text:
Wiktionary:Tea room/2008/December

=December 2008=

sponsor
I've added the french translation of an other sense as in establishing a Good Offices Committee to sponsor further negotiations but I'm not able to add the definition itself. Serpicozaure (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Verb definition was not accurate. "To sponsor" can refer to any of the noun senses of "sponsor". It does not mean merely "to give money to", or even "donate" or "finance". "Finance" would usually imply that it was done with an expectation of repayment and even profit. The object of "to sponsor" is an event or program or, less often, an organisation. The object of "to donate" is the thing given. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ibreve and halfe from wanted words list.
"ibreve" has a number of meanings, but the only ones I can come up with should be hyphenated. I-breve in the legal sense, i-breve in the sense of an "i" with the breve above, etc. What to do with this?

 * Update: I've still been looking for a valid usage of this "word". The longer I look, the more sure I am that it's either hyphenated or else it's not a word. I vote to remove it as Ruakh says below, unless someone comes up with a meaning real soon. -- Pinkfud 08:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"halfe" is a word in German, Dutch, Swedish and Danish at least, possibly in other languages as well. In all but German, it means (or can mean) "half". In German it's a form of "helped". How ought one to decide which language to create an entry in when this is the case? -- Pinkfud 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

 * If you're convinced that a wanted word isn't really a word, or if it sits for a long time with no one adding it, you can remove it and explain why on the talk-page (Wiktionary talk:project-wanted articles). In the specific case of "ibreve", it does get at least one real-looking hit on Google Book Search; it might be worth asking an Italian-speaker, such as SemperBlotto, Paul G, or Barmar, to take a look at the hit and see if it's a typo or something.
 * For "halfe", you can choose one, or create all the ones you know, or whatever. The wanted-words list is no substitute for the language-specific requests pages (Wiktionary:Requested entries:German and so on), and words on the wanted-words list should also be on one of those. So, you don't need to worry about what language was intended: it will be gotten to eventually anyway.
 * —Ruakh TALK 20:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * halfe is not a German word. There is half and halfen but not halfe.--87.162.51.240 15:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I can handle a bit of Italian too, and it isn't a word there either, or at least not common if it's a word. Breve is, meaning short or brief, but not ibreve. But thanks very much for the input! -- Pinkfud 20:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. Looking at that G-Books reference, I translate the sentence as "The significance of these cespuglietti mycelium could not (be determined?) because they degenerated in a short time." Thus, the word in question probably is a typo. -- Pinkfud 20:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Halfe is no word in Swedish, at least not modern Swedish. In modern Swedish the forms halv (adjective) and halva (adjective form, and noun) are used, and in archaic spellings (before the 1906 spelling reform) the spellings were half, halfve and halfva. If halfe ever was used, I has to be a really old spelling. \Mike 19:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Supplier vs. vendor
What is the difference between a supplier and a vendor. Thank you.

 * A vendor is always a seller. A supplier might possibly not be. High schools might be said to be suppliers of students to colleges, though that wouldn't be the best word. They would probably be arrested if they were vendors. DCDuring TALK 23:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Is there also the difference that vendor always refers to a person but supplier might refer to a firm? --Duncan MacCall 23:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

 * In the US I've heard "vendor" regularly used in organisations to refer to companies. DCDuring TALK 23:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

 * In the context of Vendor (supply chain), I think the meanings are identical. But each word also has distinct meanings: as DCDuring noted, a "supplier" might not always be engaged in a commercial transaction, and in real estate the "vendor" is simply the seller of a property. -- Visviva 03:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

making wiktionary better
i think we can put the search on the middle of the page and remove some ads

Great
The entry great-aunt refers to the generation of one's grandparent. My understanding is that that is US usage and that UK usage is the generation of one's great grandparent. Can anyone clarify this? Wakablogger 09:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding (UK) is that your great-aunt is your parent's aunt, ie your grandparent's sister. Ƿidsiþ 09:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Same in the U.S. My grandmother’s sister was my great-aunt. —Stephen 23:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback. Wakablogger 09:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Confusion, Misuse, due to mis understanding
I am keen to hear if anyone shares the opinion that Axis and Axle are generally misunderstood? leading to a misuse of both words? (unsigned comment by User:Gary Birch)

 * Apparently, axis is Latin for axle (and perhaps in other languages: Dutch?), so perhaps the misunderstandings tend to arise from non-English languages. Equinox 22:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I have never heard of anyone confusing axis and axle. To me it’s easier to confuse mustard and catsup than axis and axle. —Stephen 23:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Gaming and video games
Can we merge into  ? The contents of both categories are about video games, and the latter category is more distinct. (You could feasibly see "gaming" as referring to traditional games that don't require a computer.) Equinox 22:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I think some sorting out of the category is needed, but many of the terms tagged "gaming" are not specific to video games -- e.g. HP and XP, which I believe date back to early D&D (in the mid-70s, when Pong was a cutting-edge video game). -- Visviva 02:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

 * To me the term gaming is much more established with gambling and casinos, when I hear it used in relation to Video games it always makes me think of the first generation to grow up with video games need for a more grown up word for their hobby when they started turning 30 and 40 than "playing games" (-: — hippietrail 23:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Further to Hippietrail's point, I think "gaming" is best reserved for casinos, and the betting industry generally. It may be that some items now categorised as "gaming" shouldn't be there. I suppose some terms relating to video games based on the gambling games and to on-line gambling might be in more than one category. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Try to find a name that combines differentes business under one roof...
i need help

conglomerate? DCDuring TALK 12:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

 * partnership, merger? —Michael Z. 2008-12-04 15:52 z

 * Often several one-man law firms share office space (and, often, a receptionist, or even a legal secretary). Sometimes doctors do the same thing. I'm not sure what to call this: it's not a partnership or merger in any way: the businesses are completely separate for all purposes: they have different sets of clients, etc. (Otoh, I don't know whether this kind of thing is what the OP meant.)—msh210 ℠  17:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

 * You weren't thinking of group practice? or just "sharing chambers" or "sharing an office". DCDuring TALK 00:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Danish ske
The Danish term ske has either two senses or two homonyms. I rather expect that happen/occur is not related to spoon but weirder etymological things have happened. Could somebody in the know either split the article by etymology are add a note to the current etym explaing how happen came to also mean spoon. — hippietrail 23:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I have created two etymologies. The section whould be fine now. I notice it lacks inflection though. __meco 09:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks meco, I've used your work on the Norwegian equivalent too! — hippietrail 10:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Very nice. __meco 10:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

-dimensional
Is this a suffix or a combining form. If it is not a suffix what PoS should it have or should it be merged with [[dimensional]]? See Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. DCDuring TALK 23:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Semantically, "three-dimensional" = "{three dimensions}-al", not "three-{dimensional}", right? If I'm not mistaken, this is what linguists call a "bracketing paradox": in form, the has lower attachment than the, since it's actually incorporated into  to form the derived adjective , but in meaning, it has higher attachment, since the  modifies (determines?) the implicit , and  serves to adjective-ize the whole thing. That makes it interesting, and I'm guessing it's what motivated the entry's creation; but if I've got this right, bracketing paradoxes are incredibly common (I believe "{blue-eye}d", "{transformational grammar}ian", "{North America}n", etc. are all examples), and I don't think the solution is to treat the together-in-form part of them as an affix or combining form. I don't know what to suggest instead, though. (I think this is related to the issue of non-predicating adjectives — "medical student" doesn't mean "student who is medical" — but I might just be confusing two separate issues.) —Ruakh TALK 16:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I see your point. I didn't know what the name of the phenomenon was, but I had noticed it in etymologies. When (and in what order) a stem acquires one or more suffix (Greek; classical, late, vulgar, medieval, new Latin; old, middle, or Norman French; old, middle, or modern English) is often very meaningful, but elementary purely "morphological" etymologies just jump to classical stem plus affixes. I really don't buy inviolable "deep grammar" transformational rules, because folks like Pinker and Searle don't. Just as evolution does not treat DNA is inviolable, so do "rules" of transformation often get violated when rules conflict with other rules or with larger phenomena.
 * In this case, notwithstanding your arguments, "-dimensional" seems a meaningful lexicographic unit. But, strictly speaking, "dimensional" seems like a combining form, not a suffix. I cannot get over the disappearance of the "s" in the purported transformation of "two-dimensions" to "two-dimensional" (and in all multi-dimensional compounds). That the solid spelling (multidimensional might be an exception) is much less common (~1:10), is also suggestive that this is not "really" a suffix. Too, Quinlon, at Affixes: the Building Blocks of English], does not treat "-dimensional" as an affix. OTOH, little harm (except fewer helpful hyphens) comes from treating it as one, and some users may be helped. If we had some good treatments of combining forms and if ordinary users grasped the distinctions, this might be easier. I have no neat solution and doubt that there is one. DCDuring TALK 18:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomic species names
I'm talking about entries like M. minimus and K. kieneri- are these things we really want to have? I can see having species names, but something about the abbreviated forms just bothers me, especially when it seems they are created just to make an entry for the Christmas competition. Nadando 02:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

See discussion of B. splendens at Requests for deletion. DCDuring TALK 02:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

sano
Hello. I must request conjugation template at sano of Latin word sano. --Volants 14:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. The usual way to make such requests is to add  to the page.  The specific request can be included  after the tag. --EncycloPetey 18:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Need a word
What is the verb for when someone who has no historical connection with a country becomes a member of the country because they have lived there for a certain length of time? Donek 16:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

 * naturalize Robert Ullmann 16:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

bad apple
The etymology currently says this comes from the proverb about bad apples, but recent poking around suggests to me that it may be a pseudo-calque from the Latin, which is literally "bad quinces", but is tied etymologically to. The Romans held the Cretans in very low regard, and stereotyped them as lazy, immmoral, etc. It also seems quite possible that it may come from a Latin malum malum, from  + inflected form of. --EncycloPetey 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

 * b.g.c.'s oldest cite for "bad apple" with "spoil" is just 1881 or so, which surprised me. "one bad apple" gets only 8 more years. This quote from 1863 makes the saying seem less than proverbial as of that year:
 * DCDuring TALK 01:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Another suggesting that bad apple as a simile may have had a life independent of the full proverb:
 * 1861, Aubrey De Vere, "The Bard Ethel", The sisters, Inisfail, and other poems, page 148
 * "I am like a bad apple unripe yet rotten !" DCDuring TALK 05:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The ‘full’ proverb as I have always known it is ‘the bad apple (that) spoils the barrel’. In the Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs it appears as ‘A rotten apple injures its neighbour’, and is traced back as far as the Ayenbite of Inwit of 1340: ‘A roted eppel amang the holen, makeþ rotie the yzounde.’ They note a Latin precedent, too: ‘pomum compunctum cito corrumpit sibi junctum’. Ƿidsiþ 16:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I wonder if the proverb was out of currency for a while or whether the authors I cited above just liked to use terms that were clichés. DCDuring TALK 00:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Help
Please help me list the correct order of living organisms from simple to complex.
 * The idea of ordering iving things from simple to complex is called the Great chain of being (or scala naturae). It is a pre-Darwinian British idea that died with the Victorian era. --EncycloPetey 02:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

colopatiron
Another odd word from that Wanted list. Anyone think this has a meaning other than as a proper noun - the name of an angel said to be able to open prison gates? -- Pinkfud 08:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Word removed. Explanation is at Wanted list talk page (where any subsequent discussion should also be).  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

meetup
It seems this word is used primarily recently for Internet groups, e.g. a Wikimedia meetup. I assume because generally Internet-group users don't meet face-to-face, compared with businesspeople. I'm sure I said "Let's meet up" 20 years ago, but I'll add some citations next time I'm online to back this up. --Jackofclubs 11:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * "Let's meet up at the meetup." -- Pingku 18:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

lobster as plural?
It wouldn't bother me to say "we caught many lobster" or "we caught many lobsters". Googling finds examples of "many lobster" that are using lobster as a plural (as well as some false hits 'like many lobster lovers'). Should we add that lobster can be used as the plural and if so how to we indicate that? In a usage note? RJFJR 14:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This applies to nearly all sea food and fish(es) BTW. Perhaps we could have a template for this? It would certainly be alright to put a usage note AFAIC -- A LGRIF  talk 15:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One worthwhile item for such a usage not would be to indicate the lower level of acceptability of plural verbs with "lobster" referring to the living creatures, especially when still in the wild. In what contexts is "The lobster are running" acceptable?
 * A quick look at the first page of a basic Google search for "lobster are" gives:- 1. farmed lobster are considered to be pale in colour. 2. Most species of lobster are caught in pots or traps. 3. Maine Lobster are better then Canadain (sic) Lobster. That's just for starters. A proper search would certainly pull up many good examples, I reckon. -- A LGRIF  talk 16:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Example 2 is specious, since the verb refers to "species" as its noun, not "lobster". -DrGaellon | Talk 01:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I estimate that more than 90% of the almost 650 raw b.g.c. hits (limited and full preview only) for "lobster are" are not hits for the plural use of lobster. More than 90% of the almost 800 hits for "lobsters are" are hits for the plural. Thus "lobsters" would seem to be ten times more common in b.g.c. as a plural. "Two lobsters" gets more than 600 raw b.g.c. hits almost solely true plural use. In the first 50 hits of "two lobster" (of 280), I found no true plural use. I conclude that "lobster" is a rare and possibly less preferred plural. I don't know what the results would be for shellfish, marine mammals, true fish, or other large aquatic animals, let alone plants and small animals. DCDuring TALK 16:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I think this can apply to most wild animals. The invariant plural seems to suggest a way of relating to the animal as a more abstract entity.  "There are bear in the mountains"  may be usefully distinct from "there are bears in the mountains"; one refers to the general fact that the mountains are bear habitat, while the other would, in some contexts, indicate the presence of specific bears in some specific area.  Likewise, "there are lobster in the funnel" suggests that it is lobster (by the pound), and not individual lobsters, with which one is concerned.  Presumably related to this, but complicating the matter, many prominent wild animals -- deer, moose, fish, salmon -- have invariant plurals only.  Visviva 16:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Should we have separate senses to support the distinction? Alternatively, we could add it to the notional list of "subjects we should have appendices for, to be linked to in usage notes", which list is stored in our collective and individual "circular files" or "bit buckets". DCDuring TALK 16:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

dincha
Considering adding an entry for dincha (common slang for didn't you, easily citeable back to 1930s or earlier, e.g. dincha hear me?), but I don't know what part of speech it is! Seems it would be a verb, but it actually has the pronoun fused into it, so does that make it a "phrase" or something? Equinox 20:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would classify it as a contraction- see betcha, gotcha. Nadando 20:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * WT:POS allows it as "standard" non-PoS Level-3 header. I view it as a last resort, but a good one if no single "real" PoS applies, as here. DCDuring TALK 20:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with the assessment by . Cirt (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

full English breakfast
Please can a Brit verify the ingredients of the full English breakfast - i.e. does it have to contain all the ingredients to be a full breakfast, and waht is the difference between this and an English breakfast. --Jackofclubs 12:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Those ingredients are typical. You often get black pudding, especially in the north. I have never heard of an English breakfast. SemperBlotto 12:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * It is fairly variable. Eggs can be scrambled, fried, or poached. I think white pudding occasionally turns up too. Hotels often say "English breakfast" to distinguish from a continental breakfast. Equinox 16:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * What, no hash browns? Ƿidsiþ 17:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought kippers would be included, no? --EncycloPetey 20:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No! You still get kippers for breakfast round some parts, but they're not part of a "full English".  Ƿidsiþ 12:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 * My (admittedly hazy) memory includes sausage and inedible fried bread. Pingku 18:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Hash browns might be included from American influence, but tradition has (edible) fried bread, and the eggs were fried. There is no definitive list, but the plate must have a selection of at least six (in my view) including bacon and egg to qualify as a traditional full English breakfast (and it often runs to eight or ten ingredients from a generous host!)    D b f  i  r  s   13:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

 * For me a "full English" needs to contain at least sausages and/or bacon, egg (fried or scrambled, occasionally poached) and at least two or three from mushrooms, baked beans, fried tomato, fried bread, hash browns and black pudding. Thryduulf 21:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I had never even heard of hash browns as a child in the sixties, so i would say that if we are talking about the traditional dish (as given in the entry) we would have to exclude hash browns.

Idioms that survived RFD
Hi. Is there a procedure to follow to add items to this section? The page is very lacking in useful additions of precedence. For instance, how about adding it's a pleasure to "Once upon a time test", as it has just passed RFD? -- A LGRIF  talk 17:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Run a few up the flagpole and see if they salute. DCDuring TALK 17:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, please edit. It's just an informal list, so no prior discussion is needed IMO. -- Visviva 02:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

shear-up or shear up
sultans and others whose authority had been shored-up by the Dutch, were attacked as soon as Japanese authority left (from Indonesian National Revolution Serpicozaure (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC) )

 * The verb is actually shore; see shore up. -- Visviva 15:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, and most (I think) usage guides would have it without the hyphen in that usage and usually, except when used as an attributive adjective, though practice varies. DCDuring TALK 15:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

outride
There's another definition needed, about poetry apparently. My knowledge of poetry is extremely poor, and I couldn't undestand the definitions given on other webistes. A couple of useful links are here and bartleby. --Jackofclubs 10:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Oddly, though both of those links attribute their noun senses to the same person (Gerard Manley Hopkins), their definitions seem completely different. Your first link seems to be referring to something like this:

This is a very long line of poetry that extends to the next line in the form of                                                                    an outride.
 * whereas your second link is referring to unstressed syllables in sprung poetry poetry with sprung rhythm . (I'm not sure if it's referring to all unstressed syllables, or specifically to those unstressed syllables that Hopkins marked with a grave accent for some reason that I don't understand, but either way, it doesn't seem to match the other definition. I mean, I see how one could cause the other, but it seems odd to use the same word for both.)
 * —Ruakh TALK 15:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC) fixed mis-link 18:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 * According to Wikipedia, "He used diacritical marks on syllables to indicate which should be drawn out (acute e.g. á ) and which uttered quickly (grave e.g. è )." Equinox 17:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Yeah, but why? Why were some unstressed syllables marked with graves, and some not? *shrug* —Ruakh TALK 18:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I found this somewhat helpful. Here Hopkins and the author are clearly using the term to refer to the part of a line (or foot) that extends beyond its metrical end.  It is easy to see how this could be extended to apply to a line tht extends beyond its physical end as well.  In fact it wouldn't be surprising if some editions of Hopkins' work mark outrides in exactly this way (haven't checked).
 * On another note, I feel compelled to note that if poetry were treated under the same criteria as fiction, this term would probably not qualify for inclusion; it is apparently only used in reference to a single poet. -- Visviva 13:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm good
I was wanting to make an entry for the expression I'm good when used to indicate no as an answer, or to indicate that the person has enough of something. Examples would be: Do you want cake? with a reply I'm good meaning no, or at least no more. But what I am unsure of is what part of speech would it be listed as.

Secondly, I always think of this term as being American, but is it limited to certain places in the US?--Dmol 09:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The POS should be the same as analogous expressions like "no thanks", which we currently have as a "Phrase". (I would have been inclined to call it an interjection, but "phrase" is hard to dispute.)  I don't think it is regionally limited, but I think it is fairly recent in common use; I don't recall hearing it growing up in the 80s-90s.
 * In fact, the earliest pertinent match for "No thanks I'm good" on b.g.c. is from 2000.   The earliest match for "No I'm good thanks" is 1998.  The phrase has got to be somewhat older than that, but perhaps not by much; it certainly doesn't seem to have had much traction until 2002 or so. -- Visviva 12:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I've never heard' I'm good used in this way, but the much older I'm fine is still used with the above meaning in parts of the UK. Should we have an entry for this? We do now hear the imported phrase I'm good, thanks used in the UK to replace I'm fine, thank you and I'm well, thank you.    D b f  i  r  s   13:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The earliest newspaper reference on NewsBank is an article by one Nathan Bierma writing for the Chicago Tribune, entitled "'I'm good' not a bad way to send several messages", dated 17 August 2005. Among other observations, he has this to offer:
 * "In online [language] usage forums, it's been suggested that the expression derives from draw poker -- a player who stands pat, or doesn't need to draw any cards, will tell the dealer, 'I'm good ,'" says Benjamin Zimmer, lecturer in anthropology at Rutgers University and a consultant for the Oxford English Dictionary. "Of course, it has also long been a formulaic expression in bars, where 'I'm good' is a standard negative response to a bartender who asks if the patron wants another drink."'
 * - Pingku 13:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The bar derivation seems plausible. On further examination, I find a few b.g.c. breadcrumbs going back to this one in 1991, which does occur in an alcoholic (though non-bar) setting. -- Visviva 14:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

papadom
Which of these (36!) forms should be our main entry? Oxford dictionary says it doesn't matter, so I suppose it shouldn't matter much to us either. --Jackofclubs 14:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Although they said it didn't matter, they led with "poppadom". That's how I'd spell it. What matters, of course, is how they spell it on restaurant menus. My guess is they got it right. - Pingku 16:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, they say it doesn't matter which one you choose, but their listing should be an indication of the frequency of use. NOAD has only pappadam, while the CanOD has “pappadum . . . (also pappadam, papadum, poppadum)”.  Since all three dictionaries share a database, I interpret this as an indication of regional usage.  Of course it would be nice to compare to some other good dictionaries, too. —Michael Z. 2008-12-13 17:49 z

 * Restaurant menus getting it "right"? Are you kidding? They are all over the place. And there isn't a "right" answer, although some are better than others. From what I've seen and heard, the first two vowels should be "a", and the last "u". But that is just one single (set of) observation(s). WP uses papadum. The reason this is difficult is that it is not just a transliteration of the Tamil word, it is a successive borrowing, with lots of variations in spelling and pronunciation at each stage. Given the Tamil, pappadam would seem the best. We also need papad as a near-synonym. Robert Ullmann 18:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Tamil has பப்படம் (pappaṭam), but Tamil has no "d", and the ṭ sound is often transliterated as a "d" (in contrast with த, which is a regular "t"). —Stephen 21:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

σπηλιά, σπήλαιον, shpellë, and spelunk
What if any is the relationship between Greek and, Albanian , and English ? It seems they all ultimately come from Slavic. — hippietrail 12:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Are you sure spelunk ultimately is from a Slavic language? I don’t know what Slavic language it would be. Russian has, but that’s borrowed from Greek. I think English spelunk is from Ancient Greek , related to and to . —Stephen 09:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

stupider
I don't see how this would be incorrect or what sources proscribe this. Teh Rote 14:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Me neither. I removed tag, put in a cite. Let's keep it open for a while for other views. Just found great quote. DCDuring TALK 15:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Easy enough to find works weakly favoring "more stupid" over stupid, but relative usage frequency is not very different. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Connel originally tagged it "nonstandard" (see stupider?diff=1319817), presumably based on a gut feeling; Circeus later downgraded this to "proscribed". Judging from Dictionary.com's entries, AHD and Random House do not share Connel's feeling, but Webster's 1913 did. —Ruakh TALK 16:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I think it should be tagged (stupider) Robert Ullmann 16:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

word history
I need to know the changes in meaning of the following words since its entry into English language

1. Lie (verb) 2. cheerful 3. machine 4. ornament(noun) 5. vulgar 6. humour 7. quaint 8. honest 9. testify 10. romance

 * It sounds like you want us to do your homework for you. Shouldn't you be offering money or something? ;-)  —Ruakh TALK 12:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Have you ever checked the etymology-section on those words in wiktionary (comes with every word...)? It's just one of the features I like wiktionary for ;-)!  -   Jack-72 11:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

psychokinesis, telekinesis
Psychokinesis is defined as "...movement..." and telekinesis as "...ability to move...". Which is right? Or are both right, so that each entry needs another sense?—msh210 ℠  21:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I've always understood both words to have both meanings. Thryduulf 22:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I have always understood the two to be distinct, except I have never been able to apprehend the distinction. Hopefully we can now have this sorted out once and for all. __meco 14:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I assume that both words have the same range of meanings, but it seems very likely that some speakers (experts, as it were) maintain a distinction that we should mention. —Ruakh TALK 15:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I was somewhat surprised to find that there is an attestable plural telekineses, which implies a countable sense. Some authors (possibly of the Gaia persuasion) seem to use telekinesis to refer to "action at a distance" apparently due to causes beyond our present understanding The Weather Makers. Perhaps gravity was once telekinesis in this sense. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The etymologies imply that the first is explicitly by mental powers, while the second is merely at a distance, by undetermined means. I don't know that they are conventionally used that way. —Michael Z. 2008-12-17 16:29 z

 * Almost all of the usage of telekinesis (attested only from c. 1890) is basically synonymous with psychokinesis (attestable only from c. 1914) afaict, with mostly pedants like us making a distinction and preferring one over the other. The phrase Action at a distance {physics) had long before captured the more general physical sense, leaving "telekinesis" available to those who wanted to leave open the possible mechanism. At the time psychology was still almost as much the study of the "soul" as of the "mind", so debunking "psychokinesis" may have seemed more anti-religious than debunking "telekinesis". Even if this conjecture is supportable, I am not sure that it is worth expressing it in our definitions. DCDuring TALK 17:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm okay with that. Just FYI, NOAD differentiates the two with “by mental effort alone” and “at a distance by mental power or other nonphysical means”. —Michael Z. 2008-12-17 20:25 z

fellowship
Seems like the third sense, "A merit-based scholarship", and the fifth, "A stipend that supports the pursuit of an advanced degree and/or research", should be combined. Also, is the second sense, "A feeling of friendship, relatedness or connection between people", the one found in the church members , or does that phrase use a sense of fellowship that we don't have?—msh210 ℠  18:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for it! --98.233.21.10 05:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Zeelandic or Zealandic or Zeeuws
Hi,

I recently added an entry for Zealandic. During my WP harvest, for which I used the Dutch word nl:Zeeuws as the base, found that the English WP refers to it as Zeelandic though. A google fight ([Thu Dec 18 2008] [09:14:13] <know-it-all> Googlefight: 'Zeelandic' beat 'Zealandic' with 26,100 to 21,200 hits. [17:03] <know-it-all> Googlefight: 'Zealandic' beat 'Zeelandic' with 21,200 to 10,400 hits.) slightly favoured Zeelandic at first and then favoured Zealandic 8 hours later.

When using Google directly the pages for Zeelandic seem a lot more language related.

The bureaucrat of the Zealandic WP who is asking for a Ze[a|e]landic Wiktionary project talks about Zealandic though Zealand is also the English name of the region where the language is spoken, in Dutch it's Zeeland, of course...

The iso639-3 language code is zea. Since it's the name of a language, it's rather important we get it right, since it appears in translations sections and in the template. If we choose to keep using Zealandic, we may have to try and convince the WP crowd to use that as well. --Polyglot 16:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 * There isn't any reason we have to get them to go along with the English spelling of the name; the cross-wiki links are by code. (We do have to agree on meaning of the codes; als (which is Tosk Albanian) vs gsw (the correct code) has been a problem.) In this case the native language name the s/w defines is ; we have the language named Zealandic. Doesn't cause any more trouble than and Japanese. (Look at the source for this 'graph to see what I'm showing.) The English WP has redirects from Zealandic to Zeelandic; also not a problem.

 * All that said; we should ask ourselves if Zeelandic would be a better name for us to use. The WP use of it is odd, since the place is Zealand. The 'crat is correct on that point. (And that spelling is very standard in English, cf. New Zealand, not "New Zeeland"). But as noted, no problem if we stick with "Zealandic". Robert Ullmann 16:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The reason why I bring it up is that I was surprised to find WP uses Zeelandic. It didn't seem logical. I do think it's not nice if our entry is Zealandic and when one clicks on the Wikipedia link one gets redirected to Zeelandic. That's why I would like to see both projects use the same name. It also seems important for us as a dictionary project to determine whether one is really an alternative spelling of the other or whether it's an error. If only to decide if we add it as a synonym or not. --Polyglot 18:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Re: your first paragraph: Agreed.
 * Re: your second paragraph: Not agreed. I believe Wikipedia is correct in its distinction between and . (As Wikipedia says, the spelling  does sometimes occur for the latter, but  gets 13,100 Google hits to 's 622.)
 * —Ruakh TALK 19:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Ruakh, it's not entirely clear to me whether you are saying we should start using Zeelandic for the language name, or not. You start talking about the entry for Zealand. I wouldn't mind splitting of the Dutch province meaning to Zeeland, if that's the right thing to do. But I'd especially like for everything to be streamlined. It's true that Zealand/Zealandic seems more 'English-like' than Zeeland/Zeelandic. So Robert has a point there, but on the other hand there are many language and location names that are not very English-like. Polyglot 20:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I guess what I'm saying is that your first instinct — the Google-fight — was correct. We should figure out which name is more standard. My comment was a bit off-topic, because it dealt with the name of the province (usually ), which doesn't necessarily determine the name of its language. In fact, oddly, it seems (from b.g.c. searches) that the English prefers to  — but that may not be relevant either, because it seems to prefer  to either one. For example,  gets 47 hits,  gets 3, and  gets 2. (But funnily enough, with "language" instead of "dialect",  gets one relevant hit and the others get none.) —Ruakh TALK 23:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 * So should we use Zeeuws then? That's very hard to read for native English speakers (or maybe most readers not familiar with Dutch), I think. It is what iso639-3 calls it though.) --Polyglot 14:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

 * What "iso639-3" prefers isn't necessarily relevant. My experience is that, when there is not an obviously preferred English name for a language, they use the native language name (provided it's in Roman script).  There's no intrinsic reason for us to prefer their name in this situation.  Personally, I think I prefer Zeelandic because it's less likely to be confused with New Zealand (which is more familiar to most English speakers than the Dutch province). However, that's purely a gut feeling. --EncycloPetey 18:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

 * But then the native name is Zeêuws; Zeeuws is Dutch (-) Here, we have an English name, or rather, one too many. Robert Ullmann 15:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Danish
It is vital to recall that there is also the Danish isle of Sjælland (spelt Zealand in English) and Zealandic may also refer to its dialect of Danish. Is there any objection against adding a 3rd meaning? Bogorm 14:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Alrentates for Gold, Silver, Bronze classifications
Trying to come up with new award standard for Sales Goals. ANy suggestions?

unwitting
I'd like to put the quotation with one of the definitions, but it's not clear to me which one it belongs with. Can anyone help? -- dougher 05:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I think we need a source for the quote before we do anything with it. It's not in the Jowett translation (the one that Gutenberg et al. have), or in any other translation indexed by either Google Web or Google Books.  But to answer your question, judging from this translation it should be under sense 2.  That said, translations aren't ideal usage material even when they can be properly identified. -- Visviva 06:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

all but
I find that this term is often misused to mean something along the lines of 'absolutely', even in professional works, and very rarely actually sees use to mean 'almost'. Any concensus here? Dantai Amakiir 20:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * practically is probably closer to the actual meaning intended than absolutely. Care to indicate actual cites that are unambiguous? Circeus 22:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I've always understood it as "almost". Like Circeus, I'd be interested to see contrary quotations. —Ruakh TALK 23:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I'd vote for "almost", but three usable cites for another sense trump our votes. DCDuring TALK 00:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

the gift that keeps on giving
what is it? I heard this expression all the time, and everyone seems to know what it is but is means different things too.

hello? can I get some help here?

 * Sounds like an advertising slogan to me. -- A LGRIF  talk 18:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The first citations I find are indeed ads for Victrolas, early record players. It is currently being used with a smirk and emphasis on and pause before "giving" in ads for a "natural male-enhancement" product. DCDuring TALK 20:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

 * knowledge is sometimes called the gift that keeps on giving, as an answer to a riddle. -- A LGRIF  talk 19:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

 * so, basically, any gift that basically has some special secondary effect, like being reusable, or having a benefit you can pass on? also thought I'd heard it used for VD.

 * Yes, anything with a continuing benefit. As with any popular positive expression, it is increasingly likely to be used sarcastically, as with VD. DCDuring TALK 21:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

 * FWIW "The X that keeps on giving/X-ing" is a good example of a snowclone. Circeus 18:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you call the mammary glands of a mammal?
Hello! and happy holidays. I was wondering if there is a word for the mammary gland of a mammal animal (not humans)? Kurdish uses the term گوان, and so I was curious to know and to also add the Kurdish translation. Many thanks in advance.Gbeebani 08:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC) (stuck in the Seatac airport hotel due to bad weather)

 * That sucks; good thing you have internet access. Re your question, the first word that comes to mind is teat, but it doesn't really refer to the entire gland, just the area immediately around the nipple.  Don't know if that would match the Kurdish word closely enough.  (There is also udder, but it applies only to a few large herbivores.) -- Visviva 08:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Mammary gland says that "The mammary glands of domestic mammals containing more than two breasts are called dugs." Though from your comment it sounds like applies to more animals than  does. —Ruakh TALK 09:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC) (also visiting Seattle, scared I'll be stuck here as well, apparently this town can't handle snow)

 * I found a few references from which it seems that mamma may refer both to the part of body containing mammary glands and to the glands themselves:, - --Duncan 13:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

 * That would make etymological sense: and  being clearly related… †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

 * A cow’s udder refers only to the large bag that collects the milk. It supports four teats. In the case of dogs, I think people just say nipples (if that’s what you’re talking about...the gland itself is called the mammary gland). —Stephen 06:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Udder would be the correct word for. I don't know if dugs is another word for, so I will have to ask my dad about that. From reading the definitions of tit, it seems that the first definition may need revision because sense # 1 defines tit as mammary gland, teat. From what I can understand from Mammary gland, mammary gland is an anatomical term that refers only to the milk secreting glands. I don't know if the word tit is that specific to refer to the milk producing glands. Am I correct? Gbeebani 03:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC) (finally arrived back home in Michigan)

 * A tit is a fatty, globular structure that has one nipple and contains a mammary gland. Tits apply only to the breasts of human women, rarely men, so there are strong sexual overtones. It’s the same structure as the breast, only vulgar. —Stephen 18:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

When you say mammary gland, do you mean the externally visible bump or the internal milk-producing structure? In English, the word refers to the internal organ, which is not visible externally. The extrnally-visible structure is called a teat or mamma by zoologists (for all mammals and humans), or vulgarly a tit or titty (usually implying the enlarged female form, and not the male structure). --EncycloPetey 20:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-saxon word for colour / color
What word(s) was or were used in Old English for the concept of colour before the Romance word was imported? It seems that Dutch also has a romance word for this concept. Did both languages formerly have cognates of farb/farg? Are there any cognates remaining in more obscure English or Dutch words? — hippietrail 00:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bosworth-Toller gives hiw, heow, hiow, heō. This does seem to be related to ModE hue. (Wiktionary gives hīew for this etymology. Dunno the source of that spelling.) —Leftmostcat 00:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

 * OED gives most of the above forms (including "hiew"), which are indeed the origins of modern "hue". It also notes that hue and colour were treated as identical through the 16th century, so this looks to be the answer we're looking for.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

after edit conflict:
 * Are hue and dye dead ends? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 00:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

 * There were three main words for ‘colour’ in OE: ( > hue),  ( > blee), and  ( > dye).  Ƿidsiþ 14:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

off the deep end
It seems to me that The Free Dictionary and Merriam-Webster online have slightly different meanings for this idiom than on off the deep end. Could some native speaker check it?

 * My experience matches our definition rather than theirs; however, I agree with their decision to have (TFD MWOD) rather than . "Go off the deep end" = "go crazy", so logically it would make sense that "off the deep end" = "crazy", but I'm not sure that's actually the case. If I want to say that someone is (now) crazy, I'd say "He's [=he has] gone off the deep end", not ?"He's [=he is] off the deep end." —Ruakh TALK 20:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Concur with Ruakh. Go should be part of the headword, with the current title redirecting.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree that go off the deep end is much more common than "be off the deep end". But the latter is attestable and not rare. It is already going gradable ("too much off the deep end"), though not yet comparable, afaict. It seems part of language evolution for a sense to proceed from use only with "go" to use as an adjective (eg, ape, apeshit, ballistic, bananas, bonkers, etc.). Can medieval and postal be far behind? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 20:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

 * But if is older, and still several times as common, then it warrants special mention. For one thing, I think it means that adverbial use of "off the deep end" is more common than adjectival use of same, but we're defining it solely as an adjective. ("Go" can be used with adjectivals, as in "go crazy", "go sour", "go missing", etc., but "off the deep end" is an adverbial metaphor, and I think its continued attachment to "go" suggests that it's kept that adverbiality  for many speakers.) If we want to keep the entry at off the deep end, then I think we need to add an adverb POS, an etymology, and a usage note of some sort. —Ruakh TALK 21:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I was not arguing against the "go" form, just for also retaining the bare form. I had put in an RfD for another entry like this, which RfD I think is wrong. I think I agree with everything you say about this entry and that portions are relevant for many of these "go" forms. They seem to be an incubator for new senses of words and phrases and for totally new phrases. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 00:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Also consider its use with verbs like "jump", "leap" retaining the idiomatic/figurative sense. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 20:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

awful
I have just added the example sentence "My socks smell awful" to awful, but I suspect I have added it under a wrong sense—an adverb one. What is the lexical category AKA part of speech of "awful" in that sentence? In my mother tongue—Czech, it would be an adverb, but I am not so sure in English.

My intuition betrays me in that I would expect to find "well" instead of "good" in the sentence "The bicycle looks good", as in my mother tongue, "good" modifies the verb "look" and thus is rendered in an adverb form in that sentence. --Dan Polansky 14:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

 * As far as I can tell - 'awful' is describing the socks, not the verb 'smell', so is an adjective. It reminds me of the joke :- "My dog's got no nose" "How does he smell then?" "Bloody awful!" Παρατηρητής 14:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The socks could also "look awful", meaning the person describing them as awful does not like their color or pattern, isn't it? So AFAICT it is not just that the adjective "awful" is unambiguously attributed to "socks", in an analogy to "the stars are bright"; the attribute in question is further specified by the verb, be it "to smell" or "to look". I can also say that the look of a thing is great or the smell of it, such as in the sentence "Its smell is foul", in which the adjective "foul" is attributed to the attribute "smell", not to the object. Also compare "is great" vs "looks great". --Dan Polansky 16:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Several verbs behave this way. I can list some, but have not yet come up with a good rationale for the usage. My list includes senses of: seem, act, appear; look; taste; sound; feel; smell. These are connected with basic sense perception. I can't think of others, but wouldn't be shocked to find more, even whole additional unrelated classes. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 16:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I think you're looking for copular verb; see also Copula (linguistics). We should have a category for these. -- Visviva 16:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks, I have adjusted awful accordingly by creating a new adjective sense and moving the quotation there. An aside: From the point of view of a Czech speaker, the really interesting copular verbs are not "to be" and "to become", but the other ones, including "look", "smell", "sound" and "taste", as in Czech they are followed by an adverb instead of an adjective. --Dan Polansky 16:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dan (for asking) and Visviva (for answering). Does this merit a Beer Parlor discussion on whether category, context-generated category, or some other approach is the best way to present this? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 16:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (To DCDuring) How about glow? Thomas Carlyle writes "St. Edmund's Shrine, perpetually illuminated, glows ruddy", not ruddily .Bogorm 18:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't think it's the same. That's like a star shining bright or a ball falling wide. Equinox 11:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Link verbs (copula verbs if you prefer) generally fall into 3 categories. Two already identified above are 1)opinion/perception (be, seem, appear, etc). 2) Sensory (look, taste, smell, feel, sound, etc) And the third group could be called change of state verbs (become, grow, go, get, turn, etc). Mostly you can use these verbs both as copular and as normal. John looked happy. and John looked happily at his wife. All depends on how you want to use the verb (active or linking) and on what you want to say. A category would be a good idea, imo. -- A LGRIF  talk 17:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 * How is new sense 7 different from sense 1 "terrible"? --EncycloPetey 21:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Hello. You are veteran here. Can you respond my question? What is the criterion for inclusion in Wiktionary, usage, proper usage or references from authoritative sources? I need to know the response for a different issue. El imp 22:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

 * See Criteria for inclusion --Duncan 23:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Good. I have abused it a bit to include senses:
 * A term or sense should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term or sense if it is attested and idiomatic.
 * Now, taking the adverb example an awful good girl,
 * Attested:
 * 1.- Results 1 - 10 of about 21,300 for "an awful good girl". (0.19 seconds).
 * 2.- Books 1 - 10 of 52 on "an awful good girl". (0.05 seconds)
 * 3.- Scholar 	Results 1 - 2 of 2 for "an awful good girl". (0.07 seconds) Is this valid?
 * Idiomatic. Definition: 1.- Pertaining or conforming to the mode of expression characteristic of a language.
 * Adverbs in English are typically formed from adjectives by appending -ly
 * IMHO, awful as adverb should be rejected because awfully exists. I see it as improper usage. However if an academic journal comments about it, even to reject its use... El imp 00:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Rejecting a word because there exists a synonym that is more common or more approved in some (dominant) versions of English is simply not how Wiktionary works. The criteria for inclusion merely require that something be attested and not be a mere misspelling (only common misspellings are included.). We sometimes refer to usage authorities, who are mostly not highly prescriptive themselves nowadays, for issues that concern us. The issues for us are usually how to properly label senses that don't meet high acceptance and whether a usage note is required. "Nonstandard" is the most pejorative. But "awful good" might be "standard" in Afro-American Vernacular English or rural Southern US English or any of the numerous regional and national versions of English. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 01:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

 * No need to argue about the adverb. It's at various English dictionaries, but with an informal gloss. Wiktionary lacks any gloss.
 * The sixth sense is present at Merrian-Webster but a bit more concise: 4: exceedingly great —used as an intensive
 * Similar to the answers.com fourth sense: 4. Formidable in nature or extent: an awful burden; an awful risk.
 * That is, large, great, big, formidable... But not exceedingly good or bad. This is what causes trouble to me. At answers.com thesaurus synonyms are referenced as very bad, not very good or very bad.
 * "But "awful good" might be "standard" in Afro-American Vernacular English or rural Southern US English or any of the numerous regional and national versions of English."
 * Maybe this is the key, formidably good, largely good, but awful should remain impermeable to a bizarre synonymization with good, because it's origin is just the opposite. Talking about synonymization, I think this word should be at Wiktionary. Scholar  All articles - Recent articles 	Results 1 - 10 of about 10,500 for synonymization. (0.12 seconds) El imp 03:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Origins are not always strictly adhered to by users of a language - compare the 42,100 hits you get when googling "is pretty ugly", where the initial sense of pretty was not a general intensifier but the exact opposite of ugly. Wiktionary is, after all, like any other good dictionary documenting how words are used, not setting rules telling people how they should or should not be used. --Duncan 09:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what I've said is clear. Pretty doesn't have an ugly sense and ugly doesn't have a pretty sense. A word meaning something and the contrary, an antonym, loses the message. Look at my first phrase here "An awful addition". What I wanted to say? Exceedingly good or exceedingly bad. You don't know because Wiktionary says both cases are possible. Even if this odd thing where happening to awful, then it deserves an additional sense entry indicating context, location...
 * Awful needs an informal tag at the adverb. Adjective seventh sense entry is not necessary, it's implicit at terrible's fifth sense. Sixth sense needs the removal of exceedingly good or bad. A note in proper and enciclopedic 'dictionaric' English saying Read the terrible entry if you want to catch this word in full would be nice. But this is my view, I don't know if someone shares it and other options are surely valid. El imp 14:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

An awful (very good or very bad, you choose) and necessary addition due to 6 to rebalance things. I have made a scheme about this. What is the criterion for inclusion in Wiktionary, usage, proper usage or references from authoritative sources? El imp 17:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Re "How is new sense 7 different from sense 1 "terrible": The seventh sense of awful—"very bad"—is synonymous to terrible in its fifth sense—"very bad; lousy"—but nonsynonymous with the first sense of terrible—"dreadful; causing alarm and fear"—and AFAICS nonsynonymous with the first sense of awful—"Oppressing with fear or horror; appalling; terrible". From what I understand, the sense of "very bad" originates through the figurative use of "oppressing with fear or horror", but is distinct from it. --Dan Polansky 18:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

knock up
We seem to be missing the tennis sense - batting the ball back and forth before a match. The OED does not have this sense, and I have never played the game - so, am I mistaken? SemperBlotto 10:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I hadn't heard of it before, but it's here for instance. Equinox 11:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Well OALD (2000 edition) does have it: "knock up (in tennis, etc.) to practise for a short time before a start of a game" and it also has the derived noun: "knock-up noun (BrE) a short practice before a game, especially of tennis" --Duncan 11:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks - added. SemperBlotto 11:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

opposable
...seems to have some specific meaning in law which I can't quite pin down. Can anyone explain it? Here are a few instances: And so on. Something along the lines of ‘able to be enforced’..? Ƿidsiþ 11:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Under Belgian law, pledgor and pledgee establish a valid and opposable security over the credit claim...
 * ...the retention title should be valid, or more correctly, opposable only to the creditors of the purchaser, only if it has a sure date and earlier in reference with any distraint.
 * Under the same conditions there shall also be opposable against third parties the real rights obtained by State...

 * It seems to mean something like " Able to be enforced against competing claims (of)". I found this b.g.c. hit very helpful; it uses "[a] right [that is] opposable (to)" in parallel fashion with "[a] duty [that is] owed (to)". More explicit, though oddly not as helpful IMHO, is this b.g.c. hit, which seems to define "opposable (to)" as " Which can be legally invoked (against)", and ibid, which defines it very explicitly but as . —Ruakh TALK 20:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

title: Wiktionary:Tea room/2008/December


text:
coloaded

Adjective

 * 1) loaded with two or more different things

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

title: coloaded


text:
congophilic

Adjective

 * 1)  Describing tissue that is readily stained by Congo red.

title: congophilic


text:
djävla

Etymology
Attested since 1704 according to Svenska Akademiens ordbok. From.

Adjective

 * 1)  A mostly negative reinforcing expletive; damned, goddamned.

Usage notes

 * Less common compared to . Might look slightly quaint spelled with a d outside literary writing.
 * Closer to English than  in offensiveness.

Synonyms

 * förbaskade

title: djävla


text:
costimulator

Noun

 * 1) Either of two agents needed to produce co-stimulation.

title: costimulator


text: Category:English terms suffixed with -phagy


text:
exocytotic

Adjective

 * 1) Of or pertaining to exocytosis

title: exocytotic


text:
activador

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) activating

Noun

 * 1) activator

title: activador


text: activadora

title: activadora


text: activadores

title: activadores


text: activadoras

title: activadoras


text:
exome

Noun

 * 1)  The complete exon content of an organism or individual; the subset of the genome that excludes introns.

Usage notes
Do not confuse an exome with an.

Translations

 * Finnish: eksomi
 * Spanish: exoma

title: exome


text: cofactores

title: cofactores


text:
fibrillogenesis

Noun

 * 1) The development of the fibrils in connective tissue

Related terms

 * fibrillogenetic

title: fibrillogenesis


text:
bail out on

Verb

 * 1) To abandon, or stop supporting someone or something.

Usage notes

 * The verb and particles are inseparable.

title: bail out on


text:
fibrillogenic

Adjective

 * 1) Of or pertaining to fibrillogenesis

title: fibrillogenic


text:
fármaco

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1) pharmaceutical, medication

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1) medicine, medication

title: fármaco


text: fármacos

title: fármacos


text:
fisicoquímica

Noun

 * 1) physical chemistry

title: fisicoquímica


text:
Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others/Archives/2007 no consensus

=January 2007=

Category:Policy - Wiktionary Draft Proposal
Each item in this category should be submitted for a vote (perhaps one a week? One a day?) until they are all eliminated, or completely reworked to fit Wiktionary. When done, this category should go to the recycle bin with them, as it is a bad mechanism for developing policies (massive long-term inactivity being one good sign.) --Connel MacKenzie 07:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps massive inactivity indicates - lack of interest in policies in general - a stable draft policy that could be promoted to a higher level.

It seems that in Connels' book there is either an Official Policy, or there is Beer Parlour. Funny thing is, we would not have had any policies at all unless someone went to the trouble of pulling the discussion together outside of Beer Parlour, as Draft Policies, Policy Think Tank etc. What Connel proposes is to not have the current mass inactivity, but a return to the previous never-ending, never resolved cyclic discussions in Beer Parlour.

Any organisation worthy of polcies has some steps between bawdy general discussion in the pub, and voting on a policy at the Annual General Meeting. There are discussion papers, white papers, committees, drafts for review, proposals etc. Somehow Connel thinks we don't need those stages. I can only see a return to the bad old days of no way for policies to develop.--124.189.36.219 09:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally oppose CM's misguided demolition of the Policy Development structure. And the way he is trying to achieve this through RFD. He shows no understanding of policy development. See [] for my argument.--Richardb 11:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Keep. Has been added to since RFD started. Good base point. --Keene 21:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Delete, bureaucratic gunk, not useful. -- Visviva 02:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Meta Elements of Policy
OBE. --Connel MacKenzie 07:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally oppose CM's misguided demolition of the Policy Development structure. And the way he is trying to achieve this through RFD. He shows no understanding of policy development. See [] for my argument.--Richardb 11:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete, useless. -- Visviva 02:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Policies - Wiktionary Top Level
Of the whole series, this will be the last to go? Straggler policy stubs need to be deleted or adapted, from here. --Connel MacKenzie 07:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally oppose CM's misguided demolition of the Policy Development structure. And the way he is trying to achieve this through RFD. He shows no understanding of policy development. See [] for my argument.--Richardb 11:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

=August 2007=

Category:Languages of the United States Virgin Islands
All it contains is Category:English language - we don't need this, or will we have cats like Category:Languages of Idaho etc. --Derda 22:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The United States Virgin Islands is not a state, but an insular territory. Inhabitants are not granted citizenship under the US Constitution, and it is not obvious what the local language is for a group of islands overseen by a foreign power.  In any case, Spanish, French, and Creoles are the primary languages of 25% of the population. --EncycloPetey 06:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not under the constitution, no, but (unlike American Samoa) they have been citizens for almost a century now. Which doesn't necessarily detract from the overall point. Dmcdevit·t 14:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This -- like many similar categories -- seems like a really weird use of categorization. Why not just have an appendix (or appendices) listing (and linking to) the languages spoken in each country and territory? -- Visviva 23:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You could ask the same question about any category of any kind on Wiktionary. The answer is that it's a categorization, not an appendix.  Appendices have to be hard-coded and constantly updated.  The Wikimedia category structure responds dynamically. --EncycloPetey 00:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I believe the underlying question is: "what is the possible lexical relevance of this category?" Sure, we obviously should have similar categories like Languages of Alphabet City, Languages of the East Village, Languages of SOHO, Languages of Tribeca, Languages of Chinatown, Languages of Midtown, etc., all under Languages of Manhattan, right?  Sorry, but I don't see how that geographic mapping is really helpful.  For an Encyclopedia, perhaps...  --Connel MacKenzie 13:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 * As a territory not within the contiguous US, visible on a globe, its category serves a valuable purpose. Someone travelling to that location may wonder what language(s) are spoken there.  Consider that Category:Languages of French Polynesia includes more than French. For the most part, the geographic categories are nations or continents, but there are a few regions (e.g. Category:Languages of the Balkans, Category:Languages of the Caucasus) for regions where the national boundaries are less familiar.  The major exceptions are major islands and island groups.  Personally, I would like to see Category:Languages of French Polynesia, Category:Languages of Haiti, Category:Languages of Hawaii, etc. retained.  These regions often have indigenous languages in addition to colonial ones, and it is very helpful to have that information.  I would not advocate categorizing languages by states or provinces, and certainly not for smaller internal subdivisions, but for islands and island groups, there is considerably more going on than with other such subnational units.  The geographic mapping categories have been in existence for a very long time now, so you are proposing a change in eliminating them.  If you think it would pass a vote, then that would be the appropriate course of action.  --EncycloPetey 02:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't doubt that someone will find the information useful - I do doubt they'd look in a dictionary to find it. Even if they do, they should be politely referred to our encyclopedic sister project.  --Connel MacKenzie 22:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If someone wants to find out what language they speak in the U.S. Virgin Islands, they can look at the Wikipedia article on the U.S. Virgin Islands. This is useless. Kevin Rector 07:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Delete. Not dictionary material. Conrad.Irwin 21:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: this is a category, not an entry. Since dictionaries usually have no categories at all, are you advocating that we do away with categories altogether?  Would you apply the same criterion to Category:Languages of French Polynesia?  It is important for users interested in linguistics to see where a language is found, what languages are present, and which languages occur together in a region. --EncycloPetey 00:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Hungarian animal names
This is a category of names (proper nouns) given to animals in Hungarian. This is equivalent to a category containing English words like "Fido" and "Rover" not "cat" and "dog". The category of words do meet the CFI (I've not checked the two words the category contains), but I'm not certain we want to categorise words this way.

This is the only category that I am aware of that categorises the words thus ("Fido" is in Category:English proper nouns, Category:Dogs and Category:Names; "Rover" and "Rex" are in the first two of these only); although note that with the category expansion not working properly (c.f. WT:GP) I've not checked all languages. The it:Fido page categorises it under "proper names" and "study of masculine given names" (I think this is what the second category is, but I don't speak Italian).

If we do want to continue with this categorisation, the category needs moving to something like category:hu:Animal names. I had a hard time deciding whether this was best placed here, the tea room or the beer parlour as non seem to fit perfectly. Feel free to move this if you think I've plumped for the wrong one, or indeed if we have somewhere else I'm not aware of. Thryduulf 22:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I think it’s a useful category. I know a lot of such names in Russian as well. Since these are actually Hungarian names (like Hungarian nouns), and not merely international names that have been translated into Hungarian (like hu:Mountains), I think the category should remain Category:Hungarian animal names. —Stephen 11:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Do we accept human first names? I've got the impression they're not recommended (I've got no opinion on this). In that case animal names would be even less acceptable. But if we keep this category, it should be renamed as Thryduulf said.--Jyril 16:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if a category for these would be as useful as an appendix. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 15:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Persian-Farsi
We must have a more standard way of dealing with this type of problem. I particularly don't like having to insert the edit link. DAVilla 22:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I wrapped the edit link in {selfref} so it doesn't appear on mirrors.

 * Why not have the common section appear on one of the two pages, wrapped with tags, and then the other page can simply transclude the first? Robert Ullmann 09:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Glossaries
Should this category be deleted or should it be added to the main glossaries (Appendix:Glossary and Glossary)? Rod (A. Smith) 04:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I think this is primarily a Transwiki placeholder. It should probably have  or something similar for categories.  --Connel MacKenzie 05:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Seems like a useful subclass of appendices. -- Visviva 04:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Seems like the handful that have been added should be moved to some other category. The overlap with transwikis is misleading.  --Connel MacKenzie 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:cite news
Totally incompatible with Quotations: orphan then delete. --Connel MacKenzie 05:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Would Template:cite newsgroup also come under this heading? Conrad.Irwin 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes. These also mess up date handling (we don't have entries for individual years, nor specific days of months.)  --Connel MacKenzie 17:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Footnote templates

 * moved from WT:RFD --Williamsayers79 09:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If footnotes are not used in Wiktionary, should these footnote templates be deleted? Since these are sets of paired templates they should probably be considered together. Jimp 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete or mark as deprecated so people don't "import" them from Wikipedia. --Connel MacKenzie 17:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Keep, nothing wrong with footnotes in appendices. -- Visviva 04:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Delete, for the times when we need references, we have <ref> there is no need here for the other variations that just muddy the waters. Conrad.Irwin 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:ref

 * Orphan and delete. --Connel MacKenzie 22:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:note
[ & ]

Sometimes articles are transwikied from Wikipedia with these templates (though they are being phased out over there). Should we keep them so as to make the transition smoother or delete them so as to draw attention to the need of clean-up? Of course, there is the problem that an editor unaware of the footnote policy (as I had been till recently) might recreate them to make the transwikied article work properly. Jimp 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Orphan and delete. --Connel MacKenzie 22:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:ref label

 * Orphan and delete. --Connel MacKenzie 22:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:note label
[ & ]

The same argument as the above applies here. Jimp 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Orphan and Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 18:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

=September 2007=

Category:Aleut expressions
This should be Category:ale:Phrasebook right? --Connel MacKenzie 08:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly. The phrseabooks are one area where the category naming convention hasn't been discussed and isn't standardized.  I could see either using the ISO code or using the language name for this situation. --EncycloPetey 19:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, Category:Aleut phrasebook. —Stephen 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

 * WT:POS says it is (language) phrasebook. (Not xx:Phrasebook) I don't recall any discussion, but that is what it says, and says it is policy ;-) Robert Ullmann 09:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

 * It should also be noted that the entries in the cat use the non-standard header "Expression", which probably should be "Phrase" Robert Ullmann 10:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Except that they often are not phrases at all. Phrases contain two or more words and therefore qilachxizax, although an expression, is not a phrase. And while words such as i-gai and nat-loun are often spelt with a hyphen, they are actually just one word and they hyphen is only there to separate phonemes (as in to-day, book-keeping, etc.). Before changing "expression" to something else, you always have to examine the term and its meaning at the very least. —Stephen 11:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Ah ha! Thank you, that is good information (don't know how I missed it earlier.)  But wouldn't "Phrase" be a better placeholder than "Expression," since, as you say, they are both wrong?  At least, for the cases (if there are any) where the part of speech isn't apparent, I'd rather we stick to a normal heading like "Phrase."  --Connel MacKenzie 09:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:KSchar
Probably good that this isn't used, would take some sorting. It might be Persian Arabic (would be ks-Arab) or Devanagari (Deva). Ask Hippietrail, who created it originally? Robert Ullmann 15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Moved to . --Dijan 03:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:KUchar
This is for Arabic script, but has a different set of font choices. Should find someone who knows why. (Usually it is just widely differing knowledge of fonts ;-) Is there a reason to have differing presentation for Arabic script? (see elephant for an example) Robert Ullmann 15:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

 * When I had gone through the script templates by language, I remember having read that some of the ones with Arabic script were written in a slighly different style. We may have to accommodate this with or the like.
 * Also, could we address the issue of language separately, such as "ja" currently used in ? DAVilla 15:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If the language has a difference, we should be using for example, this both fits our naming and matches the HTML/XHTML standard subtag name. Robert Ullmann 16:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that this was developed specifically for Kurdish. I do not know enought about the use of the Arabic script for that language to know whether it merits an independent template. --EncycloPetey 23:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, is for Kurdish. Kurdish uses a modified Arabic script that includes some letters not found in most ordinary Arabic fonts. There is also  for Pashto,  for Urdu,  for Persian, and  for Kashmiri. Additionally there needs to be  for Uyghur, but so far there are not enough of Uyghur entries to worry about. —Stephen 10:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Moved to . --Dijan 03:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:SDchar
Which is the correct substitution to make for each, or does it depend on what's being wrapped? Only the first has no entries. DAVilla 14:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Sindhi is either Arab or Deva; the cases I've looked at are all Arabic script, but that doesn't mean they all are. Robert Ullmann 15:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

 * is for Sindhi. Sindhi uses a modified Arabic script. —Stephen 10:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Moved to . --Dijan 03:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:trans-all-ori
... and and. They require substitution, so editors using them must perform a two step save. MediaWiki:Edittools already lets editors click to insert et al. To save mouse clicks, we could make MediaWiki:Edittools add all three trans- templates in a single click and perhaps add a "Headers" block to the edittools. Rod (A. Smith) 18:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

 * It doesn't have to require a two-step save; could take two unnamed arguments for the first and second columns. Don't see the need for more than one such template, though. -- Visviva 01:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Strong keep  and erase the deletion tag. It doesn´t have to require a two-step save. If you want, you can improve the documentation to say how. But delete is an error. And include the trans-all template in the Edittols--Mac 14:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

=October 2007=

Template:vulgar slang
[ Template:vulgarslang ]

Obvious error from the start; lack of immediate deletion has left it to be used erroneously. --Connel MacKenzie 20:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Note the above conversation. Not resolved without consensus: side issue of 'vulgar' tag was open, but the combined vulgarslang was an error to begin with, as was vulgar slang. --Connel MacKenzie 20:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Redirect to Template:vulgar, since all Category:Vulgarities is in Category:Slang. -- Visviva 04:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Good point. If we stick with "vulgar" as a label, there's no need to say "slang". Or if we want to also say "slang", we should do it on all pages marked vulgar, no? DAVilla 16:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The initial reason given for deletion was that it should be done in other ways. It's been resolved that we have the ability to add both "vulgar" and "slang" in this way. The question raised now is if that's the correct thing to do. DAVilla 16:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Beer parlour archive/October 06. DAVilla 16:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Might as well keep as a redirect. Or deprecate and delete. --Keene 11:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Wikisaurus-link
Deprecated; should be changed to normal "===See also===" linking style. --Connel MacKenzie 15:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would rather see this template continue. What makes it deprecated? --EncycloPetey 04:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this was proposed. Links to different Wiki projects need to be identified as such. "See also" sections usually only contain links within the same wiki. -- 77.100.119.107 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because this is not a different Wikiproject. It is an internal project within Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey 02:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep until the current Wikisaurus effort makes some determination about the utility of the template. DCDuring TALK 22:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:RP
Inclusions of this template should be replaced with per other accent templates. This standardises the format of all accent/pronunciation labels in pronunciation sections of artciles.--Williamsayers79 11:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Why not just replace the current content of this template with ?  -- Visviva 13:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 * That would an interim fix I belive but it will still need to be deprecated at some point.--Williamsayers79 14:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I think User:AutoFormat is slowly dealing with these. --Keene 11:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:R:Dictionary.com
Can anyone explain why it would be in our interest to have this? DAVilla 19:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't like it very much either, I use other sources instead. It could also imply copyvio I have found.--Williamsayers79 22:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Including the template on a page pretty clearly implies the opposite; that we are confident enough in our definitions that we can even (occasionally - where relevant) offer comparisons to other references. --Connel MacKenzie 03:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Dictionary.com is the enemy. They make money off of merely giving people definitions for words, something that we are struggling mightily to give away for free. bd2412 T 01:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I avoid them except to check for copyvios. I've many times found serious errors, so I don't consider citing them ever as an "authority". --EncycloPetey 01:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

 * This really only has any worth in making it easier to include Dictionary.com in Dictionary notes sections (I don’t think that the style would be very suitable for a reference). Even if Dictionary.com is unreliable, it is, unfortunately for us, still popularly relied upon nonetheless. The best way that we can end their on-line lexicographical reign is by showing very clearly that we both transcend and include their content. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That’s a vote to keep this template, in case that wasn’t clear. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Keep - we have plenty of other reference templates. --Jackofclubs 18:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Kept. There's dozens of others

=November 2007=

Appendix:IPA chart for English
This is an exact copy of a Wikipedia article. Any usefulness this article has for Wiktionary is already covered by English pronunciation key, making this Appendix redundant. Angr 18:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

 * We should have an appendix for English pronunciation (i.e. a resource for readers), not just a Wiktionary project page (i.e. a resource for just contributors). Should English pronunciation key be merged into Appendix:IPA chart for English?  Rod (A. Smith) 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Possibly, but there should be a simple stripped-down chart in the Wiktionary name space for editors who just need to quickly look up some standard. I use the English pronunciation key from time to time when I can't remember what SAMPA does for some particular IPA equivalent.  I don't want to have to look through a comprehensive Appendix for that information; I just need a short reference table.  That's how I see the different functions of the two pages.  The Appendix should assist users who may need little or much assistance interpreting English pronunciation, while the Wiktionary page should be a quick minimal reference for editors. --EncycloPetey 23:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating myself, this so-called "appendix" is an encyclopedia article. Those don't belong on Wiktionary in any namespace. Angr 21:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, Angr. Everything in Appendix:IPA chart for English seems inappropriate for a dictionary appendix.  Is there a particular part of it that doesn't seem relevant to lexicology?  Rod (A. Smith) 22:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, I disagree that Wiktionary should have an appendix on IPA that is more detailed than the existing English pronunciation key. Readers who want more detailed information can go to Wikipedia for it, and find this exact page as a Wikipedia article at IPA chart for English. In general, Wikimedia projects do not duplicate each other's content. Wikipedia doesn't host source material, Wikisource doesn't host dictionary definitions, and Wiktionary doesn't host encyclopedia articles (which is what this is), not even in Appendix: space. If, on the other hand, the IPA chart for English is considered an appropriate appendix for Wiktionary, then it must be deleted from Wikipedia, by the same token. And I am definitely opposed to its deletion from Wikipedia. Angr 14:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Nonsense. I suppose next you'll say that a Wikipedia article mustn't begin with a definition of its topic? Or that a Wiktionary entry mustn't include notable quotes that include a term? There will always be some overlap between the various projects, and it's nonsense to say — in italics, no less! — that something found in one must be deleted from all others. —Ruakh TALK 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia article can begin with a definition of its topic, but if the definition is all it includes, it will be transwikied here and then deleted there. This article doesn't include some minor portion of a Wikipedia article, it is an exact copy of a Wikipedia article. Where do you find entire pages present in identical form on two or more different projects? Angr 14:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Appendix:Place names/Gråbo
Is there a new way of dealing with places like this, and sneaking them in a subpage? Or just an editor trying out something new? --Keene 02:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a serious proposal to start adding all place names this way, but the conversation was so prolonged and diffuse, I'm still not sure what we decided. --EncycloPetey 07:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anything has been decided, but this did receive positive feedback when I proposed it on the BP. Therefore, I began employing it when archiving RFDs for placenames which did not meet CFI but were otherwise well-formed, useful entries.  IMO this is by far the best solution, but if there is a consensus against it I will happily desist. -- Visviva 06:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:ipacregion
This should be replaced by, right? Rod (A. Smith) 01:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's worse than that. Whoever used this template was using it to add synthesized Canadian pronunciations.  Look at biodiversity.  The results of these additions need cleanup, and a decision on whether we want to allow these hideous synthetic pronunciations to exist here at all. --EncycloPetey 13:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

category:American Sign Language
Per the discussion on Old Church Slavonic, above, this category should be moved to category:American Sign Language language. I'd do it myself, but the page, for some reason, didn't have a move button, so I guess it needs an admin.—msh210 ℠ 06:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the necessity for having "language" twice. Kappa 07:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't either; I'm just recommending the move because that seemed to be the decision in another similar case. See the discussion above.—msh210 ℠ 07:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I was thinking that the name of the language should be American Sign. We don't go around using Finnish language as a header or such. Then the category name is "American Sign language" (note the lc language), like all the other languages. Robert Ullmann 09:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

 * But the name of the language isn't "American Sign". No one calls it that. It's "American Sign Language". Per the discussion on Old Church Slavonic, the category should then be "American Sign Language language".—msh210 ℠ 07:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 * "American Sign Language language" sounds retarded. The "language" is already included, sign language being a kind of language. "American Sign Language" isn't exactly the name of the language. American + sign language. Just like French + Sign Language, Finnish + Sign Language, Russian + Sign Language, and all the rest of these — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 20:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree it sounds retarded; I'm trying only to conform the category to what seems to be the policy on these categories. But "American Sign Language" is the name of the language. (It's called that because it's an American sign language, certainly. But that doesn't change that it's the name of the language.) If it were merely the American sign language, not American Sign Language, then one could just as well (and perhaps even should) call it "the United States sign language" — but no one does. No, "American Sign Language" is its name.—msh210 ℠ 06:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"American Sign language" and "American Sign Language language" both look illiterate. (I've nothing against the illiterate, but I don't think that's the image we're going for.) If it's essential that all such category names end in "language", then I guess the non-ideal "American sign language" is our only option. —Ruakh TALK 22:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't know whether that's our only option (I hope not!), but I emphatically agree that it's non-ideal, for reasons outlined in my comment, above, stamped with same date and time as this one.—msh210 ℠ 06:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Both "American Sign Language language" and "Old Church Slavonic language" look illiterate to me. Most languages may be referred to either with or without the addition of "language"...however, some languages, such as American Sign Language (Language capitalized), always contain the word "language" (and it should not be repeated), while a few others (e.g., Old Church Slavonic) do not admit the word "language" at all. I note that Wikipedia agrees with this logic and most language articles are styled like Spanish language, Burmese language (because these words also refer to other things besides language, such as culture and food), but Old Church Slavonic and American Sign Language (because these terms only mean language and are not used for things like culture or food). —Stephen 20:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Looking at the way we have our categories named, it looks like Adjective + noun, the noun generally being "language". "Finnish language", Finnish acting as an adjective, describing the noun "language". Like I said above, "sign language" is the noun being modified by the adjective "American". "Old Church Slavonic language" does look strange to me, though. Oh well. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 22:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, gets plenty of straightforward Google hits, including in fairly reputable sources like the Britannica; and while Wikipedia does have Old Church Slavonic it also has Category:Old Church Slavonic language. (Granted,  also gets plenty of Google hits, but few if any are using it as a constituent.) —Ruakh TALK 22:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, there are some constructions that call for the word "language" to be included...e.g., as regards the Old Church Slavonic language. It would be illiterate to write that without the word "language". But as a simple title, Old Church Slavonic is the form that is used, and I can’t easily imagine anyone writing it with "language". —Stephen 01:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 * As mentioned above most languages can be referred to as "X language" because X is an adjective (pertaining to the culture of the X people) as well as a noun (the language spoken by the X people). However, in the case of "American Sign Language", X is only a noun and thus needs no further clarification. Not only would be grammatically clumsy, if not wrong, to juxtapose the two nouns in this way, it looks ugly too. The reason for adding "language" to the end is to make it clear that the category is not referring to other aspects of the culture - for example French stick is not in Category:French language but probably would be in Category:French. (I am not sure where Old Church Slavonic stands, it is certainly a harder case than this one, but I feel that it could be because this is the "Old Church version of Slavonic", or the "Old Church - Slavonic language".) Incidentally, it looks to me as though most of the small number of google hits for "American Sign Langauge language" (that have no punctuation between the two "language"s) are on CMSs that are programmed to add "language" every time they spin out a new page. Conrad.Irwin 01:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Keep - ....Language language looks silly. --Jackofclubs 16:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

=December 2007=

Transwiki:Military reserve
Changed tag from speedy. I think the proper noun referring to the semi-active military component should probably have an entry, but not sure where. It doesn't seem to be covered by reserve or reserves currently. --Connel MacKenzie 23:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Worth thinking about, but the explanation seems encyclopedic, depending on particular force concepts. This is an example of what I mean by "theory-laden" definitions. It seems like some kind of "official" definition, or a definition by a military theorist, rather than one that would be used in ordinary discourse, even among soldiers. It reminds me of the official definition of a second in terms of the vibrations of an isotope of cesium (or whatever it actually is). The ordinary language version is more like one sixtieth of a minute, which is one sixtieth of an hour, which is one twenty-fourth of a day, which is measured from noon to noon. Or actually more like: what my watch says is a second. I'll look at g.b.c. anyway. DCDuring
 * Also, see USAR, the initialism for the United States Army Reserve. The US nomenclature, I think, is the "Reserve Components", with consist of the "National Guard" and the "Military Reserve", but the actual entities are organizations connected with the service branches. DCDuring 01:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Wikipedia kept article. Old and dated import from year 2007, "theory laden" indeed. If we decide to define this word, it would be best to create a military reserve entry from scratch. Goldenrowley 22:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


text:
fisicoquímico

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) physicochemical

Noun

 * 1) physical chemist

title: fisicoquímico


text: fingerpad

title: fingerpad


text:
finger pad

Noun

 * 1) The fleshy underside of a human fingertip.

Translations

 * French:
 * German:, Fingerballen
 * Hungarian:
 * Italian:
 * Portuguese: polpa digital
 * Serbo-Croatian: jagodica prsta, jastučić prsta

title: finger pad


text: fisicoquímicos

title: fisicoquímicos


text:
User talk:Willy agrimano~enwiktionary

for a project
I don't understand your edit to my "for a project" section on the translation requests page. Can you specify what language it is? 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was in Tagalog. There isn't exactly a term "recycling," so the closest thing is a description. Magtipid is to be frugal, muling gamitin is to reuse, and at sinopin ukol sa iba pang gamit nito: find other uses for this object.
 * Sorry for butting in here; the user hasn't responded (oh where oh where are you?), and I felt the post should be clarified, which I hope has been. I had also only found out about this now. --Icqgirl 11:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

sinopin ukol sa iba pang gamit is " save for other or future use" Willy agrimano 08:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WT:ELE
Please follow the WT:ELE when creating new entries. Or, you may choose to copy the format of an existing entry. But please, use the right formatting! You may reenter those entries that I deleted if you do so. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

matapobre
Hi Pinoy. :) Nakikita ko po dati ang mga post n'yo. Mabuti po't nabalik kayo!

Sa matapobre po. Dalawa po kasing pinagsamang salita ito kaya hindi ko pa po dito isinama ang etymology ng pobre na Espanyol. (Isusulat na galing ito sa Espanyol sa entry na pobre mismo.) Kill po ba ang ibig sabihin ng mata? Binalik ko na lang po sa dati hanggang sa makita po natin ang salitang ito sa isang diksyunaryo. Buti naisip n'yo po ang mapagmataas. Isinama ko na lang po ito sa Synonyms dahil mas focus po ng ehemplong pangungusap ang entry nito.

Wala pa po kasi tayong pinatibayang rules para sa mga Tagalog na entry. Hehehe. Dapat nga'y gawin na natin ito.

Salamat po sa inyo! May isa pang Pinoy na makikilagay ng mga Tagalog na salita dito. Balitaan na lang po ulit. --Icqgirl 05:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Willy agrimano. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Willy agrimano~enwiktionary that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Willy agrimano~enwiktionary


text: fisicoquímicas

title: fisicoquímicas


text: fingerpads

title: fingerpads


text:
comercialmente

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1) commercially

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1) commercially

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1) commercially

title: comercialmente


text:
garnys

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) heron, egret

title: garnys