text:
Talk:ĉerizokoloro

ĉerizkoloro
Esperanto for cherry (the color). I can't find a single use of either variant of this word, and the plural forms in particular seem unlikely to be attested. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 17:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Plus it violates Zamenhofian phonotactics. It wouldn't qualify anyway, as it's a transparent compound.  kwami (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Zamenhofian phonotactics is utterrly irrelevant to RFV, as is this being a "transparent compound" or not. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In English, transparent combinations such as "green grass" are not acceptable as entries, so why should they be acceptable for Esperanto? Or, would we accept cherry-colored as an English entry?  kwami (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For one thing, whether something is a tranparent compound is a RFD matter, not RFV; RFV only finds out whether the word or phrase is actually used in a way that meets WT:ATTEST. Second, if we were in RFD, I would point out that we have kept several transparent German compounds (Talk:Zirkusschule), and that things written together without a space are considered by multiple editors including me to be not sum of separate components. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, the whole reasoning behind WT:COALMINE is that anything written together as one word is keepable. This gets kind of hazy for writing systems that don't use spaces, but for those that do, it's fairly clear cut (clear-cut? clearcut?). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Both failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:ĉerizokoloro


text:
Talk:hoif

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a few mentions of a Scots word for house or hall, a surname. and lots of scannos for half, hoff, holy, and even how, but nothing in Google Books. In Google Groups, there's evidently some kind of acronym in sex-related posts, and quite a bit of random character sequences in posts used to render discussions unreadable- but nothing remotely relevant. It's of course possible that usage has been hidden by scannos and other errors, but there's absolutely no evidence I can find by using Google's search. I would guess that it might be in some obscure dictionary of historical slang not accessible on the internet- or it might be someone's attempt to get away with cheating at some word game... Chuck Entz (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep! It's a real word. It was used in The Ever After Bird by Ann Rinaldi. I remember it! Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Does the usage match "18th century slang for a thief who steals watches."? Given that the novel is set in the 19th century, I'm skeptical it would apply without rewriting the definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a Middle English variant of Old English "hof" (hall or dwelling), from Old Norse "hof" (temple), hence the Scots house, though "hove" is the usual spelling (now obsolete). Google can't find the word in The Ever After Bird by Ann Rinaldi.  Is this a problem with my Google search, or with Ready Steady Yeti's memory?    D b f  i  r  s   11:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:hoif


text:
Talk:arkeopterigaro

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Esperanto for a group of archeopteryxes. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Transparent compound, in as much need for an entry as "group of archeopteryxes" needs an entry in English. kwami (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

 * This is really not the correct forum for this issue; this is probably a better discussion for Beer parlour. I will say this is one of the affixes that caught me out for irregularity; why homaro (humanity and not a flock of humans) and ŝafaro (a flock of sheep and not sheepdom)?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why isn't this the correct forum? User is questioning whether this meets our criteria for inclusion, specifically attestation. Sounds pretty correct to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've done a quick search. I say quick, when there are no results for something it's very quick. Speedy as patent nonsense. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Kwami was questioning whether or not transparent compounds in Esperanto need entries; that's not a question for RFV. And I disagree in principle with deleting this; it is not patent nonsense, it's an entirely plausible Esperanto word, and we still accept cites from physical works, meaning that there's no way to prove that a word is currently uncitable for any but the most poorly attested languages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. Transparent or not, it still needs to be in use. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:arkeopterigaro


text:
Talk:aegrotous

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Tagged by, but not listed. Definition:
 * 1) (archaic) Sick

This IP has posted a plethora of mostly-unattestable archaic and obsolete terms (see hoif above, for another example). Etymologically, it would make sense for a term to exist with this spelling, but this returns absolutely zero hits on Google Books and Google Groups under this spelling and under the spelling with the æ ligature. Even on plain Google Search, this returns no hits, with only three if you use the ligature (one of which is an archived copy of the first one)- and those are mentions in non-English-language dictionaries. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

 * It would be interesting to know whether the anon IP (from Croydon or Woking?) is in fact Ready Steady Yeti (-- probably not, it's a long way from California). It would also be interesting to know where they are getting all the non-words from. We do have the related word aegrotant, but not the rare but attestable aegritude.     D b f  i  r  s   06:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I teleport from one side of the country to the other every day... Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * From Asturias to the Balearics? — Ungoliant (falai) 00:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I say watch out for this IP. It seems like he/she's making up fake words. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I think our notorious Asturianín would make fewer stupid mistakes, at least of the kind Yeti makes. — Keφr 08:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:aegrotous


text:
Talk:odorometer

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Tagged by Yeti; not listed; I've just cited it. Equinox ◑ 21:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:odorometer


text:
Talk:purpurous

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Tagged by Yeti but not listed (or I beat him to it!). Entry was created by the IP who's added some dubious obsolete words, but this one seems common and I have now cited it. Equinox ◑ 21:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:purpurous


text:
Talk:pädrit

RFV discussion: June–July 2014
And hipädrit, jipädrit, pädritil, pädritül, hipädritül, jipädritül. Volapük words for partridge. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 17:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:pädrit


text:
Talk:brunous

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Tagged by Yeti. Equinox ◑ 21:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Found nothing solid after going through 16 pages of Google Books hits. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. It occurs in The English Physician, by, but that doesn’t seem to be a well-known work. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:brunous


text:
Talk:falm

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Tagged by Yeti. Equinox ◑ 21:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing found in English, but it apparently means something in Danish so conceivably it could have been an Old English word. Spinning Spark  09:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can someone please speedy delete falms, falming and falmed for no usable content? Renard Migrant (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If falm fails RFV, its inflected forms will be deleted too. Until then, the precedent is that the inflected forms are kept while the RFV runs its course. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Later when I'm not so busy with my own wiki, I will make the Danish entry. Rædi Stædi Yæti  {- skriv til mig -} 04:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:falm


text:
Talk:iracundous

RFV discussion: May–July 2014
Tagged by Yeti. Seems to be a nonce word used in one single work. Equinox ◑ 21:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:iracundous


text:
Talk:pubohararo

pubhararo
Esperanto for pubic hair. Aside from the quote that I've added to pubhararo, there's nothing on Usenet, Tekstaro, or Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Both failed. Citation of the latter moved to Citations:pubhararo. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:pubohararo


text:
Talk:pubvilaro

RFV discussion: June–July 2014
Esperanto for pubic hair. Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 17:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:pubvilaro


text:
Talk:Generation 9k

RFV discussion: June–July 2014
Recently added term. I can't find anything in Google Books, and there are barely any uses in a Google web search. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The phrase doesn't seem to appear in either reference... Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Generation 9k


text:
Talk:gakkou

RFV discussion: February–July 2014

 * See Talk:gakko.

RFD discussion: February–July 2014

 * See Talk:gakko.

title: Talk:gakkou


text:
Talk:γ-ray

RFV discussion: November 2013–July 2014

 * See Talk:gamma-ray.

title: Talk:γ-ray


text:
Talk:umikino

RFV discussion: February–July 2014

 * See Talk:umiko.

title: Talk:umikino


text:
Talk:hederated

RFV discussion: January–July 2014

 * See Talk:hederate.

title: Talk:hederated


text:
Talk:neknominate

RFV discussion: March–July 2014

 * See Talk:neknomination.

title: Talk:neknominate


text:
Talk:grenajikrovül

RFV discussion: March–July 2014

 * See Talk:grenakrov.

title: Talk:grenajikrovül


text:
Talk:grenahikrovül

RFV discussion: March–July 2014

 * See Talk:grenakrov.

title: Talk:grenahikrovül


text:
Talk:grenakrovül

RFV discussion: March–July 2014

 * See Talk:grenakrov.

title: Talk:grenakrovül


text:
Talk:hikvagad

RFV discussion: March–July 2014

 * See Talk:kvagad.

title: Talk:hikvagad


text:
Talk:glügakrov

RFV discussion: March–July 2014

 * See Talk:grenakrov.

title: Talk:glügakrov


text:
Talk:ĉerizkoloro

RFV discussion: May–July 2014

 * See Talk:ĉerizokoloro.

title: Talk:ĉerizkoloro


text:
Talk:jikvagad

RFV discussion: March–July 2014

 * See Talk:kvagad.

title: Talk:jikvagad


text:
Talk:pubhararo

RFV discussion: June–July 2014

 * See Talk:pubohararo.

title: Talk:pubhararo


text:
Talk:OPT

RFV discussion: March–July 2014

 * See Talk:oPt.

title: Talk:OPT


text:
pehlkohl

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) gravel, pebbles

title: pehlkohl


text:
komplisert

Etymology
From the verb.

Adjective

 * 1) complicated

title: komplisert


text:
orlach

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) inch
 * 2) bit, fragment

title: orlach


text:
kelomehl

Noun

 * 1) fall, autumn

Coordinate terms

 * keyoh, keyok

title: kelomehl


text:
keyoh

Noun

 * 1) early fall, early autumn

title: keyoh


text:
keeshen

Noun

 * 1) summer

Coordinate terms

 * , keyoh, keyok

Verb

 * 1) be summer

title: keeshen


text:
keepuen

Etymology
From, with initial p- dissimilated to k- under the influence of the names of the other seasons, which all start with k-.

Noun

 * 1) winter

Coordinate terms

 * , keyoh, keyok

Verb

 * 1) be winter

title: keepuen


text:
Pilumnus

Etymology
From, from +.

Proper noun

 * 1) a minor Roman god guarding the good health and growth of children

Usage notes

 * One of two brother deities. Pīlumnus was a personification of the pestle and  was a personification of the woodpecker ; both were companions of Mars, and tutelary deities of married couples and newborns.
 * Pīlumnus taught humanity how to grind grain.
 * He was the consort of Danaë, father of Danaus and ancestor of Turnus.

title: Pilumnus


text:
woolew

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) roe of several fish

title: woolew


text:
woorew

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) roe of one fish

title: woorew


text:
'werhlkuen

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  liver

title: 'werhlkuen


text:
'werhlkerr'

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) bone

title: 'werhlkerr'


text:
red ensign

Noun

 * 1) The flag flown by a British merchant ship.
 * 2)  Such a flag bearing the coat of arms of Canada, formerly used as a semi-official national flag of Canada.
 * 1)  Such a flag bearing the coat of arms of Canada, formerly used as a semi-official national flag of Canada.

title: red ensign


text:
מגילה

Etymology
Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) scroll
 * 2) megillah, the scroll of Esther
 * 1) megillah, the scroll of Esther

Etymology
From

Noun

 * 1) megillah
 * 2) scroll
 * 3) a lengthy document or long story

title: מגילה


text:
Vitumnus

Etymology
+, and cognate to and.

Proper noun

 * 1) a minor Roman god that gives life to a child in the womb; a god of quickening

Usage notes

 * Vītumnus had the epithet and was associated by Augustine with, the giver of sentience.

title: Vitumnus


text:
Template:R:Proulx 2004 vowels

Paul Proulx, Proto-Algic VI: Conditioned Yurok reflexes of Proto-Algic vowels, Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 27:124–138 (2004)

title: Template:R:Proulx 2004 vowels


text: diss.

title: diss.


text:
Volumnus

Etymology
From, from +.

Proper noun

 * 1) a minor Roman god that bestows good intention to a fetus

title: Volumnus


text:
žgrt

Noun

 * 1)  scrooge miserly person

title: žgrt


text:
anestesi

Etymology
From, from , from with. Coined in 1846 by, in a letter to dentist , the first practitioner to publicly demonstrate the use of ether during surgery.

Noun

 * 1)  ; : An artificial method of preventing sensation, used to eliminate pain without causing loss of vital functions, by the administration of one or more agents which block pain impulses before transmitted to the brain. The loss or prevention of sensation, as caused by anesthesia, lesion in the nervous system or other physical abnormality.

Noun

 * 1) anaesthesia, or anesthesia (US)

Noun

 * 1) anaesthesia, or anesthesia (US)

title: anestesi


text: Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/wi·-

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/wi·-


text: Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/ki·-

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/ki·-


text: Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/ni·-

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/ni·-


text: Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/mi·-

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/mi·-


text:
astrakhaned

Adjective

 * 1) Wearing astrakhan.

title: astrakhaned


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/-yawi

Etymology
From, whence also 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) body or flesh

Usage notes
This term was always possessed:

Descendants

 * Central Agonquian:

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/-yawi


text:
Reconstruction talk:Proto-Algonquian/-yawi

Compare Fox:. - -sche (discuss) 18:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


text: anestesier

title: anestesier


text: megilloth

title: megilloth


text: megillot

title: megillot


text: anestesiene

title: anestesiene


text:
-por

Etymology
An archaic collateral form of.

Noun

 * 1)  “—’s boy” = [gen.]

title: -por


text: Overman

title: Overman


text:
Talk:have the black ox tread on one's foot

RFVed as Talk:black ox trod upon my foot.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


text:
counterstock

Noun

 * 1)  counterfoil

title: counterstock


text: counterstocks

title: counterstocks


text:
obstrutivo

Adjective

 * 1) obstructive which causes obstructions

title: obstrutivo


text:
obstetrício

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) obstetric relating to obstetrics

title: obstetrício


text:
obstétrico

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  obstetric relating to obstetrics

Adjective

 * 1) obstetric relating to obstetrics

title: obstétrico


text: Grobanites

title: Grobanites


text: Glamberts

title: Glamberts


text: Reconstruction:Proto-Algic/kela·hkewe

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Algic/kela·hkewe


text: Durannies

title: Durannies


text: Wholigans

title: Wholigans


text: Phans

title: Phans


text: Smilers

title: Smilers


text:
ocapi

Noun

 * 1) okapi, a large ruminant of the Congo

title: ocapi


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/wa·pi-ki·la·hkwa

Etymology
A compound of and, with -w- added under the influence of other birds' names.

Noun

 * 1)  snow goose

Descendants

 * Eastern Algonquian: *wāpīkīrāhkw


text:
Reconstruction talk:Proto-Algic/ki·la·hka

Compare Mohegan-Pequot. - -sche (discuss) 19:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


text:
Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Lemma List/reply (2)

I'm looking forward to the English lemma list (also very empty at the moment) being fully populated. It's something I would use relatively often (as a reader rather than an editor), so thanks! Maybe we should destroy or redirect the out-of-date Index:English at that future stage.


text:
Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Lemma List/reply (3)

If you want to help out, something like a list of all headword templates that use neither nor (possibly indirectly) Module:headword would be very useful. Those are the ones that would be the hardest to track down and update.


text:
you'll get yours

Phrase

 * 1) You will get what you deserve, or what is coming to you;.

Translations

 * Finnish: saat vielä ansiosi mukaan

title: you'll get yours


text: flannelmouths

title: flannelmouths


text: Category:Portuguese intensifiers

title: Category:Portuguese intensifiers


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/męso

Etymology
An o-stem noun back-formed from, the plural of , from.

Noun

 * 1)  meat

Descendants

 * East Slavic:
 * South Slavic:
 * Old Church Slavonic:
 * Cyrillic:
 * Glagolitic:
 * West Slavic:
 * Bohemian :
 * Sorbian:
 * Glagolitic:
 * West Slavic:
 * Bohemian :
 * Sorbian:
 * West Slavic:
 * Bohemian :
 * Sorbian:
 * West Slavic:
 * Bohemian :
 * Sorbian:
 * Bohemian :
 * Sorbian:
 * Sorbian:
 * Sorbian:
 * Sorbian:
 * Sorbian:
 * Sorbian:

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/męso


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/wa·p-aʔθemwa

Alternative forms

 * *wa·p-aʔθemw- (*wa·p-aʔɬemw- )
 * *wa·p-aʔθemw- (*wa·p-aʔɬemw- )

Etymology
A compound of.

Descendants

 * Plains Algonquian:
 * Central Algonquian:
 * /, and possibly /
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:


text: nebben

title: nebben


text:
crackerbread

Noun

 * 1) A kind of flat, crunchy cracker made with rye.

title: crackerbread


text: crackerbreads

title: crackerbreads


text: nebbet

title: nebbet


text:
Freudianness

Noun

 * 1) The quality of being Freudian.

title: Freudianness


text:
האָפֿמאַן

Proper noun

 * 1) . Hoffman

title: האָפֿמאַן


text:
הופמן

Proper noun

 * 1) . Hoffman

title: הופמן


text:
leadable

Adjective

 * 1) Capable of being led.

title: leadable


text:
unleadable

Adjective

 * 1) Incapable of being led.

title: unleadable


text: nebbene

title: nebbene


text: nebba

title: nebba


text: nebbar

title: nebbar


text:
Ghu

Proper noun

 * 1)  A mock deity of early science fiction fandom; a fannish ghod.

title: Ghu


text:
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing well-attested romanizations of Sanskrit

Allowing well-attested romanizations of Sanskrit

 * Voting on: That whenever citations can be provided showing that a romanization of a Sanskrit word is well-attested in a string of transliterated Sanskrit text (used to convey meaning in permanently recorded media in at least three independent instances, spanning at least three years; see, e.g., ), we allow an entry for that romanization consisting of the modicum of information needed to allow readers to get to the native-script entry.

 * Rationale: This differs from the previous vote, which would have allowed romanizations of all attested Sanskrit words, irrespective of whether the romanizations themselves were attested. This, by contrast, will apply only to those words for which attestation is demonstrated prior to the creation of an entry for the word. This will allow definitions to be created for words (or things that a reader would reasonably expect to be words) that an English-speaking reader might reasonably be expected to encounter while reading English-language materials containing strings of romanized Sanskrit text, while preventing the creation of definitions for unattested romanizations.

 * Vote starts: 00:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to 23:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to 23:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to 23:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to 23:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to 23:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Vote created: bd2412 T 20:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * Wikt rei-artur3.svg Votes/pl-2014-06/Romanization of Sanskrit
 * Wikt rei-artur3.svg Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/June#Prescriptivism as to common lay transliterations.
 * Wikt rei-artur3.svg Talk:mahā
 * Wikt rei-artur3.svg Talk:mahā
 * Wikt rei-artur3.svg Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-06/Romanization of Sanskrit

Support

 * 1) as nom. bd2412 T 20:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * support (conditionally) Bowing to pressure and evidence provided that Sanskrit romanisation is used. My condition: only IAST romanisation and only as soft redirects to Devanagari entries, all entry info (definitions, pronunciations, synonyms, example sentences, etc.) should be in the Devanagari entries, just like Mandarin pinyin and Japanese rōmaji entries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) * I am fine with everything you have said. bd2412 T 22:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) ** OK. I want to stress that it should be standard IAST, e.g. "ṃ", not "ṁ" for anusvāra and one transliteration per entry with possible hard redirects. Details to be worked out, including the use of hyphens (for etymological word splits) and stress marks (only for pronunciation in Devanagari entries, which should not be in IAST entries). I don't see dedicated editors to create and check IAST entries, though. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) *** I consider words with different accents to be different words. I wonder how likely we are to find three independent citations in running strings of transliterated Sanskrit text using the wrong diacritics. That said, I have no objection at all to an IAST limitation. bd2412 T 03:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) **** Of course, they are different words. The focus should be on standard transliteration, not on attestations. So should be "uttamapuruṣa", not "ut-tamá-puruṣa". The latter could be a hard redirect to the former. While "ut-tamá-puruṣa" is helpful for etymology and pronunciation purposes. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) ***** You can't just make sweeping reinterpretations of the vote along the way in comments in order to make up for the insurmountable deficiencies in the proposal. Not simply because Sanskrit is not a script that can be romanized, which renders the whole vote nonsensical, but further because any of the dozen or so Latin-script based transcription schemes for Sanskrit are all on equal terms among themselves and to Devanagari. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) ****** So we should continue listing transliterated words as English, as is being done now? Should we go ahead and put in entries for all of "taṁ nirvyājaṁ bhaja guṇa-nidhe pāvanaṁ pāvanānāṁ śraddhā-rajyan-matir atitarām uttamaḥ-śloka-maulim prodyann antaḥ-karaṇa-kuhare hanta yan-nāma-bhānor ābhāso 'pi kṣapayati mahā-pātaka-dhvānta-rāśim" as words in the English language? That is what will end up happening, because they are attested. bd2412 T 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) ******* That is not English. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) * I believe we should use ISO 15919 as either the standard or an alternative. It covers more basis (letters that IAST ignores) and is also used by google translate. Also, since both IAST and ISO 15919 are 1 to 1 transliterations (digaṃbara/digaṁbara will always be दिगंबर) we could even just do hard-redirects. This makes sense if the purpose is simply to get the user to the Devanagari-script page. DerekWinters (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px|link=]] Support Other than for the "modicum" part, this is our current CFI (WT:CFI) as I understand it. I see no added value for the user of the dictionary in disallowing attestation of transliterations beyond the current CFI. I am slightly confused by the following: "This, by contrast, will apply only to those words for which attestation is demonstrated prior to the creation of an entry for the word." I do not support that attesting quotations must be in the entry before the entry is created; attestation of transliterated text should work the same way as attestation of native-script text. On yet another note, this vote proposes to explicitly allow modicum entries; I do not see the vote anywhere disallowing non-modicum entries. I surmise it to be the current CFI to allow even fuller entries than modicum ones, for attested transliterations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 10)  having Rōmaji-style entries for all attested transliterations of Sanskrit. ( How about tagging non-IAST transliterations ?) — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If we decide to start allowing entries for romanizations, then it will make sense to tag the nonstandard ones, yes — but probably with a dedicated tag like (which could display "nonstandard") or better yet a dedicated template like, so that the entries can be categorized differently from terms that are nonstandard in the 'usual' way. Templates would presumably also be needed for e.g. Hunterian transliterations and other non-IAST standards. - -sche (discuss) 21:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems sensible. I'd support such a practice. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) As these transliterated forms are attested, it's not so much a question of whether they should be included, but how, and that shouldn't come into consideration for this vote. None of the objections so far have said anything except to defer to previous votes. Previous objections were that there might be development of "reverse transliteration modules" to aid search -- this is irrelevant for this vote, as it ignores the change in this poll, namely that is only for attested forms. It also assumes future technology, when in reality Wiktionary code development is particularly slow (e.g. you still can't even search by language). Another previous objection was that there would be an explosion of entries with transliterations for Sanskrit in multiple scripts: "Sanskrit is written in a hell of a lot of scripts". Again this is rendered irrelevant by the requirement for attestation. Another objection was against bot-generated transliterations. Again, not relevant. So, the objectors who are simply deferring to previous votes really need to expand their arguments. I've only gone through Votes/pl-2014-06/Romanization_of_Sanskrit, but none of the objections made there appear to be relevant for this vote, so please point to specific arguments if you object. Pengo (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you've read the talkpages? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously? I've gone to the effort of going through one page of voting and found nothing relevant there. If you want to point out specific arguments, you're going to have to meet me half way. Pengo (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) As long as this is the English Wiktionary, and we assume that most of our contributors can't read other scripts and only have access to Latin input tools, it makes sense for usability's sake to be pretty liberal with romanizations. The RFV of maha/mahā found plenty of unglossed quotations of Sanskrit written in the Latin alphabet, so it's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that a user will come across Sanksrit words and want to know what they mean. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing_well-attested_romanizations_of_Sanskrit. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  It may also be prudent to add Thai-cizations, Tamilicizations, Balicizations, etc. Especially for the Thai-script Sanskrit entries, pronunciation should be added to reflect the special usage of Thai Sanskrit. "In Thailand, Sanskrit is read out using the Thai values for all the consonants (so ค is read as kha and not [ga]), which makes Thai spoken Sanskrit incomprehensible to sanskritists not trained in Thailand" (from Thai_alphabet). DerekWinters (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also Tibetan, Javanese, Grantha (used only for Sanskrit), Sarada, and Siddham (still somewhat used in Japan). DerekWinters (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) . And I would similarly support the inclusion of romanizations of Greek, Russian etc if used similarly. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , based on the arguments made at Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-06/Romanization of Sanskrit. Inclusion should be based on attestation in Latin-script Sanskrit-only text (whether or not it matches any standard, such as IAST), and not in the running text of any other language. As of now, I only support this for Sanskrit; any other language we want to do this for has to be considered separately. --WikiTiki89 18:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just want to add that I would prefer it if citations were limited to before the 1960s. --WikiTiki89 18:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)    — Saltmarsh συζήτηση-talk 03:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * —Stephen (Talk) 13:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) . I would not support this for any random language but I think it's useful with Sanskrit given that there is a standard transcription scheme in general use (IAST) and that Devanagari is not a script that we can reasonably expect our users to either be familiar with or figure out (I'd say that for all foreign scripts except maybe Greek and Cyrillic). As for entering IAST text, on the Mac for example it's not hard to enter all sorts of diacritics using the "US Extended" keyboard; you can also go to the Character Viewer and type in e.g. "a" and you will get "related characters" including variants of "a" with lots of different diacritics on them. Someone else also mentioned the helpfulness of the auto-completion in the search bar, e.g. if I type in "mahru" (which is not an attested word) the search bar shows an entry for the Comanche word "mahrʉ" without me needing to figure out how to enter the character "ʉ". I think this should be limited to IAST text but I think the requirement for attestation will ensure that we're unlikely to get very many weird non-IAST transcriptions. (BTW on a different note, I think Egyptian Arabic and other Arabic dialects should be rendered in Latin transcription because the Arabic alphabet is not sufficient for representing the phonologies of these languages. All sources I have on Arabic dialects use transcription exclusively. Unfortunately this is a potential can of worms because there isn't a single accepted transcription scheme ... in any case, an issue for another day.) Benwing (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  If indeed the Latin entry is nothing more than a soft redirect to the Devanagari entry, I suppose I can't really come up with a decent reason as to how this differs from pinyin and romaji entries, per Angr's point. Aperiarcam (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  partially. There aren't many reasons we would ever deny an attested term an entry here. Because the romanization is "wrong", because you think the script is anti-traditional, careless, or otherwise inappropriate,  is exactly the wrong reason. Very fundamentally this is a prescriptive argument that holds no water here . We describe all words in all languages as they are used, not as any of us wish that they would be. The proposed criteria are so narrowly tailored that they can't in good conscious be any stricter, except maybe to require warning. Conceivably, this rule could be applied as an inclusionist principle to any transliteration for any language without any repercussion other than indexing terms that are actually in use. English written in Japanese characters? Why the heck not? Is the difference of a context label all that we're missing here? DAVilla 03:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm amending my vote by persuasion of arguments that one of the referenced citations is in the wrong language. I'm not one to object to that kind of inclusiveness, but I don't feel as strongly about it now. I should also say in fairness that, although I disagree with the practice, transcriptions have always been somewhat prescriptive here. DAVilla 03:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  per the previous vote. Wyang (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  per Wyang. --Vahag (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  per Vahag. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  --Dijan (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 5)  — Ungoliant (falai) 16:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 6)  There are several scripts used for writing Sanskrit, but the Latin script is not one of them. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Bogorm: People may have all sort of reasons; yours is demonstrably factually wrong: Sanskript is written in Latin, among other scripts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Dan Polansky: You appear to confuse Sanskrit with Pāli. Among Indo-Aryan languages Pāli texts have been published in Latin script, not Sanskrit ones. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Bogorm: Actually, I have that information from someone else, so maybe it is wrong, and if it is, I apologize. Devanagari_transliteration tells me that "Contemporary Western editions of Sanskrit texts appear mostly in IAST"; don't know whether that unreferenced claim is true - can you comment? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I found it. User:Angr said "There are whole books of Sanskrit written in Latin script, so I see no reason to exclude Sanskrit in Latin from the dictionary.". --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Dan Polansky: I should have written published by a reputable publisher (not by Samizdat or yoga amateurs). Reputable here may be defined thus: a publishing house that has published writings of eminent Indologists (such as Geiger, Liebert, H. Smith and so forth). In Pāli this is the PTS, but as regards Sanskrit, hardly any corresponding publication society is discernible. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Bogorm: Referring back to the quoted Wikipedia sentence: do you mean that "Contemporary Western editions" mentioned are published by publishers that are not reputable? Do you have any such particular publisher that is not reputable in mind? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter whether words are found in books published by a reputable publisher? We are not a dictionary restricted to including words found in such works. bd2412 T 22:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) . In my opinion, shared by some others in previous discussions, it is inaccurate to consider the results of one language rendering something from another language into a script the rendering language's speakers can read (or in older times, a more basic practical concern: rendering it into a script the rendering language's printers/typesetters have the capacity to print/typeset) to be "words". I've seen transliterations of the entire text of the Soviet national anthem into Latin letters (different Latin letters depending on the language of the person doing the transliterating), transcriptions of Chinese strings into Latin and into Cyrillic, transcriptions of English and Russian strings into Chinese and Japanese characters, etc. "Soyuz nerushimy respublik svobodnykh" isn't written in the script Russian is written in; it's not Russian, it's a rendering of Russian; ditto "Zhongguo dalu" and the Sanskrit strings this vote is about. Such strings aren't English, either. Our format requires us to include only words which belong to languages, and to assign all words we include to langiages. Hence, I not only don't think we should include "nerushimy", etc, I don't think we can include them (accurately). I oppose trying to include them. I had refrained from participating in this vote, however, because I thought: if the majority is against me, and I don't have to edit such conceptually messy entries, why not let the majority get their way? But as has been pointed out in the BP, the only way a majority has been assembled here is by keeping this vote open for months on end, far past the length of time votes are usually kept open. Another issue is the nature of what this vote proposes. Allowing systematic romanization of a language (a la Gothic) is one thing. Allowing ad-hoc transliteration systems, but only for a single language, is inconsistent; what makes e.g. a French book's Latin-script Sanskrit different from a French book's Latin-script Chinese or a Chinese or Japanese book's Chinese- bzw. Japanese-character English, that we should be allowing only one of them? On a practical note, what effect would including Latin-script Sanskrit (and Devanagari-script Chinese, Chinese-character Russian, etc) have on our efforts to apply to languages fonts that best cover the characters they use? Suddenly, we'd have to anticipate that s and other strings from most major languages might be present in most major scripts with varying, and if we allow ad-hoc transliterations then potentially unpredictable, arrays of diacritics. - -sche (discuss) 02:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) * Would it help to limit the discussion to transliterations that are well-attested? Thus far, as a dictionary, we have tried to include words that a person might run across in print and want to define. bd2412 T 17:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  this will be the end of Wiktionary if it passes. We need to maintain a level of seriosity and not be a rehash of unreliable Geocities websites from the past. -- Liliana • 18:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) * Since your objection seems to rest on the reliability of websites, would your view be different if citations were limited to books in print? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 18:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) * @Liliana I don't understand that objection at all. The vote does not propose to relax our attestation criteria. Our WT:ATTEST does not allow quotations to be from "unreliable Geocities websites". The vote uses the same language as WT:ATTEST, namely "used to convey meaning in permanently recorded media ...", italics mine. What is the point? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are way too many websites that use Latin script because they're way too lazy to actually use the proper script. Especially for ancient languages like Egyptian, this makes it next to impossible to find out the actual attested form. I see no need to copy others' mistakes in that regard. -- Liliana • 19:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @Liliana And what makes these websites permanently recorded media? Do we accept these kind of websites for, say, English? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How can it make it next to impossible to find the "actual" form? You just go out to the monument and read what it says. If that's hard, then I think calling the people who do that "lazy" is completely unjust. Because that's what the people who go out and look at the monuments publish in, transliteration. Again real scholars use transliteration.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  I don't see why the threshold for inclusion of Latin-alphabet Sanskrit should be higher than it is for Devanagari Sanskrit. Sanskrit is not a WDL, so one single mention should be sufficient. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Sanskrit counts as extinct for CFI purposes, so it would need "one use in a contemporaneous source". Since Latin-script Sanskrit can't possibly fulfill that criterion (guess why), they're trying to make Latin-script Sanskrit count as a living language, rather than an extinct language, so they can go by the normal, less restrictive (due to not being restricted to contemporaneous sources) three-citations rule instead. I think that's a violation of our CFI. -- Liliana • 08:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If the requirement for Sanskrit is "one use in a contemporaneous source" then we can't host any Sanskrit here at all in any script, since Sanskrit was not written down until centuries after it became extinct. Nevertheless, CFI does permit one mention for extinct languages under the same conditions as for living LDLs. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * When was that added? I remember the "contemporaneous" restriction was made to prevent people from coining modern words for extinct languages, like having entries on nuclear energy in Egyptian language. But if you can just cite these words as LDL instead, that restriction becomes completely ineffective. -- Liliana • 08:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose the condition that "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention" is there to exclude that sort of thing. If the community of editors of Ancient Egyptian maintains a list that excludes anything coining words for nuclear energy, then such coinings will not be included. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless these coinages take hold and are published in three independent sources. We still don't want to call them Ancient Egyptian. --WikiTiki89 12:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @ User:Angr: If I read the vote proposal correctly, it does not introduce any exclusion criterion, only an inclusion criterion. The vote proposal is of the form "Whenever X, we allow Y". It does not logically follow from that that "Whenever not X, we disallow Y". Therefore, it seems to me that even if you deem the criteria too stringent, you should be able to support the inclusion of the set allowed by the criteria. Am I wrong? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of establishing a precedent. I don't want to support a proposal with an overly narrow inclusion criterion, because if it passes it will then become the status quo, making it that much harder to later broaden the inclusion criteria. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Angr I see. What do you think is going to happen to prospective Sanskrit entries in Latin script if the proposal does not pass, but rather, say, ends in 60% support - no consensus? Do you think they are going to be created and then kept? Do you see a chance that when someone creates such an entry, a nasty quarrel, maybe a create-delete repetitive sequence, ensues? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the proposal is well-formed, judging from the range of possible interpretations of "well-attested" that have been offered. Flexibility of interpretation is not bad in principle, but it seems to leave too much in doubt for those opposing the proposal. I hadn't realized how problematic the proposal formulation was. Given the elasticity of our interpretations of terms such as "well-attested", one might well expect that all possible definitions will be applied with connecting "or"s. Perhaps the third try will be the charm. DCDuring TALK 18:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @DCDuring: You forgot to strike your support vote. As for your objection, "well-attested" indeed should have been "attested", IMHO, but that is very minor given that the vote is explicit about what it means: "used to convey meaning in permanently recorded media in at least three independent instances, spanning at least three years"; this I quote from the wording of the vote. I see no room for interpretation, or certainly no more room than is currently in WT:ATTEST which uses the same language. I think you should reconsider or clarify. From your support vote, I take it that you support including Latin-written Sanskrit in some form; please clarify if this is not the case. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right. I don't know what I am talking about on the substance.
 * I suppose I am trying to make sure that the result is the one that would have occurred had the vote ended at the first vote-termination date (5 March 2015) as I view the process as irregular and, if not in violation of any specific policy or procedure here, at least in violation of my sense of fairness and due process. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @DCDuring That's fair enough. Abstaining because of disagreement with perceived process irregularities make perfect sense. Nonetheless, let me point you to and the principle that I stated there: "If a vote is getting the result of no consensus, and if at least one vote was cast to it during the last month, the vote can be extended in good conscience. A result is "no consensus" if it is 50% in support or higher but lower than a pass." When I extended this vote multiple times (it is my repeated extensions that you appear to be objecting to), I was following this principle. I think this principle is reasonably fair, and even if it shows selection bias a bit, the benefits offset the bias. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope I understand this proposal correctly. I think it would be fine to create a redirect to the Devanagari entry (at least where the Latin spelling would not coincide with words from other languages), but it strikes me as silly to use the somewhat narrow and recent attestation of Romanized Sanskrit to argue that it has a comparable claim to being a native script as Devanagari does. Regardless of the controversy regarding Sanskrit's lack of a native script, scholars from both East and West have been using Devanagari as the de facto standard script for Sanskrit for centuries. Sure, this is influenced by Hindi's prominence in India today, but I don't think this is different from any other editorial standard we use in a dictionary. Just as we use lowercase letters, accent markings, etc. in modern printings of classical Latin and Greek texts, and dictionaries of said languages, we should not be hesitant to apply this standard on Sanskrit, to the exclusion of the Latin alphabet, notwithstanding the anachronism. Aperiarcam (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why to the exclusion of the Latin alphabet? Why not have both? Why should we allow romanizations for Gothic, Chinese, and Japanese, and prohibit them for Sanskrit? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're not quite correct when you say Western scholars use Devanagari as the de-facto standard script for Sanskrit. Most recent Western works I've seen on Sanskrit use IAST Latin transcription, often exclusively and without Devanagari. It seems it's mostly older works, e.g. William Dwight Whitney's grammar, that used Devanagari primarily. Benwing (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  I changed my mind. — JohnC5 07:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @JohnC5: Any rationale? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Dan Polansky: None that hasn't already been said. Well, I might say that I spent a long time working on standardizing Old Italic transcription stuff only to have people say that we should just romanize all the Old Italic languages. This sort of put me off of romanization entries. — JohnC5 08:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @JohnC5: Would you point me to at least one discussion that pertains to Old Italic transcription so I can follow what you are talking about? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As for "None that hasn't already been said": Can you please point me to one specific location containing that specific rationale, in a manner that makes it possible for me to find the specific sentences containing the ratioanle? The phrase "None that hasn't already been said" does not uniquely identify any rationale. The rationale would help answering the following question: Why is it beneficial for the user of Wiktionary to have attested romanizations excluded from Wiktionary? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, Beer parlour/2015/July is the locus classicus of discussion pertaining to Old Italic transcription. @JohnC5, please correct me if I'm wrong. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is quite correct.
 * I'm sorry for the delay, but I went to sleep soon after my last response because I was awake at a very unreasonable hour. To your question, I don't particularly appreciated your tone in asking for further rationale. I know the written word transfers people's intentions poorly, but it reads very much like you are haranguing me for not answering you. In truth, I did not give more rationale both because I do not want to become involved in the argument here and because I'm under no obligation to give rationale in the first place, much less go over points that have already been made. I understand that you feel strongly in this matter and would like to convince me of your point (an admirable endeavor!), but I tend to avoid getting into debates like this because people do not make the minuscule effort it takes to be cordial. Again, I'm sorry to assert that you were berating me, but it does read that way from my perspective. — JohnC5 16:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If what you intended to say is "I won't give you my rationale", maybe that is what you should have said in the very beginning rather than indicate that you support some sort of amorphous mass of rationales spread in this vote and previous votes. The strategy employed by multiple opposers consisting in avoiding to pick up any specific rationale is objectionable; it makes it hard to investigate the validity of rationales since no specific ones are given. While there is no requirement to state a rationale, a refusal to give one is nowhere an admirable thing to do. Wikipedia has this nice string "!vote", which suggests that arguments are important. While I am sorry about any tone issues I have, what matters in the first place is substance, and, unfortunately, I am not seeing much of it in your vote and your comments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have very specific reasons, but I do not care to argue them. You may say that I am avoiding having them disproved or undermining the voting process by not giving people fodder for debate, but no, I won't defend my position. Again, it is vaguely offensive that you are implying that my failure to give rationale represents an absence of proper reasoning. Feel free to continue attempting to goad me into an argument, I suppose―it is entirely your prerogative. — JohnC5 21:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The failure to give rationale prevents other people from examining it. Human experience shows that reasoning is all too often faulty. He who does not expose reasoning for other people to examine is all too often too uncertain about correctness or plausibility of that reasoning. I find it in poor taste that people who want to prevent others from creating certain attested entries can't be bothered to tell us why. Whether you have proper reasons or wrong reasons I do not know; you have some reasons, and you fail to disclose them, which all too often happens to people who feel that their arguments do hot hold water. Your argument may hold water or it may not; I will not know. Again, this is obviously not about you in particular but about other votes as well. With you, I had hope. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I appreciate that you had hope for me. I promise I am a friendly and reasonable, regardless of my opinion on this issue. Too often animosity from one issue spills over into unrelated parts of this project, which again leads me to avoid debating topics to which I have little to add. I, in turn, hope you will not begrudge me this! — JohnC5 05:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  Changed my vote to "oppose". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  I like this idea from the perspective of users who are trying to find a romanized Sanskrit word found in either a religious text or dictionary but who are not familiar with or are incapable of typing in Devanagiri. On the other hand, even the IAST cannot be easily typed into a search bar, which defeats the purpose of that argument. —JohnC5 21:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You type maha, and at the top, on the "See also:" row, you'll find mahā. So ease of typing should not be an issue for a person who can type Latin letters used in English. (Works for Czech as well; if a person can only type kocka, they can click kočka at the top of the entry.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That only works though if the page without diacritics already exists and has a See also, neither of which is always the case. Regardless I can understand both arguments quite well and cannot make up my mind. —JohnC5 23:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Even assuming the diacritic-free pages will not eventually exist, learning to enter these diacritics is much easier than to enter a script with which one is entirely unfamiliar. And the search for the non-existing diacritic-free page would presumably turn up the page with diacritics near the top of the search results. Or even, when I enter "tuzka" into the search box and press "Go", Wiktionary takes me to "tužka"; similary for "muska" and "muška". --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I still feel too strongly in both directions to choose. Thanks for the clarification, though. —JohnC5 21:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  —Stephen (Talk) 02:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Decision
Fails. Thanks to all who left constructive feedback. DAVilla 00:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Passes, 12 - 6 - 1. —Stephen (Talk) 13:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't deem a 12–6 vote passed, myself, though I know others do; but I really don't think we should in this case, in light of the procedural irregularity. —msh210℠ (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought that the required supermajority is ⅔… That's exactly the proportion of 12:6. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (@) There's been quite a bit of past discussion, and no consensus or even widespread agreement AFAIK, about what the required supermajority is. —msh210℠ (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussions are not exercises in bean counting. In the above discussion, five out of six editors expressing opposition to the proposal provided no substantive argument on the matter. The sixth offered an argument based on a premise that was noted to be factually incorrect based on citations that have been provided with respect to this discussion in the past. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 13:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wyang is clearly saying that the reason he (and possibly others) gave in the previous vote still applies. Vahag and Ivan explicitly agree with Wyang; Dijan and Ungoliant agree with him implicitly. I wouldn't call that not providing a substantive argument, since there are many substantive arguments discussed in the previous vote and other discussions linked to above. There is no rule that says the argument must be provided in the vote itself. --WikiTiki89 14:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wyang's previous vote called for developing reverse transliteration modules as an alternative. Such modules have not been developed. Any editor with the programming ability is welcome to develop such a thing and offer it as a functional alternative, at which point the need for romanizations can be revisited. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 15:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You can disagree with him, but you can't say that his vote is baseless. --WikiTiki89 15:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can certainly say that it is based on a weak premise, in light of our determinations for other transliterations. I can also certainly say that votes 4 and 5 are explicitly baseless (I don't see an implication where there is no evidence for one), and that vote 6 is based on a factual error that is undercut by actual citations that have been provided for the one word that is primarily at issue here. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 16:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "The sixth offered an argument based on a premise that was noted to be factually incorrect based on citations" Based on which citations in particular? Could you provide a link? This is an example for a Pali composition (Dhammasaṅgaṇi) published in the Latin script by a reputable publisher (PTS). If you can provide an example for a Sanskrit publication in the Latin script analogous to that, I pledge to reconsider my position. However, the claim that my justification had arguably been noted to be factually incorrect is a groundless, unfounded assumption. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the citations collected at Citations:mahā, including a section of transliterated Sanskrit passages. I don't know why you keep referring to "a reputable publisher", as if Wiktionary has some rule discounting words or usages found in other texts. Our only rule is that the text must be durably archived. We even use usenet group archives for citations. If you think that there is a requirement that words be cited to a work by any particular kind of publisher, then you are factually wrong on an entirely different level. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 18:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The first edition is overtly proselytic and proselytism relies on maximal simplification and minimal thoroughness and profundity with regard to perquisition and authenticity. The second one is an edition of a living person again with the aim of maximal distribution with minimal effort. The third which you essayed to incorporate into the page less than an hour ago, has been fortunately removed (not by me) because there the word was part of a proper name. Thus, all of them are nowhere near as reputable with regard to the publisher (as is PTS) and/or classical with regard to content (as is Dhammasaṅgaṇi). Therefore I am afraid that there is either a misconception of analogous example or (as I am still convinced) absence of analogous examples that corroborates the above argument from the Oppose section. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * P. S. I would like to propose moving that conversation concerning reputable publications of classical works (classical, since an ancient language is concerned here) either to the Oppose section or to the discussion of the vote, lest the decision section diverge from its main purpose which is the closure of the vote; if BD2412 does not object. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If your intent is to impose a standard of "reputable publications", then the place this discussion needs to go is Wiktionary talk:Criteria for inclusion, because the citations I provided clearly meet the current strictures of that policy. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 22:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As for "procedural irregularity" mentioned above, the only irregularity that I see is that the vote was closed on the same day on which the last vote was cast. I reject the claim that the extensions themselves are procedural irregularity. More discussion is now at Beer_parlour/2015/July; it could as well have been on this page of the vote, and I find it inappropriate that the vote was locked to prevent discussions about its outcome and manner of closure. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * By my lights, 2/3 should be pass, for a vote like this that does not change the constitution. But I disagree with how the vote was closed by Stephen. On the day Stephen cast his vote, he should have extended the vote, IMHO. If multiple people agree, we can extend the vote one month. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I extended this vote by one month from today, to 19 August 2015. I support the extension and so do DCDuring and msh210 if I understand their comments in Beer_parlour/2015/July correctly. Please let me know here if you agree with this extension.--Dan Polansky (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This extension confirms the blundering nature of the underlying process to achieve this proposal and similarly marginal proposals. Obviously the original vote was premature. The second vote, as it has turned out, was also premature. The use of voting in lieu of BP discussion and polls makes the corruption of the voting process possible, even inevitable. But, instead of any lesson being learned, we have another vote (on the voting process itself) being promoted without sufficiently broad discussion in advance. DCDuring TALK 12:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the above ranting against voting, this vote was not premature. There was plenty of time for discussion, and some actual discussion, before the vote. We are having great results with voting in the English Wiktionary, with cleaner and better policies, achieved through a timely and transparent process. The reader might not object to be reminded of such votes as Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities, which terminated endless discussions about the attributive-use rule which almost no one supported, a rule that threatened to be used by a minority in the RFV process to remove a significant portion of our coverage of proper names including placenames. A recent vote improving our policies by eliminating poorly attested, and IMHO unreal, content is Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 3. I will remind the reader that our votes are ripe with rather open discussion: discussing directly on the vote page is not forbidden and is common. We have a very open and transparent voting culture that many Wiktionaries can only envy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's no consensus 12-11-2 by our long-standing practice, not "fails". Furthermore, the vote could have been further extended using the result-agnostic algorithm "new votes in the last extension period => extend further by one month". I am reluctant to extend the vote given the heat the past extensions of this particular vote have created, but the the mentioned extension algorithm cannot be accused of allowing result selection, and thus does not show selection bias, AFAICS. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This nearly passed and now it has nearly failed. While technically it is no consensus, I'm reluctant to call a vote that has been extended 5 times anything but a failure. I would be happy to change my ballot if that's all that's needed to make the harsher description technically accurate, but I would imagine everyone would prefer me to vote my conscience. DAVilla 10:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing two things. Saying that this vote is a failure (i.e. a procedural failure) has nothing to do with the outcome of the vote (i.e. pass/fail/no consensus). --WikiTiki89 12:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is rather a moot point. After the failure of the vote on "excluding romanizations by default", which was initiated after this vote, the upshot of this vote failing is that romanized Sanskrit terms that have a CFI-worthy number of citations can now be entered with no standards at all. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 13:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that other vote could carry any weight whatsoever. Its author voted against it, which means that he could have inserted language, not necessarily deliberately or consciously, that would ensure its demise. (Disallowing extending of votes is a good example of this. I nearly voted against because I felt it went too far. An author who was genuinely interested in seeing it pass would have been more certain to take others' input into consideration.) Furthermore, while the vote you reference was worded in such a way as to require consensus that it did not gain, it neither gained anti-consensus. That is, the negation of the vote would not be policy either. Next time I want to push through a policy, should I state the opposite of what I truly want, and declare success when barely half of the community agrees with me? Excepting precedent, I'm inclined to start treating any losing vote in which the author votes against as withdrawn. DAVilla 19:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: "Excepting precedent, I'm inclined to start treating any losing vote in which the author votes against as withdrawn": That's inacceptable. If the supporters of the proposal had any issue with the wording, they (1) could have raised the issue on the talk page, and (2) could have created a vote that used wording to their liking. There are people around all to eager to do things without votes and contrary to consensus, and it is essential that their opposers are allowed to create votes for proposals that they themselves oppose. Unless you can point out specific defects with wording, your fantasies about proper procedure and bad faith should be disregarded as lacking any verifiable substance. Votes/pl-2014-06/Excluding romanizations by default provides a verifiable objective evidence of the scope of consensus for exclusion of romanizations; your claims will not prevent the reader from checking this evidence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As for Votes/pl-2015-07/Disallowing extending of votes: (1) Editors had the opportunity to make specific wording enhancement proposals on the talk page. They did not do it. In fact, the vote says what I saw multiple editors say before, so it only creates a channel for what they said they supported. (2) Editors can create a vote with an alternative proposal. They can do it right now. The vote is scheduled to run for three months so they have plenty of time. They may do the real work and draft a specific proposal. I drafted a specific proposal of a result-agnostic extension procedure on the talk page of Votes/pl-2015-07/Disallowing extending of votes. No one contributed a specific proposal for an alternative policy or algorithm. The only thing they ever came up with was stick with the original end date. So that is what the vote proposes. Again, venues are open for real drafting and political work. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's "inacceptable" to feel a certain way and not act on it in deference to precedent? It's "inacceptable" that such consideration would have no real consequence since neither a losing vote nor a vote that was withdrawn affect policy? The only act that would seem to be unacceptable to me is the one you propose, to start a new vote that parallels an existing vote still in progress. Apart from its disrespectful nature, the confusion this could potentially create, especially if both pass and worse if any of us get creative with our supporting votes, would be a waste of people's time.
 * Let me be very clear. I am not assuming bad faith on your part or anyone else's when I say that the author of a proposal should have an interest in seeing that vote pass. In particular you have made changes in good faith when they were suggested. However, expecting contributors to make alternative proposals on the vote's talk page the week before it starts is often not enough to get a feel for where the community consensus lies, which is something the author must gauge well in order to push a vote through successfully. Lord knows I've had my share of misjudgments on that front. DAVilla 06:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Who started what vote is ultimately irrelevant. The bottom line is that no consensus has been articulated to exclude romanizations by default, the only suggestion of such a rule has failed to gain consensus, and we are in the wilderness on this issue. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 15:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


text: nebbane

title: nebbane


text:
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-07/Redirecting attested romanizations

Redirecting attested romanizations

 * Voting on: If a romanization of a word in a particular language (whether it is an ad-hoc romanization or one derived from a formal romanization scheme) is attested three times as per WT:CFI, and the word in its native script meets WT:CFI, and the only use of the term at issue is as a romanization of the native script, then the romanization will redirect to the native script entry. This is only to be applied if the creation of a redirect will not interfere with readers searching for any alternative use of the term at issue. Attestation for the romanization will be placed on the Citations page for the native script entry.

 * Vote starts: 00:01, 23 August (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Vote created: bd2412 T 20:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Votes/pl-2014-06/Allowing attested romanizations
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/June#Prescriptivism as to common lay transliterations.
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#mahā
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-06/Romanization of Sanskrit
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-06/Allowing attested romanizations

Decision

 * Never begun, archiving. - TheDaveRoss  18:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


text:
grandmither

Noun

 * 1) grandmother

title: grandmither


text:
mither-brither

Noun

 * 1) maternal uncle

title: mither-brither


text:
mither wit

Noun

 * 1) native wit, mother wit, good sense

title: mither wit


text: Wiktionary:Foreign Word of the Day/2014/July 24


text:
User talk:108.65.81.119

Bad words
Bad words are allowed. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your most recent edit to Wikisaurus:feces has been reverted as vandalism, spam or for being unacceptable for any of various other reasons. Please desist, or else you may be blocked. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

title: User talk:108.65.81.119


text:
giftset

Noun

 * 1) A set of products packaged together for individual sale as a gift.

title: giftset


text: gift set

title: gift set


text: giftsets

title: giftsets


text: Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/aɬemwa

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/aɬemwa


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/aθemwa

Noun

 * 1) dog

Descendants

 * Plains Algonquian:
 * Central Algonquian:
 * Cree
 * Eastern Algonquian: *arəm
 * Central Algonquian:
 * Cree
 * Eastern Algonquian: *arəm
 * Cree
 * Eastern Algonquian: *arəm
 * Eastern Algonquian: *arəm
 * Eastern Algonquian: *arəm
 * Eastern Algonquian: *arəm
 * Eastern Algonquian: *arəm
 * Eastern Algonquian: *arəm
 * Eastern Algonquian: *arəm
 * Eastern Algonquian: *arəm
 * Eastern Algonquian: *arəm
 * Eastern Algonquian: *arəm
 * Eastern Algonquian: *arəm
 * Eastern Algonquian: *arəm
 * Eastern Algonquian: *arəm
 * Eastern Algonquian: *arəm
 * Eastern Algonquian: *arəm

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/aθemwa


text:
grandfaither

Noun

 * 1) grandfather

title: grandfaither


text:
kloa

Etymology
From, from , from , from , from. Cognates include 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) small, little, tiny, wee, small-scale
 * 2) little, young in age
 * 3) insignificant

Adjective

 * 1) clear, obvious
 * 2) articulate, succinct
 * 3) bright, lucid

title: kloa


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/wa·p-

Particle

 * 1) (be) white

Derived terms

 * (possibly formed at a pre-PA date)
 * (possibly formed at a pre-PA date)
 * (possibly formed at a pre-PA date)

Descendants

 * Plains Algonquian:
 * Central Algonquian:
 * /ᐋᐧᐱ
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * /ᐋᐧᐱ
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/wa·p-


text: klørne

title: klørne


text: sweetgum

title: sweetgum


text: sweetgum tree

title: sweetgum tree


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/wa·panki

Noun

 * 1) dawn

Descendants

 * Plains Algonquian:
 * Central Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Central Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:

The Abenaki autonym and the English designation  are ultimately descended from this word.


text:
stifa patro

Noun

 * 1) stepfather

title: stifa patro


text:
stifa

Verb

 * 1) to jet, to squirt

Adjective

 * 1)  related by remarriage of a parent

title: stifa


text: yishʼáád

title: yishʼáád


text: memory holes

title: memory holes


text: Category:nb:Arachnids

title: Category:nb:Arachnids


text: Category:nn:Arachnids

title: Category:nn:Arachnids


text:
atwitch

Adjective

 * 1) twitching

title: atwitch


text:
twitch game

Noun

 * 1)  A video game requiring fast reactions.
 * 2) * 1985, Scott Adams, quoted in Graeme Kidd, Great Scott!, in Crash issue 15
 * ‘They’re Twitch Games,’ he grinned, ‘arcade games. An adventure game is one where you use your mind; if you can type, you can play an adventure. If you require anything other than that, you’ve got a twitch game — an arcade game — where your skill of movement is more important than your thinking.

title: twitch game


text: twitch games

title: twitch games


text:
pepper jelly

Noun

 * 1) A condiment made with peppers, vinegar, sugar, salt and fruit pectin.

title: pepper jelly


text:
Creole cream cheese

Noun

 * 1) A form of farmer cheese, traditional in the New Orleans area.

title: Creole cream cheese


text: skorpionen

title: skorpionen


text:
היימיש

Etymology
From, from. .

Adjective

 * 1) domestic
 * 2) cozy
 * 3) familiar, intimate
 * 4) informal

Usage notes
This term can have connotations similar to those expressed by the English phrase better the devil you know, that is, flawed or inferior but familiar, like a dysfunctional family.

title: היימיש


text:
eggs Sardou

Etymology
After.

Noun

 * 1) A Louisiana Creole dish made with poached eggs, artichoke bottoms, creamed spinach and hollandaise sauce.

title: eggs Sardou


text:
Citations:dankrupt

Adjective: "(slang) out of marijuana"

 * 2013, "How to Keep Your Stuff Safe When You're on Your Own", Campus Talk, May 2013, page 82 (approx.):
 * It's hard to do when you don't have responsibilities, I know. However, at some point during the three hours a day that you leave your house, make nice with your neighbors. Plus, they are prime sources for when you're dankrupt. It's a win-win.
 * 2014, "The Round Up", 34th Street Magazine, 23 January 2014, page 3:
 * First things first: Penn is dankrupt. As in, we are fresh out of Colombia's finest…and no, we're not talking about Theta rushes. Highbrow hears that our hallowed Ivy League school is suffering from the worst weed shortage since last year's weed shortage.

title: Citations:dankrupt


text: skorpionene

title: skorpionene


text: skorpionar

title: skorpionar


text: skorpionane

title: skorpionane


text:
Tischchen

Noun

 * 1) ; small table, occasional table

title: Tischchen


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Numic/nɨmɨ

Noun

 * 1) person

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Numic/nɨmɨ


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Takic/taka

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) person

Descendants

 * (first syllable)

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Takic/taka


text:
litotableto

Noun

 * 1) bedside table, nightstand

title: litotableto


text:
Takic

Etymology
From, from.

Adjective

 * 1) Of or relating to the branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family containing the Cupan and the Serran languages, if they are considered to belong to such a branch.

title: Takic


text:
ほうむる

Verb

 * 1)  to bury, to shelve, to consign to oblivion

title: ほうむる


text:
مولانا

Etymology
From, from + possessive suffix.

Noun

 * 1) maulana; a title for religious scholars, most famously held by the poet

title: مولانا


text:
封套

Noun

 * 1) envelope
 * 2) slipcase

title: 封套


text: طغرالر

title: طغرالر


text: Category:Latvian singularia tantum

title: Category:Latvian singularia tantum


text: Category:Japanese terms spelled with 酸 read as す


text: Category:Danish singularia tantum

title: Category:Danish singularia tantum


text: Category:Polish singularia tantum

title: Category:Polish singularia tantum


text: Category:Occitan singularia tantum

title: Category:Occitan singularia tantum


text:
Category:Dutch uninflected verbs

Dutch verbs that are not conjugated for person and number. Only the infinitive is used, and perhaps the participles as well.

title: Category:Dutch uninflected verbs


text: Category:Spanish singularia tantum

title: Category:Spanish singularia tantum


text: Category:Finnish endearing terms

title: Category:Finnish endearing terms


text: Category:Zulu singularia tantum

title: Category:Zulu singularia tantum


text:
manic pixie dream girl

Etymology

(born 1976) in a 2007 review of  (2005) to describe the character Claire Colburn played by : see the quotation.

Noun

 * 1)  A stock female character, typically characterized as a bubbly, quirky free spirit, whose main purpose within a narrative is to teach a young male protagonist to embrace the mysteries and adventures of life.

title: manic pixie dream girl


text: manic pixie dream girls

title: manic pixie dream girls


text: Category:Greek singularia tantum

title: Category:Greek singularia tantum


text: Category:nds:Senses

title: Category:nds:Senses


text: Category:Faroese endearing terms

title: Category:Faroese endearing terms


text: Category:Swedish endearing terms

title: Category:Swedish endearing terms


text:
youthsploitation

Etymology
(from exploitation film).

Noun

 * 1)  A genre of exploitation films starring young actors.

title: youthsploitation


text: Category:nds:Energy

title: Category:nds:Energy


text: Category:Dutch endearing terms

title: Category:Dutch endearing terms


text: Category:Friulian terms derived from Turkic languages


text: Category:English terms derived from Coast Miwok


text:
범죄자

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) criminal, offender, convict

title: 범죄자


text: Category:Neapolitan singularia tantum

title: Category:Neapolitan singularia tantum


text: Category:Bulgarian terms derived from Mongolic languages


text: Category:Inupiaq terms derived from Inuit languages


text: Category:Friulian terms derived from Old Occitan


text: Category:Old French endearing terms

title: Category:Old French endearing terms


text: Category:Egyptian singularia tantum

title: Category:Egyptian singularia tantum


text: Category:Inuktitut terms derived from Inuit languages


text: Category:Macedonian terms derived from Mongolic languages


text: Category:Macedonian singularia tantum

title: Category:Macedonian singularia tantum


text: Category:Harsusi terms derived from Semitic languages


text: Category:Georgian terms suffixed with -ად


text: Category:mul:Manufacturing

title: Category:mul:Manufacturing


text: Category:sat:Human activity

title: Category:sat:Human activity


text: Category:Old Church Slavonic prefixes

title: Category:Old Church Slavonic prefixes


text: Category:eo:Violence

title: Category:eo:Violence


text: Category:dum:Human activity

title: Category:dum:Human activity


text: Category:Latin singularia tantum

title: Category:Latin singularia tantum


text: Category:goh:Names

title: Category:goh:Names


text: Category:Old Armenian singularia tantum

title: Category:Old Armenian singularia tantum


text:
Buffista

Noun

 * 1)  A fan of the television series .

title: Buffista


text: Category:dlg:Nature

title: Category:dlg:Nature


text: Category:Occitan terms derived from Proto-Celtic


text: Category:ru:Bathing

title: Category:ru:Bathing


text: Category:Finnish singularia tantum

title: Category:Finnish singularia tantum


text: Category:Telugu singularia tantum

title: Category:Telugu singularia tantum


text: Category:ykg:Nature

title: Category:ykg:Nature


text: Category:English terms prefixed with Moeso-


text: Category:ga:Bathing

title: Category:ga:Bathing


text: Category:Swedish terms derived from Arabic languages


text: Category:udm:Earth

title: Category:udm:Earth


text: Category:Georgian endearing terms

title: Category:Georgian endearing terms


text: dissensuses

title: dissensuses


text: Category:Adjectival participles by language


text: shinais

title: shinais


text:
Buffyite

Noun

 * 1)  A fan of the television series .
 * 2) * 2005, Rhonda Wilcox (quoting Eric Alterman), Why Buffy Matters: The Art of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I. B. Tauris & Co Ltd (2006), ISBN 9781845110215, unnumbered page:
 * Buffyites [felt] the show had slipped this year, falling into a very administration-like (and un-Buffy-like) us vs. them moral schema.
 * Buffyites [felt] the show had slipped this year, falling into a very administration-like (and un-Buffy-like) us vs. them moral schema.

title: Buffyite


text: Buffyites

title: Buffyites


text: Buffistas

title: Buffistas


text: Category:Livonian compounds with mer

title: Category:Livonian compounds with mer


text: Category:Livonian compounds with vālda

title: Category:Livonian compounds with vālda


text: Category:Livonian compounds with īe

title: Category:Livonian compounds with īe


text:
Angelite

Noun

 * 1)  A fan of the television series .

title: Angelite


text: Angelites

title: Angelites


text: Category:Proto-Germanic lemmas

title: Category:Proto-Germanic lemmas


text:
越城

Proper noun

 * 1)  "Yue City District", the downtown area of Shaoxing municipality corresponding to the former Yue and imperial Chinese city of Kuaiji.

title: 越城


text: Yuèchéng

title: Yuèchéng


text:
Yuecheng

Etymology
From the pinyin romanization of Chinese.

Proper noun

 * 1) The downtown district of modern Shaoxing, corresponding to the former Yue and imperial Chinese city of Kuaiji.

title: Yuecheng


text: Category:Proto-Algic pronouns

title: Category:Proto-Algic pronouns


text:
Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Are you a sysop (to get added to the AWB list)?

Hello. Do you have sysop privileges? I'm looking to do a bunch of regex-type changes to the conjugations of Old French verbs and it's too painful to do this without something like AWB.


text:
亂數

Noun

 * 1) random number any of a sequence of random numbers

title: 亂數


text:
乱数

Noun

 * 1) random number any of a sequence of random numbers

title: 乱数


text:
五毛

Etymology
From rumors alleging that shills hired by the Chinese government receive 50 cents for every pro-government post they post on the internet.

Noun

 * 1)  shill of the Communist Party of China; wumao
 * 2)  supporter of the Communist Party of China
 * 1)  supporter of the Communist Party of China

title: 五毛


text:
らんすう

Noun

 * 1)  random number

title: らんすう


text: wǔmáo

title: wǔmáo


text: wǔmáodǎng

title: wǔmáodǎng


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Algic/ki·lew-

Pronoun

 * 1) you (plural);

Descendants

 * , khil wow, khíl waw
 * , khil wow, khíl waw

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Algic/ki·lew-


text: shùnkǒu

title: shùnkǒu


text:
Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Are you a sysop (to get added to the AWB list)?/reply

I am but I have no idea how I would go about that. It might be better to ask in WT:GP?


text:
ałníʼníʼą́

Etymology
The perfective form of

Verb

 * 1) it is noon, it became noon

Noun

 * 1) midday
 * 2) afternoon

title: ałníʼníʼą́


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Algic/ki·la

Pronoun

 * 1) you (singular);

Descendants

 * , khil, khíl
 * , khil, khíl

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Algic/ki·la


text:
случайное число

Noun

 * 1) random number any of a sequence of random numbers

title: случайное число


text:
隨機數

Noun

 * 1) random number any of a sequence of random numbers

title: 隨機數


text: 随机数

title: 随机数


text:
Template:Cathartidae Hypernyms

 * Cathartidae - family

title: Template:Cathartidae Hypernyms


text:
Template:Cathartidae Hypernyms/documentation

This is a typing shortcut intended for use under the Hypernyms header of taxa under Cathartidae. It can also be used with subst:.


text:
Buffyholic

Noun

 * 1)  A fan of the television series .

title: Buffyholic


text:
vampireyness

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  The state or quality of being vampirey.

title: vampireyness


text: Buffyholics

title: Buffyholics


text: bìngyīn

title: bìngyīn


text: 静养

title: 静养


text:
靜養

Verb

 * 1) to rest and recuperate; to convalesce

title: 靜養


text: jìngyǎng

title: jìngyǎng


text:
敬仰

Verb

 * 1) to hold in high esteem; to revere; to venerate

title: 敬仰


text: liáoyǎng

title: liáoyǎng


text: 调养

title: 调养


text: dieselisation

title: dieselisation


text:
調養

Verb

 * 1) to take care of one's health

title: 調養


text: dieselisations

title: dieselisations


text: tiáoyǎng

title: tiáoyǎng


text: jiǎnmíng

title: jiǎnmíng


text:
扼要

Adjective

 * 1) brief and to the point; concise

title: 扼要


text: jīngmíng

title: jīngmíng


text: èyào

title: èyào


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/ki·rwa·wa

Etymology
From, via an intermediate form *ki·lewa·wa.

Pronoun

 * 1) you (plural);

Descendants

 * Plains Algonquian:
 * Central Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/ki·ra

Etymology
From.

Pronoun

 * 1) you (singular);

Descendants

 * Plains Algonquian:
 * Central Algonquian:
 * Cree-Montagnais-Naskapi:
 * Cree:
 * Atikamekw
 * Montagnais-Naskapi:
 * East Cree:
 * Eastern Great Lakes:
 * Ojibwe-Potawatomi:
 * Fox (Sauk):
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * East Cree:
 * Eastern Great Lakes:
 * Ojibwe-Potawatomi:
 * Fox (Sauk):
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Great Lakes:
 * Ojibwe-Potawatomi:
 * Fox (Sauk):
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Fox (Sauk):
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/ki·ra


text:
Buffaholic

Noun

 * 1)  A fan of the television series .

title: Buffaholic


text: Buffaholics

title: Buffaholics


text:
유행

Noun

 * 1) fashion, vogue
 * 2016, VOA Learning English > Trending Today: Puppy Bowl (The original sentence in English)
 * 2016, VOA Learning English > Trending Today: Puppy Bowl (The original sentence in English)

title: 유행


text:
Buffian

Noun

 * 1)  A fan of the television series .

title: Buffian


text:
執行者

Noun

 * 1)  executor

Noun

 * 1)  executor

title: 執行者


text: 执行者

title: 执行者


text:
Template:Irish personal pronouns

Irish personal pronouns L Triggers E Triggers  H Triggers

1 Also used as the vocative

The reflexive is formed by adding to the relevant pronoun: e.g. "myself" =, "yourselves" =.

title: Template:Irish personal pronouns


text: zhíxíngzhě

title: zhíxíngzhě


text: Buffians

title: Buffians


text:
Template:Irish personal pronouns/documentation

Based on Template:English personal pronouns, this is meant to go into the See Also section of Irish Pronouns, as:


text:
Reconstruction talk:Proto-Algonquian/ki·ra

Arapaho's word for "you" is. - -sche (discuss) 02:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


text:
protector de bolsillo

Noun

 * 1) pocket protector

title: protector de bolsillo


text:
שאָקלען

Etymology
From a form ultimately derived from, from. Cognate to 🇨🇬,.

Verb

 * 1)  to shake or sway (e.g. head or a lulav)
 * 2)  to shuckle

title: שאָקלען


text:
Whedonite

Noun

 * 1)  A fan of screenwriter and director  and his work, which includes the television series ', ', and .

title: Whedonite


text:
自滅

Noun

 * 1) self-destruction, self-defeat

Verb

 * 1) to self-destruct, to have a self-defeating behavior

title: 自滅


text: Whedonites

title: Whedonites


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/mwa·kwa

Noun

 * 1) common loon

Descendants

 * Central Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:
 * Eastern Algonquian:

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/mwa·kwa


text: Citations:Dueser

title: Citations:Dueser


text:
Dueser

Noun

 * 1)  A fan of the television series .

title: Dueser


text: Duesers

title: Duesers


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/mexkena·hkwa

Noun

 * 1) snapping turtle

Descendants

 * Plains Algonquian:
 * probably Arapaho bä'änaⁿ
 * probably Gros Ventre bä'änou
 * Central Algonquian:
 * Cree
 * Eastern Algonquian
 * Eastern Algonquian
 * Eastern Algonquian
 * Eastern Algonquian
 * Eastern Algonquian
 * Eastern Algonquian


text:
Reconstruction talk:Proto-Algonquian/mexkena·hkwa

Compare Menominee:. - -sche (discuss) 03:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


text:
Citations:Truebie

Noun: "(slang) a fan of the television series True Blood"

 * 2010, Baz Mcalister, "Biff! Wham! Kapow!", Time Off, Issue 1502, 17 November 2010, page 38:
 * Modern Aussie Western Red Hill, starring True Blood ' s Ryan Kwanten, was well received by audiences at the Palace Centro on Friday night – but not as well received as Kwanten himself who was mobbed by hordes of 'Truebies'.
 * 2012, Andrew Neary, "True Blood", Culture Bomb, Issue 1, page 26:
 * At this point in the time, his is the time on every Truebie's lips.
 * 2013, "True Blood Cocktail Recipes", Living Out, Volume 1, Issue 7, June 2013, page 55:
 * Either way, there's no denying a Truebie's thirst, and here's three cocktails to celebrate the premiere.
 * 2014, Shona Dustan, "Bad Blood", Roswell Daily Record (TV Screens insert), 20 June 2014, page 4:
 * If you're a Truebie, I already know what you're thinking: "Great…but what about ERIC?"

title: Citations:Truebie


text:
Truebie

Noun

 * 1)  A fan of the television series .
 * 2) * 2014, Shona Dustan, "Bad Blood", Roswell Daily Record (TV Screens insert), 20 June 2014, page 4:
 * If you're a Truebie, I already know what you're thinking: "Great…but what about ERIC?"
 * 1) * 2014, Shona Dustan, "Bad Blood", Roswell Daily Record (TV Screens insert), 20 June 2014, page 4:
 * If you're a Truebie, I already know what you're thinking: "Great…but what about ERIC?"

title: Truebie


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/meʔšixkena·hkwa

Descendants

 * Central Algonquian:
 * (older form?),
 * (older form?),
 * (older form?),


text: Truebies

title: Truebies


text:
in two

Prepositional phrase

 * 1)  Into two parts.
 * 2)  Performed further back than "in one", but still not fully upstage.
 * 1)  Performed further back than "in one", but still not fully upstage.
 * 1)  Performed further back than "in one", but still not fully upstage.
 * 1)  Performed further back than "in one", but still not fully upstage.
 * 1)  Performed further back than "in one", but still not fully upstage.

Translations

 * Dutch: in tweeën
 * Finnish:
 * German:
 * Greek: στα δύο
 * Ancient: δίχα
 * Irish:
 * Russian:, ; на полови́ны
 * Swedish:

title: in two


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Algic/-tewi

Noun

 * 1) body or flesh

Usage notes
This term was always possessed:

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Algic/-tewi


text:
Citations:gender

 * 1986, Edward Stankiewicz, The Slavic Languages: Unity in Diversity ISBN 3110099047, page 134:
 * This narrowing of the semantic range of the animate gender involves in literary Czech not only nouns which are referentially inanimate (e.g. names of toys, drinks, mushrooms, card games), but also nouns which are "by nature" animate,
 * 1995, Judith Lorber, Paradoxes of Gender, page ix:
 * I made a distinction between gender as a social phenomenon and the social phenomenon of biological sex.

 * 1993, David Spurr, The Rhetoric of Empire: Colonial Discourse in Journalism, Travel Writing, and Imperial Administration, page 187:
 * The annals of colonial history offer relatively few such encounters between women, and it may be that gender has created here a marginal space in which something like an actual dialogue is possible between British and Sudanese.

 * 2005, Colin Renfrew, Paul Bahn, Archaeology: The Key Concepts, page 131:
 * Even with some adamant processualists, however, gender has made inroads.

title: Citations:gender


text:
韓服

Noun

 * 1) hanbok traditional Korean dress

Etymology 2
.

Noun

 * 1)  South Korean server

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) hanbok

title: 韓服


text: 韩服

title: 韩服


text: 上城

title: 上城


text: Shàngchéng

title: Shàngchéng


text:
oinc

Interjection

 * 1) oink onomatopoeia of a pig’s sound

title: oinc


text:
olaria

Etymology
Ultimately from.

Noun

 * 1) pottery workshop where pottery is made

title: olaria


text:
olear

Verb

 * 1)  to oil to grease with oil

Verb

 * 1) to oil up
 * 2) to encourage; spur on (with cries of olé)

title: olear


text:
olheiro

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) scout one who seeks out promising talent

title: olheiro


text:
omelete

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) omelette dish made with beaten eggs

title: omelete


text:
Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Are you a sysop (to get added to the AWB list)?/reply (2)

I've asked on WT:BP, which is what the AWB page recommends.


text: hard row to hoe

title: hard row to hoe


text:
臨安

Proper noun

 * 1)  Lin'an

title: 臨安


text: 临安

title: 临安


text: Lín'ān

title: Lín'ān


text: Qiántáng

title: Qiántáng


text: 税务局

title: 税务局


text:
稅務局

Noun

 * 1) tax bureau; tax department; tax office

title: 稅務局


text: 税务

title: 税务


text:
稅務

Noun

 * 1) taxation services; tax administration

title: 稅務


text: shuìwù

title: shuìwù


text: shuìwùjú

title: shuìwùjú


text: 小费

title: 小费


text:
小費

Noun

 * 1) tip; gratuity
 * 2)  bribe

title: 小費


text: 小账

title: 小账


text:
小賬

Noun

 * 1) small expense
 * 2) tip; gratuity

title: 小賬


text: xiǎozhàng

title: xiǎozhàng


text: xiǎofèi

title: xiǎofèi


text: 小帐

title: 小帐


text: 小帳

title: 小帳


text:
Chekiang

Etymology
From the of , from before the modern palatalization of  to , with the word itself from a former name of the Qiantang River.

title: Chekiang


text:
Che-chiang

Etymology
From the romanization of : Chê⁴-chiang¹; from a former name of the Qiantang River.

title: Che-chiang


text:
Che-keang

Etymology
From a romanization of, from a former name of the Qiantang River.

title: Che-keang


text: Zhèjiāng

title: Zhèjiāng


text: wūpó

title: wūpó


text: wūshù

title: wūshù


text: wūshī

title: wūshī


text:
男巫

Noun

 * 1) wizard; warlock; sorcerer

title: 男巫


text: nánwū

title: nánwū


text: 长矛

title: 长矛


text:
長矛

Noun

 * 1) long spear; lance; pike

title: 長矛


text: chángmáo

title: chángmáo


text:
盾牌

Noun

 * 1) shield
 * 2)  pretext; excuse
 * 1)  pretext; excuse

title: 盾牌


text: dùnpái

title: dùnpái


text: tuītuō

title: tuītuō


text:
推脫

Verb

 * 1) to evade; to shirk

Usage notes
Not to be confused with.

title: 推脫


text: 推脱

title: 推脱


text:
etangang

Adjective

 * 1) black

title: etangang


text:
avengier

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1) to avenge

title: avengier


text:
creolist

Noun

 * 1) A linguist who studies creole languages.

title: creolist


text: creolists

title: creolists


text:
chalongier

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1) to dispute; to challenge (something)
 * 2) to claim
 * 3) to fight; to engage in battle
 * 4) to challenge (someone)

title: chalongier


text: show and tells

title: show and tells


text:
songier

Etymology
From, present active infinitive of.

Verb

 * 1) to dream

title: songier


text:
Liviu

Etymology
.

title: Liviu


text:
eschangier

Etymology
From, from +.

Verb

 * 1)  to exchange

title: eschangier


text:
engagier

Etymology
See French.

Verb

 * 1) to use (something) as a guarantee

title: engagier


text:
targier

Etymology
From a, frequentative of. Alternatively and less likely related to, of Frankish and Germanic origin (cf. English ).

Verb

 * 1)  to wait; to hesitate

title: targier


text:
Kuhle

Etymology
A Central and Low German word from and northern, ultimately from the root of.

The regular High German development is seen in older, the modern form was introduced via. Cognate to 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) hollow lowered area on a surface
 * 2)  hollow, depression

Usage notes

 * The word is standard vocabulary in northern and central Germany. It is also used and understood, although less widely, in the southern half of the language area.

title: Kuhle


text:
Kaule

Etymology
Central German form of with diphthongization -ū- → -au- as found in most High German dialects.

Usage notes
This form of the word is still commonly seen in place names.

title: Kaule


text:
frango-d'água

Noun

 * 1) common moorhen

title: frango-d'água


text:
desherbergier

Verb

 * 1) to decamp

title: desherbergier


text:
assegier

Etymology
Possibly from a *assedicāre, ultimately from.

Verb

 * 1) to besiege; to lay siege to

title: assegier


text:
ituga

Adverb

 * 1) above

title: ituga


text:
hemolele

Noun

 * 1) perfection
 * 2) virtue, goodness
 * 3) holiness
 * 4) angel, person without fault

Verb

 * 1)  perfect, faultless, flawless
 * 2)  holy, immaculate, saintly, pure in heart
 * 3)  complete
 * 4)  without restraint

title: hemolele


text:
exprimidora

Noun

 * 1) squeezer
 * 2) reamer

title: exprimidora


text: oppfyll

title: oppfyll


text: oppfyller

title: oppfyller


text: oppfylte

title: oppfylte


text:
aktsam

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) careful, attentive

Adjective

 * 1) careful, attentive

title: aktsam


text: aktsamt

title: aktsamt


text: aktsame

title: aktsame


text: oppfylt

title: oppfylt


text:
forbedre

Verb

 * 1) improve

Etymology
From, after.

Verb

 * 1) to improve (make something better)
 * 2) (reflexive: forbedre seg) to improve oneself

title: forbedre


text: sauts en hauteur

title: sauts en hauteur


text: sauts en longueur

title: sauts en longueur


text: drescer

title: drescer


text: forbedr

title: forbedr


text: forbedrer

title: forbedrer


text: forbedra

title: forbedra


text:
dreceur

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) dresser, large item of furniture

title: dreceur


text:
forbedret

Etymology 1
From the verb.

Adjective

 * 1) improved

title: forbedret


text: forbedrede

title: forbedrede


text: forbedrete

title: forbedrete


text:
רצועה

Noun

 * 1) strap
 * 2) ligament

title: רצועה


text: fourragier

title: fourragier


text:
מנהג

Etymology
Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) custom traditional practice

title: מנהג


text:
forragier

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1) to pillage; to ransack

title: forragier


text: chalengier

title: chalengier


text: Template:list:Cyrillic script letters/cv


text: Category:Chuvash list templates

title: Category:Chuvash list templates