Talk:real, royal, realty)
 * Reversioner (links: reversionist, reversionary, User:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages)
 * Rugby Union (links: rugby, eggball)
 * Sana aşığım (links: I'm in love with you)
 * Septembrize (links: Tea room/Archive 2008/March)
 * Serendipity (links: serendipity, Project - German/missing n-s, User:Matthias Buchmeier/German frequency list-155001-160000)
 * Silversmith (links: -smith)
 * Subjunctive (links: Frequency lists/Project Gutenberg 80001-90000, grille, balle, gaon, veure, doon, kalle, dabbe, plekke, Template:li-conj1-2c, bèlle, tèlle, sjèlle, rèlle, vèlle, trèlle, kèlle, kwèlle, stèlle, wèlle, mölle, królle, gkrille, grómme, chrèlle, chrille, gkrèlle, grèlle, klömme, zwömme, knèlle, klèmme, Template:li-conj7-2c, rèmme, rómme, krömme, èpperglieëdjómme, jómme, Template:li-conj1-1c, maole, laeke, lieje, lèèje, Template:li-conj8, zeen, baere, bäöke, Template:li-conj4-1c, kaoke, tönke)
 * Sæternesdæg (links: Saturday)
 * Transgender (links: trans, User:OneWomanArmy923)
 * Universidad (links: Index:Spanish/u, Oxford, Project - Spanish/missing t-z, Concordance:Engines/Engines8)
 * Yn Chanadey (links: Canada)
 * Zwischenzug (links: zwischenzug)
 * airurandogo (links: アイルランド語)
 * alaska hand (links: Alaska hands)
 * anglosphere (links: Anglo-)
 * bloody Mary (links: Mary, Worcestershire sauce, Red Eye)
 * carborundum (links: noli illegitimi carborundum, Wiktionary:Requested entries:French/c, Tea room/Archive 2006, Frequency lists/PG/2006/04/30001-40000, carborundo, kísill, User:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages, User:Msh210/underived/e)
 * cheddarhead (links: Talk:youse)
 * chichimecah (links: chichimeca)
 * christianus (links: Christus, cretin, User:ArielGlenn/la-no-templates-aug-1-2007, kristinn)
 * Christopher (links: Frequency lists/PG/2005/10/1-10000, Frequency lists/PG/2005/10/5001-6000, Frequency lists/TV/2006/4001-5000, Frequency lists/Complete Shakespeare wordlist 2, Frequency lists/PG/2006/04/1-10000, Wiktionary talk:Frequency lists/Spanish6001-7000, User:Jyril/fi/3, User:Matthias Buchmeier/Italian frequency list-25001-30000, User:Matthias Buchmeier/Spanish frequency list-5001-10000)
 * dunelmensis (links: dunelm, Requests for verification archive/August 2007)


text: 吴语

title: 吴语


text:
吳語

Noun

 * 1) Wu; Wu Chinese, a form of Chinese spoken in most of Zhejiang province, Shanghai and southern Jiangsu province

title: 吳語


text: 旁遮普语

title: 旁遮普语


text:
旁遮普語

Noun

 * 1) Punjabi language

title: 旁遮普語


text: 泰卢固语

title: 泰卢固语


text:
泰盧固語

Proper noun

 * 1) Telugu

title: 泰盧固語


text: 马拉地语

title: 马拉地语


text:
馬拉地語

Proper noun

 * 1) the Marathi language

title: 馬拉地語


text: 样板戏

title: 样板戏


text: 韩语

title: 韩语


text:
韓語

Noun

 * 1) Korean language

Noun

 * 1) Korean language

title: 韓語


text: 韩文

title: 韩文


text:
韓文

Noun

 * 1)  prose of

Noun

 * 1) hangul Korean national script
 * 2) Korean language

Usage notes
Some maintain a distinction between for the spoken language and  for the written script. Actual usage varies.

title: 韓文


text: rhinoscopes

title: rhinoscopes


text: rhinoscopies

title: rhinoscopies


text: grandpappies

title: grandpappies


text: pappies

title: pappies


text: reinsmen

title: reinsmen


text: revheads

title: revheads


text: revictimizations

title: revictimizations


text: pucksters

title: pucksters


text: revictualled

title: revictualled


text: revictualling

title: revictualling


text: revictuals

title: revictuals


text:
rhinoscopist

Noun

 * 1) One who performs rhinoscopy.

title: rhinoscopist


text: rhinoscopists

title: rhinoscopists


text: processers

title: processers


text:
nonprocessable

Adjective

 * 1) unprocessable

title: nonprocessable


text:
nonattender

Noun

 * 1) One who does not attend (make oneself present at a ceremony etc.).

title: nonattender


text: nonattenders

title: nonattenders


text:
nonattending

Adjective

 * 1) Not in attendance; absent.

title: nonattending


text:
funbags

Etymology

 * US 1965.

Noun

 * 1)  A woman's breasts.

title: funbags


text:
ungettable

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) Unable to be gotten: not gettable.

Synonyms

 * See

Antonyms

 * ; see also

title: ungettable


text:
Citations:funbag

 * 1) *15 December 2009, San Antoniao Current
 * ...the Double-Bodied Venus”) dabbled in early breast augmentation; (s)he used not a modern-day funbag insert, but injections of either silicone, ...
 * 1) *23 June 2009, Daily Star - JORDAN'S DIAMOND GEEZER
 * Following her messy break-up from Peter Andre, 36, the funbag queen is showering her new muscle man Alex Reid with affection
 * 2002, Chris Bridges - Giggling Into the Pillow
 * ...Grabbed a big round funbag in each hand, did a little hip-thrusting move into her cooze and started laying the moves on her.

Can [http://www.theinsider.com/news/581353_Katharine_McPhee_And_Her_Funbag. this] be a funbag?

title: Citations:funbag


text:
User:Aliciakia

Nwachukwu Chibuzor Marian

title: User:Aliciakia


text: kB/s

title: kB/s


text:
Pg Up

Noun

 * 1)  page up (used to scroll up in a window)

title: Pg Up


text:
wavetable

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) A collection of many single-cycle waveforms with subtly changing harmonic contents, sometimes based on a sample of a real musical instrument, used in sound synthesis.

title: wavetable


text: wavetables

title: wavetables


text:
glucocorticoid receptor

Noun

 * 1)  A protein found in multiple forms within cells, which binds glucocorticoids and subsequently influences gene transcription.
 * 2) * 2009 Zimmer, Carl. "Can Evolution Run in Reverse? A Study Says It’s a One-Way Street," New York Times, 28 September 2009 [cited 18 December 2009], Science section, online edition, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/science/29evol.html.
 * They studied a protein called a glucocorticoid receptor that helps humans and most other vertebrates cope with stress by grabbing a hormone called cortisol and then switching on stress-defense genes.
 * They studied a protein called a glucocorticoid receptor that helps humans and most other vertebrates cope with stress by grabbing a hormone called cortisol and then switching on stress-defense genes.

title: glucocorticoid receptor


text:
Pg Dn

Noun

 * 1)  page down (used to scroll down in a window)

title: Pg Dn


text:
undressable

Adjective

 * 1) Capable of being undressed.

Adjective

 * 1) Not dressable; not able to be dressed.

title: undressable


text: nowells

title: nowells


text: nowell

title: nowell


text:
slobbiness

Noun

 * 1) slobbishness

title: slobbiness


text:
slobbishness

Noun

 * 1) The state or condition of being slobbish; slovenliness.

title: slobbishness


text:
cruisy

Adjective

 * 1)  Suitable to listen to when driving leisurely.
 * 2)  Leisurely.
 * 3)  Suitable for finding sexual partners (especially for gay men).
 * 4) * 1970-1975, Lou Sullivan, personal diary, quoted in 2019, Ellis Martin, Zach Ozma (editors), We Both Laughed In Pleasure
 * Went to 12 gay bars including leather & glitter ones, to a gay movie & to the cruisy gay area of Central Park twice.
 * 1)  Tending to cruise for sexual partners.
 * 1)  Tending to cruise for sexual partners.
 * 1)  Tending to cruise for sexual partners.

title: cruisy


text: cruisiest

title: cruisiest


text: cruisier

title: cruisier


text: cruisey

title: cruisey


text: cruisings

title: cruisings


text:
gay-friendly

Adjective

 * 1)  Open to, but not necessarily aimed at, gay people.

Translations

 * Dutch: homovriendelijk
 * Esperanto: gejamika
 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * Hungarian: melegbarát
 * Polish:
 * Swedish:

title: gay-friendly


text:
plotlessly

Adverb

 * 1) In a plotless manner; lacking a plot.

title: plotlessly


text:
preoccupiedly

Adverb

 * 1)  In a preoccupied way.

title: preoccupiedly


text:
megafoot

Noun

 * 1)  A unit of length equal to one million feet.

title: megafoot


text: megafeet

title: megafeet


text:
gloryholer

Noun

 * 1)  Someone who has sex using a glory hole.
 * I dunno if I could ever trust a gloryholer: their need for anonymity is just so sketchy to me.

title: gloryholer


text:
nonemployed

Adjective

 * 1) Not employed; unemployed.

title: nonemployed


text:
gay curious

Adjective

 * 1) Curious about one's homosexuality; curious to try homosexuality.

title: gay curious


text:
hair bundle

Noun

 * 1)  a group of cellular processes resembling hair, characteristic of hair cells
 * 2) * 1988 Howard, J. and Hudspeth, A. J. "Compliance of the hair bundle associated with gating of mechanoelectrical transduction channels in the Bullfrog's saccular hair cell." Neuron 1, no. 3, (1 May 1988) [cited 18 December 2009], 189, http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/0896-6273%2888%2990139-0.
 * To test this model, we measured the stiffness of hair bundles during mechanical stimulation.
 * To test this model, we measured the stiffness of hair bundles during mechanical stimulation.

Translations

 * Finnish: karvasolukimppu

title: hair bundle


text: hair bundles

title: hair bundles


text:
handballing

Noun

 * 1)  The act of inserting a hand into a partner's anus.

Synonyms

 * fisting

title: handballing


text: handballed

title: handballed


text:
banner blindness

Etymology
Coined by Jan Panero Benway and David M. Lane for their 1998 paper Banner Blindness: The Irony of Attention Grabbing on the World Wide Web

Noun

 * 1) A tendency to ignore banner ads and similar-looking banners on websites.

Translations

 * Finnish: bannerisokeus
 * Russian: невосприимчивость к рекламным объявлениям, баннерная слепота́
 * Spanish: banner blindness, ceguera a banner
 * Swedish: bannerblindhet

title: banner blindness


text:
Talk:bánh phở

Change in definition
The change in definition (changing the first part of the definition to "rice noodle") is not correct, because other types of rice noodles, with other names, are used in Vietnamese cuisine. 24.29.228.33 03:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. 71.66.97.228 10:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with kind of noodle
Which variety of noodles does this denote?

Are they egg noodles, or some other kind of noodle?

Can anybody fix the definition? Are they noodles that are dried, and then reconstituted, or what? Are they pressed and cut into a particular size or shape, or is it a noodle that has a certain flavor (anise, caraway, capsicum pepper) in the dough before it is boiled or steamed? Anyway, the definition is lacking in specificity. Somebody needs to fix the definition. 216.99.198.195 06:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:bánh phở


text:
User talk:Bequw/archive2007

Code
Hi! What language/platform are you writing code on? Robert Ullmann 11:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to use C++, but it appears everyone is using python, so I'm brushing up on that again.

Reflexive verbs
How are you planning to handle conjugations of Spanish reflexive verbs? Right now, policy is to have reflexive forms on the same entry page as non-reflexive. In other words lavarse should be defined on the lavar page. --EncycloPetey 23:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm updating the common conjugation templates so they can conjugate both ways (w/ an added parameter value). Where can I find out about policies, especially Spanish ones? I've looked on WT:AES, Project - Spanish, and Proyecto - Español but they aren't that detailed. I have no problem with the definitions on the same page (most dictionaries do this), though I think there should be redirects for the common reflexive forms (sentirse, etc.). --Bequw

 * Those are the best places to look, but not all the relevant policies have been set down officially yet. Many of them are still informally agreed upon following discussions in various community pages (such as the Beer Parlour).  You might look in Entry layout explained, which is the core formatting and style guide, and look around at the other language-specific pages to see what's been done (there's a very good page Wiktionary:About Greek).  Sometimes the relevant policy makes it into one such page, not not into all the languages where it applies.  Otherwise, I'd suggest posting occasional questions in the Beer Parlour to stimulate people to write more helpful policy information down on WT:AES.  That's the way that Latin and Ancient Greek have been working lately, and it's helped to flesh out those policies a bit.  You might also ask User:Hippietrail, as I think he's been doing Spanish here longer than anyone else.  --EncycloPetey 15:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to this, there is also a About Spanish page, which needs some serious attention. Good work with the verb templates. I've been entering reflexive definitions on the same page as non-reflexive forms, using a tag, but I agree some form of redirects are needed too. Note we don't like "hard" redirects here, so it may be that lavarse should just say someething like "Reflexive infinitive form of lavar" (edit: oh - it does!). Hopefully now we have another contributor interested in Spanish some more debate will be generated... Widsith 14:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Soft redirects are better too, because then we can show the reflexive conjugations, which are non-trivial in the imperative voice and the gerund. And some reflexives differ from their sleaker counterparts (irse vs. ir). --Bequw 15:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

trozo
Synonyms at L2? ;-) should be L4, and definition line with # .... Robert Ullmann 18:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, seeing as you seem to be having fun with Spanish templates, do you know if this template or any of the related ones are ever used - I was going to RFD them, but I thought I would check with you first. Conrad.Irwin 23:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I've never used it. I don't imagine will need it very much now that most of the common (low numbered) articles have been made. --Bequw 18:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Project:Spanish
I went to add a Tbot cat reference just about when you did ... ;-)

I am re-running the missing pages, from the 20.11.7 en.wikt and the 28.11.7 es.wikt. Should be available in a few minutes. Robert Ullmann 14:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Great! Thanks. --Bequw 17:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

es: templates
Very good to standardize them, but be careful of the ones that are intended for a single irregular verb, not a class, and are used only on that verb's entry (so as to, correctly, keep all the table cruft out of the entry; we could use it on the forms of that verb later too ;-). atañer and tañer have two different templates, neither is -ñer as a class. (possibly bad example, as they could be a class, but there are two different ones now ;-) Some may be a class as well. I'm sure you know all this, but it isn't just renaming ;-) Robert Ullmann 14:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (Arg edit conflict). Basically I was going to use es-conj-*r (XXXX) names for conjugations that don't follow standard morphological rules (like ser or atañer because it's defective) and normal es-conj-****r for conjugations that do follow them regardless of how many verbs follow that patter. So tañer become es-conj-ñer and not es-conj-er (tañer). Seem good? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Sí. That's fine. (Sorry my comment was fairly murky, even with a revision ;-) Robert Ullmann 14:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Using pywikipedia on cygwin
If you're having the following error trying to use pywikipedia (nightly build 20th Dec 2007, with python 2.5) on cygwin on Windows XP, you need to install openssl. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 12:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Toolserveraccount
Hello Bequw, please send your real-name, your wikiname, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to. We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. 00:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC) P.S:Merry Christmas :)

title: User talk:Bequw/archive2007


text: exorcisant

title: exorcisant


text: exorcisé

title: exorcisé


text: exorcisons

title: exorcisons


text: exorcisez

title: exorcisez


text: exorcisent

title: exorcisent


text: exorcisais

title: exorcisais


text: exorcisait

title: exorcisait


text: exorcisions

title: exorcisions


text: exorcisiez

title: exorcisiez


text: exorcisaient

title: exorcisaient


text: exorcisai

title: exorcisai


text: exorcisas

title: exorcisas


text: exorcisa

title: exorcisa


text: exorcisâmes

title: exorcisâmes


text: exorcisâtes

title: exorcisâtes


text: exorcisèrent

title: exorcisèrent


text: exorciserai

title: exorciserai


text: exorciseras

title: exorciseras


text: exorcisera

title: exorcisera


text: exorciserons

title: exorciserons


text: exorciserez

title: exorciserez


text: exorciseront

title: exorciseront


text: exorciserais

title: exorciserais


text: exorciserait

title: exorciserait


text: exorciserions

title: exorciserions


text: exorciseriez

title: exorciseriez


text: exorciseraient

title: exorciseraient


text: exorcisasse

title: exorcisasse


text: exorcisasses

title: exorcisasses


text: exorcisât

title: exorcisât


text: exorcisassions

title: exorcisassions


text: exorcisassiez

title: exorcisassiez


text: exorcisassent

title: exorcisassent


text: détirant

title: détirant


text: détiré

title: détiré


text: détire

title: détire


text: détires

title: détires


text: détirons

title: détirons


text: détirez

title: détirez


text: détirent

title: détirent


text: détirais

title: détirais


text: détirait

title: détirait


text: détirions

title: détirions


text: détiriez

title: détiriez


text: détiraient

title: détiraient


text: détirai

title: détirai


text: détiras

title: détiras


text: détira

title: détira


text: détirâmes

title: détirâmes


text: détirâtes

title: détirâtes


text: détirèrent

title: détirèrent


text: détirerai

title: détirerai


text: détireras

title: détireras


text: détirera

title: détirera


text: détirerons

title: détirerons


text: détirerez

title: détirerez


text: détireront

title: détireront


text: détirerais

title: détirerais


text: détirerait

title: détirerait


text: détirerions

title: détirerions


text: détireriez

title: détireriez


text: détireraient

title: détireraient


text: détirasse

title: détirasse


text: détirasses

title: détirasses


text: détirât

title: détirât


text: détirassions

title: détirassions


text: détirassiez

title: détirassiez


text: détirassent

title: détirassent


text: momifiant

title: momifiant


text: momifié

title: momifié


text: momifie

title: momifie


text: momifies

title: momifies


text: momifions

title: momifions


text: momifiez

title: momifiez


text: momifient

title: momifient


text: momifiais

title: momifiais


text: momifiait

title: momifiait


text: momifiions

title: momifiions


text: momifiiez

title: momifiiez


text: momifiaient

title: momifiaient


text: momifiai

title: momifiai


text: momifias

title: momifias


text: momifia

title: momifia


text: momifiâmes

title: momifiâmes


text: momifiâtes

title: momifiâtes


text: momifièrent

title: momifièrent


text: momifierai

title: momifierai


text: momifieras

title: momifieras


text: momifiera

title: momifiera


text: momifierons

title: momifierons


text: momifierez

title: momifierez


text: momifieront

title: momifieront


text: momifierais

title: momifierais


text: momifierait

title: momifierait


text: momifierions

title: momifierions


text: momifieriez

title: momifieriez


text: momifieraient

title: momifieraient


text: momifiasse

title: momifiasse


text: momifiasses

title: momifiasses


text: momifiât

title: momifiât


text: momifiassions

title: momifiassions


text: momifiassiez

title: momifiassiez


text: momifiassent

title: momifiassent


text: aunant

title: aunant


text: aunons

title: aunons


text: aunez

title: aunez


text: aunent

title: aunent


text: aunais

title: aunais


text: aunait

title: aunait


text: aunions

title: aunions


text: auniez

title: auniez


text: aunaient

title: aunaient


text: aunai

title: aunai


text: aunas

title: aunas


text: auna

title: auna


text: aunâmes

title: aunâmes


text: aunâtes

title: aunâtes


text: aunèrent

title: aunèrent


text: aunerai

title: aunerai


text: auneras

title: auneras


text: aunera

title: aunera


text: aunerons

title: aunerons


text: aunerez

title: aunerez


text: auneront

title: auneront


text: aunerais

title: aunerais


text: aunerait

title: aunerait


text: aunerions

title: aunerions


text: auneriez

title: auneriez


text: auneraient

title: auneraient


text: aunasse

title: aunasse


text: aunasses

title: aunasses


text: aunât

title: aunât


text: aunassions

title: aunassions


text: aunassiez

title: aunassiez


text: aunassent

title: aunassent


text:
User talk:Bequw/archive2009

User:Robert Ullmann/Español
Just thought I'd let you know about this if you hadn't seen it- Robert Ullmann scans a Spanish news website for words not currently in Wiktionary. Unfortunately that's about 400 every day, way more than I have time to add. So if you want to work on it that would be great. Thanks. Nadando 17:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Spanish plurals
A "Spanish noun forms" category doesn't make much sense, considering that besides in the case of masculine and feminine forms, the only actual Spanish noun form is the plural. "Spanish plural nouns" should've been enough, but illogical translingual conformity seems to be the wiktionary way of the future. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 01:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there.
Hi there! It doesn't look like this place is very active recently (not seeing too many different users here). Anyways, I just wanted to drop by and say hi. Cheers, Razorflame 22:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Macrolanguage etyl templates
May I suggest that you add a templated message to the talk page of each of these macrolanguage templates explaining why its name is constructed differently from other ISO templates. --EncycloPetey 19:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Do you want a note saying that these templates can be called with different arguments to get their desired wiki link, category, and display text? If so, would that help as no one calls them directly (only does)? Or do you mean that these language codes often create wikilinks with the text "... languages" added to the family name instead of just "... language"? Or do you want some text noting how people can create their own (the unmade ISO 639-5 codes)? Or you mean something else? Oh good, haven't made a statement yet. Cheers, --Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Any and all of this. As a regular editor who knows that "Template:etyl:..." have been deprecated recently, I was at first confused by your move of the Tupi template.  Then, I remember the macrolanguage conversations and figured out that this was a macrolanguage use.  At a minimum, I'd like there to be a message explaining to editors that this pattern of template naming isn't used for languages, but for macrolangauge, language families, and other über-groupings that would not have language categories. --EncycloPetey 19:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I'll try and make it more informative. There was info at Category:ISO 639-5 templates, but I wanted to wait until I had heard back from Ivan about converting [tup] before I made and   which I have just done. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Fodder for Languages without ISO codes
Since I don't have the energy to undertake this venture right now, I thought I'd throw it past you in case you did. Both User talk:Robert Ullmann/L2/invalid and User:Robert Ullmann/Trans languages/uncoded (sort by notes, and look for "no code") have a bunch of languages, many of which probably merit a place on the list. Clearly you have numerous other things on your plate right now, but I thought I'd at least make sure you were aware. Cheers. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Wow, those are some rare ones. I've put them in the big list. Some notes:
 * [tlc] seems to work for Middle Chinese as the wiki time frame matches the Linguist List page (linked from the ISO site).
 * Singlish. Haven't we been viewing this as regional English? should we continue?
 * --Bequw → ¢ • τ 09:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 * To be honest, I have this inscrutable fear of east Asian languages, and stay well enough away from them, so I have no idea what to say about ltc. Singlish is an interesting case.  Differentiating between closely related languages and distantly related dialects is a tricky thing.  Our best bet is probably (as in most other cases) defer to SIL.  If SIL's got a code for a type of English (it has a few, I've noticed), then we give it L2 and everything else status.  If not, then we don't.  I guess since Singlish had a 'pedia article and a number of entries, I decided not to reformat them as English with a Singlish contag, but that's probably what should be done.  Also, you may find  interesting, as it removes one entry from the list.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 * After speaking with someone vaguely familiar with historical Chinese, I don't think we can use [tlc] for all the "Middle Chinese" entries. We'll have to let an expert look at them. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 04:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic?
Hi, why you are replacing "Common Turkic" with "Proto-Slavic"? These languages have nothing in common. --Jyril 08:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Oops, I got one of my rules wrong for converting to . Thanks for letting me know, I'll correct them. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 08:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation
OK, but is it, , or ? --EncycloPetey 06:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

 * :) The former, but I did have to think awhile. Pronunciations are too hard for me. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 07:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Vanity pages
I have now scanned all the entries on User:SemperBlotto/possible vanity pages and deleted the obvious ones. I have added a template to some that show a small amount of real use - I will recheck these later. You might like to recreate the page at some time in the future - if so, could you reduce then number of edits from 100 to about 20. If you could also ignore links to -pedia that would be great (but don't go to any trouble). Cheers SemperBlotto 22:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering whether you could update the docs to reflect the changes introduced here. If there's no documentation, the code doesn't exist. --Ivan Štambuk 10:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

 * You mean like this documentation update? It wasn't much text, so I understand if the change didn't jump out at you. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 17:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to dis/cat/pedia parameters which appear to be undocumented. --Ivan Štambuk 18:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Aah, yes. I'm put some notes at Category:ISO 639-5 templates as Template:etyl didn't seem the right place. Feel free to improve. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 01:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

bho &c

 * 1) Please take a bit more care about this.
 * 2) In case of Scottish Gaelic prepositions' Derived terms you needn't bother at all, as I'm going to gradually change the format of each to the one used eg at thar. --Duncan 19:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks.--Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

removing 'style="clear:both'
Please undo all your changes. They create an unsolveable problem in some browsers. When the text is wide (as it often in for Latin verbs, for example), and the screen is too narrow for the included text, the right-hand portion of the conjugation table is permanenetly hidden, with no way of revealing the hidden content. --EncycloPetey 19:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

 * That is obviously not desirable. But, from what I can tell, this behavior is independent of my changes. The two widest Latin tables I found are circumvenio and submurmuro, but after you reverted my edits to those templates ( and ) I still get the behavior you describe on those pages (using IE 7, Chrome, and Firefox). Did reverting my changes fix anything for you? If so, for what browser? If 'style=clear:both' fixes this display problem for older browsers, we'd still have to fix it for newer browsers. Maybe we should ask in the BP following up on where I asked about removing these attributes to being with. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

 * The problem only monifests when there is a R-side object that drops down into the same line as the box (which was the point of the change). I have run tests, and can produce this result in Safari on a Mac and IE in MS 2003.  Reverting your changes reduces the likelihood of this happening, as it permits the box to expand to the full width of the browser screen, instead of just using the space to the left of a R-hand object. --EncycloPetey 20:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

 * OK, it seems like the general problem is (and correct me if I'm misrepresenting your concern) that the navframe isn't scrollable so content is often hidden when the usable width is narrow. This is more likely to happen when the navframe shares the page width with right-side elements (ie the navframe doesn't have the 'clear' style) but happens also just when the browser window is narrow. Hidden information is more problematic than "not playing nice" with right-hand side elements, but they both should be fixable so i'll ask in the GP if anyone has a better solution. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 21:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks. That does summarize the problem as I understand it as well. --EncycloPetey 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki:PICNIC to PICNIC
I restored the Transwiki:PICNIC you had deleted for being a "bad entry title", then moved it in to PICNIC overwriting your efforts to create PICNIC by cut and paste method. When you're using Transwikis and moving them to main pages, please use the Move command at the top of the page which will preserve the pages history and prior authors, a condition of using other people's works. Please see Transwiki move procedures if not sure. Thanks Goldenrowley 06:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I don't do much Transwiki work. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 08:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Context labels in ELE
Hi. I've made an abbreviated version of this proposal at Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE v2. Please have a look. —Michael Z. 2009-05-17 18:06 z

re: repuntar
That definition is from my high school Spanish notes, which means that there were three opportunities for transcription errors. RAE doesn't support that definition so it was most likely my mistake, go ahead and strike it. The notes are all in storage now but they aren't more reliable than the RAE, that is for sure :) - 20:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:cite meta
Your change of June 5 apparently messed up the handling of "#" and the ordering of senses after occurrences of quote-book and quote news. I reverted the change. I hope you can figure out the problem. DCDuring TALK 09:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for reverting. I'll try and fix it up. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 18:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Irish
Done.--Brett 01:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ISO code "zls"
"zls" is the ISO 693-5 code for South Slavic languages. Montenegrin is one of them. See this link. --Daniel. 04:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Chinese->Mandarin
Hi, I am just trying to be consistent and yielding to constant demands to use "Mandarin", not "Chinese" for entries. The translations have *Chinese: *: Mandarin (nested). All or any other Chinese dialect should have its own entry. Anatoli 22:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the tip, I'll fix the others I made.

က
This is a bit out of my league, I guess, but why would you consider it not translingual? There are quite a number of languages written in the Burmese script. It looks as if this character is not used in Shan, but it seems that it does occur in Mon (e.g. here) and probably some of the others. -- Visviva 17:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, I reverted my edit. I misinterpreted that wiki page. Thanks for checking. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Greek letter clean up
The Greek/Translingual clean ups that you have been doing are being tagged as rfc-structure for the Greek section. I've cleaned up the first two and will clean up the three now tagged. If you could manage the Greek while you were at it henceforth, I'd be much obliged. (level, infl, derived terms for thousand term) And thanks for all the character cleanup work. Are you saving the Latin characters for last? DCDuring TALK 19:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yeah I missed some ='s. I think I got the others, but I'll keep checking Category:Translingual words needing attention and Category:Greek words needing attention in case AF is still munching away. Haven't thought about Latin much yet, but eventually. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at A or a. In any event, I'd make sure I had consensus on those. You'll have lots of credibility if the other stuff goes well (in the sense of not getting too many folks seriously upset). I'm happy that characters and symbols are on the way toward greater appropriate consistency. If contributors venture to innovate, at least they will be starting from a higher base. DCDuring TALK 22:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just had a quick space-saving thought. Currently, the upper- and lowercase versions of each letter are shown as images on both the upper- and lowercase entries. Would just showing the one corresponding to the page title be a contentious move. Additionally most letters don't have a completely different form when italicized ('a' does though) so we could just show the normal version and no the italics version (we don't show bold versions either). --Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

 * The size an image specified as thumb is controlled by each individual's preferences, I think, so reducing content isn't enough. I don't know what one can specify besides "thumb" as a parameter in Image/File (demi-thumb?). IOW, what else has to be done to get the space benefit?
 * Variations on A seems more analogous to the top-of-the-entry . Why is the complete alphabet at the top of the Translingual section vs in See also? Why is there a separate etymology section for each abbreviation? I have the feeling that these entries have been improved by folks who don't often work on other types on entries and haven't been following all our (undocumented) practices (reasons I'm happy you are working on them now). DCDuring TALK 00:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Latin letter cleanup
Hi. I saw you are cleaning up letters. Good job! One change I'd make in your cleanup, though, is to avoid removing the image for the ancestral form of the Latin letter (i.e. the shape of the ancestor when the Latin letter was born from it). To me, the evolution of the form of the letter is part of the letter's "etymology" (in the extended sense of "etymology" used here). Does that make sense? —Rod (A. Smith) 22:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I thought about this. Showing a single ancestral image seemed inconsistent. We could show none of them (just have ancestral images on the ancestral entries which we link to) or all of them (something like A). Is the latter what you want? While very nice, I only hesitated going with that choice because it's a big leap from our current layout. I'll refrain from moving them, but am still not sure what do with them. They don't go in the gallery with the other letter styles (these are different letters). But if we put all the ancestral images in the etymology then I think we'd want something like a collapsible box? What do you think? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 01:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

 * In etymology sections for words, we consistently show the most immediate etymon. Some entries also include ancestors from earlier, but only the immediate ancestor is consistently included.  Why not do the same for forms of letters?  Just the immediate prior form fits fine in the etymology section.  Or is it a layout problem you're trying to avoid?  —Rod (A. Smith) 06:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

 * While many pages only show the immediate etymological ancestor, this is due to lack of time/will/knowledge. The consensus is that the full etymology be give (at least on lemma forms). Whatever policy is determined on showing letter images, it should be congruous with the fact that we attempt to show "full" etymologies. In that sense I feel either they all should try to be shown, or none should be. True, even if the policy is to attempt to show them all, most letter entries would have one or two. But inevitably one entry section is going to have >4 images and it is this layout problem (so much before the definitions) that I think should be considered when thinking about the policy. If we come up with a consensus to put longer parts of etymologies into collapsible boxes, then this would also be a fine way to deal with a plethora of images in an etymology section, and then I'd have no problem with us attempting to show all ancestral letter images.  --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Example: 馬 - Amazing etymology, but it shouldn't take up so much space before the definitions. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 02:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I don't mind the extra space, but I support efforts to bring the main definition "above the fold".  How about a collapsible etymology section?  —Rod (A. Smith) 18:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support that. I didn't do it because WT:ETY said there's no consensus yet. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki:English-to-Spanish Reference/O
I could use help finishing the Spanish references from the Transwiki process page for year 2007, if you have time. My goal is to finish the 2007 Transwiki's by Dec 31st. No pressure though. Only if you want to help. Goldenrowley 19:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * No, take them away! There were so many errors in those documents that I just stopped working on them. I'll try and give you hand once I finish my current project of making all inflection templates non-right-aligned.

Edit spacing
Hi there. Please remember that you don't have a bot flag, so I would recommend that you keep the number of edits that you make per minute down to under 5, because your edits are making it very hard for other editors to know what other editors are doing. Please restrict the number of edits that you make down to 3-5 a minute. Thanks, Razorflame 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 01:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help and cooperation! Razorflame 01:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

id=toc
I see you've been removing id=toc from declension tables, but, although shouldn't really be there, it serves the purpose of creating the table style, and should therefore be replaced with a fitting id or with a consistent style code of its own, because now all the tables are missing their borders and really don't look good. – Krun 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd put a new one back in, but don't have any idea myself of what. Do you have an idea for a good substitute? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 13:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I would suggest using  or similar (note that   is already in use to ake red-links black). It certainly should never have been an id. This would require putting   into MediaWiki:Common.css. The other approach that might work is to use   though it inserts grey backgrounds on headings as well as borders (or simply   but that is again overloading. Conrad.Irwin 13:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I'll use the  (not adding anything to MediaWiki:Common.css), unless there's an objection. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 18:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Seems good to me. – Krun 10:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Stamp collecting
Could you empty this please, as you can do it faster than I can. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually just add . Mglovesfun (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Emptied. Not all of them had restricted context for the definitions, so the pages are a mix of explicit cats and .--Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As I just pointed out on WT:RFDO, that needs to be instead. — Carolina wren discussió 02:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed (just thought I'd note that here as well). --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

to incinerate
Hi there. What do you think this verb is? Is it a transitive or intransitive verb? Thanks for the help in advance, Razorflame 16:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mainly transitive. It might be used intransitively, but a quick searched didn't reveal any such quotes. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 16:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you!  Razorflame 16:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

grant
Any idea what to do with this declension table? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be Templatized. Hopefully this one is a regular pattern. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 21:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I could do it, but I've steered clear of adjective and verb forms because it's more complicated. I may as well start template for it, as you say. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unrelated note, needs replacing/removing whenever possible. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've been working on that and off-and-on for a bit. Thanks.

The entry you were wondering about
HI there. That entry that I made and entered hyphenation for, I botched it (I made it like two months ago when I didn't know how to work hyphenations. If you really feel like it shouldn't be on the entry, feel free to remove it.  If not, feel free to discuss it as you wish.  Cheers, Razorflame 03:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
Please delete all the pages that I have marked for deletion. Thanks, Razorflame 23:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, except for your user talk page. Is there a reason you want it deleted instead of just emptied (and possibly archived)? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 23:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Archived. Can you delete the rest of the pages I marked for deletion?  Thanks, Razorflame 23:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Done. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 23:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I now I bid this project farewell. Razorflame 23:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I hope this is only temporary. I know your interactions with Opiaterein were frustrating, and that at times he acted too harshly (with too many emotions on both sides). If you do decide to return, know that there are still many ways to make productive edits that don't involve constant conflict. Enthusiasm coupled with the ability to correct one's mistakes is always welcome here. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 23:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. He was pretty active and didn't do anything bad that I noticed. Sorry to see him go. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

WT:RFDO
See this explanation, sorry about that. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * NP. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:movecat
This is probably what you're looking for, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, yes. I'm still changing the old-named ones to use so that they categorize correctly (under "All topics"). Thanks.

Thanks!
Any ideas what is needed for the rest? Conrad.Irwin 00:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of working on those with two senses (and then working by letter), looking at the history to find if the second was added after some translations were already set for the original sense. Do you know of a tool to find the oldest revision that has a certain bit of text on the page? That would help. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 00:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

TTBC
Do you know which PoS the TTBCs should go from this edit? I ask because the TTBCs shouldn't be under a separate section, but another Translations section. Thanks. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 05:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, really? Well in that case maybe a new level-3 header at the bottom. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ</> 07:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Note
Yeah, I think you should split up that 628 kilobyte page you just made. I would say split it up into several 150 kilobyte pages. Razorflame 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Mglovesfun/To do
Please add any context labels that you think belong here. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added some. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:import/export
Used on two pages and categorizes in Category:Import/export. Could this be renamed and cleaned up, instead of deleted? Oh, I'm gonna send you a little email later. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Hmmm, I've got no good ideas at the moment. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Script templates
Hi.

Short answer: I don't know.

Go ahead and create the script templates if they will help readers read the entries; that is, if the text is not readable or looks wrong in some web browser, if appropriate fonts are available, and if specifying the fonts will improve readability. I'd be glad to help with this, but I'm only glancing at Wiktionary rarely these days. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2009-12-09 16:28 z
 * Not sure if they would help. I'll keep an eye on them. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Since MediaWiki does not apply normalization to XML entities, maybe the character normalized could be included for display that way. I'm not sure how to do this best. -- Prince Kassad 20:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Made an attempt. Adds only a bit though since the canonically equivalent forms really do look alike. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Conversion script redirects
I've set it up on a test run again, see the same reports page. Much easier to have the automation checking links ... Robert Ullmann 14:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bequw/archive2009


text: המזה״ת

title: המזה״ת


text:
توصیف

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) description
 * 2)  praise, commendation

title: توصیف


text: meditacións

title: meditacións


text:
راجح

Etymology
of.

Adjective

 * 1) likely, probable, favored, preponderant
 * 2) sturdy, solid, superior
 * 1) sturdy, solid, superior

title: راجح


text: meditaciones

title: meditaciones


text:
داود

Etymology
From.

Proper noun

 * 1) David (prophet and king)
 * , David, Davoud, Dawud, Daoud

Etymology
From, from.

Proper noun

 * 1) David king of Judah
 * 2) David;

title: داود


text:
Talk:توصیف

Needs romanization
Needs romanization. 24.29.228.33 03:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Already added. --Z 19:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:توصیف


text:
Talk:جوهر

Romanization
Need romanization. 24.29.228.33 04:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:جوهر


text:
Talk:เวียงจันทน์

Wikilinks
In the entry, เวียง and จันทน์ should be wikilinked. 24.29.228.33 04:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --EncycloPetey 04:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:เวียงจันทน์


text:
จันทน์

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) sandalwood ,

title: จันทน์


text:
User talk:76.15.146.170

Please do not alter quotations. Quotations on Wiktionary preserve the spelling, punctuation, and orthography of the original source. --EncycloPetey 04:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:76.15.146.170


text: vendejoj

title: vendejoj


text: vendejon

title: vendejon


text: vendejojn

title: vendejojn


text:
filaticcio

Noun

 * 1) filoselle, floss silk

title: filaticcio


text:
包皮

Noun

 * 1) wrapping; packaging; any material used to pack something
 * 2)  foreskin; prepuce
 * 3) bread crust

Noun

 * 1)  prepuce, foreskin

title: 包皮


text:
皮包

Noun

 * 1) (leather) handbag
 * 2) (leather) briefcase

title: 皮包


text:
อนาคอนดา

Noun

 * 1) (งู~) anaconda.

title: อนาคอนดา


text:
Talk:hypermetric

I was wondering if anyone could explain the definition of hypermetric in a little more detail - and somewhat in layman's terms. :)

title: Talk:hypermetric


text:
ศรีลังกา

Etymology
From. Compare 🇨🇬.

title: ศรีลังกา


text:
มรสุม

Noun

 * 1) monsoon.

title: มรสุม


text:
เอลนีโญ

Etymology
From.

Proper noun

 * 1)  El Niño.

title: เอลนีโญ


text:
ธารน้ำแข็ง

Etymology
From 🇰🇲.

Noun

 * 1) glacier.

title: ธารน้ำแข็ง


text:
คลาริเน็ต

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  clarinet.

title: คลาริเน็ต


text:
収める

Etymology
Cognate with 🇨🇬 and.

Verb

 * 1) to dedicate; to make an offering; to pay (fees)
 * 2) to supply
 * 3) to store
 * 4) to finish; to bring to a close
 * 5) to restore (something to its place)
 * 6) to achieve (e.g. a result)
 * 1) to restore (something to its place)
 * 2) to achieve (e.g. a result)
 * 1) to achieve (e.g. a result)
 * 1) to achieve (e.g. a result)

Derived terms

 * : (miosame): last look, farewell look
 * (hoko o osameru): sheathe one's sword, lay down arms
 * (shōri o osameru): gain a victory, win
 * (seika o osameru): achieve success
 * (seikō o osameru): achieve success
 * (bōdō o osameru): quell a disturbance
 * (shuchū ni osameru): make one's own, take possession of
 * (jōhō o osameta hon): book containing the information

Related terms

 * : be in one's place
 * : improve
 * : govern
 * : cultivate

title: 収める


text:
scriptment

Etymology
. Coined by filmmaker, possibly during his early involvement in the development of the Spider-Man film series.

Noun

 * 1)  A written work by a movie or television screenwriter that combines elements of a script and treatment, especially the dialogue elements, which are formatted the same as in a screenplay.

title: scriptment


text: scriptments

title: scriptments


text: Thesaurus:cut

title: Thesaurus:cut


text: Thesaurus:indulge

title: Thesaurus:indulge


text:
զարդարանք

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) adornment, ornamentation

Noun

 * 1) adornment, ornamentation

title: զարդարանք


text:
narkolepsia

Noun

 * 1) narcolepsy

Etymology
(see 🇨🇬).

Noun

 * 1)  narcolepsy

title: narkolepsia


text:
sfagno

Noun

 * 1) sphagnum (plant of the genus  )

title: sfagno


text:
nukahtelutauti

Noun

 * 1)  narcolepsy

title: nukahtelutauti


text:
sfagneto

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) sphagnum bog

title: sfagneto


text:
spineto

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) thorny thicket

title: spineto


text: IAB

title: IAB


text:
необыкновенный

Adjective

 * 1) unusual, uncommon, extraordinary

title: необыкновенный


text:
espelhar

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to mirror

title: espelhar


text:
QPF

Noun

 * 1)  SQ — Quebec police force — Sûreté du Québec

Translations

 * French:

title: QPF


text:
sterpe

Etymology 1
From, case form of.

title: sterpe