text:
Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2010-10/Disallowing certain appendices

My possible vote
According to how I understood the proposals, strictly as they are worded now (current revision), I would vote for "Some solution between those two extremes, or some other solution", because the page contains multiple languages and translations: it is not a list or table of terms and information about those terms; and a separate page for each entry is very unclear. --Daniel. 18:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearer now? —msh210℠ (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The new text "either one page per language for each entry, or one page all together with sections for different languages" is effectively comprised of two distinct proposals. For what is worth, the alternative "with a list or table of terms and information about those terms" displays a third and a fourth proposals. I believe this vote could be improved by (1) either making these four ideas de facto distinct proposals by adding them as votable options, (2) or creating relevant discussions, to see if anyone is interested in any of these four formats. --Daniel. 18:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO the two, and the other two, are respectively similar enough that they can be lumped together, and most people will not mind voting for them as such (instead of of voting for "other"). Splitting it into four will make it much harder to gain consensus. —msh210℠ (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The vote, as it is written now, is very immature. Please accept my analysis as a means to improve it. This vote is supposed to decide how to format, or not format, a group of pages. However, it lacks comparisons between the various formats, either as examples (from scratch or from already created pages) or as explanations of benefits. A voter currently has to rely on his or her imagination to properly express a decision. If either the first or the second options succeeds in being implemented, even then the risk of the results being far from one's assumption is high. The objective of formalizing criteria for formatting these pages cannot be fulfilled by this vote alone, that is likely to give birth to additional, redundant, votes. If, specifically, the idea is rejecting the alternative option (e.g., a person who happens to be very interested in avoiding lists or tables; or in avoiding one page per language, or "sections for different languages"), the premise is the same because the person will have to imagine what would be the results of the other option. In addition, there are multiple relevant issues not properly addressed by this vote, such as how to readably connect between words and their citations, and what to do with artistic languages that often are developed for fictional universes. The third option "Some solution between those two extremes, or some other solution", not only serves better the purpose of further discussing these subjects, but also does what the other options do: in essence, oppose each other without offering an objective solution to a recognizable problem. --Daniel. 05:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do others agree with Daniel? —msh210℠ (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no need to create four options; having two disjunctive options (such that the option allows for a disjuction of conditions) is fine. Having four options would mean that another vote would need to be run that would confirm the winner of this vote. Also, the split entailed in the proposed two options focuses on the major distinction that was a point of contention: one page per universe vs one subpage per term as if the term were in the mainspace, regardless of the details of how the single page per universe would be formatted. --Dan Polansky 16:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Appendix:Snowclones
Would this vote also apply to Appendix:Snowclones, or just the fictional-universe ones? — lexicógrafo | háblame — 19:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

 * The vote itself would apply only to fictional-universe appendices, though IMHO it's pretty natural that we would start taking the same approach for other, similar appendices. —Ruakh TALK 20:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

 * It seems, based on comments elsewhere, that my comment here may have been misinterpreted, so to clarify: I meant only that if we establish a certain format for fictional-universe appendices, it's likely IMHO that we'll end up repurposing that format for other appendices considered similar. —Ruakh TALK 20:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And the mainspace?
It seems that the proposal implies that words from fictional universes should not be included in the mainspace, but it's not explicit. It should be explicit. I personally think that all words should be included in the mainspace.

Note that Odysseus is in the mainspace. The proposal seems to apply to modern fictional universes only (e.g. it seems to exclude the Iliad and the Odyssey, etc.). Or am I wrong? This point should be made explicit.

It's quite normal that words relating to a universe are always, or almost always, used in reference to this universe, just like words such as diphycercal are always used in the context of ichthyology. Why looking for occurences of Parseltongue not related to Harry Potter?

Actually, the only real issue is When does a word coined for a fictional universe become part of the language? I think that the answer is: when it becomes part of the culture of the language, i.e. when most (or a significant percent) of adults (or children) using this language know it. A word from Alice in Wonderland known by most people should be considered as part of the language, despite the fact that it comes from a fictional universe. This would make much more sense that the current policy, leading to exclude most words from fictional universes, even when they are well known, and to accept words such as contransmagnificandjewbangtantiality... Lmaltier 20:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

 * That's not explicit in this proposal because it's already explicit in existing policy; see Criteria for inclusion. —Ruakh TALK 20:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, it's much clearer than I felt. Actually, my comments apply to the current policy, not to the proposal. But improving the policy first might make this proposal meaningless. Lmaltier 05:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, Lmaltier: The placement of, for instance, Little Red Riding Hood in the main namespace goes against the policy but according to common practice. (the vote simply takes text from the policy) However, apparently, the vote "Disallowing certain appendices" is about formatting pages, not about choosing their criteria for inclusion. --Daniel. 19:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Does somebody dsagree with my comments above? Don't you think that changing current rules about these words would save much time by making this proposal useless? Lmaltier 06:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It might take more time than this proposal will. IMO, until it's done, let's do this one. —msh210℠ (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notably, other Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, Wikiquote and Wikibooks, apparently always place information from fictional universes in their main namespaces. However, Wiktionary has different needs and practices:
 * I agree with your (Lmaltier's) proposal of placing fictional works in the main namespace when it becomes "part of the culture". That is why Parseltongue should be outside the main namespace if it is used only in Harry Potter, in news about Harry Potter and more context of Harry Potter. That is, it is not "part of the culture" as I understood it, because it is part of a single work!
 * On the other hand, if, hypothetically, Parseltongue is "the language of snakes" without context of Harry Potter, then it has became part of the language, coined but not limited from that work, and merits to be defined in the entry namespace. --Daniel. 19:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you think that Harry Potter, and some of the words created in this work, belong to the current culture of many (or most) English-speaking people (and other people as well), even if they are used only in this work? I think that such words belong to the mainspace. And, clearly (but some disagree), words created by an obscure writer in an obscure work, and not used elsewhere, should not be included, because they cannot be considered as belonging to the vocabulary of the language. The objective of CFI should be to define the precise limit, without violating the principle all words of all languages. Lmaltier 17:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to transform into an objective policy the proposal of placing "Parseltongue" in the main namespace, but not providing the same privilege to obscure works, based on whether or not they "belong to the current culture". Should every spell of Harry Potter be in the main namespace? If not, which spells should? On the other hand, by having Appendix:Harry Potter/Killing Curse, Appendix:Harry Potter spells and Appendix:Harry Potter, you can find definitions for all unique words from Harry Potter together. --Daniel. 18:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I find that this attitude is discriminatory against recent works. There is no reason to accept Odysseus (also a word from a fictional universe) and not words known by as many (or more) persons. Fixing a limit is difficult but, if it is too difficult, I would prefer to accept all words from Harry Potter than to refuse all of them. After all, words from well-known works are accepted, and Harry potter is, very clearly, a well-known work. Lmaltier 19:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not remember expressing a personal opinion that is discriminatory against recent works. For what is worth, I expect the definition "son of Laertes; wisest Greek leader during the Trojan War, and resposible for the Trojan horse; king of Ithaca; hero of the Iliad and protagonist of the Odyssey" of Odysseus to be removed from the main namespace too.
 * As for your proposal of including all (or many) fictional terms based them being "part of the culture", Appendix:Marvel Comics/mutant clearly attests a few definitions by including independent citations. Would independent citations like these be enough for any word to be defined in the main namespace? --Daniel. 20:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume that most people accept words from the Antiquity universe, but feel uneasy when it comes to recent works. Words such as centaur, siren, elf, merman or unicorn might also be considered as belonging to fictional universes, and nobody would like to exclude them if citations not referring to this universe are not found. Whatever a words means and wherever it comes from, it should be included if it can be considered as a word of the language. This is the basic rule here. Unfortunately, many other rules contradict this basic rule. Lmaltier 06:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your examples "centaur", "siren", "elf", "merman" or "unicorn" all belong to more than three works that are (1) by different authors and (2) that do not comment or reference each other. Thus, they currently belong to our main namespace. --Daniel. 09:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Greek word for "siren" was mentioned first by Homer. We might argue that all other uses are in reference to Homer. I think nobody would want to remove it nonetheless, as it is a word used in the language. Lmaltier 15:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If possible, I prefer not to mix the concepts of coinage and reference, for the purposes of CFI. Sirens appear in various works that do not reference Homer directly, even if the word was coined by him. --Daniel. 16:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you understand my point? The reason for including a word is not that it has been used by three authors or anything of the kind. The reason is that it is a word used in the language (see beginning of CFI). Attestation criteria are useful only when this fact is not obvious enough. Lmaltier 07:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please correct me if I am wrong, but your main points are: (1) it is unfair to promote words from ancient fiction by keeping them in the mainspace while leaving modern works such as Harry Potter in appendices; and, (2) fictional words belong to the language, so they merit to be in the main namespace, even if they only exist within the limited context of a fictional universe, like how there are words limited to scientific subjects and naturally kept in the main namespace. --Daniel. 09:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Except that some fictional words never enter the language at all, are used only in one obscure book of an obscure writer (an extreme example is a surname coined by the writer in this book), and should not be included, in my opinion, although some promote this inclusion, which is a very respectable opinion. Lmaltier 22:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. Now you know that I know your points. In my personal view, the idea of placing fictional words in the main namespace is not entirely devoid of merit, but I have two objections: fictional words are distracting and are many.
 * In the first place, attestation criteria are useful even for obvious words; the difference is that obvious words are much more easily attested. For example, the word "of" certainly meets the subjective criterion of being obviously part of the [English] language, but it displays multiple definitions (and additional linguistic information) that would benefit from at least three citations each, as described by CFI.
 * Furthermore, for a fictional word, there is a fictional context. That is, for example, characters of Pokémon know something called "Potion" (defined as "a medicine to cure Pokémon"); nonetheless, real people also know Potions from the anime and video games, and possibly write about them. That definition of the word "Potion" may be naturally found through books, web sites and other media, in the form of, at least: (1) technical information about how Potions work in games; (2) fictional characters that happen to own a Potion, talking about it; (3) commentaries, reviews and criticism about Potions as plot devices.
 * If these media serve as attestation for the main namespace, then "Potion" would appear at the entry Potion. However, there are at least six definitions for that word from Pokémon, as you can see at the current Appendix:Pokémon/Potion. These definitions are accompanied by an etymology, related terms and translations (not to mention citations for each definition), which expand the height of any entry; in this case, they are prone to unexpectedly distract people who are searching for generic definitions of "Potion" but may not be interested in Pokémon.
 * Actually, the word "Potion" with a capital P apparently would be a brand new entry, without sharing a page with any other word; however, other words, such as "mutant", "electricity" and "World War III" are likely to appear differently in various contexts, particularly fictional ones. The entry World War III looks good, being defined as "A hypothetical world war following World War II." It does not need one definition for each fictional work that depicts it.
 * In my opinion, as a related example, "zombie" may be in the main namespace, regardless of it being fictional, but because it is generic; that is, it has a common definition (roughly "rotten, slow, unintelligent and undead person") that appears in multiple works that don't refer to each other. That entry may even define and attest generic varieties of zombies (like "magically reanimated corpse", "corpse reanimated by a virus or infection" and "dead person who ressurected into his rotten body to fulfill an obsession"). However, there are multiple works that include zombies in different manners. If, by chance, we want an appendix for the Resident Evil series, then we might define "zombie" for it, and link that word to "T-Virus", "serum" and "hyper zombie", that are relevant to the creature in that specific fictional context. By extension, we may want appendices for Marvel Comics, One Piece, Buffy, Doom, The Sims, Final Fantasy, Harry Potter, GURPS, Fallout and World of Warcraft, to define zombies in their contexts too.
 * It is preferable to have dozens of appendices with definitions for zombies (either as parts of lists or as individual pages), than having one entry zombie that elaborates how they appear at each context.
 * In short, my concern is for legibility. In my opinion, the main namespace can continue to be a place for generic definitions (that is, the ones that appear in multiple works) while the appendices [or a separate namespace] can hold the individual definitions (that is, the ones that appear in only one work, in addition to works that mention it). --Daniel. 01:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Options
The options are currently named such:
 * One page per appendix, split as needed
 * One page per term

I think the following is what is meant and is more specific and clearer, to me anyway:
 * One appendix page for a whole set of terms, with no subpages, such as "Appendix:Star Wars"
 * One appendix subpage per term, such as "Appendix:Star Wars/protocol droid"

--Dan Polansky 07:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I realized that the text of the option merely refers to what it already says in the longer text above the option. Then I would like to see the text for each option repeated just below each option heading.

If short option headings are preferred, this would also IMHO be clearer: --Dan Polansky 08:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One appendix page per a set of terms
 * One appendix subpage per term

 * Would the page Muggle be further splitted into five pages according to your option of "One appendix subpage per term"? --Daniel. 09:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The option "One appendix subpage per term" does not specify whether Appendix:Harry Potter/Muggle should be further split. Feel free to propose, here on the talk page, option headings that you find least ambiguous. In any case, it would be hard to fit all the clauses and details into option headings, so each option heading should better be followed with a fuller statement of what the option entails. In any case, I leave it to msh210 to decide which of my proposals to accept and work into the page of the vote. --Dan Polansky 11:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll make a change to the vote page now, but this is a wiki and anyone could do the same. —msh210℠ (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right; I could edit the vote myself. But I often prefer to leave it to the author of the vote to edit the vote, although sometimes I violate this personal policy. I like seeing the author of the vote as the owner of the document, and myself as a feedback provider. I have used this method with the second vote on geographic names, and it worked well. Leaving it to the author of the vote to make the change makes it easier for the author to reject a proposal; it is psychologically a bit harder to revert an edit than to avoid including a proposal. It seems to contribute to the stability of a text when some people are the owners and other people mere proposers. --Dan Polansky 16:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. What do you think of the current version? —msh210℠ (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The current version is definitely an improvement ("One page per universe, split as needed, as described above", "One page per term, as described above"). Nevertheless, I would like to see the full texts of the options below the option headings, to help my poor eye scanning skills, or to help my short-term memory, or ... I don't really know; I would prefer to vote directly below the full text with which I agree by giving the vote. --Dan Polansky 17:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made a proposal in this revision. I have forgotten to remove the part "as described above" from the headings. --Dan Polansky 17:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good AFAI'm concerned. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The first option is what the current allowment "appendices of words from that universe" means to me. DAVilla 09:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

First option, its but-clause
The first option reads:
 * "An appendix for such terms (terms originating in fictional universes which have three citations in separate works, but which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe) shall be one page per universe (or more if needed to split long lists into parts of lists), with a list or table of terms and information about those terms, but not a separate entry-like structure for each term."

I am not sure I understand how the last part, the one starting with "but not", is grammatically joined to the previous parts.

Does the but-clause ("but not a separate entry-like structure for each term") mean that the single page per universe should have no L2-heading "English" and no L3-heading "Noun"?

Could the but-clause be phrased as "but without a separate mainspace-entry-like heading structure for each term"?

Or what about this: "; no term on the pages per universe shall have a mainspace-entry-like heading structure such as a heading named 'English' with a subheading named 'Pronunciation' and another subheading named 'Noun'." --Dan Polansky 19:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm dense, but all your possible interpretations of the clause seem to mean the same thing to me. Can you clarify, please? —msh210℠ (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Okay, so your answer to my first question is yes, that is what it is intended to mean. It took me some time to realize that this is the intented meaning; I have succeeded only after I have recalled some of the formatting placed by Daniel Dot to the appendices, formatting in which one page contained many terms, each term formatted as if it were in the mainspace. It could be me who is dense; I am in any case a non-native English speaker.
 * Grammatically, I do not quite understand this: "An appendix for such terms ... shall be one page per universe (...), with a list or table of terms and information about those terms, but not a separate entry-like structure for each term." It seems like you are saying that "An appendix for such terms shall be ... not a separate entry-like structure for each term"; an appendix is not a structure; it has a structure. Maybe it would help if you would parse the sentence for me.
 * You seem to automatically read "entry" as "mainspace entry", but I do not, hence my proposed "mainspace-entry-like" rather than "entry-like".
 * The last proposal that I have made seems clearest to me. If all the proposals are equally clear to you, going with my last proposal could be preferable, as it does not harm your understanding but it helps my understanding. I mean this proposal: "; no term on the pages per universe shall have a mainspace-entry-like heading structure such as a heading named 'English' with a subheading named 'Pronunciation' and another subheading named 'Noun'." --Dan Polansky 07:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "But" goes back on "with": An appendix shall be one page with {a list or table but not an entry structure}. I'll make some changes; you or another can make further changes. —msh210℠ (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How to organize the lists
Here is one revision of Appendix:Na'vi, comprised of a list that includes multiple definitions per word, translations, pronunciations, parts of speech, context labels, glosses, anchors, alternative spellings, inflections, external links and references. Does anyone support that amount of information? Also, does anyone support how that [revision of] that page is formatted? --Daniel. 05:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do (to answer both your questions at once), for the most part. —msh210℠ (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Where to place the citations
The page Appendix:Marvel Comics/mutant currently contains three attested definitions. Does anyone support how their citations are placed and organized below them? --Daniel. 16:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Iff the second option in this vote passes. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The first option does not say anything about where citations should or shouldn't be placed; it only specifically requires the citations. Am I missing something? --Daniel. 19:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We put citations for foo at [ [citations:foo]], whether or not we have a mainspace entry for (indeed, whether or not we have any page on) foo. —msh210℠ (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the page Citations:mutant should contain the citations for all the meanings of "mutant", including the current:
 * Something which has mutated, which has one or more new characteristics from a mutation.
 * (informal) Someone or something that seems strange, abnormal, or bizarre.
 * Something which has undergone mutation.
 * (informal) Strange, abnormal, or bizarre.
 * (Marvel Comics, of a being) Born with the fictional X-gene, which causes superpowers and characterizes a subspecies or a separate species, such as the Homo sapiens superior of mutant humans.
 * (Marvel Comics) Of mutant people or creatures.
 * (Marvel Comics) A mutant person or creature.
 * However, the additional pages mutant and Appendix:Marvel Comics/mutant have the benefit of placing and organizing only the relevant citations, below the applicable definitions. I don't think that everyone would always want to see all the citations of "mutant", without the chance to select and promote the ones that clearly demonstrate usage of a word. --Daniel. 10:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The current system uses both options
Here are two relevant facts:

 * Appendix:Farscape is a list of words and glosses from the Australian series Farscape, organized by uses such as "units of time" or "vulgarities". This list, in turn, links to individual pages like Appendix:Farscape/solar day and Appendix:Farscape/control collar where etymologies, citations, links to sister projects and additional information may be shown.
 * Appendix:Harry Potter is a list of terms from the "Harry Potter" franchise that, as a source of hundreds of words, has been further subdivided into multiple pages, including Appendix:Harry Potter spells and Appendix:Harry Potter objects. All these subdivisions contain lists of words and glosses, but also link to individual pages like Appendix:Harry Potter/Killing Curse and Appendix:Harry Potter/Unforgivable Curse, for the same reasons.

The vote "Votes/pl-2010-10/Disallowing certain appendices" currently provides and elaborates four options: "One page per universe, split as needed", "One page per term", "Some solution between those two extremes, or some other solution" and " Abstain". The two first ones seem to be directly opposing each other. The message apparently is: either you want a list or you want individual pages (or you want something else, or you abstain).

I personally feel that both the list and the individual pages are desirable and necessary; as an additional example, there is Appendix:J. R. R. Tolkien for words coined by him, in addition to individual pages further detailing them. To make a list without entries, one conceivably has to cram all the information into little spaces that are distracting and reduce visual scannability; otherwise, there is the alternative of virtually not showing anything besides words and their definitions. In addition, a list without individual pages would result in deprecating or drastically reducing the usefulness of connection between words, such as the category Fictional alcoholic beverages, that presents fictional alcoholic beverages from various works. Entries without a list also would lack this valuable resource of findability: I believe there is no reason to place the words from a single universe separately, without that fundamental way to link them to each other.

The third option is currently the closest to my opinion and arguments. I would appreciate to know any reason to vote only for the first, or the second options. Otherwise, perhaps voters should be formally allowed to choose both options simultaneously. --Daniel. 13:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Voting mechanism
The voting mechanism should explicitly be stated in the vote, IMHO. One voting mechanism is the following one, from Votes/pl-2010-06/Number vs. numeral:
 * "Voting mechanism: Approval voting, with the caveat that an option must have a supermajority (something like 70% or 66% of voters, though as usual this is left to the closer's discretion). Each voter can support both options, or support exactly one option (implicitly opposing the other), or oppose both options. Abstentions, as usual, do not count in either direction."

I do not know whether this is the intended voting mechanism for this multi-option vote. This is addressed above all to msh210, whom I deem the owner or responsible person for the vote. --Dan Polansky 15:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "Approval voting, with the caveat that an option must have a supermajority (something like 70% or 66% of voters, though as usual this is left to the closer's discretion). Each voter can support any (one, two, or all) of the three options. Abstentions, as usual, do not count in either direction."? (I've just moved the vote back a few days to allow for discussion of this IMO important issue.) —msh210℠ (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, when I think about it, the three options seem to be formulated as exclusive ones. If they are not meant to be exclusive, then it could be better to have only two options, with the third option replaced with "Oppose both", on the model of Votes/pl-2010-06/Number vs. numeral.
 * Another twist would be to go for a very simple vote design, with only the option one that creates a constraint on the formatting, and makes it very clear that it excludes the option two; that would be it. That could be formulated like this:
 * "An appendix for such terms (terms originating in fictional universes which have three citations in separate works, but which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe) shall be one page per universe (or more if needed to split long lists into parts of lists), with a list or table of terms and information about those terms; no term on such a page shall have a mainspace-entry-like structure; no entry of such an appendix or a set of appendices shall have a separate subpage dedicated to the entry, especially a subpage that mimics a mainspace entry."
 * --Dan Polansky 16:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now added my own wording, just above. Tweak prn. —msh210℠ (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added this: "; each option that does not get a vote from the voter is considered opposed by him", which corresponds to Ruakh's "(implicitly opposing the other)" in the previous formulation. Feel absolutely free to rewrite it, remove it, or whatever; it is your vote, and your ultimate responsibility for its wording and design; or so my stance anyway. --Dan Polansky 18:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

 * One more note: you seem to take it for grated that the reader has a clear idea of "approval voting". But the vote does not define what "approval voting" means; the mechanism of standard "approval voting" is not described anywhere in Wiktionary. It is only described in Wikipedia, but Wikipedia's approval voting is inapplicable, as, per WP, "The winner is the candidate receiving the most votes", and there are no opposing votes, only approving ones. Thus, it is by no means clear that "Each option that does not get a vote from the voter is counted as opposed by him"; the quoted statement does not follow automatically from Wikipedia's definition of approval voting. Instead of relying on the term "approval voting" doing the job of explaining the mechanism, it would be better for the vote to do the explaining explicitly. The vote does a fair job of explaining right now, just that part of that explaining is now in brackets, which seems wrong: the text in brackets is not parethetical but rather crucial. --Dan Polansky 19:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, I've changed the wording (without changing anything substantive). Good now? —msh210℠ (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks fairly good now in that it explains the voting mechanism instead of relying on the term "approval voting". But there is one thing that was better about the previous version: the latest version says nothing about implicit opposition. It seems that the note about implicit opposition disturbs you as self-evident. I admit that it is almost self-evident, but I like stating things that are almost self-evident. If you dislike the note about implicit opposition, let it be.
 * Why the brackets around "(Signing under "Abstain" is the same as not voting at all.)"? Either it should be said, then just say it without brackets, or it is merely marginal, then don't say it at all; that's what Strunk and White tought me, and I like the principle. But if you are so fond of brackets, they can stay; the reader can just ignore them. I find them annoying, but maybe it is just me. I know that 'Signing under "Abstain" is the same as not voting at all' is self-evident, which is maybe why you put it into brackets, but there was at least one prolific Wiktionary editor who denied this self-evident principle in the past, so it is better stated.
 * All that said, the current statement of the voting mechanism is probably going to be sufficient if the vote gets started with it. You must be already pretty tired of all the feedback that I am providing. --Dan Polansky 17:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback, but will not further modify the wording. The parentheses are an issue of style rather than of comprehensibility, and this is not a text I particularly wish to have written in publishable format. As to implicit opposition, I think that that is clear, but, again, if you like, please add it back in (and/or make other changes). —msh210℠ (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

religious fiction
Is it covered too? Like: and so on, for thousands of religious narratives that men have invented over the course of history? --Ivan Štambuk 12:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Xenu → Appendix:Scientology/Xenu
 * chakra → Appendix:Hinduism/chakra
 * Jannat → Appendix:Islam/Jannat
 * Antichrist → Appendix:Christianity/Antichrist

 * No. Neutral point of view. Equinox ◑ 15:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 * What does NPOV have to do with it? --Ivan Štambuk 22:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 * We aren't supposed to take a pro- or anti-religious stance. Equinox ◑ 23:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 * But by including such words of what are today perceived as of religious origin while excluding other "fictional universe" words we are taking a pro-religion anti-other stance. Some of these FUes have already created their own religious movements (Jediism, Matrixism etc.): does it mean that these words are suddenly eligible to be included in the main namespace? Many examples could be found where no clear line could be drawn between what constitutes a personal, subjective religious system, and fiction. --Ivan Štambuk 23:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, Christian/Jewish/Islamic mythology have been widely mentioned outside of their religious works, and have had an enormous effect on society and literature. The Jedi/Matrix religion stuff is generally only mentioned by a small community of nerds trying to propagate their new made-up religion. Equinox ◑ 00:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 * So have Harry Potter, Pokemon, Star Wars, Star Trek, LOTR, Avatar etc. They have audiences of hundreds of millions, and words from those FUes are known to more people than >90% of all English words that we do include in the main namespace. Historical effect on society/literature is irrelevant, but now that you mention it, in terms of cultural significance these FUs have been dominating the stage for the last few decades. They are vigorous and have endless supply of new contenders eager to grab their slice of book/movie/computer game sales, while religions are based on a fixed corpus with an ever-diminishing influence on society in general. If anything, we should cater to modern customs, embracing these FU words and enabling users to e.g. look up such words as they learn them through games/books/holonovels etc. I bet that much more ESL learners read Harry Potter or LOTR in the original English, as opposed to the Bible, Quran and Vedas. --Ivan Štambuk 00:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Traditionally, dictionaries are more willing to include material with thousands of years of history than material from modern (and mostly throwaway) pop culture that has only been widely known for five or ten years, however many fans it has. Personally, I'd like to uphold that. I'm sure the tide of Twittershit will overwhelm us all soon enough, though. Equinox ◑ 22:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

 * No. "Fictional universes" does not include mistaken beliefs about this universe. —Ruakh TALK 23:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Religion narratives are hardly "mistaken beliefs" anymore. All of them have been debunked by modern science and proven to be man-written fantasy, usually created by some form of priestly caste eager to perpetuate the ruling regime by specifically targeted propaganda establishing the "laws of universe", with king at the top and obedient workers at the bottom.
 * For example, most of the modern religions (those that still have followers) have some form of a creation myth that we know today is as at odds with modern cosmology. We know 100% that these are wrong. Just because that there are billions of humans still believing (out of ignorance, indoctrination, stupidity or whatever) that these are true, does not make them true. They are fiction, pure and simple. They don't have absolutely nothing to do with reality whatsoever. The primacy of truth lies in the hands of science, not feelings of whether something is true or false.
 * Whichever way you put it, it boils down to the same thing: these fictional universes involving imaginary beings and objects were created as a result of somebody's imagination. The only thing that should matter is the extant to which these are used, in terms of authors' diversity, not their etymology, i.e. whether they were coined in the 21st century by J.K.Rowling, or Bronze-age tribesmen from the ME, should not play a factor at all. --Ivan Štambuk 23:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Ugh. I knew I should have just kept removing this section. ;-)
 * Most of your statements are not relevant, and I believe that you are including them simply because you desire to offend. For example:
 * Just because that there are billions of humans still believing (out of ignorance, indoctrination, stupidity or whatever) that these are true, does not make them true.
 * No one is claiming otherwise. Belief does not create truth. (And you're too smart, when you want to be, to pretend now that you think anyone is claiming that.) However, there is a difference between something mistaken — no matter how debunked you think it is — and something fictional. As I mentioned in the previous discussion, plenty of past scientific theories have now been debunked, but that doesn't mean the word originated in a fictional universe.
 * —Ruakh TALK 00:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if "billions of people" believe in something, the job of Wiktionary is to document the words arising from these beliefs, not to change the minds of these people. --Daniel. 00:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Look Ruakh, I'm not "trolling" or seeking to offend anyone. If stating a scientifically corroborated fact infuriates some people, that's their problem not mine. Religious methods of indoctrination from a young age are well documented in the literature, as is the predilection of low-IQ peoples (not necessary by birth, but also by deliberately dumbifying education/upbringing) to embrace certain simple beliefs giving some kind of "purpose" to their particular arrangement of DNA strings. And the evolutionary disposition to develop such predilection, in order to optimize societal arrangement of workforce has also been documented. With that in mind, there is really no justification to treat such beliefs as anything other than personally imagined fictional universes. You can play dumb and split semantic hairs however you like but their is really no difference between personally imagined fictional universe that you believe is true, and personally imagined fictional universe that you know it false. Especially when in the case of former the religious followers usually think that believing is knowing. From the perspective of the latter both of them are fiction by knowing. According to the criteria of as close as we can get to the Ultimate Observer, i.e. objective science, religious fiction is no different than non-religious fiction.
 * Your example with ether is a bit misleading. Religious fiction was largely not created to describe the real universe. These are not "outdated theories". These are stories made up with a specific agenda in mind - e.g. to give some ruling caste justification to subjugate the populace in terms of cosmic karma, to legitimize genocides and whitewash the conscience of those slaughtering infidels, to increase population because "strength is in numbers" (more like: tax/tithe money) etc. Science discards terms which refer to concepts proven to not exist, religion does not. Religious fiction is immutable and fixed, and not subject to scrutiny and possible rectification. Because of that, it's no different to any other fictional universe: what it describes simply does not exist. --Ivan Štambuk 00:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruakh would you please stop censoring this section. This is an important issue that needs to be addressed. It's pointless to have a vote on how to format "fictional universe words" when there is no clear definition of what such words are. This is an example of linguistic purism: some words are discriminated upon simply due to their etymology, while at the same time there is this giant elephant in the room called religion that nobody wants to talk about. --Ivan Štambuk 23:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I will stop removing this section if you will try to avoid inflammatory language. You believe that all religions are fiction, fine, but we have a number of active editors who do believe in various religions (especially, but probably not exclusively, Christianity and Judaism). You can raise the point that religious beliefs may be false without declaring flatly that they are all "narratives that men have invented over the course of history". Past experience suggests that you revel in such inflammatory language; for example, in a previous discussion, when I mentioned a difference between "false religions" and "fiction", you replied with irrelevant bile to the effect that all religions are false. (Note that my comment had not presumed otherwise. You were just trolling.) But if you will try to act in good faith, I will try to assume it. —Ruakh TALK 23:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I get a lot of "hate" for playing the devil's advocate, but somebody has to do it too. Mostly the interlocutors subscribing to a belief system inconsistent with expounded facts demonstrate some form of personally targeted rage, accusing me to deliberately trying to "attack" whatever the form of belief or collective identity they associate themselves with (by being one of "them"), or in your case - accusing me of trolling and enjoying it for trolling's sake. I find it most fascinating that still in the year 2010, despite vast amounts of knowledge freely available on Internet, that there are so many people still believing in ancient myths. Of course it's not up to me to judge that - but why shouldn't those acts of belief be scrutinized for what they are? There are many scientists supporting strange and bizarre theories that are not supported by evidence, and they get lots of hate too. I assure you that my motives of raising these issues are in the best interest of Wiktionary: specifically by providing evidence that since it's impossible to draw a distinction between the two forms fictional universes in question, because the difference only exists if one is a religious follower in the first place, that those appendicized terms should be moved in the main namespace, and that this vote has no purpose at all. As you've already noted here in the edit summary: I'd vote mu were it given as an option. --Ivan Štambuk 01:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 * By the way, we're not quite talking about discriminating against words "due to their etymology": we explicitly allow mainspace treatment for words originating in fictional universes, as long as they've made their way out of those universes. —Ruakh TALK 23:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But the etymology (origin) of a word is what defines it to be relating to an object in a fictional universe or not. There is no paradise, Xenu, Chakra or Antichrist in this universe. These words/words relating to those concepts were coined in a creative act of imagination by some historical person. More precisely: there is no evidence of them ever existing. For all the practical purposes they are all as fictional as lightsabres, wizards, teleporters and mutants. We appear to allow one set of words relating to imaginary objects, places and people, but disallow another set of words relating to equally non-existing objects, places and people. That looks pretty discriminatory to me. --Ivan Štambuk 00:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 * "Nobody wants to talk about [religion]" is not a technically true statement. In the discussion Beer parlour archive/2010/September, this subject has been addressed and commented by multiple people.
 * Religion does not fit well a strict distinction between fiction and reality, because there are believers and nonbelievers. Otherwise, they would be akin to other contexts. If Hinduism is reality, then "chakra" is biology. If the Bible is reality, then "Flood" is history. If Scientology is reality, then Xenu is... a political position, I guess.
 * From a more abrangent point of view, as apparently suggested in the discussion, fictional words may merit to be included in the main namespace too, which would result in deprecating that dichotomy, and perhaps effectively defeating the purpose of discussing where to place religions. --Daniel. 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's tackle this sideways, instead of head-on. There exists an important corpus of Medieval European texts, including many works (such as the Gesta Hungarorum) that claim to be histories of the nation in which it was written. Most of these "histories" include an introductory section that traces the descent of the founding/ruling line of that nation from some Biblical figure. Historical research has shown these genealogies to be false. These "histories" included the Biblically-derived genealogies of their rulers to cement power and lend authority and continuity to the national history. So, does that make these "histories" fictional universes? Does any history that contains a similar error become fiction, or simply erroneous? I say they are not fiction. "Fiction" is a particular sort of literature, and these histories were not written for the purpose of being read as fiction.

Further, many religious texts qualify as "well-known works", and so their vocabulary is admissible under CFI without bothering with this argument. --EncycloPetey 04:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 * That's a good point. I think of false religions as "errors", but even if we consider them "lies", they're still not "fiction" in the relevant sense. ("Fiction" is sometimes used to mean the opposite of "fact", but when we speak of "fictional universes", we mean fiction as opposed to non-fiction.) —Ruakh TALK</i > 17:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's apply the first sentence of CFI, let's include all words of all languages, and this discussion will become irrelevant (it is irrelevant in a language dictionary). Lmaltier 07:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


text:
servitium

Etymology
From, -itia and -ium.

Noun

 * 1) slavery, servitude
 * 2) slaves (collectively)
 * 3) service
 * 4) * et idem Comes de rege per servitium militare
 * 5) ** And the same Count of the king for military service
 * 1) * et idem Comes de rege per servitium militare
 * 2) ** And the same Count of the king for military service

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

title: servitium


text: servitia

title: servitia


text: servitii

title: servitii


text: servitiorum

title: servitiorum


text: servitio

title: servitio


text: servitiis

title: servitiis


text:
Talk:two beers, please

two beers please
Nonsense. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, how exactly is it nonsense? --Yair rand (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's ok. =) --Diego Grez 20:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sum of parts. If adding to any entry makes it immune from being rfd'd, why not create I'd like a beer, a packet of peanuts and a gin and tonic for the lady? Knowing Rising Sun, he probably created this as a satire. The problem is, the phrasebook is becoming so frivolous that the satires aren't any more frivolous than the 'genuine' entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reminds me that phrasebook should be separate from word entries. Equinox ◑ 20:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, appendix only, or create a new namespace. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? --Yair rand (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a dictionary (to define words and specifically idiomatic phrases) is different from the purpose of a phrasebook (to provide non-idiomatic phrases that happen to be (considered) useful in certain real-life situations). They will trip each other up. Equinox ◑ 23:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For reference, I have started Appendix:English phrasebook some time ago. --Dan Polansky 07:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I warned you guys this would happen ;) Delete, please, pending creation of real Phrasebook criteria. ---> Tooironic 22:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Phrasebook entries don't follow the same rules like SoP, see WT:PB. As in a paper phrasebook (Lonely Planet, etc.) common and useful phrase are chosen, not necessarily covering all possible combinations. See previous delete requests for phrasebook. Why do they keep coming up again? The CFI for phrasebook entries will be created - don't worry, suffice to say the entries are useful and have many supporters. Strong keep again. --Anatoli 23:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete, pending creation of real Phrasebook criteria--Dmol 23:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I say keep, it doesn't makes any harm =) --Diego Grez 23:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. If someone wants to propose a Phrasebook CFI, go ahead. IMO, we could go a while longer without any phrasebook rules. --Yair rand (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Mglovesfun, don't worry. Satire phrases will be deleted, I will personally make sure they are. We had a discussion about including obscure languages in the "I don't speak..." series, no need to exaggerate with your "peanuts" examples. --Anatoli 00:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete, before somebody adds one beer please. --Hekaheka 06:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete - totally pointless. SemperBlotto 07:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 08:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * keep as creator. I've seen this in real phrasebook before, I didn't create this satirically. Our phrasebook needs space and time to evolve --Rising Sun talk? contributions 09:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised anyone is saying to keep this. Strong delete pending phrasebook CFI. —msh210℠ on a public computer 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Abstaining, per DCDuring (below). —msh210℠ 15:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete. If my penis phrase doesn't live, this should go too. I am being vindictive. --Vahagn Petrosyan 12:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep per Rising Sun. At some point in the past somebody (possibly me) suggested that the Phrasebook CFI should require presence in two or more "real" phrasebooks. "Two beers please" easily meets that criterion:. (Incidentally, so does "two more beers please"). This appears, in fact, to be part of the canonical set used in all/most Rough Guide dictionary-phrasebooks (and is also found in others, so meets the independence criterion). All other things being equal, I'm inclined to trust Rough Guide's judgment more than my own when it comes to what does or doesn't belong in a phrasebook. Incidentally, my b.g.c. search also turned up some fun reading on the question of the use value of "two beers please" in a phrasebook. -- Visviva 13:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Delete. Of course, this sentence might be included in a phrasebook. But it makes no sense as a separate page. This is why defining how the phrasebook should be organized is so important. See the Beer Parlour (the most appropriate place for ordering two beers, anyway). Lmaltier 18:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Visviva. Lemmings rule! At least until we have superseding Phrasebook CFI. DCDuring TALK 14:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not as a separate page? The translations can be useful, it would be less useful if people had to piece things together from appendix information, the audio pronunciation of each of its translations would be useful, we have no space limitations or anything, why should this be deleted? --Yair rand (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Such sentences are included in phrasebooks only as examples, to be adapted to your situation. These examples are grouped by typical situations, and this makes them useful. But nobody will ever try to find this page, because nobody will expect it to be present, no more than three beers, please, ten beers, please, or four apples and five oranges, please. Yes, this information might be useful (if you want to order beer), but it's completely useless here, as a separate page. This is why the phrasebook should be organized in such a way that it is useful, in such a way that useful information can be found easily. Only set phrases should be kept as separate pages, because they are constituents of the language. Lmaltier 19:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Examples"? Meaning what, exactly? Eventually, we will have a category structure and appendices to help people find the various phrases, and people can search for them directly, and thus the phrasebook entries are useful. The phrases themselves are what's useful, not some pile of words that someone can attempt to adapt into situations, replacing words and making grammatical messes. The phrasebook should include common, usable phrases that someone would want to have information about. --Yair rand (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Such examples in phrasebooks are mainly intended to help with grammatical issues involved in some situation. If you want to order four beers in France, would you really try to find the translation of four beers, please in the Wiktionary? No, either you'll have a look at four, beer and please, or you'll consult a phrasebook in the appropriate chapter (how to order drinks or food), or you'll try an automatic translator. Such phrases are useful in phrasebooks, but I cannot imagine how this page can be useful to anybody. Lmaltier 19:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The point of the phrasebook is so that people have a better option than piecing together words or relying on inaccurate autotranslators, and so that they can find out how to use those words. We might at some point have Category:English phrasebook:Ordering food or drinks, to enhance the usability of the phrasebook, but for now, we should try to add as many useful (by themselves) phrases as possible. --Yair rand (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, if only because "one beer", "two beer" and "five beer" might have different grammar for "beer" (and, oh, does it help to use the right grammar with a clearly foreign accent). --Erik Warmelink 20:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Visviva. When the phrasebook leaves the mainspace, then this can be deleted. --Dan Polansky 06:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * New data: shows me 420 hits;  shows me 17 hits. --Dan Polansky 21:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No consensus: kept. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:two beers, please


text:
Talk:air kerma

air kerma
"the kerma in given quantity of air." NISOP? Equinox ◑ 13:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per its content. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:air kerma


text:
silvester

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) wooded
 * 2)  woodland
 * 3) wild, untamed

title: silvester


text:
Talk:autonomous oblast

autonomous oblast
Like the definition says, an oblast that's autonomous. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete. I have a notion that the Russian term may have a specific legal meaning that merits retention, but I doubt if there is sufficient English literature on the pertinent Russian/Soviet law for that to apply to this term as well (and if it did, it would probably apply only to the capitalized version).  -- Visviva 16:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 * If the CFI doesn't have a clause for including a term because it sounds too awesome to delete then we are doing this all wrong. - 17:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Ok, delete if you insist. I don't see any harm in the entry, though. Yes, legally an autonomous oblast is different from other federal subjects. I made sure there will be no impact on Jewish Autonomous Oblast entry, the only autonomous oblast in Russia - other federal subjects are called differently, among them - autonomous republic, oblast, kray. --Anatoli 00:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete Direct SOP translation of SOP Russian автономная область (avtonomnaja oblast’). —Michael Z. 2010-05-31 01:30 z
 * keep: it's a word (in the linguistic sense of word), because it's a set phrase specifically used to to something (it's not possible to replace autonomous by a synonym). It's exactly the same case as commune, except that it contains a space, or district attorney. Lmaltier 06:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Wouldn't "self-governing oblast" have the same signification? -- Visviva 19:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Keep. This is not a SoP: Russian had a specific legal meaning in the Soviet law; so does it's English translation. And there is a sufficient English literature on the pertinent law, conditioned by the fact that many AO's (such as Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast) declared independence, fought wars and generated a lot of press and legal debate since the collapse of the USSR. See also the citations I added. --Vahagn Petrosyan 09:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The word is attestable and clearly not SoP. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Keep as cited. -- Visviva 16:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually now I'm less sure. The definition still doesn't specify any particular meaning in Soviet law; it simply boils down to "an oblast that is autonomous."  I have no particular reason to doubt that this has a non-compositional meaning, but the definition as written does not explain that meaning. -- Visviva 19:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I rewrote the definition. It still needs improvement but at least now it does not say "autonomous oblast is an oblast that is autonomous". The connection between autonomous oblast and oblast is etymological, not legal. The legally defined administrative divisions of the USSR were union republic, autonomous republic, oblast, autonomous oblast, autonomous okrug. --Vahagn Petrosyan 10:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Now you've written an encyclopedia article. You've written why, when, and for whom the referent was created, but said nothing lexicological about the phrase. The previous definition was better (funny: autonomous oblast has a dictionary definition: “An autonomous oblast is an autonomous entity within the state which is on the oblast (province) level of the overall administrative subdivision.”). —Michael Z. 2010-06-03 19:24 z

 * By the way, autonomous oblasts are apparently also of Russia ,Yugoslavia, Croatia, and Bosnia–Herzegovina. Regarding the list of “Derived terms,” shall I start RFDing this gazetteer list right away? —Michael Z. 2010-06-03 19:29 z

 * I don't find the new definition encyclopedic in itself: it could have been the sense. But the actual sense seems to be less precise, and I suggest to use the Wikipedia definition. Note that it's quite normal that Wikipedia has a dictionary definition: the definition is (or should be) the only common part between a language dictionary entry and an encyclopedia entry. Lmaltier 19:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Yeah, but with a bit of copy-editing improvement, that definition will be back to “an oblast that is autonomous.” It's an SOP term, and the best definition is the term itself. Even if we choose to include it for whatever reason, it's a disservice to the readers to tart up (i.e. obscure) the language just to pretend it's not SOP. —Michael Z. 2010-06-04 21:27 z

Kept. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:autonomous oblast


text:
Talk:PHTML

PHTML
"An extension often given to PHP-generated web pages." As defined, it is filename extension, rather than a word or abbreviation. (Probably bad caps, too, since filename extensions on the Web are rarely upper-cased.) Equinox ◑ 15:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And an extension is what it is, in fact: the first 100 bgc hits show little else, all of which is names of objects in programming languages or the like. —msh210℠ 16:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Not dictionary material, then, is it? Remember changeme? Equinox ◑ 16:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per its content. HTML is clearly a noun. This isn't claiming to be a word, so delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete —Michael Z. 2010-06-03 19:30 z

Deleted by DAVilla July 20, with comment "per RFD, unless citable in running English text". —msh210℠ (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:PHTML


text:
User talk:84.102.251.140

etter
You can add an Afrikaans section, you know. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:84.102.251.140


text:
sperans

Etymology
Present active participle of.

Participle

 * 1) hoping, expecting
 * 2) awaiting
 * 3) fearing
 * 4) assuming

title: sperans


text: sperantes

title: sperantes


text: sperantia

title: sperantia


text: sperantis

title: sperantis


text: sperantium

title: sperantium


text: speranti

title: speranti


text: sperantibus

title: sperantibus


text: sperantem

title: sperantem


text:
supplicans

Etymology
Present active participle of

Participle

 * 1) praying
 * 2) humbly beseeching

title: supplicans


text: supplicantes

title: supplicantes


text: supplicantia

title: supplicantia


text: supplicantis

title: supplicantis


text: supplicantium

title: supplicantium


text: supplicantibus

title: supplicantibus


text: supplicantem

title: supplicantem


text:
supplicatio

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) thanksgiving
 * 2) supplication

title: supplicatio


text: supplicationes

title: supplicationes


text: supplicationis

title: supplicationis


text: supplicationum

title: supplicationum


text: supplicationi

title: supplicationi


text: supplicationibus

title: supplicationibus


text: supplicationem

title: supplicationem


text: supplicatione

title: supplicatione


text:
yl-vrishey

Noun

 * 1)  compound fracture

title: yl-vrishey


text:
tentatio

Noun

 * 1) temptation
 * 2) trial, proof

title: tentatio


text: tentationes

title: tentationes


text: tentationis

title: tentationis


text: tentationum

title: tentationum


text: tentationi

title: tentationi


text: tentationibus

title: tentationibus


text: tentationem

title: tentationem


text: tentatione

title: tentatione


text:
toshiver

Etymology
From, , equivalent to.

Verb

 * 1)  To break in pieces.

title: toshiver


text:
toslive

Etymology
From, equivalent to.

Verb

 * 1)  To cleave or split in pieces.

title: toslive


text:
terraemotus

Etymology
From, genitive of +. Literally meaning "movement of the earth".

Noun

 * 1) earthquake

title: terraemotus


text: terraemotui

title: terraemotui


text: terraemotum

title: terraemotum


text: terraemotu

title: terraemotu


text: terraemotuum

title: terraemotuum


text: terraemotibus

title: terraemotibus


text:
tosliver

Etymology
From, equivalent to.

Verb

 * 1)  To split into slivers or small pieces.

title: tosliver


text:
-rey

Etymology
From.

title: -rey


text:
yl-rey

Etymology
From (compare 🇨🇬).

Adjective

 * 1) plural

Noun

 * 1) plural

title: yl-rey


text: Category:nv:Watercraft

title: Category:nv:Watercraft


text: Category:nv:Nautical

title: Category:nv:Nautical


text:
slive

Etymology 1
From, from , from , from.

Verb

 * 1)  To cut; split; separate.
 * 2)  To cut or slice something off; separate by slicing.

Noun

 * 1)  A slice or sliver; slip, chip.

Etymology 2
Perhaps related to.

Verb

 * 1)  To sneak; skulk; proceed in a sly way; creep.

title: slive


text:
rotire

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) rotation

title: rotire


text:
pàirt-thìde

Adjective

 * 1) part-time

title: pàirt-thìde


text:
tanmateix

Etymology
.

Adverb

 * 1) naturally, really
 * 2) nevertheless, however
 * 1) nevertheless, however

title: tanmateix


text:
làn-thìde

Adjective

 * 1) full-time

title: làn-thìde


text:
làn-ùine

Adjective

 * 1) full-time

title: làn-ùine


text:
λαχείο

Etymology
, using the

Noun

 * 1) lottery, lottery ticket, lottery prize
 * 2)  windfall

title: λαχείο


text:
Talk:ri4

standard 日 not listed?

title: Talk:ri4


text:
yiarnrey

Noun

 * 1) hardware

title: yiarnrey


text:
cuibheasach

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) average, middling, moderate, passable, tolerable

title: cuibheasach


text:
walk back

Verb

 * 1)  To withdraw or backpedal on a statement or promise.

title: walk back


text:
cuibheas

Noun

 * 1) average
 * cuibheas bhliadhnail - yearly average
 * 1) enough, moderation
 * biadh thar cuibheis - food to spare, superabundance of food

title: cuibheas


text: cuibheis

title: cuibheis


text: cuibheasan

title: cuibheasan


text:
cuibheasachd

Noun

 * 1) average, mean

title: cuibheasachd


text: cuibheasachdan

title: cuibheasachdan


text:
yl-villiooneyder

Noun

 * 1) multi-millionaire

title: yl-villiooneyder


text:
sreath chèile

Adverb

 * 1) in a row, successively
 * dà bhliadhna sreath chèile - two years in a row

title: sreath chèile


text:
an sreath a chèile

Adverb

 * 1) in a row, successively
 * trì bliadhnaichean an sreath a chèile - three years in a row

title: an sreath a chèile


text:
yl-villioonagh

Etymology
From +.

Adjective

 * 1) multi-million

title: yl-villioonagh


text: Category:Manx terms prefixed with yl-

title: Category:Manx terms prefixed with yl-


text:
daa-chassagh

Etymology
From +.

Adjective

 * 1) two-footed, bipedal

title: daa-chassagh


text:
yl-chassagh

Etymology
From +.

Adjective

 * 1) polypod

title: yl-chassagh


text:
manpage

Noun

 * 1)  A block of user documentation.

title: manpage


text: manpages

title: manpages


text: tuae

title: tuae


text: tuorum

title: tuorum


text: tuarum

title: tuarum


text:
tuis

Etymology
From, from.

Adverb

 * 1) home, at home

title: tuis


text: tuam

title: tuam


text:
tuos

Etymology 1
Akin to 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Pronoun

 * 1) those

Adjective

 * 1) computed
 * 2) settled
 * 1) settled

Noun

 * 1) computation; reckoning
 * 2) settlement
 * 3)  caution; carefulness
 * 1)  caution; carefulness
 * 1)  caution; carefulness

title: tuos


text: manometries

title: manometries


text: megasporogeneses

title: megasporogeneses


text: vivificas

title: vivificas


text: vivificat

title: vivificat


text: vivificamus

title: vivificamus


text: vivificatis

title: vivificatis


text: vivificant

title: vivificant


text: vivificabo

title: vivificabo


text: vivificabis

title: vivificabis


text: vivificabit

title: vivificabit


text: vivificabimus

title: vivificabimus


text: vivificabitis

title: vivificabitis


text: vivificabunt

title: vivificabunt


text: vivificabam

title: vivificabam


text: vivificabas

title: vivificabas


text: vivificabat

title: vivificabat


text: vivificabamus

title: vivificabamus


text: vivificabatis

title: vivificabatis


text: vivificabant

title: vivificabant


text: vivificavisti

title: vivificavisti


text: vivificavit

title: vivificavit


text: vivificavimus

title: vivificavimus


text: vivificavistis

title: vivificavistis


text: vivificaverunt

title: vivificaverunt


text: vivificavero

title: vivificavero


text: vivificaveris

title: vivificaveris


text: vivificaverit

title: vivificaverit


text: vivificaverimus

title: vivificaverimus


text: vivificaveritis

title: vivificaveritis


text: vivificaverint

title: vivificaverint


text: vivificaveram

title: vivificaveram


text: vivificaveras

title: vivificaveras


text: vivificaverat

title: vivificaverat


text: vivificaveramus

title: vivificaveramus


text: vivificaveratis

title: vivificaveratis


text: vivificaverant

title: vivificaverant


text: vivificor

title: vivificor


text: vivificaris

title: vivificaris


text: vivificatur

title: vivificatur


text: vivificamur

title: vivificamur


text: vivificamini

title: vivificamini


text: vivificantur

title: vivificantur


text: vivificabor

title: vivificabor


text: vivificaberis

title: vivificaberis


text: vivificabitur

title: vivificabitur


text: vivificabimur

title: vivificabimur


text: vivificabimini

title: vivificabimini


text: vivificabuntur

title: vivificabuntur


text: vivificabar

title: vivificabar


text: vivificabaris

title: vivificabaris


text: vivificabatur

title: vivificabatur


text: vivificabamur

title: vivificabamur


text: vivificabamini

title: vivificabamini


text: vivificabantur

title: vivificabantur


text: vivificem

title: vivificem


text: vivifices

title: vivifices


text: vivificet

title: vivificet


text: vivificemus

title: vivificemus


text: vivificetis

title: vivificetis


text: vivificent

title: vivificent


text: vivificarem

title: vivificarem


text: vivificares

title: vivificares


text: vivificaret

title: vivificaret


text: vivificaremus

title: vivificaremus


text: vivificaretis

title: vivificaretis


text: vivificarent

title: vivificarent


text: vivificaverim

title: vivificaverim


text: vivificavissem

title: vivificavissem


text: vivificavisses

title: vivificavisses


text: vivificavisset

title: vivificavisset


text: vivificavissemus

title: vivificavissemus


text: vivificavissetis

title: vivificavissetis


text: vivificavissent

title: vivificavissent


text: vivificer

title: vivificer


text:
nonobjectifiable

Adjective

 * 1) That cannot be objectified.

title: nonobjectifiable


text: vivificeris

title: vivificeris


text: vivificetur

title: vivificetur


text: vivificemur

title: vivificemur


text: vivificemini

title: vivificemini


text: vivificentur

title: vivificentur


text: vivificarer

title: vivificarer


text: vivificareris

title: vivificareris


text:
nonobjectified

Adjective

 * 1) Not objectified.

title: nonobjectified


text: vivificaretur

title: vivificaretur


text: vivificaremur

title: vivificaremur


text: vivificaremini

title: vivificaremini


text: vivificarentur

title: vivificarentur


text: vivificatote

title: vivificatote


text: vivificanto

title: vivificanto


text:
unobjectified

Adjective

 * 1) Not objectified.

title: unobjectified


text: vivificator

title: vivificator


text: vivificantor

title: vivificantor


text: vivificavisse

title: vivificavisse


text: vivificari

title: vivificari


text:
седем

Etymology
, from, from.

Numeral

 * 1)  seven (7)

title: седем


text:
осем

Etymology
From, from.

Numeral

 * 1)  eight (8)

title: осем


text:
mătrice

Etymology
, accusative singular of. .

Noun

 * 1)  womb, uterus
 * 2) cramp in a newborn
 * 3)  rheumatism
 * 4)  camomile, German chamomile
 * 5)  feverfew
 * 6)  lichwort
 * 7)  veronica
 * 1)  feverfew
 * 2)  lichwort
 * 3)  veronica

title: mătrice


text:
arcszín

Noun

 * 1) complexion, colour (colour of the skin on the face)
 * 2) * 1872, Mór Jókai, Az arany ember, , part 1, chapter 2, translated by Mrs. Hegan Kennard:
 * "hu"

- A kormányos ölnyi termetű kemény férfi volt, erősen rezes arcszínnel, a két orcáján a pirosság vékony hajszálerek szövevényében fejezte ki magát, miktől a szeme fehére is recés volt.

title: arcszín


text:
plântă

Etymology
, from, from , from. Doublet of the borrowed.

Noun

 * 1)  the sole of the foot

title: plântă


text:
Talk:emissary

The 1913 Webster provides a different, much more negative definition:

I don't think this merely subtleties in defining, as emissary goes to ambassadors and diplomats. Is there a serious change in usage over time that should be noted here?--Prosfilaes 22:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:emissary


text:
технологический

Adjective

 * 1) technological

title: технологический


text:
yl-choshagh

Etymology
From +.

Adjective

 * 1) polypod

title: yl-choshagh


text:
daa-choshagh

Etymology
From +.

Adjective

 * 1) two-footed, bipedal

title: daa-choshagh


text:
atemperar

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1)  to temper to moderate or control

title: atemperar


text:
millioon

Numeral

 * 1)  million

title: millioon


text: de'

title: de'


text:
hoght-choshagh

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) octopus

title: hoght-choshagh


text: slove

title: slove


text:
έξυπνος

Etymology
, from Hellenistic, from +. .

Adjective

 * 1) clever, intelligent, sharp

Synonyms
also figurative, colloquial:
 * Bird names, denoting figuratively quick wit:
 * Bird names, denoting figuratively quick wit:

title: έξυπνος


text: sliven

title: sliven


text:
curechi

Etymology
<, from. Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1)  cabbage

title: curechi


text:
hullad

Noun

 * 1) owl

title: hullad


text:
cauliculus

Etymology
..

Noun

 * 1)  In the Corinthian capital, one of the eight stalks rising out of the lower leafage and terminating in leaves which seem to support the volutes.

Etymology
Diminutive of.

Noun

 * 1) small cabbage
 * 2) stalk, stem

title: cauliculus


text: traantje

title: traantje


text: traantjes

title: traantjes


text:
terrorstricken

Adjective

 * 1) Stricken with terror; utterly terrified.

Translations

 * Bulgarian: ужасе'н
 * German: zu Tode erschrocken
 * Greek:

title: terrorstricken


text:
terrorstruck

Adjective

 * 1) Stricken with terror; utterly terrified.

title: terrorstruck


text:
wlatian

Etymology 1
From, from , from. Cognate with 🇨🇬. Related to 🇨🇬,.

Verb

 * 1) to gaze, look upon, behold

Etymology 2
From,.

title: wlatian


text:
yl-vunnagh

Etymology
From +.

Adjective

 * 1)  polybasic

title: yl-vunnagh


text:
daa-vunnagh

Etymology
From +.

Adjective

 * 1)  dibasic

title: daa-vunnagh


text:
tree-vunnagh

Etymology
From +.

Adjective

 * 1)  tribasic

title: tree-vunnagh


text:
hulladagh

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) owlish

title: hulladagh


text:
呉越同舟

Etymology
From chapter 11 of The Art of War, by Sun Tzu. .

Noun

 * 1) that bitter enemies chance on each other and have to work together

title: 呉越同舟


text:
încânta

Etymology
Probably from +, based on. Other theories include a direct derivation from, present active infinitive of (compare 🇨🇬).

Verb

 * 1) to charm, seduce, enchant
 * 2) to deceive, delude
 * 1) to deceive, delude

title: încânta


text:
fundoplasty

Noun

 * 1)  A surgical procedure in which the upper portion of the stomach is wrapped around the lower end of the esophagus.

title: fundoplasty


text:
împlânta

Etymology
From +, present active infinitive of , or from. Compare Aromanian plãntu, plãntari.

Verb

 * 1) to stick or thrust into
 * 2) to plant (set or place something firmly)
 * 1) to plant (set or place something firmly)

title: împlânta


text:
Talk:naʼazhǫǫsh

Definitions
How does this term mean both "birch" and "casino"? 131.123.140.167 00:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Its primary meaning is birch, and then it is also used for casino. —Stephen (Talk) 03:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was asking how this occurred. Are casinos paneled with birch or something like that? 71.66.97.228 04:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 * No idea. —Stephen (Talk) 05:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Information now added. 71.66.97.228 01:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:naʼazhǫǫsh


text:
bells and smells

Noun

 * 1)  A style of religious worship emphasising high ritual, including use of vestments, bells and incense, especially that of High Church Anglicanism and Catholicism.

title: bells and smells


text:
пиздатый

Adjective

 * 1)  very good, fucking good

title: пиздатый


text:
User talk:69.14.202.120

lectiovocus
--EncycloPetey 02:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:69.14.202.120


text:
songerie

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) dream, fantasy

title: songerie


text: songeries

title: songeries


text:
User talk:74.78.42.218

condo sofa
I could find only two published citations, which is not enough to meet CFI requirements. You rdefinition was also more promotional material than definition. The source of a word is etymology, not definition. --EncycloPetey 02:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:74.78.42.218


text:
User talk:66.175.204.189

sassy
That's the second or third definition. The primary definition does not include "cuteness" as part of its meaning. That's why there is more than one definition listed. --EncycloPetey 02:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) That's not what edit summaries are for. (2) Most anon edits are "drive-bys". The anon makes a single edit and then vanishes, never to return.  The regular patrollers (Semper is one) are very few in number here, and justifying every reversion with an edit summary is not an effective use of their time.  This is Wiktionary, and the way we operate is very different from Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 04:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:66.175.204.189


text:
Talk:Act of Parliament

Entry says: This is wrong. In both Canada and Australia, both houses must pass the Bill; their situation is fundamentally the same as the United Kingdom. In all three cases, there are special circumstances were a Bill could become an Act despite being passed only by one house (use of the Parliament Act in the UK; joint sitting after double dissolution in Australia; in Canada, the House of Commons can override the Senate, but only in the case of proposals for a constitutional amendment).
 * 1)  a law passed by both houses of Parliament, and given Royal Assent
 * 2)  a law passed by Parliament, and given Royal Assent
 * 3)  a law passed by the lower house of Parliament, and given Royal Assent
 * 4)  a law passed by the lower house of Parliament, and given Royal Assent

Some points:
 * 1) the definition is really the same whether we are dealing with a bicameral Parliament (UK, Australia, Canada, most Australian states, etc.) or a unicameral one (e.g. New Zealand or Queensland or Malta). Issues of camerality are not essential to the definition
 * 2) the fact that bicameral systems often have the power to behave unicamerally in exceptional circumstances isn't really relevant to a dictionary definition either
 * 3) in the Westminster system, assent is important, but it needn't be Royal -- Presidental assent in a Westminster-style Republic would be equivalent. So royal assent is not essential to the definition. Consider Malta currently, or the proposals for an Australian republic voted down in the 1999 referendum

I think a better definition might be: So I am going to change it to the above. --SJK 02:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  a law which has received assent (whether royal or presidential or gubernatorial) after having been passed by the housess (or house) of Parliament

RFC discussion: March 2010
Is this a common noun, if so is it redundant to the lowercase spelling? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Act of Parliament


text:
bighan

Noun

 * 1) his/her home, dwelling, abode

title: bighan


text:
Talk:bighan

Also "their"?
Can this also mean "their home," "their dwelling," or "their abode"? 71.66.97.228 03:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, the meaning of is the third-person singular or plural pronoun. That’s what  always means, so it does not have to be repeated in full for every noun in the language. —Stephen (Talk) 14:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Relationship to hooghan
Is this term related to hooghan, and can it also mean "hogan" in addition to "home," "dwelling," etc.? 71.66.97.228 03:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, related, as the prefix ho- is similar to bi-. Ho- is a deictic "space" impersonal subject pronoun. Hogan is an English word used to express this particular Navajo construction in opposition to American houses. The Navajo do not use it to distinguish traditional Navajo homes from American homes, so, although they refer to a hogan as hooghan, bighan, shighan, etc., they also use those words for American-style houses. So, no, hooghan does not mean hogans specifically, but dwellings/homes/abodes in general. —Stephen (Talk) 15:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; is there a specific Navajo term used for hogans? 71.66.97.228 18:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

 * No, hogans are an English word that means a one-room Navajo house. Hooghan means house and includes traditional Navajo hogans as well as modern houses. Just as English speaks of the "Native American flute", Navajo merely calls it a flute, and to a Navajo a house is a house. There are no special words for Navajos houses versus American houses. —Stephen (Talk) 19:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:bighan


text: Category:la:Sports

title: Category:la:Sports


text: Category:eo:Poetry

title: Category:eo:Poetry


text: Category:tr:History

title: Category:tr:History


text:
беларуска

Noun

 * 1) Belarusian (woman) (person from Belarus)

title: беларуска


text:
Appendix:The Divine Comedy

The Divine Comedy (Italian: la Divina Commedia) is an epic poem written by Dante Alighieri between 1308 and his death in 1321.

Index

 * The first cantica of the Divine Comedy, that tells the journey of Dante through Hell, guided by the Roman poet Virgil.
 * The first cantica of the Divine Comedy, that tells the journey of Dante through Hell, guided by the Roman poet Virgil.

title: Appendix:The Divine Comedy


text:
naʼaʼeełígíí

Etymology
+

Noun

 * 1) navigation

title: naʼaʼeełígíí


text:
níyol

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1) it is windy (literally, "the wind arrived blowing")

Usage notes
This verb is semantically limited to expression in the third person.

This is a neuter verb that uses only the perfective mode.

Conjugation
.

Noun

 * 1) wind

title: níyol


text:
biwááshindoon

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1) its government, its administrative headquarters, its capital

title: biwááshindoon


text: Αυστρίας

title: Αυστρίας


text:
securitarian

Adjective

 * 1) With security as an absolute priority; inordinately obsessed with security.

title: securitarian


text: Αυστραλέζας

title: Αυστραλέζας


text: Αυστραλέζων

title: Αυστραλέζων


text: Αυστραλέζες

title: Αυστραλέζες


text: Αυστραλής

title: Αυστραλής


text: Αυστραλών

title: Αυστραλών


text: Αυστραλές

title: Αυστραλές


text:
ёбаный

Adjective

 * 1)  fucking

title: ёбаный


text: ебаный

title: ебаный


text:
αυστραλιανός

Adjective

 * 1) Australian relating to Australia or its people

title: αυστραλιανός


text: αυστραλιανού

title: αυστραλιανού


text: αυστραλιανό

title: αυστραλιανό


text: αυστραλιανή

title: αυστραλιανή


text: αυστραλιανέ

title: αυστραλιανέ


text: αυστραλιανής

title: αυστραλιανής


text: αυστραλιανών

title: αυστραλιανών


text:
взрыв

Etymology 1
.

Noun

 * 1) explosion
 * 2) blast
 * 3) detonation
 * 4) eruption

title: взрыв


text: αυστραλιανά

title: αυστραλιανά


text: αυστραλιανές

title: αυστραλιανές


text: αυστραλιανοί

title: αυστραλιανοί


text: αυστραλιανούς

title: αυστραλιανούς


text: Αυστριακής

title: Αυστριακής


text: Αυστριακών

title: Αυστριακών


text: Αυστριακές

title: Αυστριακές


text:
User talk:Syced

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
 * Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
 * Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
 * The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
 * We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! -- Cirt (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
--Kc kennylau (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

title: User talk:Syced


text: Αυστριακού

title: Αυστριακού


text: глаза

title: глаза


text: αυστριακού

title: αυστριακού


text: Αυστριακό

title: Αυστριακό


text: Αυστριακέ

title: Αυστριακέ


text: Αυστριακοί

title: Αυστριακοί


text: αυστριακό

title: αυστριακό


text: αυστριακή

title: αυστριακή


text: αυστριακής

title: αυστριακής


text: αυστριακών

title: αυστριακών


text: αυστριακές

title: αυστριακές


text: αυστριακά

title: αυστριακά


text: αυστριακοί

title: αυστριακοί


text: αυστριακούς

title: αυστριακούς


text: αυστριακέ

title: αυστριακέ


text: Αυστριακούς

title: Αυστριακούς


text: Αφγανού

title: Αφγανού


text: Αφγανό

title: Αφγανό


text: Αφγανέ

title: Αφγανέ


text: Αφγανοί

title: Αφγανοί


text: Αφγανούς

title: Αφγανούς


text: Αφγανών

title: Αφγανών


text: Αφγανής

title: Αφγανής


text: Αφγανές

title: Αφγανές


text:
hullad eairkagh

Noun

 * 1) long-eared owl

title: hullad eairkagh


text:
cleayshagh

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) eared, large-eared
 * 2) aural

title: cleayshagh


text:
hullad ghiare-chleayshagh

Noun

 * 1) short-eared owl

title: hullad ghiare-chleayshagh


text:
hullad ny gurreeyn

Noun

 * 1) short-eared owl

title: hullad ny gurreeyn


text: curreeyn

title: curreeyn


text:
doan

Etymology
From, from.

Adjective

 * 1) brown, brunette
 * 2) hazel
 * 3) swarthy, dark-skinned

title: doan


text: dhoan

title: dhoan


text:
hullad ghoan

Noun

 * 1) tawny owl

title: hullad ghoan


text:
hullad ouyr

Noun

 * 1) tawny owl

title: hullad ouyr


text:
hullad rhennee

Noun

 * 1) nightjar

title: hullad rhennee


text: rhennee

title: rhennee


text:
rhennagh

Etymology
From (compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬).

Noun

 * 1) fern

title: rhennagh


text:
monikulttuurisuus

Noun

 * 1) multiculturalism

title: monikulttuurisuus


text:
raithnech

Etymology
From, a derivative of (compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬), from  (compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬).

Noun

 * 1) fern, bracken

title: raithnech


text:
rhedyn

Etymology
From (compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬), diminutive of  (compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬), from  (compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬).

Noun

 * 1) ferns
 * 2) bracken

title: rhedyn


text: rhedynen

title: rhedynen


text: Category:sga:Plants

title: Category:sga:Plants


text: Category:sga:Botany

title: Category:sga:Botany


text: Category:nv:Political subdivisions

title: Category:nv:Political subdivisions


text: Category:nv:United States

title: Category:nv:United States


text: Category:nv:Countries in North America

title: Category:nv:Countries in North America


text: Category:nv:North America

title: Category:nv:North America


text: Category:nv:Continents

title: Category:nv:Continents


text: Category:nv:America

title: Category:nv:America


text:
Category:nv:Linguistics

lt:Kategorija:Kalbotyra/Navahų kalba pt:Categoria:Linguística (Navajo) ru:Категория:Лингвистика/nv

title: Category:nv:Linguistics


text: Category:nv:Language

title: Category:nv:Language


text: Category:nv:Communication

title: Category:nv:Communication


text: Category:nv:Social sciences

title: Category:nv:Social sciences


text: Category:nv:Cities

title: Category:nv:Cities


text:
Talk:Beeʼeldííl Dahsinil

Alternate spellings?
Can it also be spelled Beeʼeldííldahsinil or Beeʼeldííl dahsinil? 71.66.97.228 07:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes. —Stephen (Talk) 11:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Beeʼeldííl Dahsinil


text:
hullad vooar

Noun

 * 1) eagle owl

title: hullad vooar


text:
hullad veg

Noun

 * 1) little owl

title: hullad veg


text:
praenosco

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to foreknow

title: praenosco


text: praenoscis

title: praenoscis


text: praenoscit

title: praenoscit


text: praenoscimus

title: praenoscimus


text: praenoscitis

title: praenoscitis


text: praenoscunt

title: praenoscunt


text: praenoscam

title: praenoscam


text: praenosces

title: praenosces


text: praenoscet

title: praenoscet


text: praenoscemus

title: praenoscemus


text: praenoscetis

title: praenoscetis


text: praenoscent

title: praenoscent


text: praenoscebam

title: praenoscebam


text: praenoscebas

title: praenoscebas


text: praenoscebat

title: praenoscebat


text: praenoscebamus

title: praenoscebamus


text: praenoscebatis

title: praenoscebatis


text: praenoscebant

title: praenoscebant


text: praenovi

title: praenovi


text: praenovisti

title: praenovisti


text: praenovit

title: praenovit


text: praenovimus

title: praenovimus


text: praenovistis

title: praenovistis


text: praenoverunt

title: praenoverunt


text: praenovero

title: praenovero


text: praenoveris

title: praenoveris


text: praenoverit

title: praenoverit


text: praenoverimus

title: praenoverimus


text: praenoveritis

title: praenoveritis


text: praenoverint

title: praenoverint


text: praenoveram

title: praenoveram


text: praenoveras

title: praenoveras


text: praenoverat

title: praenoverat


text: praenoveramus

title: praenoveramus


text: praenoveratis

title: praenoveratis


text: praenoverant

title: praenoverant


text: praenoscor

title: praenoscor


text: praenosceris

title: praenosceris


text: praenoscitur

title: praenoscitur


text: praenoscimur

title: praenoscimur


text: praenoscimini

title: praenoscimini


text: praenoscuntur

title: praenoscuntur


text: praenoscar

title: praenoscar


text: praenoscetur

title: praenoscetur


text: praenoscemur

title: praenoscemur


text: praenoscemini

title: praenoscemini


text: praenoscentur

title: praenoscentur


text: praenoscebar

title: praenoscebar


text: praenoscebaris

title: praenoscebaris


text: praenoscebatur

title: praenoscebatur


text: praenoscebamur

title: praenoscebamur


text: praenoscebamini

title: praenoscebamini


text: praenoscebantur

title: praenoscebantur


text: praenoscas

title: praenoscas


text: praenoscat

title: praenoscat


text: praenoscamus

title: praenoscamus


text: praenoscatis

title: praenoscatis


text: praenoscant

title: praenoscant


text: praenoscerem

title: praenoscerem


text: praenosceres

title: praenosceres


text: praenosceret

title: praenosceret


text: praenosceremus

title: praenosceremus


text: praenosceretis

title: praenosceretis


text: praenoscerent

title: praenoscerent


text: praenoverim

title: praenoverim


text: praenovissem

title: praenovissem


text: praenovisses

title: praenovisses


text: praenovisset

title: praenovisset


text: praenovissemus

title: praenovissemus


text: praenovissetis

title: praenovissetis


text: praenovissent

title: praenovissent


text: praenoscaris

title: praenoscaris


text: praenoscatur

title: praenoscatur


text: praenoscamur

title: praenoscamur


text: praenoscamini

title: praenoscamini


text: praenoscantur

title: praenoscantur


text: praenoscerer

title: praenoscerer


text: praenoscereris

title: praenoscereris


text: praenosceretur

title: praenosceretur


text: praenosceremur

title: praenosceremur


text: praenosceremini

title: praenosceremini


text: praenoscerentur

title: praenoscerentur


text: praenosce

title: praenosce


text: praenoscito

title: praenoscito


text: praenoscite

title: praenoscite


text: praenoscitote

title: praenoscitote


text: praenoscunto

title: praenoscunto


text: praenoscere

title: praenoscere


text: praenoscitor

title: praenoscitor


text: praenoscuntor

title: praenoscuntor


text: praenovisse

title: praenovisse


text: praenosci

title: praenosci


text:
hullad rhullickey

Noun

 * 1) screech owl

title: hullad rhullickey


text: rhuillickey

title: rhuillickey


text:
rhuillick

Etymology
From, from. Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) graveyard

title: rhuillick


text:
hullad soailt

Noun

 * 1) barn owl, white owl

title: hullad soailt


text:
hullad vane

Noun

 * 1) barn owl, white owl

title: hullad vane


text: soailt

title: soailt


text:
soalt

Noun

 * 1) barn, granary

title: soalt


text:
yl-vleeantagh

Etymology
From +.

Adjective

 * 1)  perennial

title: yl-vleeantagh


text:
yl-vleinoil

Adjective

 * 1) perennial

title: yl-vleinoil


text:
yl-vlaagh

Etymology
From +.

Adjective

 * 1)  polyanthous

title: yl-vlaagh


text:
yl-jeeagh

Etymology
From +.

Adjective

 * 1) polytheistic

title: yl-jeeagh


text:
yl-jeeaghys

Noun

 * 1) polytheism

title: yl-jeeaghys


text:
pastel de nata

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) Portuguese custard tart

Translations

 * Chinese:
 * Cantonese: 葡撻
 * Mandarin: 葡式蛋撻
 * Finnish: munatorttu
 * Macanese: bolo nata
 * Portuguese: pastel de nata
 * Russian:

Noun

 * 1)  Portuguese custard tart

title: pastel de nata


text:
skibbalt

Noun

 * 1) barn, granary

title: skibbalt


text: Category:gv:Agriculture

title: Category:gv:Agriculture


text:
egg tart

Noun

 * 1) A baked pastry commonly made in Hong Kong, Macau and other parts of Asia consisting of an outer pastry crust that is filled with egg custard.

Derived terms

 * Macao-style pastel de nata
 * Macao-style pastel de nata

Translations

 * Chinese:
 * Cantonese: 蛋撻
 * Mandarin:
 * Danish:
 * Finnish: munatorttu
 * Japanese: エッグタルト
 * Korean: 에그타르트
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian: яи́чный тарт
 * Spanish:

title: egg tart


text:
íoltóir

Noun

 * 1) idolater

title: íoltóir


text:
íol

Etymology
From, , from , from , from.

Noun

 * 1) idol graven image or representation of anything that is revered

title: íol


text:
íoladhraitheoir

Noun

 * 1) idolater

title: íoladhraitheoir


text:
Citations:anticoherent

 * 2010 Martin Aulbach et al, "Geometric Entanglement of Symmetric States and the Majorana Representation"
 * Here it is shown that the duality relationship of Platonic solids has a counterpart in the Majorana representation, and that in general maximally entangled symmetric states neither correspond to anticoherent spin states nor to spherical designs.

title: Citations:anticoherent


text: desterraba

title: desterraba


text: desterrabais

title: desterrabais


text: desterraban

title: desterraban


text: desterrabas

title: desterrabas


text: desterrad

title: desterrad


text: desterrada

title: desterrada


text: desterradas

title: desterradas


text:
desterrado

Etymology
Past participle of.

Adjective

 * 1) banished

title: desterrado


text: desterrados

title: desterrados


text: desterramos

title: desterramos


text: desterrando

title: desterrando


text: desterrara

title: desterrara


text:
Citations:bimagnon

 * 2010 V. Bisogni et al, "Bimagnons in La2CuO4 measured with Resonant Inelastic X-ray Scattering at three edges: Cu-K, Cu-L3 and O-K" ArXiv
 * With Resonant Inelastic X-ray Scattering (RIXS) we measured the bimagnon dispersion in La2CuO4 in three different ways: at the K- and the L-edge of copper and at the K-edge of oxygen.

title: Citations:bimagnon


text: desterrarais

title: desterrarais


text: desterraran

title: desterraran


text: desterraras

title: desterraras


text: desterrare

title: desterrare


text: desterrareis

title: desterrareis


text: desterraremos

title: desterraremos


text: desterraren

title: desterraren


text: desterrares

title: desterrares


text: desterraron

title: desterraron


text: desterrará

title: desterrará


text: desterrarán

title: desterrarán


text: desterrarás

title: desterrarás


text:
Citations:isosinglet

 * 2010 Alexander Andrianov et al, "Abnormal dilepton yield from local parity breaking in heavy-ion collisions" ArXiv
 * We argue that the presence of local parity breaking due to a time-dependent isosinglet and/or isotriplet pseudoscalar condensate substantially modifies the dispersion relation of photons and vector mesons propagating in such a medium, changing the \rho~ spectral function and resulting in a potentially large excess of e+e- and \mu+\mu- with respect to the theoretical predictions based in a 'cocktail' of known hadronic processes.

title: Citations:isosinglet


text: desterraré

title: desterraré


text: desterraréis

title: desterraréis


text: desterraría

title: desterraría


text: desterraríais

title: desterraríais


text: desterraríamos

title: desterraríamos


text: desterrarían

title: desterrarían


text: desterrarías

title: desterrarías


text: desterrase

title: desterrase


text: desterraseis

title: desterraseis


text: desterrasen

title: desterrasen


text: desterrases

title: desterrases


text: desterraste

title: desterraste


text: desterrasteis

title: desterrasteis


text: desterremos

title: desterremos


text:
Citations:pseudomomentum

 * 2010 Eleni Agiasofitou et al, "Generalized dynamics of moving dislocations in quasicrystals" ArXiv
 * We continue with the derivation of the balance law of pseudomomentum thereby obtaining the generalized forms of the Eshelby stress tensor, the pseudomomentum vector, the dynamical Peach-Koehler force density and the Cherepanov force density for quasicrystals.

title: Citations:pseudomomentum


text: desterrábamos

title: desterrábamos


text: desterráis

title: desterráis


text: desterráramos

title: desterráramos


text: desterráremos

title: desterráremos


text: desterrásemos

title: desterrásemos


text: desterré

title: desterré


text: desterréis

title: desterréis


text: desterró

title: desterró


text: destierra

title: destierra


text: destierran

title: destierran


text: destierras

title: destierras


text: destierre

title: destierre


text: destierren

title: destierren


text: destierres

title: destierres


text: condecid

title: condecid


text: condecimos

title: condecimos


text: condecía

title: condecía


text: condecíais

title: condecíais


text: condecíamos

title: condecíamos


text: condecían

title: condecían


text: condecías

title: condecías


text: condecís

title: condecís


text: condicen

title: condicen


text: condicha

title: condicha


text: condichas

title: condichas


text: condicho

title: condicho


text: condichos

title: condichos


text: condiciendo

title: condiciendo


text: condiga

title: condiga


text: condigamos

title: condigamos


text: condigan

title: condigan


text: condigas

title: condigas