text:
Talk:same sex

opposite sex
Two truly terrible entries. What is there to be inferred that isn't obvious from same/opposite and sex? -- Liliana • 13:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete both. --WikiTiki89 18:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as common collocations. Orders of magnitude more common than ‘other sex’, ‘contrary sex’, ‘opposing sex’ etc. Needs a better definition and some good citations though. Ƿidsiþ 15:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If we were to keep this, how would we define it in a way that's not worse than having no entry at all? At the moment we just say it's the sex that's the same and the sex that's opposite. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as an example, the OED defines opposite sex as ‘women as opposed to men (or vice versa)’. I think most definitions are better than none at all, especially if the entry has a good representative sample of citations showing how the term is used in practice. Ƿidsiþ 14:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete both. —msh210℠ (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Keep, although not really sure. For "opposite sex" I am a bit more certain, since sex is basically a complementary characteristic rather than polar one and thus "opposite" is something of a misnomer and thereby idiomatic; furthermore, shows some other dicts keep it; finally, it seems to be a set phrase.  shows some dictionaries have "same-sex" ranked as an adjective. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The word opposite frequently refers to other in a set of two complementary terms. Even look at our definition number 3 and its usage example. --WikiTiki89 21:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we have a definition 3 of "opposite" but it is unclear in which cases other than "opposite sex" it is being used and how common it is. One more thing: translation target, for German "anderes Geschlecht". --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "opposite charge", "opposite polarity", "opposite value" (for booleans), "opposite team", etc. It can be used with anything that there are two of. As for German, the term can be given as a translation for definition 3 of opposite. --WikiTiki89 22:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Inclusion in well-known dictionaries is a good indication that someone already considered this term a word. Not only German but in East Asian languages (Chinese, Japanese, Korean), where 異 means "different", "other" is part of the word - 異性 (异性), 이성. Chinese, Japanese, Korean translations are all considered words. Keep as idiomatic. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest the definition from the opposite sex in Collins dictionary - "women in relation to men or men in relation to women" and adding "the " to the headword. I have also added [[same sex]] as an alternative adjective form for [[same-sex]]. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Keep, the degree to which this is a common combination makes it likely that readers will look it up as a phrase. bd2412 T 03:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * According to which study that you've conducted? --WikiTiki89 03:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Common terms are frequently looked up. Gender, sex and sexuality are known to be popular topics, this also shows in Wictionary entries. "opposite sex" in Google Books - about 1,260,000 results, "same sex" in Google Books - about 1,480,000 results (this includes adjectives and spellings with a hyphen). The equivalent foreign language terms are similarly common. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they aren't common. I just meant that we have absolutely no way of knowing what people are likely to look up. We really need to have some kind of hit counter on each entry so we can do some kind of statistical analysis. --WikiTiki89 03:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep both. Lemmings etc. DCDuring TALK  04:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * While OneLook gives some support to "opposite sex", all hits for "same sex" are for the hyphenated form same-sex. Delete at least "same sex". --Hekaheka (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If the noun [[same sex]] is not confirmed as idiomatic, it should be converted into a translation target only entry and kept anyway, in East Asian languages the term is definitely considered a single word and exists in dictionaries. They are also bases for expressions like "same-sex marriage", etc., in these languages, where the first part is a noun. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 19:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They seem pretty SOP to me, both the Han version +  and the Hangeul version  +  (although we are missing the definition "same" of ). --WikiTiki89 19:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not unless we go back to Classical Chinese, which was monosyllabic. Most Japanese, Chinese, Korean dictionaries disagree with you. Besides, 性 is a also noun forming suffix, not just "gender", like -ness, so "同性" is also "sameness", not just same sex but "homosexual" (n. and adj.) and "homosexuality", "共同性" is "common feature". 同性 has a number of derivations to do with sameness, congeniality and homosexuality, e.g. "同性质" - congeniality - quality (質/质) of being the same in nature. An example: "同性相斥，异性相吸" (tóngxìng xiāng chì, yìxìng xiāng xī) - "polarities repel each other, opposites attract", which can also be used in reference to genders but also of something similar and different in nature (the expression uses both Chinese "same sex" and "opposite sex" terms, which have more meanings). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing you just said makes it any less SOP. Basically what you just said is that the second part of "性" has at least two definitions ("-ness" and "gender/sex"), both of which carry on to "同性" ("sameness" and "same gender/sex"). If anything, that makes it even more SOP. The "homosexual(ity)" meanings of "同性" might be idiomatic, but they would be listed as translations of [[homosexual]] and [[homosexuality]], not of [[same sex]]. Also, the fact that it has idiomatic derivatives doesn't make the term itself idiomatic. So as far as the entry [[same sex]] is concerned, there is no absolute need for it to house the translation "同性". --WikiTiki89 23:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like obsession with SoP-ness. Go ahead and RFD 同性, 동성, I'm not subscribing to this. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to RFD them. As you said they can be used idiomatically. I was only saying that the "same sex" definition is SOP and therefore cannot be used as an argument for keeping [[same sex]] as a translation-only page. --WikiTiki89 23:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, what is the difference between 性 and 性別? I'm trying to understand why 性 is not listed in translations of sex or gender. It could be that I was wrong the whole time due to the poor design of our Chinese entries. --WikiTiki89 23:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: the difference between 性 and 性別. The latter is used as a separate term, the former usually as a component, suffix of another, longer term but can be used separately in some cases. An individual character carries a general meaning (often without a clear part of speech) but not necessarily is used on its own, which causes problems in defining, it needs a lot of examples and long lists of derivations. They are like building blocks to form words and phrases. 医药 is medicine (medical + drug) (药 on its own is too ambiguous) but "to take medicine" is 吃药 (eat + drug), using a single character, because the context is clear. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So would it be wrong to list 性 as a translation of sex and gender? --WikiTiki89 00:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 性 is only as a component in this case. Some cases are arguable, like 香烟 - cigarette but 烟 is also used separately in this sense, we had a bit of disagreement with Tooironic over this in translations of cigarette. The fact that 性 is not used separately is neither helping nor contradicting your argument. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My argument is that "同性" can be derived from the translations at [[same]] and [[gender]]/[[sex]]. So, yes, it does matter. --WikiTiki89 00:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, 性 is usually not used separately but as a component or a word in expression from Classical Chinese, e.g 阳性 (yángxìng), 阴性 (yīnxìng), which can be translated both as "masculine" and "feminine" (nouns) or "masculine gender" and "feminine gender" (collocations) but characters 陽/阳 (yáng) and 陰/阴 (yīn) have too many meanings to define them separately as "masculine" and "feminine", to make 阳性 and 阴性 SoP's. By usually I mean it's not a clear-cut case (if it's possible in Chinese). 性 may also form attributive noun expressions like 性的要求 (xìng de yāoqiú) - "sexual desire", where 性 is an attributive noun with a possessive particle 的. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So are there words formed with 性 (like 性的要求) that are considered SOP? --WikiTiki89 01:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you insist, only I have a different view on SoP. 性的 is a perfect translation of "sexual" (adjective), even if the lemma is 性, it's an attributive noun with a particle and 性 is not used separately to mean "sex", "gender". Like 阳性, 阴性, 同性 is considered a word, not a collocation in Chinese (note for Japanese speakers - 性的 is a separate adjective (adjectival noun) in Japanese but not in Chinese). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In English, the word is 100% SOP, even though it is a "word". The only reason we include it is because of a rules in CFI that says that anything that is written as a word (without spaces) can be included (some say this is in case a reader does not know where to split the word). I don't know much about how compound words work in Chinese, but there is certainly no distinction between a compound with a space and one without a space because Chinese does not have spaces. Therefore, this rules about things being written as one word cannot apply to Chinese or else we would have to include entire sentences as "words". So my question is, what is the difference in Chinese between a "word" and noun phrase? --WikiTiki89 01:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Keep In no particular order: it's a common collocation, there is, there are more than two sexes, and sex is a continuum. "opposite sex" contains faulty assumptions like weaker sex. Haplogy (話) 00:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me bring in an example from American politics: The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are often seen as opposites. There are other parties, but for many people it's just a two-party system. The existence of other parties does not make "opposite party" and "same party" idiomatic. --WikiTiki89 01:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that make a stronger case for keeping "opposite sex"? If you referred to two people as being of "opposite parties", the reader might well guess that you meant one was a member of the communist party and the other was a member of the Nazi party (or some other approximation equating party identification with a political extreme). Where two people are of the opposite sex, however, it is taken to mean that one is male and the other female, no matter their sexual identity or sexual politics. bd2412 T 02:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That made no sense to me. When a member of the Republican party is meeting with some of the "opposite party" it means a member of the Democratic Party (like I said, I'm referring to American politics), not the communist or Nazi party. --WikiTiki89 02:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 'keep both, per Polansky Pass a Method (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep both, especially opposite sex. Donnanz (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Both kept. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:same sex


text:
Talk:opposite sex

opposite sex
Two truly terrible entries. What is there to be inferred that isn't obvious from same/opposite and sex? -- Liliana • 13:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete both. --WikiTiki89 18:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as common collocations. Orders of magnitude more common than ‘other sex’, ‘contrary sex’, ‘opposing sex’ etc. Needs a better definition and some good citations though. Ƿidsiþ 15:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If we were to keep this, how would we define it in a way that's not worse than having no entry at all? At the moment we just say it's the sex that's the same and the sex that's opposite. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as an example, the OED defines opposite sex as ‘women as opposed to men (or vice versa)’. I think most definitions are better than none at all, especially if the entry has a good representative sample of citations showing how the term is used in practice. Ƿidsiþ 14:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete both. —msh210℠ (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Keep, although not really sure. For "opposite sex" I am a bit more certain, since sex is basically a complementary characteristic rather than polar one and thus "opposite" is something of a misnomer and thereby idiomatic; furthermore, shows some other dicts keep it; finally, it seems to be a set phrase.  shows some dictionaries have "same-sex" ranked as an adjective. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The word opposite frequently refers to other in a set of two complementary terms. Even look at our definition number 3 and its usage example. --WikiTiki89 21:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we have a definition 3 of "opposite" but it is unclear in which cases other than "opposite sex" it is being used and how common it is. One more thing: translation target, for German "anderes Geschlecht". --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "opposite charge", "opposite polarity", "opposite value" (for booleans), "opposite team", etc. It can be used with anything that there are two of. As for German, the term can be given as a translation for definition 3 of opposite. --WikiTiki89 22:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Inclusion in well-known dictionaries is a good indication that someone already considered this term a word. Not only German but in East Asian languages (Chinese, Japanese, Korean), where 異 means "different", "other" is part of the word - 異性 (异性), 이성. Chinese, Japanese, Korean translations are all considered words. Keep as idiomatic. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest the definition from the opposite sex in Collins dictionary - "women in relation to men or men in relation to women" and adding "the " to the headword. I have also added [[same sex]] as an alternative adjective form for [[same-sex]]. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Keep, the degree to which this is a common combination makes it likely that readers will look it up as a phrase. bd2412 T 03:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * According to which study that you've conducted? --WikiTiki89 03:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Common terms are frequently looked up. Gender, sex and sexuality are known to be popular topics, this also shows in Wictionary entries. "opposite sex" in Google Books - about 1,260,000 results, "same sex" in Google Books - about 1,480,000 results (this includes adjectives and spellings with a hyphen). The equivalent foreign language terms are similarly common. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they aren't common. I just meant that we have absolutely no way of knowing what people are likely to look up. We really need to have some kind of hit counter on each entry so we can do some kind of statistical analysis. --WikiTiki89 03:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep both. Lemmings etc. DCDuring TALK  04:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * While OneLook gives some support to "opposite sex", all hits for "same sex" are for the hyphenated form same-sex. Delete at least "same sex". --Hekaheka (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If the noun [[same sex]] is not confirmed as idiomatic, it should be converted into a translation target only entry and kept anyway, in East Asian languages the term is definitely considered a single word and exists in dictionaries. They are also bases for expressions like "same-sex marriage", etc., in these languages, where the first part is a noun. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 19:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They seem pretty SOP to me, both the Han version +  and the Hangeul version  +  (although we are missing the definition "same" of ). --WikiTiki89 19:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not unless we go back to Classical Chinese, which was monosyllabic. Most Japanese, Chinese, Korean dictionaries disagree with you. Besides, 性 is a also noun forming suffix, not just "gender", like -ness, so "同性" is also "sameness", not just same sex but "homosexual" (n. and adj.) and "homosexuality", "共同性" is "common feature". 同性 has a number of derivations to do with sameness, congeniality and homosexuality, e.g. "同性质" - congeniality - quality (質/质) of being the same in nature. An example: "同性相斥，异性相吸" (tóngxìng xiāng chì, yìxìng xiāng xī) - "polarities repel each other, opposites attract", which can also be used in reference to genders but also of something similar and different in nature (the expression uses both Chinese "same sex" and "opposite sex" terms, which have more meanings). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing you just said makes it any less SOP. Basically what you just said is that the second part of "性" has at least two definitions ("-ness" and "gender/sex"), both of which carry on to "同性" ("sameness" and "same gender/sex"). If anything, that makes it even more SOP. The "homosexual(ity)" meanings of "同性" might be idiomatic, but they would be listed as translations of [[homosexual]] and [[homosexuality]], not of [[same sex]]. Also, the fact that it has idiomatic derivatives doesn't make the term itself idiomatic. So as far as the entry [[same sex]] is concerned, there is no absolute need for it to house the translation "同性". --WikiTiki89 23:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like obsession with SoP-ness. Go ahead and RFD 同性, 동성, I'm not subscribing to this. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to RFD them. As you said they can be used idiomatically. I was only saying that the "same sex" definition is SOP and therefore cannot be used as an argument for keeping [[same sex]] as a translation-only page. --WikiTiki89 23:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, what is the difference between 性 and 性別? I'm trying to understand why 性 is not listed in translations of sex or gender. It could be that I was wrong the whole time due to the poor design of our Chinese entries. --WikiTiki89 23:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: the difference between 性 and 性別. The latter is used as a separate term, the former usually as a component, suffix of another, longer term but can be used separately in some cases. An individual character carries a general meaning (often without a clear part of speech) but not necessarily is used on its own, which causes problems in defining, it needs a lot of examples and long lists of derivations. They are like building blocks to form words and phrases. 医药 is medicine (medical + drug) (药 on its own is too ambiguous) but "to take medicine" is 吃药 (eat + drug), using a single character, because the context is clear. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So would it be wrong to list 性 as a translation of sex and gender? --WikiTiki89 00:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 性 is only as a component in this case. Some cases are arguable, like 香烟 - cigarette but 烟 is also used separately in this sense, we had a bit of disagreement with Tooironic over this in translations of cigarette. The fact that 性 is not used separately is neither helping nor contradicting your argument. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My argument is that "同性" can be derived from the translations at [[same]] and [[gender]]/[[sex]]. So, yes, it does matter. --WikiTiki89 00:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, 性 is usually not used separately but as a component or a word in expression from Classical Chinese, e.g 阳性 (yángxìng), 阴性 (yīnxìng), which can be translated both as "masculine" and "feminine" (nouns) or "masculine gender" and "feminine gender" (collocations) but characters 陽/阳 (yáng) and 陰/阴 (yīn) have too many meanings to define them separately as "masculine" and "feminine", to make 阳性 and 阴性 SoP's. By usually I mean it's not a clear-cut case (if it's possible in Chinese). 性 may also form attributive noun expressions like 性的要求 (xìng de yāoqiú) - "sexual desire", where 性 is an attributive noun with a possessive particle 的. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So are there words formed with 性 (like 性的要求) that are considered SOP? --WikiTiki89 01:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you insist, only I have a different view on SoP. 性的 is a perfect translation of "sexual" (adjective), even if the lemma is 性, it's an attributive noun with a particle and 性 is not used separately to mean "sex", "gender". Like 阳性, 阴性, 同性 is considered a word, not a collocation in Chinese (note for Japanese speakers - 性的 is a separate adjective (adjectival noun) in Japanese but not in Chinese). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In English, the word is 100% SOP, even though it is a "word". The only reason we include it is because of a rules in CFI that says that anything that is written as a word (without spaces) can be included (some say this is in case a reader does not know where to split the word). I don't know much about how compound words work in Chinese, but there is certainly no distinction between a compound with a space and one without a space because Chinese does not have spaces. Therefore, this rules about things being written as one word cannot apply to Chinese or else we would have to include entire sentences as "words". So my question is, what is the difference in Chinese between a "word" and noun phrase? --WikiTiki89 01:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Keep In no particular order: it's a common collocation, there is, there are more than two sexes, and sex is a continuum. "opposite sex" contains faulty assumptions like weaker sex. Haplogy (話) 00:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me bring in an example from American politics: The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are often seen as opposites. There are other parties, but for many people it's just a two-party system. The existence of other parties does not make "opposite party" and "same party" idiomatic. --WikiTiki89 01:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that make a stronger case for keeping "opposite sex"? If you referred to two people as being of "opposite parties", the reader might well guess that you meant one was a member of the communist party and the other was a member of the Nazi party (or some other approximation equating party identification with a political extreme). Where two people are of the opposite sex, however, it is taken to mean that one is male and the other female, no matter their sexual identity or sexual politics. bd2412 T 02:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That made no sense to me. When a member of the Republican party is meeting with some of the "opposite party" it means a member of the Democratic Party (like I said, I'm referring to American politics), not the communist or Nazi party. --WikiTiki89 02:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 'keep both, per Polansky Pass a Method (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep both, especially opposite sex. Donnanz (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Both kept. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:opposite sex


text: kànyàngzi

title: kànyàngzi


text: kǎolǜ

title: kǎolǜ


text: kēzhǎng

title: kēzhǎng


text: kēxuéyuàn

title: kēxuéyuàn


text: kēyán

title: kēyán


text: kě'ài

title: kě'ài


text: kěkào

title: kěkào


text: kělián

title: kělián


text:
Talk:motel

Deletion debate

 * 1) (as a modifier; used attributively) Of or relating to a motel.
 * motel sign

While the part of speech is correct, there is nothing semantically special about this, it is just regular attributive use of the primary motel sense. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Delete. Not adjective-like; cannot take "how...?", "very", etc. Equinox ◑ 14:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this a property of the English language as a whole, not the word motel. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Delete the adjective entry. Purely a noun modifier. Any derived terms (?) can be entered as such under the noun entry. Donnanz 20:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

RFD discussion: April–June 2017
Owned by an establishment applies to all establishments (hotel towel, courthouse tissue box, school pencil)--Simplificationalizer (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Delete all senses, IMO it's not an adjective anyway, just attributive use of the noun. See also the noun, sense 2. DonnanZ (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete entire adjective PoS section per DonnanZ. DCDuring (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:motel


text:
こくふく

Noun

 * 1)  conquest, overcoming

Verb

 * 1)  overcome

title: こくふく


text: kèfú

title: kèfú


text: kèkǔ

title: kèkǔ


text: nàiláo

title: nàiláo


text: qínfèn

title: qínfèn


text: qínláo

title: qínláo


text:
きんべん

Adjective

 * 1)  diligent; industrious

Noun

 * 1)  diligence

title: きんべん


text: kinben

title: kinben


text: qínmiǎn

title: qínmiǎn


text: kěndìng

title: kěndìng


text:
Strongyloididae

Etymology
From.

Proper noun

 * 1) Certain parasitic nematodes:

Hypernyms

 * ; - suborder;  - infraorder;  - superfamily
 * ; - suborder;  - infraorder;  - superfamily

Hyponyms

 * , - genera

title: Strongyloididae


text: 空灵

title: 空灵


text: kōnglíng

title: kōnglíng


text: kòngr

title: kòngr


text: kōngjiān

title: kōngjiān


text: kōngjiān shíyànshì

title: kōngjiān shíyànshì


text: xūnǐ kōngjiān

title: xūnǐ kōngjiān


text: kōngqián

title: kōngqián


text: kǒngpà

title: kǒngpà


text: kòngzhì

title: kòngzhì


text: zìwǒ kòngzhì

title: zìwǒ kòngzhì


text: zìwǒ kèzhì

title: zìwǒ kèzhì


text: zìzhìlì

title: zìzhìlì


text: kǒudài

title: kǒudài


text: kuòdà

title: kuòdà


text: kokufuku

title: kokufuku


text: Category:Russian terms suffixed with -ия


text: láibují

title: láibují


text: láidejí

title: láidejí


text: láixìn

title: láixìn


text: làngfèi

title: làngfèi


text: lǎobǎixìng

title: lǎobǎixìng


text: lǎodàmā

title: lǎodàmā


text: lǎodàniáng

title: lǎodàniáng


text: lǎodàyé

title: lǎodàyé


text: lǎoshí

title: lǎoshí


text: lǎoshì

title: lǎoshì


text: lǎotàitai

title: lǎotàitai


text: lǎotóur

title: lǎotóur


text: lèguān

title: lèguān


text: lèguānzhǔyì

title: lèguānzhǔyì


text:
PPC

Noun

 * : a candidate selected for a future election before the election campaign has officially begun.

Translations

 * French:

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) PPP

title: PPC


text: límǐ

title: límǐ


text: líhūn

title: líhūn


text: lǐbàitiān

title: lǐbàitiān


text: lǐbàirì

title: lǐbàirì


text: lǐtáng

title: lǐtáng


text: lǐfà

title: lǐfà


text: lìqi

title: lìqi


text: lìsuǒnéngjí

title: lìsuǒnéngjí


text: lìhài

title: lìhài


text: lìfāng

title: lìfāng


text: lìjí

title: lìjí


text: liánmáng

title: liánmáng


text: liánxù

title: liánxù


text: liánxùjù

title: liánxùjù


text: liánhuān

title: liánhuān


text: liǎobùqǐ

title: liǎobùqǐ


text: liánghǎo

title: liánghǎo


text: chūzhòng

title: chūzhòng


text: fēifán

title: fēifán


text: línshí

title: línshí


text: zànshí

title: zànshí


text: línghuó

title: línghuó


text: lìngwài

title: lìngwài


text: lóutī

title: lóutī


text: lùxù

title: lùxù


text: lùshàng

title: lùshàng


text: lǚkè

title: lǚkè


text: lǚtú

title: lǚtú


text: lùnwén

title: lùnwén


text: luóbo

title: luóbo


text: lìliang

title: lìliang


text: りきりょう

title: りきりょう


text:
りっぽう

Noun

 * 1)  The third power of a number etc.; cube.
 * 2)  legislation
 * 3)  legislation

Verb

 * 1)  to enact legislation

title: りっぽう


text: rippō

title: rippō


text:
ろじょう

Noun

 * 1)  on the road

title: ろじょう


text:
Wiktionary:February Competition 2014

WT:FUN competition
For this competition, we will be playing a variety of a board game. The board is identical to a Scrabble board, and the tiles used are identical to the ones used in English Scrabble. The rules are based on Scrabble, but modified to allow more "words". I'm assuming that everyone knows the basic rules of Scrabble, if not - look at this.

Modifications to the rules

 * 1) Acceptable words
 * 2) Any word in any language that uses Roman script and that passes WT:CFI is accepted. Spaces, capital letters, hyphens, punctuation, diacritical marks etc. are allowed, but for the sake of gameplay, are ignored when being put on the board. So, the word alitayttaa will be accepted as alitäyttää is a word. The words lookupto, YMCA, top-heavy are, therefore, valid too. Letters such as œ may be used as either o or e.
 * 3) Words not using the Roman alphabet are also valid, provided they are properly transliterated according to the general rules of the language. Hence, bystreje is allowed, as быстрее is a Russian word.
 * 4) Scoring: As multiple players will play with the same letters at the same time, the scoring system must be modified.
 * 5) Every round lasts for a day, or at least until the time when the Gamesmaster is next online after a period of 24 hours.
 * 6) With the seven tiles, players must make the word with the most points. Points are awarded in exactly the same way as in normal English-language Scrabble. Players should email their words to the Gamesmaster in such a way to show the starting place and the direction, e.g. [H7 across: bystreje]. Every player gets a corresponding score which will be placed in the points section.
 * 7) The highest-scoring word will be placed onto the board, and then new letters will be taken out of a virtual bag for the next round. In the result of a tie, the first player to submit gets their word on the table.
 * 8) Play continues thus until all the letters have been used up. The player with the highest total score is the winner.
 * 9) Contesting words
 * 10) Anybody is free to contest the validity of any words. Any words played which are later deleted from Wiktionary will incur a penalty of receiving nil points.

Board
The board at the end of the game:

Points
Points are awarded as above. The deadline is normally by the end of the day (UTC).

Example
On a blank board, with letters R - 1	J - 8	F - 4	A - 1	G - 2	S - 1	M -3

 * Bob - H6 down - ARMS - 12 points
 * Dave- E8 across - JAMS - 26 points
 * Ladylove988 - H4 down JARGS - 42 points
 * Sockpuppet9923 - H4 down - JMARsFG - 0 points (invalid word)
 * Maddog44 - H4 down - FARMS - 28 points

In this case, Ladylove988's word JARGS is placed onto the board, after she adds the word jargs to the dictionary.

Competition
Bolded plays are the ones worth the most points, which are put on the board.

Feb 1

 * Kenny - H8 across - TRED - 10 points
 * Equinox - F8 across, "FREX" - 32 points
 * SB - A1 across (changed to H8 across) - FEX - 26 points

Feb 2
Starting at 17:00 UTC

* SB - F6 down - JIF - 29 points
 * Kenny - H4~H8 DOWN: jidde - 23 points
 * Wikitiki - G7 down: TRIED - 8 points
 * BOTL - F6 down - JIFFED - 38 points

Feb 3
Starting at 18:15 UTC

 * Wikitiki - G7 down: FRIED (also forming IF at F7 across) - 23 points
 * Eq - FETID at F9 across, also forming JIFF, RE, ET, XI - 43 points
 * Kenny - F6~F10: APPEND SB: JIFFY - 29 points
 * SB - I6 down - DEXIFY - 22 points
 * Metaknowledge - FIFY starting at F9 across - 0 points (used F twice)
 * BOTL - h9 across: FYD also forming EF, XY - 35 points

Feb 4
Starting at 18:20 UTC

 * EQ - VYES at E10 across, also forming JIFFY, REE, ETS - 53 points
 * Wikitiki - C10 across SHEYD (transliteration of Yiddish שייד), also spelling JIFFY and RED - 54 points
 * Kenny - F10~H10:YES (F6~F10:JIFFY, G8~G10:REE, H8~H10:ETS) - 49 points
 * SB - D10 across VOYS (also making JIFFY and RES) - 50 points
 * BOTL - F10 across - YODS (also making JIFFY, REO, ETD, XIS) - 64 points

Feb 5
Starting at 18:40 UTC

 * Wikitiki - H7 down: LETNY (Lower Sorbian "lětny" or Slovak "letný"), also forming SHEYDN (שיידן, plural of SHEYD) - 21 points
 * Equinox - VOY at C11 across (38 points)
 * SB - G11 across ENVOY (also making REDE) - 27 points
 * BOTL - VOY at C11 across (38 points)

Feb 7
Starting at 1500

 * SB - D12 across SENNA (also making HOS & EYE) - 30 points
 * Kenny - D10~D14: HOLAS (16 points)
 * Eq- LANES at B12 across (also forming SVA, HON, EYE): 34 points
 * Wikitiki - SALINE, also spelling SET and AXI (22 points)
 * BOTL - C12 across - AISLE (also spelling sva, hoi, eys - 34 points

Feb 8
Starting at 16:52

 * Equniox - MING at A13 across, also making LI, SVAN, HONG: 38 points
 * SB - A12 down GRIM (also makes GLANES) - 36 points
 * Wikitiki - A12 down GRIM (also makes GLANES) - 36 points
 * BOTL- A12 down GRIM (also makes GLANES) - 36 points

Feb 9
Starting at 22:00

 * SB - A11 down ESMEH (also making SLANES) - 40 points
 * Wikitiki - A14 across: ERNSEH (rare last name - Ernseh), also spelling ME, LIR, SVANN, HONGS (61 points)
 * Equinox - SMEH at A12 down, also making SLANES: 37 points
 * BOTL - SHERNER AT I10 acorss, also making XIS, DH - 94 points with the 7-letter bonus

Feb 11
Starting at 08:00

 * SB - E15 across - VAGH (also making EV and RA) - 40 points.
 * Equinox - A15 across: VA (also making MEV, LIRA): 43 points
 * BOTL - I10 across - VHB (also making XIV, DH) - 44 points

Feb 12
Starting at 15:00

 * SB - E15 across HABOD (Haböd) (also making EH and RA) - 37 points
 * BOTL - G4 down ABOHRED - 29 points

Feb 13
15:00

 * Equinox - LOQUE at H7 across (+ LET, OXI): 29 points
 * SB - F13 across OQUE (also making SORA): 31 points
 * BOTL - J10 across QUO (also making DQ): 64 points

Feb 15
Starting 16:00

 * SB - K8 down ROLAGE (rôlage) (also making FETIDO) - 24 points - added as it was the first word submitted (new rule invented on the spot)
 * Equinox - H7 across GALORE (+ GET, AXI) = 24 points
 * BOTL - I14 across - GOLEARE (golearé) also making EGD - 75 points inc. 50 point bonus.

Feb 16
Starting 15:30

 * SB - K8 across RODEA - 21 points
 * Equinox - REEDE at K8 across = 21 points
 * BOTL - G5 down - ADORED, also JD and IO - 22 points

Feb 17
Starting 18:20

 * SB - M3 down UNITED - 16 points
 * Equinox - G3 down UNTIERED (also JI, IE) = 23 points
 * BOTL - M3 down UNITED - 16 points

Feb 19
Starting 10:15

 * SB - C4 across REWINKLE - 90 points inc. 7-letter bonus
 * Equinox - WERK at H1 down (+ UR, NK) = 61 points
 * BOTL - M1 down - WRINKLE - 38 points

Feb 20
Starting 12:00

 * SB - D1 down STRELICZ (Hungarian surname to follow) (also REWINKLE) - 110 points inc. bonus
 * Equinox - ZIRGS at H12 across (also ZU, IE) = 73

Feb 21
Starting 13:20 - the * is a blank

 * SB - D1 across - SAPONITE (final E is the blank) - 77 points
 * Eq - ANTIPOT at I3 across (final T is the blank; also AL, NE): 73 points
 * BOTL - A1 across POISSANT - 122 points

Feb 22
Starting 1545

 * SB - A8 across WAAZ - 48 points
 * Equinox - PATZ at A8 across = 45
 * BOTL - WAMZ at A8 across - 54 points

Feb 23
Starting 11:45

 * SB - I2 across BUMPITT (also IM, TU, ?EM? - 89 with bonus
 * Equinox - BUMP at L11 down (+ AB, GU, EM) = 34
 * BOTL - H1 across BUMPITT (+NB, IU, TM, EP) - 107 points

Feb 24
Starting 08:30

* Equinox - I5 across OCAsION (the Spanish word) also LO EC = 72
 * SB - O1 down OTOCONIA (blank is letter "O" at O5) - 36
 * BOTL - I5 OCASION - 72

Feb 25
Final round, guys!

 * Kenny - J9~J12 DAUG (also forming AL, UA, GG): 20 points
 * Equinox - AGU at L11 down (+ AA, GG, EU) = 20
 * SB - M1 across = GUT (also making GI, UT and TT) - 0 points (there's no T to play with, invalid)
 * BOTL - M1 across - AUG (also making AI, UT, GT - 25 points

Final standings
Please declare yourself winner!

 * By my calculation (adding all scores regardless of which words made it onto the board):
 * Back on the list: 38+35+64+38+34+36+94+44+29+64+75+22+16+38+122+54+107+72+25 = 1007
 * SemperBlotto: 26+29+22+50+27+30+36+40+40+37+31+24+21+16+90+110+77+48+89+36 = 879
 * Equinox: 32+43+53+38+34+38+37+43+29+24+21+23+61+73+73+45+34+72+20 = 793
 * Wikitiki: 8+8+23+54+21+22+36+61 = 233
 * Kc Kennylau: 10+23+29+49+16+20 = 147
 * Equinox ◑ 15:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

 * And thanks to BOTL (or whatever he will be calling himself in the future) for a good game. Maybe we could have a repeat match with somebody else running it (volunteers??) - then BOTL could enter it properly. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I declare SemperBlotto as the winner, as I didn't count myself taking part properly. I dedicate my non-victory to User:Mglovesfun, for whom I created the game. He was a master Scrabble player in his heyday. A pity he couldn't have joined in to give me someone decent to play against ;). --Back on the list (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Now, can I think of a competition based on Monopoly or maybe Cluedo? ..... SemperBlotto (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

title: Wiktionary:February Competition 2014


text:
りょかく

Noun

 * 1)  traveller, passenger

title: りょかく


text:
りょきゃく

Noun

 * 1)  traveller, passenger

title: りょきゃく


text: ryokyaku

title: ryokyaku


text: ryokaku

title: ryokaku


text: rojō

title: rojō


text:
りょうこう

Adjective

 * 1)  good, fine, satisfactory, excellent

title: りょうこう


text: ryōkō

title: ryōkō


text:
درگاه

Etymology
From, compound of and.

Noun

 * 1) doorway, threshold
 * 2) portal, entrance
 * 3) dargah
 * 4)  portal
 * 1) dargah
 * 2)  portal

title: درگاه


text:
sjálfsmynd

Etymology
From 🇰🇲.

Noun

 * 1)  self-portrait, selfie
 * 2) self-image

title: sjálfsmynd


text: lìyì

title: lìyì


text: りえき

title: りえき


text: rieki

title: rieki


text: rikiryō

title: rikiryō


text:
йәйғор

Etymology
Cognate with Siberian Tatar (Tyumen), (Tobol).

Noun

 * 1) rainbow

title: йәйғор


text: deuchtet

title: deuchtet


text: hieltt ab

title: hieltt ab


text: lǎodàye

title: lǎodàye


text: lǎoshi

title: lǎoshi


text:
воспевая

Participle

 * : while chanting, singing

title: воспевая


text: lìhai

title: lìhai


text: mǎhu

title: mǎhu


text: mǎmahūhu

title: mǎmahūhu


text: mǎkè

title: mǎkè


text: Category:en:Fear

title: Category:en:Fear


text: máojīn

title: máojīn


text:
tiltrække

Etymology
Equivalent to.

Verb

 * 1) to attract

title: tiltrække


text: Category:Fear

title: Category:Fear


text: mántou

title: mántou


text:
Thread:User talk:CodeCat/alternative form of/reply

I fixed it, thank you for letting me know. The problem was that the template uses internally now, and that template already makes its own transliteration. So when you gave your own, it was added on to that.


text:
rojear

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to make red

title: rojear


text: Category:hy:Fear

title: Category:hy:Fear


text: Category:xcl:Fear

title: Category:xcl:Fear


text: Category:hy:Emotions

title: Category:hy:Emotions


text: Category:xcl:Emotions

title: Category:xcl:Emotions


text: hyttysen

title: hyttysen


text: Category:axm:Fear

title: Category:axm:Fear


text: Category:axm:Emotions

title: Category:axm:Emotions


text: Category:axm:Society

title: Category:axm:Society


text:
-izer

Alternative forms

 * -iser

Etymology
From.

Related terms

 * /-ize
 * /-ization

title: -izer


text: cock-crow

title: cock-crow


text:
kukonlaulu

Noun

 * 1)  cock's crow instance of a cock crowing
 * 2)  cockcrow time of day at which the first crow of a cockerel is heard; dawn or daybreak; first light

title: kukonlaulu


text:
aamunkoitteessa

Adverb

 * 1) at dawn

title: aamunkoitteessa


text: Category:xcl:Landforms

title: Category:xcl:Landforms


text:
aamunkoite

Etymology
, from

Noun

 * 1) dawn, daybreak, first light, cockcrow

title: aamunkoite


text: dünkte

title: dünkte


text: dünkten

title: dünkten


text: dünktest

title: dünktest


text: dünktet

title: dünktet


text: Sinfonien

title: Sinfonien


text: dünk

title: dünk


text:
tinée

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  shedload, pile, stack

title: tinée


text: tinées

title: tinées


text:
Produktplacéierung

Noun

 * 1) product placement

title: Produktplacéierung


text: Produktplacéierungen

title: Produktplacéierungen


text:
canne des tranchées

Noun

 * 1) trench stick

title: canne des tranchées


text: lese ab

title: lese ab


text: lesen ab

title: lesen ab


text: liest ab

title: liest ab


text: lesest ab

title: lesest ab


text: leset ab

title: leset ab


text: las ab

title: las ab


text: lasen ab

title: lasen ab


text: last ab

title: last ab


text: läse ab

title: läse ab


text: läsen ab

title: läsen ab


text: läsest ab

title: läsest ab


text: läset ab

title: läset ab


text: lies ab

title: lies ab


text:
trench stick

Noun

 * 1) A type of baton or cane used by soldiers in military trenches, especially of the First World War, for manoeuvring and for basic combat.

Translations

 * French: canne des tranchées

title: trench stick


text: lest ab

title: lest ab


text: absaufend

title: absaufend


text: abgesoffen

title: abgesoffen


text: saufe ab

title: saufe ab


text: saufen ab

title: saufen ab


text: säufst ab

title: säufst ab


text: sauft ab

title: sauft ab


text: saufest ab

title: saufest ab


text: saufet ab

title: saufet ab


text: soff ab

title: soff ab


text: soffen ab

title: soffen ab


text: soffst ab

title: soffst ab


text: sofft ab

title: sofft ab


text: söffe ab

title: söffe ab


text: söffen ab

title: söffen ab


text: söffest ab

title: söffest ab


text: söffet ab

title: söffet ab


text:
poste d'écoute

Noun

 * 1)  listening post

title: poste d'écoute


text: säuft ab

title: säuft ab


text: sauf ab

title: sauf ab


text: absehend

title: absehend


text: sehe ab

title: sehe ab


text: sehen ab

title: sehen ab


text: siehst ab

title: siehst ab


text: sehest ab

title: sehest ab


text: sehet ab

title: sehet ab


text: sah ab

title: sah ab


text: sahen ab

title: sahen ab


text: sahst ab

title: sahst ab


text: saht ab

title: saht ab


text: sähe ab

title: sähe ab


text: sähen ab

title: sähen ab


text: sähest ab

title: sähest ab


text: sähet ab

title: sähet ab


text: sieh ab

title: sieh ab


text: seht ab

title: seht ab


text: sieht ab

title: sieht ab


text: siehe ab

title: siehe ab


text: absahen

title: absahen


text: absehest

title: absehest


text: absehet

title: absehet


text: absahst

title: absahst


text: absähen

title: absähen


text: absaht

title: absaht


text: absehe

title: absehe


text: abseht

title: abseht


text: absähet

title: absähet


text: absiehst

title: absiehst


text: absähest

title: absähest


text: absieht

title: absieht


text: absah

title: absah


text: absähe

title: absähe


text: absauft

title: absauft


text: absäufst

title: absäufst


text: absaufest

title: absaufest


text: absofft

title: absofft


text: absaufe

title: absaufe


text: absäuft

title: absäuft


text: absöffen

title: absöffen


text: absöffe

title: absöffe


text: absoff

title: absoff


text: absöffet

title: absöffet


text: absoffst

title: absoffst


text: absoffen

title: absoffen


text: absöffest

title: absöffest


text: absaufet

title: absaufet


text: ablese

title: ablese


text: abläset

title: abläset


text: abliest

title: abliest


text: abläsen

title: abläsen


text: ablasen

title: ablasen


text: abläse

title: abläse


text: ablesest

title: ablesest


text:
ablast

Adjective

 * 1) Blasting, making a loud noise.
 * 2) Burning intensely; (of a furnace) subject to a continuous blast of hot air.
 * 1) Burning intensely; (of a furnace) subject to a continuous blast of hot air.
 * 1) Burning intensely; (of a furnace) subject to a continuous blast of hot air.
 * 1) Burning intensely; (of a furnace) subject to a continuous blast of hot air.
 * 1) Burning intensely; (of a furnace) subject to a continuous blast of hot air.

title: ablast


text: abläsest

title: abläsest


text:
ablas

Etymology
From. Compare dialectal 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1)  gluttonous, voracious, greedy for food (or drink)
 * 2) keen, eager, doing something avidly or wanting to.
 * 1) keen, eager, doing something avidly or wanting to.

Synonyms

 * ahne, isukas
 * innukas, himukas

title: ablas


text: ableset

title: ableset


text: abhaltet

title: abhaltet


text: haltet ab

title: haltet ab


text: abhalte

title: abhalte


text: abhielten

title: abhielten


text: hielt ab

title: hielt ab


text: halte ab

title: halte ab


text: abhältst

title: abhältst


text: hältst ab

title: hältst ab


text: hielten ab

title: hielten ab


text: hieltet ab

title: hieltet ab


text: abhielt

title: abhielt


text: abhieltet

title: abhieltet


text: abhielte

title: abhielte


text: abhaltest

title: abhaltest


text: halten ab

title: halten ab


text: haltest ab

title: haltest ab


text: hieltest ab

title: hieltest ab


text: hielte ab

title: hielte ab


text: hält ab

title: hält ab


text: abhieltest

title: abhieltest


text: abhält

title: abhält


text: herbeiführst

title: herbeiführst


text: herbeiführten

title: herbeiführten


text: herbeiführtet

title: herbeiführtet


text: herbeiführet

title: herbeiführet


text: herbeiführte

title: herbeiführte


text: herbeiführest

title: herbeiführest


text: herbeiführe

title: herbeiführe


text: herbeiführtest

title: herbeiführtest


text: herbeiführt

title: herbeiführt


text: hinauslehntest

title: hinauslehntest


text: hinauslehnst

title: hinauslehnst


text: hinauslehnte

title: hinauslehnte


text: hinauslehnten

title: hinauslehnten


text: hinauslehntet

title: hinauslehntet


text: hinauslehnet

title: hinauslehnet


text: hinauslehne

title: hinauslehne


text: hinauslehnest

title: hinauslehnest


text: hinauslehnt

title: hinauslehnt


text: herauszoomte

title: herauszoomte


text: herauszoomet

title: herauszoomet


text: herauszoomest

title: herauszoomest


text: herauszoomtest

title: herauszoomtest


text: herauszoomst

title: herauszoomst


text: herauszoomtet

title: herauszoomtet


text: herauszoomt

title: herauszoomt


text: herauszoome

title: herauszoome


text: herauszoomten

title: herauszoomten


text: herausprustetet

title: herausprustetet


text: herauspruste

title: herauspruste


text: herausprustete

title: herausprustete


text: herausprustest

title: herausprustest


text: herausprusteten

title: herausprusteten


text: herausprustet

title: herausprustet


text: herausprustetest

title: herausprustetest


text: heraufsetzte

title: heraufsetzte


text: heraufsetzet

title: heraufsetzet


text: heraufsetze

title: heraufsetze


text: heraufsetzest

title: heraufsetzest


text: heraufsetztet

title: heraufsetztet


text: heraufsetztest

title: heraufsetztest


text: heraufsetzten

title: heraufsetzten


text: heraufsetzt

title: heraufsetzt


text:
User talk:93.141.137.22

Hrvat
Your edits caused lots of errors to the page so I had no choice but to revert. In any case, the question of Serbo-Croatian has come up many times before (as you could probably guess), and the consensus on Wiktionary is to follow the linguistic definition of the language, rather than the cultural/political one. Linguists treat Serbo-Croatian as a single language with multiple standards, so we do that here too. If you want this to change, you should bring it up on WT:Beer parlour, but be warned that your request will likely be rejected (I speak from experience). 17:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

title: User talk:93.141.137.22


text: eindampftet

title: eindampftet


text: eindampften

title: eindampften


text: eindampfte

title: eindampfte


text: eindampfest

title: eindampfest


text: eindampfst

title: eindampfst


text: eindampfe

title: eindampfe


text: eindampft

title: eindampft


text: eindampftest

title: eindampftest


text: eindampfet

title: eindampfet


text: auswerte

title: auswerte


text: auswertete

title: auswertete


text: auswertet

title: auswertet


text: auswerteten

title: auswerteten


text: auswertetest

title: auswertetest


text: auswertetet

title: auswertetet


text: auswertest

title: auswertest


text: ausraubtet

title: ausraubtet


text: ausraubt

title: ausraubt


text: ausraubtest

title: ausraubtest


text: ausraubten

title: ausraubten


text: ausraube

title: ausraube


text: ausraubte

title: ausraubte


text: ausraubet

title: ausraubet


text: ausraubest

title: ausraubest


text: ausraubst

title: ausraubst


text: auslasteten

title: auslasteten


text: auslastete

title: auslastete


text: auslaste

title: auslaste


text: auslastet

title: auslastet


text: auslastetet

title: auslastetet


text: auslastetest

title: auslastetest


text: auslastest

title: auslastest


text:
User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 1

gargoyle
Not all water spouts are gargoyles. Your edit introduced a serious error. --EncycloPetey 22:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Petey, what it says now is more erroneous. Not all gargoyles are for gutters.  My edit clearly doesn't say that all water spouts are gargoyles. Purplebackpack89 22:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

isolation

 * This is a noun. Your definition ("when . . ." is an adverb). SemperBlotto 15:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So I changed my wording to a noun. You NEED to use edit summaries, Blotto, not just undo discriminately Purplebackpack89 15:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion requests
Hello. Since you participated in the deletion discussion above, I thought I might like to hear some input from you regarding this one. Thanks. TeleComNasSprVen 12:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hamilton
You might wish to move the noun definition to hamilton, as you have indicated that it is used in the lower case form. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But only if attested that way. There's no reason why a common noun can't have one or more capital letters. Compare Englishman. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More relevantly, compare Benjamin and benjamin Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is relevant, but surely that could just as easily be wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should start a discussion about common noun colloquialisms that are derived from proper nouns Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While that would be interesting, I'm just asking about this noun - is it mostly used with a capital letter, without one, or a fair mixture of the two. Not looking for a hypothetical debate on the subject, but rather the actual evidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

zot
Hello. Yeah, I've found a book mentioning it now (the anteater sense). You can imagine it was a bit hard to believe without the explanatory note associating it with a specific university. I've added a note in the entry. Equinox ◑ 18:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

coaster
Your newly added definition has been proprosed at WT:RFV. Thought you might want to know. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I question why I was nominated; somebody saw the word "prostitute" and automatically RFVed.  I added a book and a website  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not clear why you think that. If it's true, why aren't these people nominating prostitute and whore for deletion? More likely they just haven't seen the word. Equinox ◑ 02:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How much more time to I have to find the third citation? Three days, or three and a half weeks?  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 05:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

mint chocolate chip
Hello. You wrote in Requests for deletion:
 * If someone says "mint chocolate chip" without a product, it's almost certain that they're referring to mint chocolate chip.

It is tautological. You must have wanted to write:
 * If someone says "mint chocolate chip" without a product, it's almost certain that they're referring to mint chocolate chip ice cream.

— T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah...I meant what you said Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

ginger ale
Re: "directing us to ginger beer for the translations is very UK-centric": having two separate copies of the translations makes double the work for editors to keep them synchronised. They just happened to be at one entry first. I am pretty sure we have a policy that says "don't edit just to favour your regional spelling", which is basically what you're doing here. Because it also produces extra work in this case I am reverting. Equinox ◑ 14:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The translations belong at ginger ale, as it's a more common usage than ginger beer. So I'm gonna keep the translations at ginger ale, and delete the translations at ginger beer Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 14:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

RFV voting
Hi. Keep/delete votes aren't appropriate at RFV. RFV is for finding verification. It's only RFD (deletion) where consensus comes into play. Equinox ◑ 21:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dope! Keep getting 'em mixed up. Especially when the RfDs read like RfVs  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary for Wikipedians
You seem to be a bit confused by our policies and common practices, so maybe this is useful to you... 16:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Shaker
In "Shaker furniture", Shaker: functions as an attributive noun. Wiktionary does not create adjective sections for attributive nouns, in part because almost every English noun can be used attributively: "computer table", "coffee cup", "library shelves". If you don't understand why an edit was undone, it's best to ask first, rather than to assume the other editor is an idiot. Please read WT:AGF. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you either didn't read or didn't understand what was written above. You have been blocked for disruptive edit warring; reinserting bad content; and failure to engage in discussions about the problems of your editing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I see no reason why we can't have attributive nouns; especially for something like "executive" that already has adjectives. This seems yet another example of a silly attempt to artificially restrict the number of definitions in this Wiktionary.  The claim of disruption is unwarranted; all my edits were made in good faith whereas yours and Semper's are removing content without giving a reason (violates WP:CIVIL at best and is disruptive at worse)  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

 * We do have attributive nouns. They are the noun entry. You were adding a redundant adjective entry at executive. Equinox ◑ 22:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

 * 3RR doesn't apply here which suggests you need to review some of the policies. And here you can see discussion in an edit summary: Equinox ◑ 21:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I even linked you to a useful page just above, but it seems you haven't read it as you're quoting Wikipedia policies as a defence of your actions. 21:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Garbage contributions are not kept, even if they were "in good faith". We don't keep additions simply because they're not vandalism; they must add to the content of an entry, not contain errors, and be formatted correctly.  You repeatedly reverted the removal of duplicate information and incorrect information, despite the fact that it had been correctly removed by an experienced admin.  You then bullied the admin over "incorrect procedures" that actually were correct, and continued to revert him.  Your appeal to policies used on the English Wikipedia are irrelevant, as this is not Wikipedia.  The policies on the English Wikipedia do not apply to Wikipedias in other languages, much less to other projects.  Wiktionary has its own rules about reverts and edit summaries, and they are not those of the English Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

bolivia
You Esperanto addition has neither a ===part of speech=== section, nor a headword. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I added those things Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

w:WP:NOT
And I quote: "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project. Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, nor the total amount of content. However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered in the Content section below." QED. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it imperative that you spend so much time bashing the way I vote at RfD and RfV? I'm entitled to have a different viewpoint than you are; I'm also entitled to create articles as well. Plz spend less time attacking my stance and more time creating articles  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your votes are useless and counterproductive. Every time I see you vote "keep" without any justification — and please note that "NOTPAPER" is not justification for keeping something that should be deleted — I have to suppress the urge to reflexively vote "delete". And no, you are not entitled to create entries that shouldn't exist. —Ruakh TALK 17:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't just want more articles. We want good articles. Quality is at least as important as quantity. I hope you realize that MG is not the only person around here who's very frustrated with you. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You guys shouldn't be, though...all I do is create articles now and then, and vote now and then in RfD. I don't vote in every RfD, I don't vote keep in every RfD I vote in.  Nothing wrong with that.  What is wrong is Mgloves' constant HOUNDing of my every move.  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think 'disagreeing' is a form of attack. If it were, wouldn't you also be attacking me as you disagree with me as much as I disagree with you. Anyway, do you see my point? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That deletion policy trumps NOTPAPER? I guess, although I continue to believe that SOP should be dispensed with.  I'm not saying disagreement is attacking, I'm saying responding "No, you're wrong" (in a few more words) to anything and everything is HOUNDing. HOUNDing need not be a personal attack to be wrong 18:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And Re:"Votes are useless/counterproductive"...you're entitled to that opinion. Likewise, I am entitled to the opinion that a SOP RfD (like television show, which should have been closed as NC) are...useless and counterproductive  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 18:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's really not that difficult to trump something that doesn't exist. Also my point is, from the text above, it wouldn't even trump the Wikipedia page w:WP:NOTPAPER as it says "there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done". Mglovesfun (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that it was I, not Mglovesfun, you described your votes as useless and counterproductive. —Ruakh TALK 18:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, it's worth mentioning we do have NOTPAPER here...it's one of the things at WT:NOT Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, I never suggested otherwise. —Ruakh TALK 04:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Note also that we vote according to policy, not what we wish policy was. If we disagree with policy, we try to get consensus or a vote to change it. Many users disagree with WT:COALMINE, but we still keep entries that pass only because of it. There was a vote to overthrow it, and it ended in no consensus, so nothing changed. That's how it works around here. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine then...I'll propose eliminating SOP. Then you'll yell at me for creating a meaningless thread. Will you guys ever be satisfied  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 13:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We'll disagree, and vote against it if it comes to a vote. At least I will. However, I won't yell at you, and if you accept the results of discussion or voting, I will be satisfied. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think disagreeing counts as yelling. I can't see any nasty comments in this thread, maybe you're overreacting a bit. Judging people's emotional states based on Internet comments is hard. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Eliminating SOP would be sheer insanity because there would then be nothing to stop entries such as blue ceiling, broken chair, and a very large elephant. Equinox ◑ 22:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

 * (Jumping in) This issue, IMHO, is being approached as a false dichotomy. "Anything goes" isn't the only conceivable inclusion policy other than "no SOP terms at all." I sympathize with PurpleBackpack on this matter to a certain extent, because while things like Christmas card and television show often get nominated on SOP grounds, there's nothing that clearly rules out their inclusion in WT:CFI (the "fried egg test" part, in my interpretation, actually allows their inclusion). Which is to say I think it needs to be spelled out more explicitly in CFI what makes a term SOP, because, as it stands, there's room for some level of personal interpretation on that front.
 * There's a difference between broken chair and Christmas card. Broken chair is simply adjective + noun, and there's an endless number of possible adjective-noun combinations in English, which obviously don't warrant an endless number of entries. But a Christmas card is a specific object used for a specific purpose. That specificity might not always be easily derived from the term's components alone, especially not to people who wouldn't immediately connect a holiday to the greeting card sense of card because sending out greeting cards isn't traditional where they live. Astral (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I have recently used Christmas pudding as an example of a multi-word term worth keeping (because it isn't just any old pudding made at Xmas); whether this is the same as your Christmas card is possibly arguable, because a Christmas card isn't much more than a card (they are just generic greeting cards, possibly with Jesus or a Santa, or possibly not), whereas a Christmas pudding has specific ingredients. My objection to Purplebackpack's view is that he/she seems to want to "reject SOP", which must mean that he/she doesn't understand it, or else he/she would have to support entries like big chair and purple door. Equinox ◑ 23:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do understand it, and as I said earlier, if the price of getting some of the less nonsensical SOPs as entries is having some of the more nonsensical SOPs as entries, I'd pay that. Or we could replace SOP with something better.  It's time for you and Mglovesfun to stop acting like I'm an idiot  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree with Astral that SOP needs work, but since there appears (wrongly, IMO) to be a working consensus for SOP, I am not nominating it for abolishment. I am contenting myself with requesting the undeletion of television show and asking that silly laundry list arguments (like the blue ceiling one above) be discouraged  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What needs to be discouraged is you weighing in with unevidenced, baseless votes and failing to read or understand any of the logical objections raised to them. Equinox ◑ 16:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your opinion. You're entitled to it.  I'm entitled to mine.  BTW, you're coming dangerously close to a personal attack  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

<tt></tt>
I have re-deleted this. Please do not re-create it. —Ruakh TALK 05:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

 * And . —Ruakh TALK 05:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Is there any particular reason why you deleted it? I'm going to need rationale, because you left no valid rationale in your edit summary.  It was transcluded on over 50 pages, and altogether needs to be kept  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 09:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I deleted it because it's not transcluded on any pages (did you actually look at any of them?), and does not need to be kept. And because you created it wrong. You complain that people treat you like an idiot, but then you keep demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about . . . which would be fine (every editor has some things they're clueless about), except that (1) you seem to be clueless about everything (except perhaps the policies of one of our sister projects), and (2) you don't seem to realize that you're clueless about things, so you keep getting in the way of the editors who actually know what they're doing. —Ruakh TALK 16:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Um, why didn't you say that in the edit summary? I dispute that I created it wrong, because if you had tested it on a page (it was transcluded on tabernacle before your last edit to the page), you'd see that it came out exactly the way I wanted it to.  I dispute that I am clueless about everything; I do, however, believe that the way the elites of this project have crafted policy and templates is not in the best interests of the casual editor.  Some of the things you claim are cluelessness are actually disagreeing with things I feel should be different then the way they are, and often with good reason.  For example, why would anybody look for "by extension" in the context template?  You never here the phrases "in a by extension context", or "in the context of by extension", the way you would with "in a sports context", "in a card game context", "in an archaic context", etc.  I personally believe that shoving everything into the context template is confusing to the casual editor, and it would be better if some things (by extension being one of them) had their own templates, or no templates at all.   Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

 * It was more important to delete it quickly than to try to craft a hundred-character explanation of what's wrong with it. I believe you that you were happy with how it looked, but that's hardly a selling point, since you have a standing policy of disagreeing with all standard practices here. As for the name 'context', you've hardly offered a reason that someone would think to try, either. 'Context' is not a great name, but anyone who edits here learns it quickly. —Ruakh TALK 19:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We also have, but people seem to have missed it. 19:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Since you have a standing policy of disagreeing with all standard practices here." That's inaccurate and nearly a personal attack.  It's also acceptable to disagree with the few standard practices I disagree with (and there aren't that many), because I usually give good reasons why I do.  I don't see any reason at all why it needed to be deleted quickly, without discussion, as it wasn't breaking anything, nor was it taking up a place where something better belonged.  Would it kill you to explain yourself before willy-nilly deleting something, and assume good faith towards me?  And you want a reason why people would look for it?  If I'm looking for a template that contains "some words", the first place I'll look is Template:Some words.  I believe most other editors operate the same way.  There's really no point in make it 10x more cryptic than it has to be  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do assume good faith on your part. But I do not assume cluefulness. You make many mistaken claims, borne of not understanding what you're doing, when a sensible person would instead start asking questions. And when you say that you assume that a template is named <tt>Some words</tt> rather than (at the very least) <tt>some words</tt>, you again demonstrate that you are a Wikipedian, with no true interest in this project. (BTW, regarding your edit-summary at my talk-page: the template says to remove it once I've seen it; so, that's what I do. When the most recent edit does nothing but add that template, the quickest way to remove it is to click 'rollback'. Fear not, this does not imply that I consider your edit to have been vandalism or bad faith. That template is annoying and I find your use of it excessive, but I don't really hold it against you.) —Ruakh TALK 20:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is thinking like a Wikipedian a bad thing? In the case of templates, there really isn't a compelling reason for Wiktionary to have diverged from Wikipedia as much as it did, and therefore Template:Some words could exist as a redirect to Template:some words.  And if I have "no true interest in the project", how come I keep adding definitions?  I do have a true interest in the project, I just feel it would be improve by templates being more straight-forward and/or redundant, and by words like television show being kept.  Saying I have "no true interest in the project" is wrong (and assuming bad faith too)  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

diff
Is there really a difference in meaning between Californio with a capital C and californio with a lowercase c? Come to think of it, is Californio with a capital C used at all? I don't think I've seen a demonym capitalized in Spanish before. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a Californian. In my California history book, Californio had a very specific meaning: not just a Californian, but a Mexican or Spanish Californian at the time of the Mexican-American War  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If your California history book was written in English, then that sense should be covered by the English definition of the word. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 02:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 1


text: aushärtet

title: aushärtet


text: aushärteten

title: aushärteten


title: User:Purplebackpack89/ArchiveBox


text: aushärtest

title: aushärtest


text: aushärtetest

title: aushärtetest


text: aushärtete

title: aushärtete


text: aushärtetet

title: aushärtetet


text: aushärte

title: aushärte


text: aufrollten

title: aufrollten


text: aufrolltet

title: aufrolltet


text: aufrollt

title: aufrollt


text: aufrollest

title: aufrollest


text: aufrollte

title: aufrollte


text: aufrolle

title: aufrolle


text: aufrolltest

title: aufrolltest


text: aufrollet

title: aufrollet


text: aufrollst

title: aufrollst


text: aufmarschiertest

title: aufmarschiertest


text: aufmarschiert

title: aufmarschiert


text: aufmarschiertet

title: aufmarschiertet


text: aufmarschieret

title: aufmarschieret


text: aufmarschierst

title: aufmarschierst


text: aufmarschierten

title: aufmarschierten


text: aufmarschierest

title: aufmarschierest


text: aufmarschierte

title: aufmarschierte


text: aufmarschiere

title: aufmarschiere


text: abstellet

title: abstellet


text: abstellest

title: abstellest


text: abstellst

title: abstellst


text: abstelltet

title: abstelltet


text: abstellten

title: abstellten


text: abstelltest

title: abstelltest


text: abstellte

title: abstellte


text: abstellt

title: abstellt


text: abstelle

title: abstelle


text: abkapseltet

title: abkapseltet


text: abkapselst

title: abkapselst


text: abkapselnd

title: abkapselnd


text: abkapslest

title: abkapslest


text: abkapsle

title: abkapsle


text: abkapseltest

title: abkapseltest


text: kapslet ab

title: kapslet ab


text: abkapselten

title: abkapselten


text: kapselst ab

title: kapselst ab


text: kapsele ab

title: kapsele ab


text: kapselest ab

title: kapselest ab


text: kapselt ab

title: kapselt ab


text: kapslest ab

title: kapslest ab


text: abgekapselt

title: abgekapselt


text: kapseln ab

title: kapseln ab


text: abkapselet

title: abkapselet


text: kapselet ab

title: kapselet ab


text: abkapsel

title: abkapsel


text: kapsel ab

title: kapsel ab


text: kapselten ab

title: kapselten ab


text: abkapselest

title: abkapselest


text: kapseltet ab

title: kapseltet ab


text: abkapselte

title: abkapselte


text: kapseltest ab

title: kapseltest ab


text: abkapsele

title: abkapsele


text: abkapslet

title: abkapslet


text: kapselte ab

title: kapselte ab


text: abkapselt

title: abkapselt


text: kapsle ab

title: kapsle ab


text: abschaffst

title: abschaffst


text: abschaffe

title: abschaffe


text: abschafft

title: abschafft


text: abschafftest

title: abschafftest


text: abschaffet

title: abschaffet


text: abschaffte

title: abschaffte


text: abschafftet

title: abschafftet


text: abschaffest

title: abschaffest


text: abschafften

title: abschafften


text: abschweifst

title: abschweifst


text: abschweifest

title: abschweifest


text: abschweiftest

title: abschweiftest


text: abschweifte

title: abschweifte


text: abschweifet

title: abschweifet


text: abschweiftet

title: abschweiftet


text: abschweift

title: abschweift


text: abschweiften

title: abschweiften


text: abschweife

title: abschweife


text: abwehret

title: abwehret


text: abwehrest

title: abwehrest


text: abwehrtest

title: abwehrtest


text: abwehrst

title: abwehrst


text: abwehrt

title: abwehrt


text: abwehrtet

title: abwehrtet


text: abwehre

title: abwehre


text: abwehrten

title: abwehrten


text: abwehrte

title: abwehrte


text: waschet ab

title: waschet ab


text: wuscht ab

title: wuscht ab


text: abwüschen

title: abwüschen


text: abwaschet

title: abwaschet


text: wüschen ab

title: wüschen ab


text: wäscht ab

title: wäscht ab


text: wuschst ab

title: wuschst ab


text: abwuscht

title: abwuscht


text: abwüschet

title: abwüschet


text: abwaschest

title: abwaschest


text: wuschen ab

title: wuschen ab


text: abwasche

title: abwasche


text: abwäscht

title: abwäscht


text: wäschst ab

title: wäschst ab


text: wüschet ab

title: wüschet ab


text: abwascht

title: abwascht


text: abwuschst

title: abwuschst


text: wüschest ab

title: wüschest ab


text: abwüschest

title: abwüschest


text: abwusch

title: abwusch


text: abwüsche

title: abwüsche


text: waschen ab

title: waschen ab


text: abgewaschen

title: abgewaschen


text: wüsche ab

title: wüsche ab


text: abwäschst

title: abwäschst


text: abwuschen

title: abwuschen


text: wascht ab

title: wascht ab


text: wasche ab

title: wasche ab


text: waschest ab

title: waschest ab


text: abwaschend

title: abwaschend


text: wusch ab

title: wusch ab


text: wichst ab

title: wichst ab


text: wich ab

title: wich ab


text: abwich

title: abwich


text: abwichest

title: abwichest


text: wicht ab

title: wicht ab


text: abwicht

title: abwicht


text: weichest ab

title: weichest ab


text: abweichet

title: abweichet


text: abwichet

title: abwichet


text: weichet ab

title: weichet ab


text: abwichen

title: abwichen


text: abwiche

title: abwiche


text: weichst ab

title: weichst ab


text: wiche ab

title: wiche ab


text: abwichst

title: abwichst


text: abweichst

title: abweichst


text: weichen ab

title: weichen ab


text: wichet ab

title: wichet ab


text: abweichest

title: abweichest


text: wichest ab

title: wichest ab


text: abgewichen

title: abgewichen


text: wichen ab

title: wichen ab


text: abweicht

title: abweicht


text: weiche ab

title: weiche ab


text: weicht ab

title: weicht ab


text: abweiche

title: abweiche


text: abwiegst

title: abwiegst


text: wögest ab

title: wögest ab


text: wöge ab

title: wöge ab


text: abwogt

title: abwogt


text: abwöge

title: abwöge


text: abwiegend

title: abwiegend


text: wiege ab

title: wiege ab


text: wiegt ab

title: wiegt ab


text: abgewogen

title: abgewogen


text: wog ab

title: wog ab


text: wogt ab

title: wogt ab


text: abwiegt

title: abwiegt


text: abwiege

title: abwiege


text: wogst ab

title: wogst ab


text: wogen ab

title: wogen ab


text: abwieget

title: abwieget


text: abwögen

title: abwögen


text: wögen ab

title: wögen ab


text: abwögest

title: abwögest


text: wieget ab

title: wieget ab


text: wöget ab

title: wöget ab


text: wiegst ab

title: wiegst ab


text: abwiegest

title: abwiegest


text: wiegest ab

title: wiegest ab


text: abwogst

title: abwogst


text: abwogen

title: abwogen


text: abwöget

title: abwöget


text: abwog

title: abwog


text: wiegen ab

title: wiegen ab


text: abwracke

title: abwracke


text: abwrackte

title: abwrackte


text: abwrackt

title: abwrackt


text: abwracktet

title: abwracktet


text: abwrackten

title: abwrackten


text: abwrackst

title: abwrackst


text: abwracktest

title: abwracktest


text: abwrackest

title: abwrackest


text: abwracket

title: abwracket


text:
Citations:qs.

 * 1879, and Charles Short, , Oxford at the, “vīso” II.B:
 * B. To go to see, to visit any one, esp. a sick person (qs. to see how he is).

title: Citations:qs.


text:
Category talk:Turkish first-person singular possessive dative forms

From Special:PermanentLink/24941665 on WT:RFDO:

 * Category:Turkish first-person possessive forms
 * Category:Turkish first-person singular possesive dative forms
 * Category:Turkish first-person singular possessive dative forms
 * Category:Turkish noun first-person possessive forms
 * Category:Turkish noun possessive singular forms
 * Category:Turkish possesive singular forms
 * Category:Turkish possessive singular forms
 * Category:Turkish second-person possesive forms
 * Category:Turkish second-person singular dative forms
 * Category:Turkish second-person singular possesive dative forms
 * Category:Turkish second-person singular possessive dative forms
 * Category:Turkish terms with homophones
 * Category:Turkish third-person possesive forms
 * Category:Turkish third-person singular dative forms
 * Category:Turkish third-person singular possesive dative forms
 * Category:Turkish third-person singular possessive dative forms
 * Category:Turkish verb first-person possesive forms
 * Category:Turkish verb plural forms
 * Category:Turkish verb possesive singular forms
 * Category:Turkish verb second-person possesive forms
 * Category:Turkish verb third-person forms
 * Category:Turkish verb third-person possesive forms

I noticed these in the Special:UncategorizedCategories page, and was going to add the appropriate categories and move the misspelled ones, but then I noticed who created many - if not all- of these, and thought I should check whether this kind of categorization is appropriate. If the consensus is that they're ok, I'll happily withdraw the nominations and fix the problems. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't do this in any language I'm familiar with, except Latvian and Icelandic, and I'm pretty sure we stopped doing it there. Delete --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I templatised Category:Turkish terms with homophones. — Ungoliant (Falai) 03:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These categories are very specific, but languages are all unique so they have to be judged as such. I think asking User:Sinek would be a good idea. User:George Animal is also listed as a native Turkish speaker, I think the other users Category:User tr-N aren't currently active. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just realized: these seem to each have their own template that produces them, and the templates aren't language specific - one could just as easily find Category:French possesive singular forms someday . Chuck Entz (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all of them do, but the more specific ones seem to. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that I know what was populating them, I've orphaned and speedied the misspelled ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that a general useful template form for all languages is difficult - if not impossible -, but I propose to follow the way it is done in Hungarian, as this Finno-Ugric language is somehow similar to the Altaic Turkish. In Hungarian, words are formed also agglutinively, and I know that a word can have several cases at the same time. Sae1962 (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think all that categories (the most of them; like:Turkish third-person singular possesive dative forms) are redundant because that templates exist not even at the Turkish Wiktionary.It is nonsense to create the pages (e.g.:my auto, my page, my father, of the father). It would be enough if the templates exist.They don't have to be created.The creation of the entries like (arabam:my auto) are also redundant because all that things are the same.Arabam (my auto), evim (my house) etc. It is better to create a page for the grammar part for the possessive nouns of the Turkish language.I'm in favour of this idea. George  Animal . 13:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PS:I am for the deletion of the pages.-- George  Animal . 13:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC).But the templates shall remain in the entries.---  George  Animal . 13:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 * These Turkish inflection forms can be all generated from simple grammar rules. Including them in the Wiktionary is totally useless. They don't even have exceptions like in English you have dog ->dogs but mouse->mice. Because Turkish is an agglutinative language, if you started including all possible Turkish constructs you would have no rational way to reject something like Çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdanmışsınız which means "reportedly you are you one of those whom we could not make Czechoslovakian". Terms with definitions that are Sum-of-Parts are not included in the Wiktionary and with a similar reasoning, I believe grammatical constructs in agglutinative languages that follow simple rules should not be included either. For this reason the categories listed above and the words contained within them should be deleted. Same argument applies for the templates mentioned below. --İnfoCan (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Per İnfoCan-- Sabri76' talk 17:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I find it unnecessary to create articles every declined noun form and conjugated verb form, as it'd mean countless forms. Being quite different than English, there are so many possible situations that are expressed by a suffix in Turkish. But I also think of the users that have no knowledge of Turkish. We also have to take into account that, even someone without a basic knowledge should be able to find the definitions they needed. So if someone sees a word like evimizdeyiz ("we are at our house") and tries to look it up, they'll probably find nothing, as it has 3 different suffixes. And searching words like this is useless, as Did you mean ...? part can't always lead you to the right direction, as the forms on the declension templates are not shown on the searches.

 * Rather than creating each form, I guess we could edit the templates in order to give links to each suffix, something like that: evimizdeyiz. I guess this is more practical, as there are so many (and I mean it.) suffixes and there'd be millions of different combinations with all Turkish nouns. But I still have no idea about the search part, is there way to make it possible to show the info on the declension templates? Sinek (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Any chance of moving all the off-topic stuff to the Beer Parlor? The deletion debates has got lost among it. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I collapsed my comments above. --İnfoCan (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would favour deleting these in favour of an approach like that used in Hungarian noun form categorisation. To elaborate, categorise possessive noun forms in one possessive noun form subcategory, then perhaps for any further inflected forms based off a form that is possessive (should we include them) categorise them as basic noun forms; for example, evimizde could be included as "locative singular(?) of evimiz". I don't know how accepting of this people would be but I think it would be kind of ok to give some like a free pass to the basic inflections, except perhaps in the case of odd or rare words, so that we would generally have no qualms about the addition of the simple case forms and probably nominative possessive forms too but would maybe be more strict or watchful of additions of not so basic forms like non-nominative possessives and such. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 14:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Kept the remaining ones, due purely to inactivity by the admins. But I hope they ignore this, and delete them. --ElisaVan (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


text:
Category talk:Turkish noun first-person possessive forms

From Special:PermanentLink/24941665 on WT:RFDO:

 * Category:Turkish first-person possessive forms
 * Category:Turkish first-person singular possesive dative forms
 * Category:Turkish first-person singular possessive dative forms
 * Category:Turkish noun first-person possessive forms
 * Category:Turkish noun possessive singular forms
 * Category:Turkish possesive singular forms
 * Category:Turkish possessive singular forms
 * Category:Turkish second-person possesive forms
 * Category:Turkish second-person singular dative forms
 * Category:Turkish second-person singular possesive dative forms
 * Category:Turkish second-person singular possessive dative forms
 * Category:Turkish terms with homophones
 * Category:Turkish third-person possesive forms
 * Category:Turkish third-person singular dative forms
 * Category:Turkish third-person singular possesive dative forms
 * Category:Turkish third-person singular possessive dative forms
 * Category:Turkish verb first-person possesive forms
 * Category:Turkish verb plural forms
 * Category:Turkish verb possesive singular forms
 * Category:Turkish verb second-person possesive forms
 * Category:Turkish verb third-person forms
 * Category:Turkish verb third-person possesive forms

I noticed these in the Special:UncategorizedCategories page, and was going to add the appropriate categories and move the misspelled ones, but then I noticed who created many - if not all- of these, and thought I should check whether this kind of categorization is appropriate. If the consensus is that they're ok, I'll happily withdraw the nominations and fix the problems. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't do this in any language I'm familiar with, except Latvian and Icelandic, and I'm pretty sure we stopped doing it there. Delete --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I templatised Category:Turkish terms with homophones. — Ungoliant (Falai) 03:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These categories are very specific, but languages are all unique so they have to be judged as such. I think asking User:Sinek would be a good idea. User:George Animal is also listed as a native Turkish speaker, I think the other users Category:User tr-N aren't currently active. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just realized: these seem to each have their own template that produces them, and the templates aren't language specific - one could just as easily find Category:French possesive singular forms someday . Chuck Entz (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all of them do, but the more specific ones seem to. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that I know what was populating them, I've orphaned and speedied the misspelled ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that a general useful template form for all languages is difficult - if not impossible -, but I propose to follow the way it is done in Hungarian, as this Finno-Ugric language is somehow similar to the Altaic Turkish. In Hungarian, words are formed also agglutinively, and I know that a word can have several cases at the same time. Sae1962 (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think all that categories (the most of them; like:Turkish third-person singular possesive dative forms) are redundant because that templates exist not even at the Turkish Wiktionary.It is nonsense to create the pages (e.g.:my auto, my page, my father, of the father). It would be enough if the templates exist.They don't have to be created.The creation of the entries like (arabam:my auto) are also redundant because all that things are the same.Arabam (my auto), evim (my house) etc. It is better to create a page for the grammar part for the possessive nouns of the Turkish language.I'm in favour of this idea. George  Animal . 13:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PS:I am for the deletion of the pages.-- George  Animal . 13:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC).But the templates shall remain in the entries.---  George  Animal . 13:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 * These Turkish inflection forms can be all generated from simple grammar rules. Including them in the Wiktionary is totally useless. They don't even have exceptions like in English you have dog ->dogs but mouse->mice. Because Turkish is an agglutinative language, if you started including all possible Turkish constructs you would have no rational way to reject something like Çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdanmışsınız which means "reportedly you are you one of those whom we could not make Czechoslovakian". Terms with definitions that are Sum-of-Parts are not included in the Wiktionary and with a similar reasoning, I believe grammatical constructs in agglutinative languages that follow simple rules should not be included either. For this reason the categories listed above and the words contained within them should be deleted. Same argument applies for the templates mentioned below. --İnfoCan (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Per İnfoCan-- Sabri76' talk 17:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I find it unnecessary to create articles every declined noun form and conjugated verb form, as it'd mean countless forms. Being quite different than English, there are so many possible situations that are expressed by a suffix in Turkish. But I also think of the users that have no knowledge of Turkish. We also have to take into account that, even someone without a basic knowledge should be able to find the definitions they needed. So if someone sees a word like evimizdeyiz ("we are at our house") and tries to look it up, they'll probably find nothing, as it has 3 different suffixes. And searching words like this is useless, as Did you mean ...? part can't always lead you to the right direction, as the forms on the declension templates are not shown on the searches.

 * Rather than creating each form, I guess we could edit the templates in order to give links to each suffix, something like that: evimizdeyiz. I guess this is more practical, as there are so many (and I mean it.) suffixes and there'd be millions of different combinations with all Turkish nouns. But I still have no idea about the search part, is there way to make it possible to show the info on the declension templates? Sinek (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Any chance of moving all the off-topic stuff to the Beer Parlor? The deletion debates has got lost among it. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I collapsed my comments above. --İnfoCan (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would favour deleting these in favour of an approach like that used in Hungarian noun form categorisation. To elaborate, categorise possessive noun forms in one possessive noun form subcategory, then perhaps for any further inflected forms based off a form that is possessive (should we include them) categorise them as basic noun forms; for example, evimizde could be included as "locative singular(?) of evimiz". I don't know how accepting of this people would be but I think it would be kind of ok to give some like a free pass to the basic inflections, except perhaps in the case of odd or rare words, so that we would generally have no qualms about the addition of the simple case forms and probably nominative possessive forms too but would maybe be more strict or watchful of additions of not so basic forms like non-nominative possessives and such. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 14:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Kept the remaining ones, due purely to inactivity by the admins. But I hope they ignore this, and delete them. --ElisaVan (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)