text:
Talk:Stratford-on-Avon

Stratford-upon-Avon
Town in England that happens to be Shakespeare's birthplace. Covered by Wikipedia. Adds no value to the project, and also does not appear to meet CFI. -- Visviva 01:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 * What kind of quote would meet the attributive use standard? No mention of Shakespeare (or a substitute like "the Bard" or "a certain playwright") in same paragraph, page, chapter? Use in the plural? It would be so much simpler if we decided not to have any "gazeteer" entries or to allow all of them or to have "only in Wikipedia" entries. DCDuring TALK 02:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, if it's used as a byword for something (e.g. "town that produces famous playwrights" or whatever), or as you say in the plural to denote some sort of generic type of town, that would certainly qualify as attributive use IMO. I would be happy with any use(s) of this term to refer to something other than its encyclopedic referent.  (I honestly haven't looked; maybe it is used in this way, but the entry certainly doesn't suggest that.)   Otherwise, there's just no point in having it here.  None, zip, zero.  Are we going to have every town in Warwickshire?  Every town in Indiana?   That way lies madness. -- Visviva 02:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Keep. I agree with allowing all, or at least all those important enough to be in one of the Wikipedias. Many excellent bilingual dictionaries, as well as the great American English dictionaries such as Random House, have gazeteer sections or include such entries and none of them cause madness. It’s extremely useful information. —Stephen 03:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Keep. Allow all city and country names. Anatoli 04:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, yes, but they have them in gazetteer sections, a la Appendix:Place names, or they have only a very limited set in their main entry list. I have no problem with allowing all such entries in an appendix, where they can be reasonably maintained and where the unique non-word-like characteristics of toponyms and their "translations" can be properly addressed.  On the other hand, it might make more sense to have a whole separate project for this kind of geographical, encyclopedic content... and as it happens, such as project already exists.  Who knew?
 * Seriously, there are substantial maintainability issues with these types of entries. If all they would do would be to sit quietly and gather dust, that would almost be OK, but these are extremely inviting targets for vandalism.  Who is going to check every added sense-line for "a village in XYZ" to verify that it is real (and significant "enough")?  We don't have Wikipedia's standing army of geography geeks to check these claims out.  And what would be our standards for verification, anyway -- factual or lexical?  Until a coherent policy on exactly what placenames are permitted under what circumstances is adopted, it is irresponsible IMO to open the floodgates by disregarding our extremely restrictive existing policy.  In that vein, I believe it's been almost 2 years since the last serious effort at reforming CFI for place names; anyone want to take a crack at it? -- Visviva 05:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete Agree with Visviva.  Until someone comes up with cohesive and workable CFI and formatting standards for placenames, we do need to stick to our current CFI (which doesn't allow anything not used idiomatically).  Personally, I hope someone does write something up, as there are a lot of placenames I'd like to see.  However, I am willing to not see them in order to prevent a thousand terrible entries for obscure villages in India and Indiana (come on folks, you known they would both happen).  Some of the issues we need to address are inclusion standards (does every town of 35 in Northern Canada get an entry?), what constitutes a genuine toponym borrowing (how do we distinguish between genuince lexical units and transliterations), definition procedure (should Bloomington have a sense line for every listing at Bloomington?).  Until we get these things worked out, we need to stick to the (admittedly ridiculous) standards we currently have.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Atelaes, I don't think you will be flooded with Indian village names here, if you do, there will be more editors. Wiktionary even lacks many larger regional centres of non-English-speaking countries, showing the background of editors. As for criteria for location inclusion, how about 1) all country capitals, 2) all regional centres (province, state, county, etc.) 3) if none of the above but is considered important, provide a dictionary link (list which ones are acceptable)? Also, I think multiple foreign transliterations of proper names are important (not just translations), it's one of the features that makes it attractive to users, even if it wasn't the original intention. Anatoli 05:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I have always been of the opinion that, first of all, a city, country, or personal name should be entered in its original, native language and script. I delete names of villages in India unless they are written in Hindi, Tamil, Santali, etc., as appropriate. For place names, we should only take the spellings used by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names except when other spellings are clearly popular among English-speaking natives. —Stephen 06:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I think that both comments reflect current practice reasonably well. We certainly have entries for most countries and country capitals in English, as well as a few translations for them.  However, we have yet to figure out quite how the definitions should work.  Part of the problem is defining a specific entity which has changed (often dramatically) over time, and yet the definition really hasn't.  Borders change, governments change, and yet language generally treats it as a continuous entity.  Between 1780 and now France has changed its borders and governmental structure many times.  But the word [[France]] equally refers to all.  Thus the current definition is wholly inadequate, but I'm at a loss for how to improve it.  Also, Germany is clearly not a transliteration of Deutschland, but it is usually less clear than that.  For small towns in India, I would guess that rather few have actual translations, with transliterations generally being used.  How do we tell?  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Hm. Methinks France is defined as the land of the French.  Perhaps we should also identify modern France as the country between Germany and Spain.  But should we include encyclopedic information like its current population? —Michael Z. 2009-03-10 16:01 z

 * Wiktionary is not a good base for gazeteer. A gazeteer would need a structure at least as complex as Wikispecies': Focusing on administration would mean The hierarchical and overlapping administrative units (parks, sanitation, school, fire, watershed, election districts). Maps and GPS coordinates need to be included. What about connection with Google Earth? To me there seems to real potential for a whole separate kingdom, but not one ruled by linguists. It's not clear to me that Wikimedia software would do it justice. DCDuring TALK 10:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Move to Stratford-on-Avon. It seems to be attestable under that name under current CFI referring to "idyllic England". It may be attestable as "historic landmark". See Citations:Stratford-upon-Avon. DCDuring TALK 11:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Looks good to me. Striking, will move if there are no objections.  Many of the transliterations will need to be changed. -- Visviva 15:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Er....hang on! The place is not called Stratford-on-Avon.  These cites are mistakes, aren't they?  Also, I believe technically speaking, the district (-on-) is distinguished from the town (-upon-).  Ƿidsiþ 21:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * It's true, Widsith, I know Stratford-upon-Avon, what is Stratford-on-Avon? Isn't it the name of the district, not the town? Anatoli 22:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * "Stratford-on-Avon" is what is attestable under WT:CFI as it is now written, AFAICT. I found only one complete citation for Stratford-upon-Avon of the kind of attestable use that now counts. I am unaware of the official name of the place now and whether it has always incorporated "upon" rather than "on" in its official or vernacular names. COCA shows twice as much usage of the "upon" form as of the "on" form, even among Americans, but none of it seemed to be attributive use.
 * There are discussions in sundry places of changing CFI in this regard, which will eventually generate some accepted means for choosing among or otherwise accommodating the various monikers that places have. DCDuring TALK 22:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Craziness
For the record, I think this is crazy. Never in my life have I heard it referred to as Stratford-on-Avon. The -upon- form -- ie, what everyone actually says -- gets over 2.5 million g.hits, compared to fewer than half a million for -on-. Sometimes people confuse the two, that doesn't make it right, and it certainly shouldn't mean that this is our lemma form. Ƿidsiþ 12:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Even here in the U.S. I’ve only heard it with -upon-, and Wikipedia has it with -upon-. —Stephen 18:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Stratford-on-Avon


text: 天旋地转

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

title: 天旋地转


text:
Talk:economic vehicle

economic vehicle
SoP, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Dunno. I thought the entry would be about a car that uses little fuel. I was surprised by the actual entry. -- A LGRIF  talk 15:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

 * The reason you may be surprised it that the definition as written is almost certainly wrong. The concept is much more general. There a plenty of uses of vehicle in a finance sense that are subtypes of this that probably warrant their own entries (special purpose vehicle SPV, structured investment vehicle SIV). The uses of "economic vehicle" that I see are more like a organisation or other means of achieving economic development. The entities referring to include an airport, a commission, a plan.
 * Withdrawn I'm becoming convinced that I should never put entries through RfD; RfV works much better. Many of our worst entries are uncited. Getting cites often proves the definition wrong. Absence of cites should lead to deletion, if not in 30 days, then in 180. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for verification
def. is balderdash, IMHO. Please show me wrong. DCDuring TALK 17:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Seen quite a few uses of it as a SoP of economic (sense 1) vehicle (sense 5), which the current definition could be taken as a hyponym of, though I am doubtful of the restriction to just that subset of meaning. However most usage seems to be of economic(sense 2) vehicle (sense 1).  Might be worth keeping as an entry to show how the various senses usually interact. Carolina wren 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 03:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:economic vehicle


text:
龍馭

Noun

 * 1)  the emperor's personal chariot

title: 龍馭


text: 龙驭

title: 龙驭


text:
Talk:prefices

prefices
Called a plural of prefix, but as I (Jao) pointed out over at Wikipedia:Talk:Binary prefix/Archive 11, it's just a hypercorrection. With 4,000 Google hits, it might possibly be kept as a common misspelling (I'm not quite familiar with how often you guys do that), but then we should probably point out why it's a misspelling as people wouldn't otherwise get that. -- 85.226.205.36 11:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Hm, the hypercorrect is præfices, not this one. Keep, widespread use as shewn per google. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * We have no provision for uncommon misspellings. This is decidedly not common, appearing in neither COCA nor BNC. It is used in books and "scholarly" articles. If we (prescriptively?) deem it a misspelling, then we apparently exclude it, but if we deem it an alternative, then we keep it. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete, I just checked the Shorter Oxford (more than 4000 pages) and it doesn't list it. Mglovesfun 23:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * What is the point of our dictionary project if we must be slaves to what the OED says? We'd always be playing catch-up! Equinox ◑ 01:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I might comment on a book with "Shorter" in the title. And does the OED even list misspellings? DAVilla 01:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I wasn't aware that it had to appear in an accepted corpus to be counted as common. Standards are always nice of course, but I think you've just shown the fallacy of the ones you've chosen. The Google hits are convincing to me. I would say keep. DAVilla 01:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I would like to keep it too (and I don't think Bogorm's point holds water: præfices and prefices can both be hypercorrections). As mentioned above, there are thousands of uses, and we only need three to admit a word, so let's at least keep this as a "common misspelling". Equinox ◑ 01:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Potentially, this is a problem. I wonder what we would do with three Usenet citations of a misspelling that obviously isn't "common". DAVilla 01:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

 * This is not the first time this has come up. What constitutes the appropriate frequency to make something common? What percentage of the total attempts to form a plural do they represent? This one is not common enough to make either of the scrubbed corpora (100MM and ~300MM words). Google news: <0.3%, Scholar <0.4%, Groups < 0.7%, Web < 0.1%. Is there anyone with some more comprehensive or appropriate facts, or logical argument, or decision criteria? DCDuring TALK 02:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I should like to invoke the mistake–error distinction: mistakes being things like typos and lapsūs calami, which don’t deserve entries unless they’re extraordinarily common; errors being things like mistaken formations and rule-conflations, which need proscriptive entries to put users right. clearly belongs to the latter category, so this is a verification issue; it has been RfV’d, which challenge it will undoubtedly pass. Keep and proscribe per the reasons I gave some minutes ago in the RfV discussion. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 08:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, if RfV passes, per Doremítzwr. bd2412 T 15:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep, if someone has little enough shame to add three citations to the entry, and mark it non-standard. —Michael Z. 2009-03-30 16:00 z

Keep; Although it may be nonstandard for mainstream English, it appears to be common among mathematical and computing texts, judging by a strict b.g.c search for "prefices" without allowing "prefixes". I got 618 hits, although admittedly some seem to be duplicates or (poor) translations. --EncycloPetey 19:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Kept. RFV discussion is ongoing, and entry already has rfv tag instead of rfd.—msh210 ℠  23:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RFV discussion
Plural form of. Not so; is not a third-declension Latin noun. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 * The etymology doesn't matter; the form is used.
 * 1981: Reiner Luckenbach, Beilsteins Handbuch der organischen Chemie (English edition), page 1571
 * The names used in the index...are different from the systematic nomenclature used in the text only insofar as Substitution and Degree-of-Unsaturation Prefices are placed after the name (inverted), and all configurational prefices and symbols...are omitted.
 * I get over 600 b.g.c. hits doing an advanced search for "prefices" but excluding "prefixes": . --EncycloPetey 07:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I grant you that it exists; however, it is hypercorrect. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't think it's hypercorrect, just formed by analogy with indices. It does carry a bit of snootiness, but I wouldn't call it hypercorrect.  To be hypercorrect, it would have to have some degree of correctness to begin with. :P --EncycloPetey 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 * So it’s non-standard? undefined: → undefined: is a correct pluralising pattern for a fair number of words from the Latin third declension; however, it is misapplied in the case of undefined: → undefined:, which renders the usage hypercorrect. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 * You seem to have missed my final punctuation (:P). --EncycloPetey 07:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I didn’t; my first sentence was intended as a joke, too. Urgh! Too tired methinks… †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Given that the (mis-)use is common, do we tag it "common misspelling of prefixes" or "proscribed", or just put a usage note to point out that it is not "correct Latin"?  (And do we allow fices as the plural of fix? :P)   D b f  i  r  s   21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We can only call it "proscribed" if we find published style guides that disfavor that spelling. We don't have to worry about additional spead beyond the words prefix:, suffix:, affix:, and the like, just as mouse: -> mice: has not spread to spouse: -> spice: or grouse: -> undefined:. --EncycloPetey 21:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I cannot find any style guide that mentions this, but I am surprised at how frequently this spelling occurs, even on academic websites and documents. The only alternative plural in the OED is "praefixa" (different spelling, and from E. BREREWOOD Enq. Lang. & Relig. in 1613).  Perhaps we should just put a usage note so that our readers do not think that the "alternative" plural has equal weight.    D b f  i  r  s   09:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Doremitzwr, I think the problem is due to the absence of both words (suffix and præfix) as nouns in Latin, they are simply nonexistent as nouns, but only as participia perfecti passivi of the respective verbs. Someone from the modern grammaticists has decided to botch up this noun from the Latin participle and thus caused the mess with us ascertaining unsuccessfully whether the noun belongs to the first or third declension... The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * According to the OED, (whence  and, more directly, ) does exist in (post-Classical) Latin. undefined: belongs to neither the first nor the third declension; it is a second-declension neuter noun with its case ending removed. Wherefore, its legitimate plural is ; conversely, if one retains the case ending, using undefined:, then the legitimate plural is . *undefined: is incorrect (specifically, hypercorrect) in any circumstance; it ought to be avoided except if one wishes to convey jocular pædantry (as with  &c.). †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 08:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Striking, as there seems to be consensus that this does exist. Thanks, EncycloPetey, for the quotation: I've added it to the entry. Anyone wishing to re-RFV this in the future, be my guest. —Ruakh TALK 12:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:prefices


text:
kakaós

Adjective

 * 1) cocoa, with cocoa made with or containing cocoa

title: kakaós


text:
Talk:carry off

carry it off
This is merely a specific instance of carry off:, which is a phrasal verb with additional meanings. --EncycloPetey 05:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete yes. Just a phrasal verb (carry off) with a direct object. Mglovesfun 23:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete for the same reason. Equinox ◑ 15:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Can't hurt to redirect.—msh210 ℠  15:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirected. DAVilla 12:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:carry off


text:
somatotrofina

Noun

 * 1)  somatotrophin

title: somatotrofina


text:
сиёҳ

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) black

title: сиёҳ


text:
soporifero

Etymology
From, derived from , ultimately from the root. .

Adjective

 * 1) soporific
 * 2)  boring, tedious

title: soporifero


text:
Category:tg:Colors

ko:분류:색깔(타지크어) ru:Категория:Цвет/tg

title: Category:tg:Colors


text:
hatvanadik

Numeral

 * 1)  sixtieth

title: hatvanadik


text:
σκυθρωπός

Adjective

 * 1) morose, glum, sullen, gloomy, melancholy

title: σκυθρωπός


text:
馬嵬坡

Etymology
It was at this site that the lady Yang Guifei was executed on 15 July, 756. The episode is famously described in the poem Song of Everlasting Regret, by Bai Juyi.

Proper noun

 * 1)  the slopes of Mawei (another name for the way station at Mawei, located to the west of present day Xingping, Shaanxi)

Synonyms

 * (way station at Mawei)

title: 馬嵬坡


text:
auscultatorio

Adjective

 * 1) auscultatory

title: auscultatorio


text: 马嵬坡

title: 马嵬坡


text:
馬嵬驛

Etymology
It was at this site that the lady Yang Guifei was executed on 15 July, 756. The episode is famously described in the poem Song of Everlasting Regret, by Bai Juyi.

Proper noun

 * 1)  the way station at Mawei (located to the west of present day Xingping, Shaanxi)

title: 馬嵬驛


text: 马嵬驿

title: 马嵬驿


text:
сурх

Etymology
From, compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Verb

 * 1) to ask
 * 2) to learn

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) red

Etymology
From Tajik.

Adjective

 * 1) red

title: сурх


text:
hatvanegyedik

Etymology
From.

Numeral

 * 1)  sixty-first

Usage notes

 * Not to be confused with.

title: hatvanegyedik


text:
花生衣

Noun

 * 1) peanut endocarp (An endocarp used in traditional Chinese medicine as hemostatic.)

Related terms

 * (hemostatics in traditional Chinese medicine)
 * (medicinal materials in traditional Chinese medicine)

title: 花生衣


text:
馬嵬

Etymology
It was at this site that the lady was executed on 15 July, 756. The episode is famously described in the poem Song of Everlasting Regret, by.

Proper noun

 * 1)  the way station at Mawei (located to the west of present-day Xingping, Shaanxi)

title: 馬嵬


text:
spasmolitico

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) spasmolytic

Noun

 * 1)  spasmolytic

title: spasmolitico


text: 马嵬

title: 马嵬


text:
spasticità

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) spasticity

title: spasticità


text:
hatvankettedik

Numeral

 * 1)  sixty-second

title: hatvankettedik


text:
δρακόντειος

Etymology
After, the harsh Athenian legislator.

title: δρακόντειος


text:
spermicida

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) spermicidal

Noun

 * 1) spermicide

title: spermicida


text:
sfintere

Noun

 * 1)  sphincter

title: sfintere


text:
spondilite

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  spondylitis

title: spondilite


text:
bezvýhradný

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) unconditional, unreserved, implicit

title: bezvýhradný


text: Mandelentzündungen

title: Mandelentzündungen


text: Maskenbildners

title: Maskenbildners


text: Maskeraden

title: Maskeraden


text: Maskottchens

title: Maskottchens


text: születésnapot

title: születésnapot


text:
зард

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) yellow

title: зард


text: Massagen

title: Massagen


text: Massenmorde

title: Massenmorde


text: Massenmörders

title: Massenmörders


text:
白芨

Noun

 * 1) bai ji Chinese orchid,, the pseudobulbs of which are used in traditional Chinese medicine, but which is also widely grown for its ornamental flowers and foliage

title: 白芨


text: Massenmords

title: Massenmords


text: Massenmordes

title: Massenmordes


text: Machenschaften

title: Machenschaften


text: Machers

title: Machers


text: Macheten

title: Macheten


text:
steatorrea

Noun

 * 1)  steatorrhea

title: steatorrea


text:
implicitní

Adjective

 * 1) implicit implied or inherent

Related terms

 * See

title: implicitní


text: Mangels

title: Mangels


text:
泥土

Noun

 * 1) earth; soil
 * 2) clay

Noun

 * 1) mud
 * 2) * 1941, 徳永直, こんにゃく売り:

title: 泥土


text: Mängel

title: Mängel


text: Mangeln

title: Mangeln


text: Manegen

title: Manegen


text: Mandiokas

title: Mandiokas


text:
steatosi

Noun

 * 1)  steatosis

title: steatosi


text: Mangolds

title: Mangolds


text: baklavayı

title: baklavayı


text: baklavalar

title: baklavalar


text: Machbarkeiten

title: Machbarkeiten


text: Macchien

title: Macchien


text: Machwerks

title: Machwerks


text: Machwerke

title: Machwerke


text: Machwerkes

title: Machwerkes


text: Manipulationen

title: Manipulationen


text: Manioks

title: Manioks


text: Maniküren

title: Maniküren


text: Manifests

title: Manifests


text: Manifeste

title: Manifeste


text:
Template talk:ttbc-top

Template:ttbc-top

 * note this is a redirect to Template:checktrans-top as people have used both names

I thought this was nice at first, but seems to be causing things to fall through the cracks. Orphan and delete. --Connel MacKenzie 14:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep; before, the TTBC section was the only one visiable, so anon users would add new translations to that section exclusively. If we go back to that system, without fixing the problems with collapsible Translations boxes, then we are merely bringing that problem back.  I'd rather tsee some solution implemented that solves both problems, rather than just favoring one problem over another. --EncycloPetey 18:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Keep. How exactly does it cause things to fall through the cracks? — [ ric ] opiaterein — 21:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Keep (either/both names) with the L5 header and uncollapsed ttbc list, anyone who doesn't understand the collapsing will add to the ttbc section. There is another related problem in that some users think they should add new translations to the ttbc section, thinking they must be checked by someone else before going in the "real" section(s). For now at least, this does away with the extra L5 header we don't really need. Robert Ullmann 14:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, does Autoformat check that everything listed in these tables are marked with ? DAVilla 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 * AutoFormat does not touch these at all. I generate User:Connel MacKenzie/checktrans with each XML dump and use JS to get the individual lines 'd.  The template  fucks up the list generation, while confounding the JS at the same time.  (Nevermind the fact that a couple "well meaning" contributors have completely destroyed my ability to keep up with that list, by adding completely bogus secondary meanings that fail RFV or RFD every time and deciding that the translations - that rightfully belong only to the original definitions - should be TTBC'd across their new bogus definitions.)  What started as an operose task when people complied (due to the inherent automation-resistant variance) has essentially become impossible.  This particular template is a confounding factor.  --Connel MacKenzie 07:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been changed to use and, AF will convert ttbc-* to checktranss-*. AF also removes the L5 header if followed by {checktrans}. Robert Ullmann 12:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Kept per consensus. Harmless redirect. --Jackofclubs 09:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

title: Template talk:ttbc-top


text:
太液

Proper noun

 * 1)   Taiye ponds (commonly located inside of the imperial compound)

title: 太液


text:
pæninsula

Noun

 * 1) * 1974, Staffan Rosén, A study on tones and tonemarks in middle Korean, page 23 (Universitet Stockholms)
 * When the Buddhist faith spread to the Korean pæninsula, first to Koguryŏ (4th century) and later to Paekce and Silla (6th century), Buddhist scriptures in their Chinese version followed and were soon common among Buddhists all over Korea.
 * 1) * 1990, Instituto de Zoología (Academia de Ciencias de Cuba), Poeyana, №s 405–445, page 17 (self-published)
 * In the big pæninsulas (Guanahacabibes y Zapata), and in the archipelagoes, live species from the lands of the isle of Cuba with which they probably had terrestrial communication during the Pleistocene marine regressions.
 * 1) * 2007, Janusz Krzysztof Kozłowski, Marek Nowak, and the International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Mesolithic/Neolithic interactions in the Balkans and in the Middle Danube Basin, page 1 (illustrated edition; Archaeopress; ISBN 1407301683, 9781407301686)
 * In the history of investigations into the origin of the Neolithic in the Balkan Pæninsula and the Carpathian Basin and, what follows, into the Mesolithic–Neolithic relations, there are two basic approaches: the allochtonous and the autochtonous[.]
 * In the history of investigations into the origin of the Neolithic in the Balkan Pæninsula and the Carpathian Basin and, what follows, into the Mesolithic–Neolithic relations, there are two basic approaches: the allochtonous and the autochtonous[.]

title: pæninsula


text: Mafias

title: Mafias


text:
Maden

Etymology
Variant of.

Statistics

 * According to the 2010 United States Census, Maden is the 36154th most common surname in the United States, belonging to 620 individuals. Maden is most common among White (80.16%) and Black/African American (10.81%) individuals.

Etymology
From

title: Maden


text:
Category talk:Jargon

Category:Jargon
I don't see much use for this category - all the subcategories e.g. Category:Jargon:Marketing and others are also unnecessary duplicates of e.g. Category:Marketing. Putting things in shouldn't need the jargon tags IMHO Keene 21:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already deleted Category:Jargon:Scale modeling (the most deletable category there, with just one entry in it (a user subpage). Keene 21:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

 * As a side note, is there any use having even, which some could argue is a duplicate of ? Keene 21:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Delete; this duplicates what the standard categories are designed for. And, yes,  duplicates the function of . --EncycloPetey 21:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Delete both, but note that there are cases where labeling an individual sense as "jargon" provides useful information (i.e. that unlike most "slang" or "informal" terms it is used mostly in professional or academic contexts). -- Visviva 13:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Keep - maybe we can change its function to include things like legalese, governmentese and other -ese jargons? --Jackofclubs 07:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that those words should be categorized in this category?—msh210 ℠ 16:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a possible solution. --Jackofclubs 09:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Kept, reworked - but now as a category for different jargons (legalese, governmentese) etc. --Jackofclubs 10:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Jargon


text:
értem

Etymology 1
From.

Etymology 4
The stem of

title: értem


text: Masseusen

title: Masseusen


text: Massivs

title: Massivs


text: Masseure

title: Masseure


text: Masseurs

title: Masseurs


text:
Category talk:Endangered languages

Category:Endangered languages
The name itself is highly subjective. I don't see any use to a category that will list Irish, Breton, and Hawaiian alongside the more obscure languages of Papua New Guinea and the Amazon. --EncycloPetey 21:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Endangered languages is a valid topic of interest to linguists and philologists. Although the determination of a language as endangered is often somewhat subjective, I think most linguists are pretty much in agreement about what endangered means and which languages are endangered. An exhaustive list would be very nice to have, but I doubt that we will ever have anything like a complete list here. I think it’s a useful category and should be kept. —Stephen 22:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

 * If it's true that linguists are in agreement about what languages are endangered, which would surprise me, then I agree we should keep.—msh210 ℠ 04:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Most categorization is at least somewhat subjective (Should [[:Category:Poisons]] be in [[:Category:Food and drink]]? Should [[vital force]] be in [[:Category:Anatomy]]?), and certainly most categorization is eclectic (guess what category [[tangy]] and [[distasteful]] share; hint: it's not [[:Category:English adjectives]]). I think this category is likely to be interesting to people. —Ruakh TALK 15:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep and complete. It's true that this information is both used by linguists and interesting to people, but it's not the only one: we should have all the categories for Extinct languages, Ancient languages, Historic languages, Living languages, Endangered languages and Constructed languages. That way, we consider a higher level of details and have the chance to categorize all languages. Daniel. 09:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, it's relatively easy to verify whether a language is extinct, living, constructed, reconstructed, etc. On the other hand, determining whether a language is "endangered" would seem to involve a substantial judgment call, and one which we are not qualified to make.  In the absence of an IUCN-like authority for languages, I think this needs to be deleted, or perhaps replaced by a quantitative categorization (Category:Languages with fewer than 100 native speakers?).  In particular, I find it dubious to put well-documented, officially-supported languages like Hawaiian and Irish in the same category with the hundreds of languages that are actually on the brink of vanishing entirely. -- Visviva 05:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep, but split into two or more categories for Seriously endangered languages and languages like Hawaiian, which are well documented, but are not learned by many young people. There are endangered languages that still have thousands of speakers - but most of these speakers are aging, and if young people aren't learning them, the language dies with the older speakers. There are two basic ways of looking at whether or not a language is endangered. One is by the number of total speakers. Another, as I mentioned, is how many young people learn it as they grow up. This is the kind of thing you get where a language is spoken by a small ethnic community within a country, like Istro-Romanian in Croatia. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 22:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

 * With 5 votes to 1, kept by consensus. --Jackofclubs 10:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

RFD discussion: November 2023–January 2024
Manually added to just over 100 languages. Well over 99% of the languages we cover count as endangered, to one degree or another, which is emphasised by the fact that the creator didn't even think of them when they decided to add this category to the more well-known ones.

I really don't think this adds much value - it's something for Wikipedia to keep track of, not us. Theknightwho (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Delete. Thadh (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Deleted. Theknightwho (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Endangered languages


text: Matratzen

title: Matratzen


text: Matineen

title: Matineen


text: Mauerblümchens

title: Mauerblümchens


text: Maulschellen

title: Maulschellen


text: Matrosen

title: Matrosen


text: Manövers

title: Manövers


text: Maracujas

title: Maracujas


text:
Passionsfrucht

Noun

 * 1) passion fruit

title: Passionsfrucht


text: Passionsfrüchte

title: Passionsfrüchte


text:
Template talk:nl-adv

Template:nl-adv
Dutch adverb template seems to be more applicable to adjectives than adverbs. Can anyone vouch for this as written? See for example slordig. —Stephen 18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Nevermind. I see this is under discussion in the BP. —Stephen 19:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Dutch adverbs "inflect" in the same way as Dutch adjectives, and can be difficult to distinguish in some cases. I'm reasonably confident of the basic endings, since I checked against three published Dutch grammars by different publishers. --EncycloPetey 02:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

 * There are two problem with the superlative of the adverb. In general Dutch adverbs derive from adjectives simply by taking the uninflected form. If the superlative adverb stands alone in a sentence it takes the dummy article "het".

 * Jan speelt het mooist. - John plays most beautifully

Strictly speaking mooist should not get an -e in this case, but it often does.

If the adverbs is used to qualify an adjective, it does not take "het":

 * Dit is de mooist gespeelde sonate. - This is the most beautifully played sonata. (minus the awkwardness of this English sentence).

So hardwiring the "het" into the template is not appropriate. Jcwf 15:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

title: Template talk:nl-adv


text: Mantels

title: Mantels


text: Mäntel

title: Mäntel


text: Passionen

title: Passionen


text: 鸳鸯

title: 鸳鸯


text: Marders

title: Marders


text: Manuale

title: Manuale


text: Mansarddächer

title: Mansarddächer


text:
chersonese

Alternative forms

 * chersonesus
 * chersonesos
 * chersoness
 * chersonesse
 * khersonese
 * khersonesos
 * khersonesus
 * khersoness
 * khersonesus
 * khersoness

Etymology
From, from , from +.

Noun

 * 1)  A peninsula.

Usage notes
Aside from dated, poetic, or rhetorical use, the word typically appears in English transcribing works or descriptions of classical geography: the anglicized form cherson ese being more common in general and generic use and the Latin form cherson esus appearing in the proper names of various famous peninsulas.

Derived terms

 * See chersonesus
 * (Gallipoli)

title: chersonese


text: Marathons

title: Marathons


text: Manuals

title: Manuals


text: Manuales

title: Manuales


text: Mansarddachs

title: Mansarddachs


text: Mansarddaches

title: Mansarddaches


text: Mannequins

title: Mannequins


text: Materials

title: Materials


text: Materialisationen

title: Materialisationen


text:
子弟

Noun

 * 1) sons and younger brothers;  children
 * 2) young people; later generations

Noun

 * 1) children
 * 2) youth, the young

title: 子弟


text: Marionettenregierungen

title: Marionettenregierungen


text: Maulwurfsgrillen

title: Maulwurfsgrillen


text: Maulwurfhügels

title: Maulwurfhügels


text: Maulkörbe

title: Maulkörbe