text:
User talk:DCDuring/2012 QIII

=2012 Q III=

Reminder
This seems like a good time to remind you not to revert people's edits because you don't understand them. This is not in reference to anything in particular, just presumably it will happen again if nobody reminds you. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I take this in the spirit in which it seems to be offered. I usually try to avoid following the quick-on-the-draw practices modeled so often by some here. For example, I research etymological derivations, such as those of the terms included in Category:English words suffixed with -grapher, just to mention a current case. To support my research, I try to keep browser tabs open to Online Etymological Dictionary, OneLook, COCA, BNC, Robert, Century, and Perseus, as well as Google books etc. Do you have any other recommendations for research sources? I hate to waste people's time by making unsubstantiatable edits of any kind or arbitrary deletions, even if substantiable. DCDuring TALK 17:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

mathematitian
I apologize for the ̈ that got stuck in there. My Keyboard Layout is customised to have applying Diacritics on the ‘{’ Key as well as ‘}’, so my clumsy Fingers must have hit the right Brace when I was not holding the Shift‐key down. I just wanted to assure you that that was an Accident. --Æ&Œ (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not an issue. I routinely do cleanups of format problems that AutoFormat finds. A very large percentage of my edits are mistaken in some way. Often I catch them, but sometimes I don't. DCDuring TALK 12:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edit added some excess whitespace; see e.g. -athlon, and its extra space between the inflection line and the sense line. (This is a big part of why I think <onlyinclude> is preferable.) —Ruakh TALK 19:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, especially the specifics. I had screwed up similarly before, but didn't get specifics. I don't get the logic of when spaces are OK and considered helpful for readability in templates and when they are destructive. Believe me, I'd much rather that someone who knew what he was doing would clean this stuff up, but that's not going to happen. Frankly, the responsible template writers should not spend their time on one-at-a-time changes rather than fixing up the messes where there skills can significantly speed or finesse the job.
 * BTW, I have inserted on all the "/doc" pages that showed up on the 7/1/2012 run of uncategorized templates. Only about half were on doc pages that I had myself created ;-\}. We might want a similar template with a less intrusive header. DCDuring TALK  20:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "I don't get the logic of when spaces are OK and considered helpful for readability in templates and when they are destructive": That's because the details of when whitespace is or is not significant are incredibly complicated, and no one human could ever keep track of all of them! (This is one of the reasons that it can be useful to test a change before making it.) —Ruakh TALK 23:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. But some folks know this kind of thing better than others.
 * For my current, narrow purposes, extra space that appears on the documentation page and is transcluded onto the main template page is wikitext (low risk). Similarly with talk page stuff.
 * On the main template page, is my best bet to simply tack onto the end of the last line and make sure I've backspaced away any stray spaces or newlines?
 * Trying to eliminate excessive space in entries gives me some idea of the effects, so I usually try to follow the delete-stray-spaces-at-the-end discipline. DCDuring TALK 23:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your best bet is to use <onlyinclude>. It's intuitive, it works, I've never once seen it cause a problem. (Well, sometimes it causes other editors to make mistakes because they don't know what it is, but the best solution to that is to use it more, so people get more familiar with it!) —Ruakh TALK 00:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you don't have to tell me the same thing five times to get me to do it. Just three or four. DCDuring TALK 00:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"in alt"
Hi, is [[alt]] in the two meanings for which you've provided citations for the phrase "in alt" really an abbreviation? It doesn't seem like it to me. —Angr 07:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Last night, I didn't find mention of it anywhere except as an abbreviation. The OED might help. I'm not familiar with it and haven't studied it for long. I am fairly sure that the excitement sense is an extension of the musical sense. The musical sense can, I think, occur outside of "in alt", though often only in tables. But I think I have seen "to alt G" or "to G alt", for example. Collins and RHU have information. RHU has an etymology. See . They still don't have the extended meaning.
 * I never liked abbreviation as a PoS header. The entry for [[alt]] is ridiculously disorganized. Alt in the internet sense and in the senses in question seem to have become words in their own rights, with two separate etymologies. I don't mind having simple lists of terms whose etymology and meaning are identical, but many abbreviations have gone beyond that. DCDuring TALK 15:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, abbreviations are things that are generally not pronounced the way they're spelled, unless they're initialisms. So [[etc.]] and Mr. are abbreviations because they're pronounced [[et cetera]] and [[Mister]], while abbreviations like [[e.g.]] and [[i.e.]] have become initialisms because they're pronounced "ee-jee" and "eye-ee". So while I'm sure "alt" can be an abbreviation for the musical voice alto, if it's being pronounced [ɔlt] (which I'm certain it is in these examples), it's not really an abbreviation. Another thing making me think this meaning of "alt" is different from alto is that "in alt" means "in the octave above the treble staff", which is quite high, but the alto voice is (despite its etymology) rather low, the lowest of the female voices. The alto range is in the bottom two-thirds of the treble staff and maybe about half an octave below it. So it seems unlikely that "in alt" (whether literally or figuratively) is really directly related to "alto". —Angr 16:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My idiolect used to have it that abbreviations were things that in writing had to have periods. I suppose that if it were actually diachronically or synchronically from either alto or directly from 🇨🇬 a linguist would call it clipping. But RHU has it as being from 🇨🇬 or 🇨🇬 or alt:. DCDuring TALK  16:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, having periods is an important feature of abbreviations for me too, but since Brits usually write things like "Mr" and "Mrs" without periods, I figured they're not a necessary condition of abbreviationhood. —Angr 17:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

abozzo & abozzo
I was going through some terms that I had looked at earlier and I noticed that after I had added abbozzo as a new entry and tagged it as the alt form, you changed it to the dominanat form and abozzo to the alt form. I am curious why, as all of my dictionaries state the opposite. Granted, my dictionaries are not from this century, so I understand if things have changed, or if my sources are incorrect. I just wanted to be sure that it was not you that had made a mistake. Thanks in advance Speednat (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish I'd recorded my evidence. I recall doing some basic online research but don't recall exactly what. What I would usually to is:
 * check and
 * search Google books ("English pages") for '"abbozzo" -"abozzo" -di' and '-"abbozzo" "abozzo" -di'. (The '-di' is intended to reduce the number of hits that are use in English texts of Italian book and article titles containing the words.)
 * If the two approaches go the same way I stop, otherwise I try to be more specific in my searches or try Google's newspaper archives and Google Scholar. I doubt that Groups would be much help for this.
 * When I duplicated this now, I reached the same conclusion, but you should satisfy yourself. OneLook includes Webster 1913 & 1828 and Century (c 1913), which I take as adequate indication of 19th century terms for a first look. (Wordnik on OneLook is the way to see Webster 1913 and Century quickly.) I'm not sure that COCA/COHA and BNC have much value for this kind of term, but they might. It would be nice to be able to run Google nGrams but these terms are too rare. DCDuring TALK 19:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Doing some preliminary numbers, it is like 7 to 1 in favor of abbozzo. Why, then does my dictionary show the opposite. Is it mistaken? or does it use a different system of importance? I thought they also looked at instances of use. Speednat (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One possibility is managerial or editorial error. But older dictionaries they did not have had access to corpora that we can take for granted. Murray's OED relied on files of slips of paper. Imagine the space taken up by a billion pieces of paper and the manpower required to keep it organized. Well, they didn't have the space or manpower, so they used smaller corpora.
 * Some users of the term used and use the Italian spelling instead of whatever English dictionary writers thought or think appropriate. The first dictionary writers may have been simply using the spelling they found in the 'better' works they read, which may have been in error. It would be interesting to know what the standard spelling was in Italian in the 17th and 18th centuries. Perhaps the early English users of the term were simply copying standard Italian spelling, just as more modern ones have later.
 * And all, but especially older, dictionaries copy the mistakes of others when they try to save time and money. That is why we have the potential to be better than any older print dictionary. DCDuring TALK 21:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

redundant newlines in templates
I've removed two of them recently,. They break the entry layout when such templates are used in running text, which and  are. I've noticed that both were a result of your adding template recently, so perhaps you should check other edits of yours. Cheers --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me. I haven't cleaned up all of them yet, obviously, especially the ones from early in this effort. I've been trying to categorize the many uncategorized templates (at least those not widely transcluded), both to make them more accessible and to vacate Special:Uncategorizedtemplates to make it more useful as a cleanup category. (It had more than 5,000 pages, so many didn't even show up.) If you can categorize those uncategorized templates you are knowledgeable about (or others), you can reduce the number of mistaken or imprecise categorizations I will inevitably make. DCDuring TALK 17:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes and other issues
I noticed you have corrected a few of my pages. Please let me know what I need to fix or improve upon. I see that Wikt. doesn't use the footnotes the way I was. I have always used the Footnotes section if the Ref. section had some non-inline ref. already there. That way it would look neater. ie. Numbered bullets and regular bullets all together. I do have a question on Abies. Why would that not be considered a borrowed item? I was under the impression that the item was "borrowed" if it was the same word with the same meaning. Thanks for your help Speednat (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I clean-up what the format bot finds according to our formatting rules WT:ELE, standard practice, and my taste (in principle, when it does not conflict with the previous). Let me divide things up by the level of "authority". "Footnotes" is not a standard header. We have a cleanup list for that. That is what brought it to my attention. I did a minimal change for that. If you can improve on it, please do, but we have a limited number of valid headers.
 * Is there some other way of achieving more uniformity of appearance? I suppose, for example, we could put any references that contained external links under External Links, though that would not be in accord with standard practice. Or the bullets and indentation could be hard-formatted to match (eventually, perhaps the reference templates could be so formatted. You could see if this could be done and bring up the improvement as a proposal at WT:BP (necessary IMO to get a change in widely transcluded formatting templates or to get our technological adepts to put some time into a new one.
 * The changes to Abies are a blend of standard practice and my preferences.
 * "Borrowing" is a universal phenomenon for incorporation of FL words into a language, so that it is largely redundant to "From". In particular, taxons in translingual sections are borrowed in a predictable, even boring, pattern. The use of Borrowing could be readily justified in cases where there is no transformation of the word. I would view conversion to mixed upper-lower case as a transformation, more so a transliteration from Ancient Greek to Latin, and more yet an alteration of inflection. I am not sure that this is the standard view or that we have a consensus view at all.
 * I dislike the use of usage context labels like "botany" because they neglect the use of taxonomic plant names in other disciplines, such as pharmacology, mycology, entomology, ecology, soil science, horticulture, agriculture, etc.
 * HTH. DCDuring TALK 11:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Empty documentation
Why are you creating empty documentation pages? That seems to go against the whole idea of ... 23:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It goes against a part of the idea. The main idea as I understand it is transclusion of template documentation and categorization from the documentation subpage so that documentation edits and categorization changes do not add to the transclusion queue. The logic of what I have inelegantly done is to exploit the transclusion idea to allow template categorization decisions for fairly widely transcluded templates to be wrong without bad consequences for the transclusion queue.
 * The idea is to make exactly one change to the main template page, inserting " " or a functional equivalent. Then all subsequent changes made on the documentation page need have no effect on the transclusion queue. The null documentation contains a header template (which categorizes the documentation subpage, thereby keeping it out of the uncategorized pages list), categorizes the main template to the best of my ability, and hard categorizes the template as having no documentation.
 * I hope that makes sense. I have checked my understanding of this with Ruakh a few times to try to get it into my thick skull. I have been doing it for a while and the bad consequences have been limited to my occasionally leaving in an extra carriage return and not being aware that uncategorized template documentation pages (/doc) themselves go into the list of uncategorized template pages. I hope there is not some problem which blows up later. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But editing a page that is transcluded by another will also trigger an update on the second page. So if you edit a documentation page it will still trigger an update on the template. 00:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The " ... " surrounding is supposed to prevent that, as I understand it. I don't know whether a change to  itself might trigger something massive, but I think  is only called when the template page is viewed, so that changes to what it in turn calls don't otherwise matter. Please feel free to get others to opine on my understanding of this and on the consequences of the changes I have made and intend to continue making, though not a fast pace. I have been specifically trying to avoid making any changes at all to the most widely transcluded uncategorized templates. DCDuring TALK  00:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to have actual experts who can explain this, right now we're all just guessing. A bit like Ancient Greek science, where thinking was all they thought necessary to understand the world. :) 00:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Included in Grease_pit_archive/2012/March are some comments by Ruakh on the operation of noinclude and related tags. See also some discussion between me and him on this subject, either on this page or on his talk page. If he's wrong, I'm screwed. DCDuring TALK 01:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We should probably ask the MediaWiki developers how it works... 01:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're using my comments there, then I need to correct something. In that discussion, I wrote "In fact, I believe that when you modify parts of a template page that are inside <noinclude> or outside <onlyinclude>, that the software is smart enough not to add transcluding pages to the job queue, since those changes don't affect the template itself. (I'm not sure about that, though.)" I now believe that that is not the case. (I'm still not sure . . . though come to think of it, I have a thought about how I can test it . . .) —Ruakh TALK 02:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Re: "if you edit a documentation page it will still trigger an update on the template": That's true, but who cares? The only reason it's a problem to edit a widely-transcluded template is that it triggers updates on all the pages that transclude it. Those pages don't transclude the template's documentation page. (The update-triggering is not recursive in this way. Updates are only triggered when you edit a transcluded template. That does include indirectly-transcluded templates — modifying would affect any entry that uses  without sc= — but does not include templates that are merely transcluded on template-pages of transcluded templates.) —Ruakh TALK 01:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Ruakh/Help:Templates
As you've discovered, there are a lot of nitty-gritty details when it comes to template behavior. I've started User:Ruakh/Help:Templates; and, since this is something you were asking about, I decided to start with the subject of whitespace. I welcome comments, improvements, etc. (from you, or anyone else reading this). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made a good number of mistakes in this are. I'll take a look. DCDuring TALK 21:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comparative online dictionary study
Have you seen this yet? I just noticed this scholarly paper on enwikt, dewikt, and ruwikt which you might be interested in, especially in terms of comparisons to other online dictionaries. Cheers! --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have read one study not too long ago, perhaps a dissertation from Darmstadt? This looks much better. The conclusions are much sharper. I will check this one out more carefully. An outsider's views are always interesting and sometimes more credible than those of insiders. DCDuring TALK 20:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that this can't be fully called an "outsider" perspective. For example, the authors cite a 2010 paper by a certain Krizhanovsky, who I believe to be none other than Andrew Krizhanovsky, who made the Wiktionary Android apps and is quite active over at ruwikt.--Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Headword lines
I think it may be better to leave them as it is for now until there has been some more discussion on the matter. 21:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no discussion when the previous practice was changed. Too late, anyway. DCDuring TALK 21:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd really like to be able to get a decent count of English lemmas without having to introduce all kinds of correction factors based on time-consuming statistical studies and without requiring error-prone dump processing. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

beddy-byes
I don't agree with your edit here. If it were a plural, then "going to beddy-byes" would mean going to more than one bed, which it doesn't. Equinox ◑ 22:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I had my doubts. It is probably both a plural and an alternative form. As you can tell, I am on a rampage because of the vast number of bogus categorizations of plurals as nouns. In addition there are some debatable ones. On this one and possibly a few more, I may be wrong. DCDuring TALK 22:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a plural at all. A very hasty search for "a beddy-bye" on Google Books just found two non-standard singular forms (meaning "a yawn" and "a bedtime story"), but nothing obvious meaning "a bed". Equinox ◑ 22:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Speaking of childish expressions, wangtooth made me laugh. Sounds painful. Equinox ◑ 22:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are some good funnies hidden among the antiquarianisms and ligature spellings. I added some usexes at beddy-byes. Is that the full extent of usage, do you think? DCDuring TALK 22:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just going by G.Books again, "their beddy-byes" is only found for "their bed / bedtime" and not (IMO) as a plural. But I don't mind; just didn't want to see the legit non-plural entry disappear. Equinox ◑ 22:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see many instances of "his/her beddie-byes", which I would expect for a plurale-tantum noun. Can "beddie-byes" mean bed clothes, PJs or sheets? DCDuring TALK 22:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't often heard it with a pronoun. One goes "to beddy-byes", or it is time "for beddy-byes", rather than his or hers. In other words it's a sort of fanciful diminutive of bed (go to bed, time for bed). Equinox ◑ 22:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I put in a PP usex. Plenty of hits for the PP. DCDuring TALK 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

long
This one word is used in place of just about every preposition English has, it would seem. I was wondering if you'd be interested to try to split this more fully by sense, given the existing definitions. Should in: and on: be given different senses, or are they similar enough concepts? Is it worth making as many senses as possible? Are the senses as currently given clear enough? I know you don't know Tok Pisin, but it's an English-based creole, so it retains a very English way of looking at the world, grammatically speaking. If you want word-by-word translations of the cites in the entry to help, I can do that too. I just want somebody generally good at this to give the entry a critical look. Thanks so much --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Flattery will get you everywhere. Function words are hard. I'll take a look. DCDuring TALK 23:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Short phrases sound stilted. I find them amusing. Thanks --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume long is from English along in most senses, not the duration sense where it might be from English long. Are there really only the seven prepositions we have? Long seems to cover every basic spatial preposition there is in English except "inside". Is it also used for time? It seems not. It must be used with spatial adverbs sometimes. As I think of this, I think I would take a look at case grammar. There are lists of cases that linguists have found are reflected in inflections in some languages. Excluding cases like nominative, accusative, and vocative, those lists are close to a universal list of generic prepositional senses. See List of grammatical cases. I recommend this because it is more refined than English glosses using polysemic prepositions. A Tok Pisin preposition may translate all the senses of all the prepositions we would use in translating or just some. DCDuring TALK 00:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify: "inside" as an adjective is insait: in Tok Pisin, but as a preposition, it's insait long. I just fixed that. I'm still not sure if insait long: is SOP or not. What do you think? It is used for time, actually, and not just spacially. The last cite at long is temporal (it uses the word taim:). Pacific creoles are notorious for using only a few prepositions. Long, bilong:, and olsem: cover most needs; bipo: and bihain: cover the rest of the temporal needs. Should I really list case senses? Dative, ablative, accusative, objective, apudessive, locative, prepositional, inessive (with insait), superessive, delative... honestly, most cases on the list fit the bill. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I'm suggesting only that you make sure that you really understand how each of those cases is expressed by means of prepositions, preposition-adverb expressions, and any other means Tok Pisin uses. Then you can select the English translations that are the best match. I always worry about being misled by my own preconceived notions about things - and words.
 * Also, you should consider using for "non-gloss" or "functional" definitions of what are, after all, function words. Such definitions are worded as Used to indicate (a wide variety of/all spatial relationships) and Used in combination with adverbs to (specify certain spatial and temporal relationships). But I'm sure you can do better than that. If the glosses satisfy you, mazel tov. If not, the functional definitions may bail you out. DCDuring TALK  03:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I usually don't use n-g for words that can actually be directly translated. I can, of course, combine the two approaches, which is what I will do after I write this comment. You seem rather downcast about the whole deal, so I hope I'm not being a total idiot/ass and not realizing it. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was a little disappointed in myself for not getting a better handle on the specific easy passages. Mi no ken helpim yupela mo. DCDuring TALK 10:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tok Pisin gets a lot harder if you want to have a real conversation; passive voice constructions, for example, can be grammatically complex. As for your sentence, yupela: is plural; the correct word would have been a bare . More subtly, you were missing the untranslatable particle . So it should have been: Mi i no ken helpim yu mo. If you feel like learning what is arguably the easiest foreign language for English speakers, I would love to have another person as a crazy as I am around here! --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have that without my even learning Tok Pisin. DCDuring TALK 16:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Minor, unrelated note: not everything in the template namespace is a template. Please do not treat template subpages as if they need documentation, especially without reading their talkpages to find out why they exist. Thanks --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Anything that is uncategorized should be as long as it threatens to take up permanent residence on maintenance pages. Maintenance pages are shared resources like public parks. Leaving pages there is like appropriating park land for oneself.
 * For any template that risks being widely transcluded, the categorization is best not on the template page itself. If there is absolutely no danger whatsoever of the page being widely transcluded, then categorization on the template page is adequate. I am not in a position to assess the risk of widespread transclusion nor the need for some kind of documentation. Would "This page supports XXXX. See documentation at XXXX" be too hard? Perhaps a template for insertion in the subpage to support both categorization and pointing to real documentation would suffix. DCDuring TALK 13:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be rather annoying when the entire point of a subpage is to be clean (i.e., no documentation, etc in the way). --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 14:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots of things that are good for the project as a whole are annoying for individual contributors, eg, WT:ELE, WT:CFI etc. DCDuring TALK 16:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind you categorising it, just you documenting it. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not my department any more. DCDuring TALK 18:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

drug deal rfdef
It seems that the definition you are requesting for drug deal is the SOP meaning, or perhaps two SOP meanings. To the extent that any of these involve political deals, one could as easily refer to a "tax deal" or an "immigration deal", or any other subject over which a deal could be struck. As for legal sales of medical drugs, I don't think anything lifts that out of being SOP. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 16:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't tell what is or is not SoP anymore, just as as I cannot tell what is or is not a phrasal verb. We have drug: I would have thought that was exactly the sense involved. In the case of some of the citations we do not really have the right sense of drug afaict. So, is the rule that if we have the sense, we include it and if we don't have it, we exclude and call it SoP? Whimsy and popularity is all that I see in our decision making, not even moderated by humility, skepticism, objectivity, of use of facts or even citations in argument. DCDuring TALK 18:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If I told you I saw two people engaging in a drug deal in broad daylight, not ten yards from a police officer, you would likely think that was pretty brazen of them, because the phrase normally implies something that is both illegal and clandestine. If I were to then tell you it was a purchase of aspirin at a drugstore, you would understand that I was making a joke by using the literal, SOP sense of the phrase to imply an idiomatic sense. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 20:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

explicit
, really? Where is this used? Not come across it, but there are a lot of things I've not come across. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

See Robert, ie, Modern French. I was just pursuing what Ruakh had said. Apparently incipit and finit were used to mark the beginning and ending of manuscript works, probably carrying over from scrolls or just economizing on writing materials. They are correct Latin third person present indicate forms. Being used in the same way, apparently, explicit may be formed in imitation, as if from *. DCDuring TALK 19:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

See also Century quote from Enc. Brit. (at explicit2). DCDuring TALK 20:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

abaisse
I noticed your edit concerning the pronunciation of abaisse. I never liked separating the pronunciation like I had, but it seemed to be the way that it was being done. I like what you have done; however would it not be better to precede the pronunciation with the "sense" template. I am going to try that, take a look and let me know if you don't like it. Thanks Speednat (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I missed where you used the template "a", and thought you just typed in the qualifier. So I merely moved it to the front of the line. Speednat (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:ko-hanja
Another template where you added a line-break. . . (fixed now). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 15:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I thought I had caught them all. I'll check my contributions in template space from that time. DCDuring TALK 15:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion
Can I have you delete a couple of entries that I created in error and have since created the correct entries.
 * abbetdin -> Abbetdin is the correct
 * abbethdin -> Abbethdin is correct
 * abatvent -> abat-vent is correct

thanks Speednat (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Sure. The generic approach is it use . You could insert a comment to explain why. Also, couldn't you have moved the entry? DCDuring TALK 18:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know about speedy or about moving. I will look both up thanks.Speednat (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is how most people learn, so nothing to apologize about. "Move" should appear as a tab at the top of your page, if it is available to you. DCDuring TALK 22:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

 * It is not available. Speednat (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

 * To the right of "history" there's a star that adds things to your watchlist, and to the right of it there should be a down arrow, and if you hover over it, you should see "move". But even if you move a page, we'd usually like to delete the redirects, for various reasons, so it can be useful to tag the redirects with or . - -sche (discuss) 23:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope not there, not in IE or FF. Speednat (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Very odd-- When I click on a link, for that split second before the page disappears and the new page loads, the arrow shows up. I changed my skin to monobook, and now it shows up with a tab. Speednat (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:DCDuring/2012 QIII


text:
User talk:DCDuring/2012 QIV

=2012 Q IV=

below the salt
...is surely the same POS as above the salt, so could you either make "below the salt" a prepositional phrase or make "[[above the salt]]" an adjective? Thanks, - -sche (discuss) 20:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, boss. Iza werkin jez az fas I can. DCDuring TALK 23:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

template:rft-sense
—msh210℠ (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the items get gobs of attention once in the tearoom. DCDuring TALK 18:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect some people may check some language-attention category but not the TR. —msh210℠ (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I care most about English, of course. I am very of distressed by our uniformitarian approach to template and category design. I fear it will come crashing down or die from inability to accommodate changes flexibly.
 * As to request/maintenance categories, English could use a fine-tuned system, putting each item into one specific category, saving the general "attention" category for items not otherwise classified. I can't speak for most languages, but I suspect that the languages with the fewest contributors more clearly benefit from the attention-by-language approach. DCDuring TALK 19:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This template doesn't require  and wouldn't normally have it for English, so the code you removed should do nothing for English. I can edit it so that it explicitly does nothing for English even if people do use  . Would that be okay with you, then? —msh210℠ (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be fine with me. And if someone misses the English, they can go back to the original. DCDuring TALK 22:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Showing usage of a word graphically
Hello,

I found another method to find out the usage of a word: http://www.wordcount.org/main.php - is that a reliable website?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Taking the site as face value, the underlying data is the British National Corpus, so it is contemporary UK usage that is represented. That corpus is a large one with 100,000,000 total words. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) has 450 million words. BYU reports that Google Books has 450 billion words. The words are word forms not lemmas ("book" and "books" would be in the count, separately). I can't speak to whether the site host has done what he says he did. If you are looking for a list that you can use and do with what you will, you should look at this page. Generally, you should examine this site which you can freely use after registering and which has a useful user interface but which does not support mass downloads. DCDuring TALK 19:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomic names
If you don't hear from me about this during the week, then bug me about it this weekend. My other efforts are being hampered by offline activities and settling in to a new computer, so we might as well make a start dealing with this issue.

I see three main stages of settling this:
 * 1) dealing with the basic information for genus (and higher rank) names: what do we include, where, how, and in what format
 * 2) dealing with binomial names of species and subspecific taxa
 * 3) dealing with the second half of binomial names, which I will call specific epithets in discussion because I am a botanist.

I'd suggest we deal with these topics in the order given above, one at a time, in order to keep things a bit more organized. I also think we ought to have all the conversation at a single location, dedicated solely to this issue, where the material wil be housed for posterity, even if it starts out in a temporary location and is later moved to a proper location of some sort. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems like the right order.
 * Shouldn't we have a project page right from the start, with a shortcut and all WT:ATAX -> About taxonomy? We could conduct the discussion on the talk page and have copies of or links to any useful content now on other pages at WT:ATAX. DCDuring TALK 11:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Something like that, but it's really about taxonomic names, rather than taxonomy itself. The fussy would point out that it's biological taxonomy, as opposed to other kinds, and all this is part of the reason I didn't specify a particular page name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See Taxonomic names. DCDuring TALK 02:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Comparative / superlative of "strict"
Hi there - regarding the usage note you wrote for the Wiktionary entry for "strict": What's the source for saying that "more strict" / "most strict" is most often used outside the UK? I've lived in the US all my life, and I've never heard "more strict", only "stricter". "More strict" sounds very odd to me. All the North American dictionaries I can find give only the -er / -est forms. I think this usage note should be removed unless a reference can be given to back it up. Thanks. Seansinc (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was greatly relieved to find that someone else had added that remark originally in this edit. I merely moved it this past March from the inflection line to a usage note.
 * I checked COCA for relative frequency both over the whole corpus and in speech. It shows a bit more than the usual use of "more" and "most" rather than the "-er" and "-est" forms. In speech "more"/"most" were about 10% as common, in writing about 4%. At BNC there were no instances of more and most.
 * This suggests to me that perhaps some US speakers don't like to pronounce "cter" and "ctest" and avoid it when they have a choice.
 * Let's take this to WT:TR where some who are more knowledgeable about speech than I can weigh in. DCDuring TALK 14:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

pants
Since sense one specifies ‘usually’ as far as the ankles, I believe sense 2 is redundant. Certainly I can't see it in any other dictionaries. Ƿidsiþ 13:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I will restore your sense merger and insert the tags and inflection line that I'd like to see. I was just about to do just that, having finally seen what you were trying to do. DCDuring TALK 14:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Translingual epithets
Any way I could get you to budge on Translingual species epithets always being Latin based on User talk:EncycloPetey or indeed any other discussion? It seems to me these are coined (where they are coined and not borrowed) by non-Latin speakers, and not for use in Latin texts. I'd imagine the advantage you see is then they're all in the same language not some in Latin and some in Translingual. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See, User talk:EncycloPetey, and, especially, Taxonomic names. DCDuring TALK 12:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's possible if you want everything in the same language to add a Translingual section to some Latin words, such as . In many cases it might do nothing more than duplicate what's already there, but as long as the content is correct it doesn't matter if it duplicates the content of another language section. We allow Middle French words that have identical spelling and meaning to French words to have their own section, ditto Middle English (such as Middle English: ). Mglovesfun (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It might come to that.
 * As you probably know, I've modified to categorize by level or type of taxon and created  to do what  did but also cover more levels of taxa and categorize by the level of taxon that is missing. I also have  to be inserted in L2 sections that have a natural kind of living thing among the meanings of the headword. I have created the associated categories that were "wanted", though many have few members. I have also been regularizing all of the existing taxonomic entries that I can find, starting with those that are in relevant categories. Next will be cleanup lists for miscategorized taxonomic names (probably just a few in English and Latin), then insertion of  and  in the appropriate L2 sections of entries in the topical categories for living things. This should lead to a large number of wanted taxonomic entries and render moot such questions as whether we should have entries for species. See Category:mul:Taxonomic names (species).
 * If I also use or equivalent within species inflection-line templates for redlinked species epithets I will find out more about the nature of the missing ones, which fact base will help the discussion of L2 section for missing species epithets. I no longer really care, except for facilitating the build-out of taxonomic-name entries in general. DCDuring TALK  14:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There will be many more epithets not in the lemma form. It doesn't matter to me or to taxonomic usage whether the inflection is good Latin (it usually is) or good morphology in terms of any vintage of Latin language, just like medical and legal "Latin" terms. So I would just as soon simply have the form as used without even bothering to try to specify what form of the lemma it was. DCDuring TALK 14:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Todo/anomalous section0 content
I managed to get to the last one (can't remember how) and it contains a character information box which is appropriate before the first language section as it refers to the entry as a whole, not any particular language. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. I won't waste more clicks trying to read it. DCDuring TALK 14:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Cat
I read long ago that cat in the sense of "dude" is supposedly of African origin, along with the hip uses of hip and dig. Both of these are listed as Wolof in Wiktionary.

I did some research into the history of this Wiktionary enty and discovered that this use of "cat" was indeed once listed at a separate etymology with the Wolof root mentioned, then they did some shuffling of the cat entry, and the Wolof -kat reference was assumed to be. . . vandalism? and deleted. Jeremy Jigglypuff Jones (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is the old version, by the way. Jeremy Jigglypuff Jones (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * IOW, you have no support for anyone to look at for the existence of -kat, for its meaning, or for a connection between the purported suffix and the English term. DCDuring TALK 22:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that it is a hypothesis rather than a fact or a well-accepted view. I suppose the problem is the lack of a clear-cut path of transmission between Wolof and the earliest recorded uses of hepcat/hipcat/cat in the 1930s. One would expect there to be many (20? 50? 100?) words that have taken the route as well. -kat is something like the agent suffix -er, so cat would have been derived from hepcat rather than directly from -kat, based on the meager evidence we have. I've read a little about this kind of thing and understand the evidence problem for direct African influence on AAVE and American English in general: There isn't much evidence, but one wouldn't expect there to be much. But there are nagging questions. Why should Wolof be the African language that lends the most words to English? DCDuring TALK 23:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Translingual proper nouns
Seems KassadBot doesn't like your  syntax; it's been adding like. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I noticed and I've stopped that. I need to have an easy-to-type replacement template that does the job for taxa of genus-level and below and possibly other jobs. One problem may be that some Translingual terms of that type may also have other uses which are not italicized, eg, as names of stars or constellations. DCDuring TALK 17:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. The template wikifies the entire colloquial name (see, as an example, Caytoniales:). I'm pretty sure that it didn't use to, and I don't think that it should. The documentation example actually shows the colloquial name supplied to the template with square brackets. Is this something that you have changed? SemperBlotto (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It wikifies each argument unless there is wikilink within it. For all but argument 5, the gloss, this highly desirable. Usually, a wikilinked vernacular name is preceded by the for superior aesthetics. It does force the use of technical terms or lame wikification in some cases. DCDuring TALK 13:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That was how it has behaved all along. I managed not to screw it up when I made my categorization change. DCDuring TALK 13:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

ferret
Any reason you deleted the verb? Is this related to the problem Lo Ximiendo posted on his user page? --WikiTiki89 15:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If indeed I did it, it was inadvertent. I will inspect and restore any blunder. Thanks for letting me know. My feelings wouldn't have been hurt if you had corrected that destructive change, though it was probably combined with other hopefully constructive changes.DCDuring TALK 18:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Holy smokes. Thanks for reverting. I have no idea how that happened. DCDuring TALK 19:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I reverted any intentional changes along with that though. --WikiTiki89 19:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Thanks again. It might have been something with my touchpad. It is not the first time that I missed such an inadvertent deletion. It's a good thing it is so easy to reverse changes on a wiki. DCDuring TALK 19:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was actually really hard. I had to move my mouse all the way over to the undo button, then click, then move it all the way over to the save button, and then click again. --WikiTiki89 19:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Give me your tired, your minacious
As one of our experts on telling adjectives from nouns, I thought you might like to comment on Talk:minacious. The supposed noun citations of it are of the form "the minacious"... and yet we do have noun defs of [[poor]] and [[Irish]] supported by similar usage. - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a "fused-head" construction per CGEL, which virtually any English adjective can enter into. It usually requires some knowledge of the context to know what the fused head is exactly. We should probably have a couple of sentences about it at English adjectives. I think many of the others, including the demonymics, are suspect too, but a mammoth cleansing seems a poor course of action. DCDuring TALK 22:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your question on my talk-page. ..

I think it's worth keeping in mind that 's slowness, while less-than-ideal, does not directly affect readers, because no matter how many times occurs in the entry [[foo]], the processing of it never takes place during the rendering of http: //en.wiktionary.org/wiki/foo. (Or at least, most of its processing doesn't.) For example, try visiting User:Ruakh/Test, which is a copy of Requested entries (English) from before my change the other day; you'll find that it loads quite quickly.

The slowness does affect readers indirectly, in that:

 * It affects editors, and anything that makes editing harder, or less enjoyable, will be to the detriment of our project and its content.
 * One could argue that it increases server load in general, potentially making browsing slower overall. However, such an argument would somehow have to address the awkward fact that browsing isn't slow.

but IMHO, neither of those is reason for a panic attack.

—Ruakh TALK 17:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I just got a difference of about 8 times using the requested entries page, with the original version taking about 50 seconds. I don't know whether it has to do with MW servers or how my ISP handles a request that hasn't been completed all at once. Equinox mentioned that he thought the page was loading more slowly "lately". The insertion of was August 8.
 * I will run the comparison again with a timer later once all caches between my PC and the MW disks have cleared, hopefully before the storm knocks out power or my internet connection. I will make some kind of change to each involving  to try to force some kind of reconstruction of the page by the servers.
 * Are all of the templates required actually transcluded? There was some discussion that some templates that are used do not show up on the list of transcluded templates. If they do not show up on that list but are used, then how can we be sure the server fully prepares the content in advance?
 * In any event this seems to be something that would be limited to our problem pages. We could use a little performance-engineering support from MW. I'm sure our major design choices are defensible even if they go beyond what they wish we had done. DCDuring TALK 17:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: "What am I supposed to do besides click on the two links to the old version of WT:REE and the one on your user page that you so helpfully provided?": You're supposed to compare the current version of Requested entries (English) (which uses wikitext of the form  foo  for its links) to the current version of User:Ruakh/Test (which uses wikitext of the form   for its links). Now do you understand? —Ruakh TALK 19:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just tried again: Current version: 6 seconds, Old version: 42 seconds. DCDuring TALK 17:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. A URL of the form http: //en.wiktionary.org/wiki/foo only shows you the current version, so you can't have used it to time the old version; and the edit-history shows that you did not temporarily revert to the old version just so you could test this. That's why I was explicit about the URL format, and why I said that this is something that affects editors, not readers: readers don't go poking around in old versions, examining diffs and seeing what's changed. (Not usually, anyway. Not so's it would affect our competitiveness vis-à-vis other online dictionaries.) —Ruakh TALK 18:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't use [[foo]], I used the request pages. What am I supposed to do besides click on the two links to the old version of WT:REE and the one on your user page that you so helpfully provided? I didn't have to make any changes to generate the difference that I measured. I doubt that there have been enough changes to WT:REE to invalidate the comparison as an approximate measure of the scope of the problem.
 * Re: "I didn't use [[foo]], I used the request pages": Well, duh. I didn't think otherwise. ;-)  "Foo", in my example URL formats, was just a placeholder for the pagename.
 * Well, duh. That's what I have done from the beginning. I have now done so several times getting loading time for the old version in excess of 40 seconds each time and less than 8 seconds for the current -less version. Your links made that the easy thing to do. I have suggested that others run the test, using the same links copied to the tabbed-languages vote. If others have different experience, then there may be some interaction with ISP operations or some other problem peculiar to me. DCDuring TALK  19:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, so you're saying that visiting User:Ruakh/Test takes >40 seconds for you? Because for me, it's very fast. (That's why I didn't understanding that you were doing that: your results were well out of line with what I was seeing.) Except that actually, right right now it's slow. *investigates a bit* Y'know what? It's because there are a few separate levels of caching. If I visit the page when it's already in the parser cache, it's very fast. If I visit the page when it's not already in the parser cache, it takes a long time. Dammit, that's going to make it very hard to test proposed changes. Especially since intereditor cooperation seems to be out of the question; WT:NOT claims that "Wiktionary is not a battlefield", but I think it's simply mistaken. :-P  —Ruakh TALK 21:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I could tell that my results went against your expectations and experience. I will do other things to let as many caches empty as possible. I don't think that WT:REE is getting a lot of use right now. (It isn't one of those designated high-use page, I don't think.)
 * You could also try the test on a copy of Requested entries (Scientific names) before I (laboriously) removed all of the instances. I won't fool with it (I am quite sure that no one else would) if you tell me that you want to run performance tests. You would have maximum control of caching effects.
 * BTW, as I reduced the number of instances of performance got better, probably by a caching effect at first, but it seemed to get gradually better thereafter. Then, toward the end of the process, it got much, much better. Final elimination of  did not have a dramatic effect. Could there be some non-linear number-of-transclusions effect? I know that that goes against your model of how it's supposed to work, but still.... DCDuring TALK  21:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. Some amount of nonlinearity wouldn't surprise me, but I'm not sure exactly what pattern I would expect. (Note that my knowledge of MediaWiki internals, while broader than average, is still not exactly vast.) —Ruakh TALK 21:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we use this guy from MW who visited WT:GP to get some information? If you want I could ask questions in my own blundering way. I'm used to exposing my ignorance. DCDuring TALK 21:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I haven't visited Ruakh's test page, so it shouldn't be in any cache on my end. I may have visited the newly-updated Requested Entries page, but if one of you would like to copy it to another test page, I'll load each test page (the old, supposedly "slower" version and the new, supposedly "faster" version) in turn and give you feedback on how quickly/slowly they finish loading and how quickly/slowly each one re-loads/saves after a null edit. - -sche (discuss) 23:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ed. Rev.
Thanks for the info on quoting from "Ed. Rev." (aka The Edinburgh Review)! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. A lot of what happens here is not well documented so asking for an explanation or (politely!) expressing a confusion or frustration is appropriate and deserves as much of an answer as one can give. If I knew of some relevant documentation I would have referred you to it! DCDuring TALK 19:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Exocoetidae
Hi there. Do you think this entry should have some sort of links to and Exocet:? SemperBlotto (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I do, now that you mention it. But it brings up a question of how to present such things. If this part of Translingual were conceived of in Wiktionary terms as a language, then something related in another (real) language is either a descendant or part of its etymology. If this part of Translingual is conceived of as a sort of branch of English, then it can have English terms as Synonyms, Related terms, Translations, etc.
 * I don't really want to waste time on addressing this in principle. Over time it will be resolved by building good entries, which will demand suitable treatment. I think I can predict aspects of the outcome, but I may be wrong.
 * Translingual is a bit of a miscellany that may need for some of its parts to hive off.
 * There are fair number of taxonomic terms that have extremely lame "definitions", consisting solely of taxonomic placement and a vernacular name ending in "id" (eg, for Cupateidae: "the cupateids"). These really should be in related terms and replaced if possible with a more illuminating definition.
 * In the meantime, we could put such things under Related terms or See also. I'd prefer Related terms. DCDuring TALK 12:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

thymallus
Hi again. I have forgotten what sort of entry we are supposed to create for these sorts of word (the uncapitalised form of the genus name (Thymallus:) used as a type species. Any ideas? SemperBlotto (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what we have been doing, nor do I have any particular ideas about what we should do.
 * I suppose that we need to have a separate entry for the lower-case form, even though there is a kind of grammar that says how this are to be interpreted. If the word is also a normal Latin word we could have an New Latin context and a special non-gloss definition. For a term not used in regular Latin, we could treat it the way you do the eponymous epithets, as a Translingual entry.
 * I'm not too worried about "getting it wrong" as long as the terms are locatable (categories, distinctive context or words) and reasonably consistently laid out. That would ease the burden of any possible restructuring that may need to occur. DCDuring TALK 17:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

 * OK. I have made an attempt at it (and also at bagarius:). I shall use this format in future unless anyone objects. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've started doing it that way myself. I still can't think of a good alternative. DCDuring TALK 17:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Frankish language template
I noticed that the Frankish language template frk states that it is Frankish, but elsewhere i have seen the language referred to as Old Frankish, which is it? If it is Old Frankish can you change it? The reason I noticed is that someone has added the word "old" in front of the "ety" template stating frankish, and that kind of seems like a bandaid fix to me.

I looked a little further and it seems like probably Frankish is old Frankish but I would like an admin's opinion before I change the old back to regular. Thanks Speednat (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Old Frankish and Frankish are the same, but we call the language Frankish because there is no modern Frankish language (that is called Franconian, apparently). So you should probably remove the "Old" when you see it, especially when it is "Old " because the etyl template will always show the proper name anyway, and if we ever decide to change the name it will end up saying Old Old Frankish... 00:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not knowledgeable enough about such things to have an opinion. CodeCat, MGLovesfun, and Liliana-60 might have opinions. As has been confirmed by the message from CodeCat while I was writing this. DCDuring TALK 00:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks that's what I was thinking. Speednat (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Your language preference
Quick question: Is your language setting in Special:Preferences set to "en - English"? --Yair rand (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Why? DCDuring TALK 12:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, so much for that theory. I had read that pages were cached separately per language, which would result in pretty much every page taking forever to load if one's language was set to anything different, so it occurred to me that that might be causing the lengthy page loads you mentioned you were experiencing a couple sections up. Why pages are loading effectively instantly for me but taking nearly a minute for you remains a mystery for now, I guess... --Yair rand (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the trouble to investigate. Does everyone use the same server? Aren't there mirrors? Have you polled admins about their loading-speed and determined their location and IP or IP type? I'm in NY doing Wiktionary from my home using TimeWarner Cable as my IP. The polling might be a good idea anyway to determine how widespread the difficulty is and to generate some hypotheses.
 * I simply can't be bothered to work on the large entries, many of which urgently need work, with the kind of performance I get. That's one reason I now spend time on taxonomic entries instead: they are much quicker to load, edit, and save. DCDuring TALK 13:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really know if the same server(s) everywhere, or if that would make a difference, or what. I'm not really knowledgeable about how things work on the back end. I agree that polling to see if it's a very widespread issue sounds like a good idea. --Yair rand (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:k and script
I thought I'd follow up on your question about why it is important that templates know which scripts languages are written in. My understanding—which others will hopefully correct if it is deficient—is that it is because our site-wide .css causes certain scripts to be displayed in fonts which can handle those scripts, rather than in the default font which tends to display them as meaningless boxes. However, the .css is apparently not yet smart enough to recognise that every time a particular Unicode codepoint appears, it is a particular script, e.g. ฆ is always a letter in the Thai script. Scripts must be "applied" to things. Thus, our templates like look up each language's script subpage to know what script it uses and thus what font to apply to it, so that it does not display as boxes. is simplified compared to because English is usually written with ASCII characters (instances of Greek letters, click characters and other things being copied from other languages are rare), and which our whole site is in English unless otherwise stated anyway, so no script needs to be applied to English. (for Thai) could also be a lot simpler than, because it could contain the script declaration within itself, rather than requiring the template to look up other templates, but it would still need to contain the script and be a bit less minimal than , so that the text of the link displays properly (but if does contain the script within itself, it should be no slower than , AFAIK). There are also what I'll call "philosophical" benefits to declaring every Thai string's script as Thai, etc. - -sche (discuss) 21:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is another reason. This doesn't apply strictly to scripts, but since this functionality is part of script templates, it is tied to them. Usually whenever a script template is used, it is called with a <tt>lang=</tt> parameter which specifies which language the text is written in. This parameter is used by browsers to figure out how to interpret the text. Most browsers don't really do any interpreting, but one very important application is text-to-speech. If you don't specify, for example, the word attention with <tt>lang=fr</tt>, a speech synthesizer will assume that it's English and pronounce rather than . ( is better than <tt> attention </tt> for this same reason) So we have to specify the language, there is really no way around it if we want to be accessible to sight-impaired users. On the other hand, I do believe that we can use CSS to do most of the work that the /script subtemplates currently do. For example, it is possible to use CSS to specify that anything on the page that has <tt>lang=th</tt> applied to it should use Thai font. I'm not sure if we can completely replace script templates in this way, but we should certainly have a closer look in the Grease Pit.  22:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This page is not watched by enough folks to ensure getting the best corrections.
 * The script-related reasons would seem to have the most relevance for non-Latin scripts. Do not all browsers, no matter what the language selected by the browser or the operating system, need to have and actually have the capability of handling Latin script? If that is so, then we do not need universal use of resource-intensive script selection, especially in the entries that have obvious performance problems. I have never had problems with the use of language-code-based script selection where it is essential.
 * Selecting language is done by the contributor who specifies the language. All a template does is expand a code to a language name, a labor-saving and error-reducing step of some value, but not absolutely essential.
 * The resource-intensive aspects of our most widely-used templates (the t family, l, and term) seem to be existence tests and template calls. I don't see any way of completely dispensing with template calls. I do think that we can dispense with and force contributors of bots to insert language codes that actually exist by having dramatically ugly visible results from a template that contains a non-existent language code. Looking up a script where the script is Latin seems extravagantly wasteful for templates that can be used hundreds of times in an entry, for just that purpose.
 * I am tired of not being able to effectively make small edits to large English entries because of ridiculous save times and even excessive load times. DCDuring TALK 01:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

fustic
I don't understand your reversion there. It makes no sense to link to an obsolete name, to dead pages, redirects, or incorrect names or name parts, instead of linking to names of species, current names, and the like. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"a muscularly Christian period"
Just in case you haven't heard of it: that citation of yours presumably refers to muscular Christianity. Equinox ◑ 22:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was definitely a little vague about it. Anglican religious movements were not part of my RC childhood. I still think a cite of "muscularly Christian" might help. There are definitely two sides of Christianity, one somewhat feminine and passive, the other male and active. DCDuring TALK 23:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your altruism. Pass a Method (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

right to privacy - Russian translation
Hi,

Thanks for your interest but sorry but your edit made the translation incorrect grammatically.

In "  частной жизни" two words are not in their lemma forms but in genitive case.

To achieve the same using, one needs a parameter <tt>alt</tt>, e.g.:

право на неприкосновенность частный жизнь

This looks ugly and doesn't look a phrase but a list of words. I no longer that method after a lot of negative feedback, which made sense to me. is another alternative, which I'm not a big fan of.

право на неприкосновенность частной жизни would not be great either and some people complain about this way.

--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Do you know whether Liliana's bot automatically handles correction of in translations? DCDuring TALK  23:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 * I don't understand the question. I don't remember what the bot does. Can you give me an example of a potential problem? How does it change translations? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that all translations were supposed to be enclosed in a template of the family. Is that wrong? DCDuring TALK  00:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

 * and were not "officially" adopted but for cases where a target language is translated as SoP or is non-idiomatic, it makes sense to use them and is often the case. There were a few discussions about non-idiomatic translations about proverbs. If I had more time, I would convert such translations into hedgehop type. See also Wiktionary_talk:Entry_layout_explained about my suggestion, which was welcomed but no action resulted out of it. It's definitely easier and quicker to add a quick translation using, even for SoP and non-idiomatic translations. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I just try to keep translations in compliance with accepted standards. Usually I only correct things marked by AF aka Kassadbot. My mistake here was to venture beyond that practice. I have an an animus against overuse of and that clouded my judgment. In fact  suffers from the same performance-sapping problems. That said, any language that needs to make sure that the correct or best non-Latin script is used should and must use those templates. DCDuring TALK  01:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Both and  have automatic script conversions, compare the look  and سيارة. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know. I'm confessing to some irrationality. DCDuring TALK 04:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Low German taxonomy
Just FYI, if you're looking for taxonomic names to format, most of the ~53 entries in Category:nds:Animals and Category:nds-de:Animals contain nonstandardly-formatted mentions of taxonomic names in their nonstandardly-used "Related terms" sections. I've formatted some of them, and I'll get to all of them eventually, so it's no problem if you have other things you'd rather work on. - -sche (discuss) 18:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really know even now what a standard format should be for taxonomic name entries or for the mode of including taxonomic names in non-Translingual entries. But if you could use around any taxonomic names that you notice, then the taxonomic names would appear in a subcategory of Category:Entries using missing taxonomic names and get a link to wikispecies until the wiktionary entry is created. I'm getting used to the pattern of these entries, including those for obsolete names etc.
 * I have fairly explicit observations (See User:DCDuring/Taxa-related page problems.) about some substantive deficiencies in taxonomic entries.
 * I am mining some simple wikisearches for taxonomic names: "English" "genus" has some 3,000 entries, of which I've probably done more than half. I'll try "Chinese" genus" and "English" "species" after that, then items in various en categories and probably cmn categories. fi is pretty well covered, with a very large portion of the living-thing entries having corresponding Translingual entries..
 * Then there are already probably 2,000 taxonomic entries that are redlinks categorized using . There are more that are redlinks in Translingual etymology sections and as arguments in . Also there are 2,200 taxonomic entries in Category:Taxonomic names needing vernacular names that do not have any vernacular name or definition other than position in taxonomic hierarchy. Then there are all the redlinked vernacular names.
 * One of my objectives is to solicit translations from the common languages spoken in the native range of the species, which is greatly helped if there are images of the geographic distribution species from Commons. DCDuring TALK 19:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

real gone
Hi. 3 refs added, hidden in attention box, as request. Couldn't find deletion discussion under link. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But why isn't this just real + gone? DCDuring TALK 09:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also "hepcat" in the definition is a noun, not an adjective. DCDuring TALK 09:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy new year etc.
Hi! Happy Christmas and all of that tinytimulous bullshit. I would like to discuss with you your current Wiktionary doings SLASH aims (cannot find slash on this keyboard, for love nor money) and what is pleasing SLASH annoying you. I would like to say this is on behalf of some grand Wikimedia survey but it isn't at all. Haha. Perhaps I'll telephone you when you least expect it. But not until I get home so you have rather more than a week. Hope you are well, etc., with love from aunt Equinox ◑ 21:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Appropriate generic seasonal greetings to you too.
 * Some of my aims are at Taxonomic names and its talk page and at User:DCDuring/Taxa-related page problems.
 * What scares me is our lack of technical adepts who can simplify and improve performance of our baroque infrastructure. Annoyances are too numerous to mention. DCDuring TALK 21:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Taxlink
I noticed on abalone you removed the taxlink template. Am I not using that in a correct manner? Please let me know because I was under the impression that that particular template was used in that situation. Granted I did not have an argument for the genus or family. Speednat (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed it because we have our own entry for Haliotis.
 * The template is principally intended to help identify entries that need a taxonomic entry to eliminate what would have been a redlink. In the interim it provides a wikispecies link. You can continue to use it as you have, but, if you can, please put in taxonomic level (genus, species, subspecies, etc) as follows . Put in "unknown" if you don't know and can't easily find out.
 * Don't be surprised or offended if I remove it. The template is modestly expensive, so I remove it when it is no longer necessary, ie, when we have our own entry. DCDuring TALK 01:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * cool thanks

Endodontidae?diff=19177867
Is what you had in mind? —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 15:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. Sometimes I just miss these things. All taxa, even obsolete ones BTW, should be presumptively Translingual. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Oats
Hi DCDuring, could you please tell me what exactly do you want to be checked here? I added the Afrikaans and Dutch translations for 'oats,' and only then I realized I may have made a mistake. I think these are all translations of 'seeds of an oat plant.' In my opinion the translation box 'plural of oat' should be no more than a redirect to the page 'oat.' The text in the translation box should consequently be changed to 'seeds of an oat plant' (and still be awaiting verification). Except for Afrikaans hawer and Dutch haver of course, since these are correct translations for 'oats.' Caudex Rax ツ (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am often puzzled by a sense of "Xs" that seems to me to be subsumed in the "plural of X" definition. It is true that English speakers rarely refer to a single oat meaning a single seed. But "many oats" is about as common as "much oats", though it is tedious to determine which sense of oat/oats is meant in each usage. (If speakers think of oats as a plural in all senses then our entry at [[oats]] is wrong to have the "seeds" sense.) In Afrikaans and Dutch does the translation for the "seeds" definition differ from the plural of the Afrikaans and Dutch words for oat? DCDuring TALK 15:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Both Afrikaans hawer and Dutch haver are uncountable. According to Van Dale EN–NL the countable noun oat refers to botany, and the non-countable noun refers to bucolic poetry. The following (last) meaning refers to food and is preceded by the words "altijd als meervoud: oats," meaning "always plural: oats." Pharos AF–EN / EN–AF endorses this: according to this dictionary oat refers to the plant or to a kernel of oat, while oats "fungeer as ekv. of mv.," meaning "functions as singular or plural." In other words, if the term oats refers to food, it's uncountable in Afrikaans and Dutch, and therefore always singular, whereas it's always plural in English. Caudex Rax ツ (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Does our entry for haver show that?
 * I'm going to investigate the temporal and semantic scope of the uncountability/countability of the senses until I am satisfied, but probably not today. Thanks for reminding me of this. DCDuring TALK 17:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The entry for haver says plural of haver is havers. Yet both Dikke Van Dale and Prisma's 'Groot Woordenboek Afrikaans en Nederlands' say haver is uncountable. Greetings, Caudex Rax ツ (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a template for this situation, called, which follows:
 * - DCDuring TALK 18:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * - DCDuring TALK 18:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Will do. Have a nice day, Caudex Rax ツ (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you already did. Caudex Rax ツ (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not I, but CodeCat. DCDuring TALK 19:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is generally uncountable, but the plural of uncountable nouns may occasionally be used to indicate various types of something. So "verschillende havers" would mean "different (kinds of) oats", although it would be a rather unusual way to say it ("verschillende soorten haver" would be more usual). 01:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not dissimilar from English in that regard, except, possibly, the relative frequency of countable and uncountable. I don't really know what the frequencies are. I have a feeling that oats is used as a singular noun: "Oats is one of the healthiest grains." If true, that will mean more work on both [[oat]] and [[oats]]. DCDuring TALK 03:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Latin specific epithets
A lot of WT:RE:la is just specific epithets that were not actually words in Classical or Medieval Latin. I'm not interested in creating those, because I personally don't think they're Latin, but as long as I don't have to deal with them and they're marked as New Latin, it's fine. So, would you be OK with me moving all that to a subpage of the requests page, linked to prominently at the top? (PS: specific epithets which were real words in Latin, like musimo: which you requested and I just created, will stay on the main page.) —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I know how to distinguish between epithets that Latinists find acceptable and those they don't. We have numerous words such as canadensis which might not be "real" Latin, but are nonetheless there. I know it isn't just a question of whether the word is in Lewis and Short. SemperBlotto has been adding Translingual entries for some eponymous noun and adjective forms based on Latinized names of zoologists and botanists. Perhaps you could provide me with some further guidance on this important matter. I never had much luck with EP on it.
 * If it is just a matter of opinion, I'll continue to put in requests at WT:RE:la and let the opinions be made manifest there. If they don't get added, then so be it. We could date the requessts, leave them there for a year, and see what happens to them.
 * In a similar situation I stopped working on a some cleanup list until the AWB-assisted mass generation of cleanup items was cleaned up by someone else, which took a few months. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A big list of specific epithets is at User:Pengo/Latin/Most_Common_Epithets_contents. He also has pages and pages of less common ones. DCDuring TALK
 * I'm not really a Latinist, I just like the language and I speak it. Certainly, Lewis & Short (or my Collins, which includes some properly marked Neo-Latin) is enough to make something feel real to me. I guess the distinction is this: it may not be possible to find a non-taxonomic cite for sandvicensis:, and it describes something which was only known to Latinists in the late 18th century at the earliest. "Real" Latin, for me, can include Neo-Latin if it's a word like oxoniensis:, which can be found on inscriptions dating back for the last couple hundred years, and is a serious way to refer to the city of Oxford in Latin. For the former, I strongly prefer Translingual. Many of these names are only found in the nominative (like sandvicensis) or genitive (like Jonesi) cases, and that's a strong pointer to the fact that they're not real Latin, and they're not deserving of inflection tables like a real Latin word.
 * The only reason I ask to separate them from the main requests page is so that I can create entries for everything I consider to be real and leave the rest to Semper. I'm working on some JS (with massive help from Ruakh) to speed up the process. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look at WT:REE you will find that the list there of requested terms conforms to no rules. They are reviewed one by one and deleted for cause eventually. If you have particular objectives and criteria, then it seems that you may need your own pages that support your particular objectives. You should be able to apply your criteria to whatever existing lists of terms you want to make your own list. I am in no position to help you there.
 * But, to make life easier for you and to accommodate your distaste for specific epithets as a source, I won't add any new specific epithets to the page and will start sooner rather than later a project I had in mind: creating a category of entries with missing specific and infra-specific epithets, populated by a special-purpose inflection-line template and/or a variant of . You may want to review that category once it really exists, so you can pick those terms that you think are worth making true Latin entries for. For now, there is a small population of such at Category:Entries using missing taxonomic name (epithet). You may also want to pick from Pengo's lists, too. You might want to make a list of uncapitalized lemma forms of genus names to see how many do not have Latin L2s. Some will definitely be in Lewis and Short. DCDuring TALK 02:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That category sounds intriguing. I found Pengo's lists more or less unhelpful in that regard. I also like the lowercase genus name idea; for dinosaurs, for example, it is unlikely to yield any fruits, but it might be helpful with birds, for example. How would I generate that sort of list? (PS: I'm not a fan of Wiktionary taxonomy, but I must admit you're doing a good job of it.) —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:mul:Taxonomic names (genus) (more than 3,000 entries, 15 pages) has the (capitalized) genus names that we have. I have used brute-force methods that are not suitable for so many pages to make plain text lists, which I have formatted offline with special-purpose templates to accomplish duplication and lower-casing using the lcfirst: function. I don't know of any elegant methods. So I would ask Ruakh or some other person good at extracting info from the dump. DCDuring TALK 13:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Another class of specific epithets that I think are most easily considered Translingual and not Latin are those that are simple transliterations from other languages, usually a name for something living in a native language in the range of the living thing, but also like onca. Tef ( < teff) is another. Also, I have applied to a few species and genus names at WT:RE:la. I will get to them within the week.
 * Something else that you've been doing to Latin entries that I strongly disagree with: creating new senses like this. Any use of the specific epithet would simply mean that the species was considered to be Egyptian, nothing more, nothing less. It's a Classical word with a Classical definition. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By all means let's not try to resurrect Latin by treating these as words that might give it a new lease on life. Let's let the dead languages rest in peace. Don't trouble your head about it any more. DCDuring TALK 01:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Linguae mortuae semper vivant! (May the dead languages live forever!) There is still material being produced in Latin, literature being written, conversations being had. We must treat Latin as a language that is just as living as English, with neologisms like interrete: and hamaxostichus: coëxisting with Ciceronian diatribes and Augustinian jeremiads. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I don't understand your animus against the development of new meanings via scientific Latins. Would hamaxostichus prove attestable? DCDuring TALK 02:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because they're not written in Latin (which, believe or not, requires some knowledge). They are usually coined somewhat macaronically, with but little regard to grammatical niceties. Often, they're just Latinised Ancient Greek (or Mandarin or Japanese or Russian or Portuguese...). Yes, hamaxostichus: is easily attestable (if you had bothered to go to the entry, you would have noticed that I had already provided three cites). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By that standard Lewis and Short need some corrective editing. Many words in Classical Latin are "just Latinized Ancient Greek". And Afer seems to be taken from a "Punic" source. Borrowings are part of every living language, AFAICT.
 * The Castellanus cite is from a phrasebook, isn't it? DCDuring TALK 04:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, no, borrowings that are actually normalised to a language and used in full sentences written in that language can be demonstrated to have entered successfully. gorbuscha (from горбуша) and onca (from onça) had their spellings normalised, but nobody used the names in Latin texts, AFAICT. An example of a borrowing from Translingual into Latin can be seen in gallopavo:, formed synthetically from gallus: + pavo: by Linnaeus and subsequently used in full Latin sentences (see ). And yes, I believe Castellanus writes humorous Latin phrasebooks for those few brave tourists to the Imperium. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, practically, you just mean attestation in running Latin text, ie, that contains a Latin verb.
 * Is a phrasebook a source of usage or just mentions? DCDuring TALK 12:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Most unfortunately, the verb criterion is not enough. A lot of Latin texts were written in a kind of stylized shorthand, in which verbs like "to be" and "to have" are left out in favor of case constructions. In the phrasebook, however, you will note the verb advenio:, which is what the hamaxostichus in question will most likely do. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I conclude from this that Translingual entries will never get timely, constructive support from Latin and should include whatever terms are useful without regard to the existence of Latin as the meanings are likely to be distinct, even if the word has Latin ancestry. If Latin would like to claim a meaning, then it can do so once it is attested in ways acceptable to those who support Latin. I will commence expunging the New Latin from Latin L2 sections shortly. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I gather that it's hard to get Latin editors to help support Translingual. Personally, I'd like to help, but I'm also a notorious purist. My position is somewhat confusing, as I support New Latin entries like gallopavo: (and note we lack the generic name Gallopavo:) but rely on attestation to decide where to draw the line. If I can be of any service in the domain of the Latin L2, please tell me or drop an for me. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I will simply create Translingual noun and adjective entries. I will expect that some of them will be supplemented by or converted to Latin entries. If a sense does not exist in running Latin text then it will simply remain in the Translingual L2 section. And I will move distinct New Latin senses for specific epithets to Translingual. If we get citations that show the term exists in running Latin with the meaning, back they can go. That seems like a robust approach consistent with just about all the expressed concerns I have ever heard about this. It's a bit more total work than it would have to be, but it economizes on Latin expertise, which is apparently somewhat scarce.
 * Taxonomic work just requires a moderately long apprenticeship (Sitzfleisch), though Latin and some relevant biological expertise certainly help. Getting all three in one person seems hard. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:DCDuring/2012 QIV


text:
garniso

Noun

 * 1) garnish, furnishing

title: garniso


text:
garnisi

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1) to garnish, to decorate

title: garnisi


text: crab-eating foxes

title: crab-eating foxes


text:
furniso

Noun

 * 1) furniture, furnishing

title: furniso


text: furnisi

title: furnisi


text:
furnisanto

Noun

 * 1) contractor

title: furnisanto


text: furnisanti

title: furnisanti


text:
furnisar

Etymology
Borrowed from,.

Verb

 * 1)  to furnish with things
 * 2)  to provide, to supply with things

title: furnisar


text:
provizar

Verb

 * 1)  to provide, to supply with things

title: provizar


text:
revoko

Noun

 * 1) revocation, deposition
 * 2) removal, reversal

title: revoko


text:
poliso

Noun

 * 1) polish

title: poliso


text:
garnisar

Verb

 * 1)  to garnish
 * 2)  to furnish with things needed to complete or embellish

title: garnisar


text:
konteno

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) containing, capacity

title: konteno


text: konteni

title: konteni


text:
kontenajo

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) content, contents
 * 2)  content

title: kontenajo


text:
-ajo

Etymology
, from.

Etymology
.

Usage notes

 * Used especially after masculine nouns. Compare.

title: -ajo


text: inuem

title: inuem


text: Category:Ido terms suffixed with -ajo

title: Category:Ido terms suffixed with -ajo


text: kontenaji

title: kontenaji


text: inomes

title: inomes


text:
patrimuniel

Adjective

 * 1) patrimonial

title: patrimuniel


text: Category:English terms derived from Bemba


text: Category:Terms derived from Bemba

title: Category:Terms derived from Bemba


text:
revokar

Verb

 * 1)  to revoke
 * 2)  to repeal

title: revokar


text:
trikolora

Adjective

 * 1) tricolor

title: trikolora


text:
User talk:201.14.121.79

Google translate
Please do not enter any translations here that you have obtained by using Google translate. The translations are unreliable, especially with regard to sense, and for many languages the transliterations are unacceptable. For example, in post, you entered the Khmer word ប្រកាស and claimed that the transliteration was "brakeas"...that is completely wrong. First, ប្រកាស does not mean the kind of post that sticks up out of the ground, it means to post an announcement, to proclaim, to declare. Second, its transliteration is NOT "brakeas", it is "prɑkaah".

Do not add translations or transliterations here for any language that you do not speak. If you only speak English, as I suspect, then confine your work to English only. I have reverted your contributions, since they are miserably wrong and unacceptable. Don’t do it anymore. —Stephen (Talk) 21:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:201.14.121.79


text:
сэрии

Etymology
From, compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1)  war
 * 2) battle
 * 3) army
 * 1) army

title: сэрии


text:
эйэ

Noun

 * 1) bow

Etymology
From. Compare to 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1)  peace
 * 2) harmony
 * 1) harmony
 * 1) harmony

title: эйэ


text:
ками

Etymology
, from, preserving the reflex of word-final */y/, which was lost in standard words and.

Noun

 * 1) stone

title: ками


text:
сэрииһит

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)   warrior
 * 2) soldier

title: сэрииһит


text:
кымырдаҕас

Etymology
From, compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

From a diminutive, with an earlier change of into  common in clusters, and a later  to break up a difficult cluster.

Noun

 * 1) ant

title: кымырдаҕас


text:
модьоҕо

Etymology
Cognate with 🇨🇬 (see there for more).

Noun

 * 1) threshold, doorstep

title: модьоҕо


text:
бэргэһэ

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) hat, cap

title: бэргэһэ


text:
солко

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) silk

title: солко


text:
буукуба

Etymology
Borrowed from, from , from , from , from , from.

Noun

 * 1)  letter

title: буукуба


text:
тылдьыт

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) dictionary
 * 2) vocabulary, glossary

title: тылдьыт


text:
арыгы

Etymology
Ultimately from via  language, compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) wine

title: арыгы


text:
бодул

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  islander on the Croatian coast of the Adriatic sea.

title: бодул


text:
аристократкиња

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) aristocrat (female)

title: аристократкиња


text:
бјелина

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) whiteness
 * 2) whitespace

title: бјелина


text:
belina

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) whiteness
 * 2) whitespace

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) whiteness

title: belina


text:
белина

Etymology 1
..

Noun

 * 1)  whiteness
 * 2)  sclera the white of the eye
 * 3)  albumen the white of an egg
 * 4)  salo, slanina;.
 * 1)  albumen the white of an egg
 * 2)  salo, slanina;.
 * 1)  salo, slanina;.

Etymology 2
Instrumental noun of the causative verb.

Noun

 * 1) bleach

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) whiteness
 * 2) white space

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) whiteness
 * 2) whitespace

title: белина


text:
бјелкиња

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) A white female (person with light-coloured skin)

title: бјелкиња


text:
belkinja

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) A white female (person with light-coloured skin)

title: belkinja


text:
белкиња

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) A white female (person with light-coloured skin)

title: белкиња


text:
сырдык

Etymology
From *jaryk, from.

Adjective

 * 1) light, bright
 * 2) noble, well-intentioned
 * 1) noble, well-intentioned

Noun

 * 1) light

title: сырдык


text:
бјелило

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) bleach
 * 2) whiteness

title: бјелило


text:
belilo

Etymology 1
.

Noun

 * 1) bleach
 * 2) whiteness

title: belilo


text:
белило

Etymology
. Equivalent to

Noun

 * 1) mineral white paint, e.g. zinc white, lead white and titanium white
 * 2)  face pomade used to give the skin a whiter appearance

Etymology
..

Noun

 * 1) bleach, whitener
 * 2) white face powder

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) bleach
 * 2) whiteness

title: белило


text:
көмө

Etymology
From, cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬,🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) help, assistance, aid, support

title: көмө


text:
цимерица

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  roommate (female)

title: цимерица


text:
pauco profunde

Adjective

 * 1) shallow

title: pauco profunde


text: Citations:pauco profunde

title: Citations:pauco profunde


text:
cvilež

Etymology
From /.

Noun

 * 1) whine, squeal

title: cvilež


text:
цвилеж

Etymology
From /.

Noun

 * 1) whine, squeal

title: цвилеж


text:
тыҥырах

Etymology
From. Cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1)  nail
 * 2)  claw
 * 1)  claw

title: тыҥырах


text: makokoto

title: makokoto


text:
тыӈырак

Noun

 * 1) nail
 * 2) claw

title: тыӈырак


text:
apsar

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) An unrecognized currency of Abkhazia.

Translations

 * Abkhaz: аԥсар
 * Armenian: ափսար
 * Estonian: apsaar
 * Georgian: აფსარი
 * Russian: апса́р

title: apsar


text: apsars

title: apsars


text: Category:English terms derived from Turkmen


text:
naxar

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) An unrecognised currency created by the Chechen separatists.

Translations

 * Chechen: нахар
 * Russian: на́хар

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to hang (laundry) out to dry

title: naxar


text: Category:English terms derived from Chechen


text: Category:Terms derived from Chechen

title: Category:Terms derived from Chechen


text: Category:English terms derived from Northeast Caucasian languages


text:
Santalum

Etymology
, from, from Late , from , possibly from.

Hypernyms

 * ,, - clades;  - order;  - family

Hyponyms

 * For species see or

title: Santalum


text:
schandpaal

Etymology
From.

title: schandpaal


text:
voor paal staan

Etymology
Probably derived from the historical practice of shaming people by holding them in a pillory (Dutch: ).

Verb

 * 1)  to be humiliated, to be put in an awkward position

title: voor paal staan


text:
Phragmites

Etymology
From, from.

Hypernyms

 * ; - subfamily

Hyponyms

 * (syn. - type species; for other species see  or

title: Phragmites


text: videvu

title: videvu


text:
udevu

Etymology
From the stem of.

Noun

 * 1) beard hair
 * 2)  beard
 * 1)  beard

title: udevu


text:
wimbo

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) song

title: wimbo


text: nyimbo

title: nyimbo


text: nyembe

title: nyembe


text:
wavu

Noun

 * 1) net
 * 2)  Internet

title: wavu


text:
nyavu

Noun

 * 1) fishing net

title: nyavu


text: nyakati

title: nyakati


text:
ubao

Noun
or

 * 1) plank
 * 2) piece of wood

title: ubao


text:
ubawa

Noun
or

 * 1) wing

title: ubawa


text: mbawa

title: mbawa


text:
показание

Noun

 * 1) testimony, evidence, statement
 * 2) indication, reading, readout
 * 1) indication, reading, readout

title: показание


text:
молва

Etymology
, from, from , from , from.

Noun

 * 1) slander, calumny, aspersion, libel

Etymology
, from ; cognates include 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬. .

Noun

 * 1) rumour/rumor, talk, hearsay

title: молва


text:
uwingu

Noun

 * 1) sky; heaven

title: uwingu


text:
mbingu

Noun

 * 1) heavens

title: mbingu


text: fagio

title: fagio


text:
ulimwengu

Noun

 * 1) world; universe

title: ulimwengu


text:
Ureno

Etymology
From.

title: Ureno


text:
Mreno

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) Portuguese person

title: Mreno


text: Wareno

title: Wareno


text:
nyani

Noun

 * 1) baboon

Noun

 * 1) baboon

Etymology
From, possibly through.

Verb

 * 1)  to sing

title: nyani


text:
ಫ್ಲೂರೀನ್

Noun

 * 1) fluorine

title: ಫ್ಲೂರೀನ್


text: amsalağı

title: amsalağı


text: amsalaklar

title: amsalaklar


text: anahtarlıklar

title: anahtarlıklar


text: inzi

title: inzi


text: Category:sw:Arachnids

title: Category:sw:Arachnids


text:
sisimizi

Noun

 * 1) small ant

title: sisimizi


text:
幕末

Noun

 * 1) the final years of the Edo era

title: 幕末


text:
kidege

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * : little bird; birdie

title: kidege


text: videge

title: videge


text: madege

title: madege


text:
kifuko

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * : little bag

title: kifuko


text: vifuko

title: vifuko


text: 浜松

title: 浜松


text: mafuko

title: mafuko


text:
kisanduku

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * : little box

title: kisanduku


text: visanduku

title: visanduku


text:
三河

Etymology
From the presence of three rivers in the former province:, , and. The name 三川 (Mikawa) is included in the.

Proper noun

 * , an old province of Japan
 * 1)  where the province was located

title: 三河


text: majoka

title: majoka


text:
ノー

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Interjection

 * 1) no that is untrue
 * 2) no I do not accept or allow that
 * 1) no I do not accept or allow that
 * 1) no I do not accept or allow that

Noun

 * 1) a no, a denial
 * 2) a lack of something (often found in compounds)

Prefix

 * 1) without

title: ノー


text:
一気

Noun

 * 1) a single attempt, one go, one stretch
 * 2) one instant

Usage notes
This is nearly always used with the particle.

title: 一気


text:
発する

Verb

 * 1) emit, give off, beam

title: 発する


text:
グレート

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) great

Noun

 * 1) greatness (often found in compounds)

title: グレート


text: カルロス

title: カルロス


text:
តក់ៗ

Adverb

 * 1) drop by drop
 * 2) little by little, gradually
 * 1) little by little, gradually

Interjection

 * 1) sound of a liquid dripping.

title: តក់ៗ


text:
箱根

Proper noun

 * 1) Hakone, a region of Kanagawa Prefecture.

title: 箱根


text:
Talk:factura

factura v. / factură n. are pretty common words in Rumanian.

title: Talk:factura


text:
番地

Noun

 * 1) house number, a division of a town used in rural addresses

title: 番地


text:
単一

Adjective

 * 1) independent, single
 * 2) homogenous

Noun

 * 1) independence
 * 2) homogeneity

title: 単一


text:
イースト

Etymology 1
From.

Noun

 * 1) east

Etymology 2
From.

Noun

 * 1) yeast

title: イースト


text:
リメイク

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) a remake

Verb

 * 1) remake

title: リメイク


text:
ダート

Etymology 1
From.

Etymology 2
From.

Noun

 * 1)  a dart

title: ダート