text:
Template talk:proper noun

This doesn't really seem like it could be a context... --Yair rand 13:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not actually a context template. IMO check uses. It's used as a context template; most of those can doubtless be orphaned, probably all; if any can't then I suppose keep. If there's other use, perhaps keep depending on what that use is. Otherwise delete.—msh210℠ on a public computer 14:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it predates which is why it isn't formatted as a context label. I suspect it should be replaced with  or just removed in some cases. I will however, look into it before saying delete. A lot of the transclusions seem to be not in the main namespace. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, I've removed the obvious misuses, including one typo ( instead of ). For entries like PDF I separate the entry by part of speech, as opposed to 'Initialism' with the part of speech being given in a context label. The two remaining entries in the main namespace are curl and terra. For terra, it claims that it's a capitalized proper noun Terra so I should move it there, I just think it might not be capitalized in the given sense. For curl, it's a bit beyond me. Again, if the label is to be believed, there is a proper noun 'curl'. Though, I don't think it is. The transclusions in the appendix namespace are all . Mglovesfun (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Been deleted --Chicken is fun (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Template talk:proper noun


text:
Template talk:wikipedia article

I can't imagine how this template would be used. The title would be confused with the "Wikipedia new" template or and the contents appear to be duplicating. TeleComNasSprVen 06:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep if you want this old abandoned project to be continued. The idea, if I remember correctly, was controlling the Wikipedia article linked from each language category by means of (again) a big switch function, like does for Wiktionary editions. Then, Category:English language would link to English language because it is the default value anyway, while Category:Norwegian Nynorsk language would instead link to Nynorsk (not to "Norwegian Nynorsk language"). --Daniel. 08:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I get it, but I'm not sure it's needed. Latin language redirects to Latin, so the Wiktionary Category:Latin language doesn't need any modification; it just follows the redirect. Same for Norwegian Nynorsk language. Unless there is an example where the redirect doesn't work, why keep it? --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember only one example: Category:Gutnish language and Gutnish language. --Daniel. 05:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Going back to the original question, how would this be used? --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Kept for lack of consensus and discussion. --Chicken is fun (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

title: Template talk:wikipedia article


text:
Template talk:alcohol

This template categorizes pages in Category:Alcoholism, and I guess the intention was "alcohol consumption". It is only used on drinking game. Alcohol is an ambiguous name for a topic, since it also has a chemical sense.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 13:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe move it to ? —CodeCat 13:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Would that be Category:Alcoholic beverages or Category:Cocktails? I would rather suggest a move to (Category:Drinking).--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But drinking could mean drinking in general, not specifically alcoholic. —CodeCat 13:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly might be categorized under "drinking in generel"? I don't see any real ambiguity, but then again, I didn't see any reason for this template in the first place.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 12:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Been deleted --Chicken is fun (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Template talk:alcohol


text:
Appendix talk:Etymology/escalator

Appears to be a verbatim copy of Escalator. The wikitext should be hosted in one place, not several. I.e. the home for the text should be either Wiktionary or Wikipedia, not both. Opinions? --Hydrox 12:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WT:BP#Huge etymologies indicates that the text from Appendix:Etymology/escalator should be in the entry escalator, rather than on a separate page.
 * Such a move would, however, introduce a few nonstandard headers, such as "Name development and original intentions". --Daniel 16:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why "wikitext should be hosted in one place, not several". Not all transwikied entries are deleted from the original location. If the information is correct and relevant, keep it wherever it is found. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just keep, in the absence of convincing reasons to do otherwise. I already explained to Hydrox months ago that hosting wikitext in multiple places is not a bad thing, but (s)he created this RFDO anyway, so apparently (s)he just needed some second opinions. --Daniel 10:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Kept for lack of consensus and discussion. --Chicken is fun (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Appendix talk:Etymology/escalator


text:
Category talk:Entries with audio examples

I can't really see any use for this. --Yair rand 14:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I quite like the idea, to be populated by when lang is given, see Category:Mandarin entries with audio links. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hypothetically, one could use this, together with a list of common terms or terms that have some kind of pronunciation difficulty, and, say, CatScan, to produce a list of terms that need pronunciations. Obviously there are other ways to achieve a similar result, such as having a bot identify terms that might warrant an rfap. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a category containing entries with audio pronunciations, it's a category containing entries with audio examples, such as evil laugh and bark. It's a duplicate of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:listen. --Yair rand 15:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I rescind my previous statement. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I like that category. --Daniel 04:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. — Beobach 21:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Kept for lack of consensus and discussion. --Chicken is fun (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


text: socioloogjes

title: socioloogjes


text:
Category talk:en:Taxonomic names

AFAICT, there is no good reason for this category to exist. There should not be 1822 members in it. There should be none. There must be some template-based miscategorization going on. DCDuring TALK 04:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion is already ongoing above at as to what to do.  The question to be resolved is: Do we use Category:Taxonomic names for all of these (my own preference too) or Category:mul:Taxonomic names or Category:Translingual taxonomic names, each of which implies that these are possible in other languages.  I've determined that most of the problem was in the implementation of, which categorizes based on an imcluded language parameter and apparently defaults to English.  I've made an edit specifying "lang=mul" to at least empty the "en:" category of all but a fraction of the entries, but we still need to decide where we want all of these entries to end up. --EncycloPetey 05:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Note: It is also possible that there are some pre-Code obsolete taxonomic names that never existed outside of English. See  for a possible instance. --EncycloPetey 05:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgot about the ongoing discussion. Thanks.
 * I also prefer Category:Taxonomic names for the main home for these. I'll keep my eye out for the ones like . Even those older terms were Latinate, were they not, and intended to be useful internatonally? Should they not be treated as also Translingual? DCDuring TALK 06:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We have used "Translingual" to mean that a term is used identically across a wide range of (often unrelated) languages; see for example the citations I added to . So, I would call a word "Translingual" unless it actually can be shown as used in multiple languages.  Intention of use isn't really documentable in a case like Quadrumana, as this name was used pre-Code.  Once the international Codes came into acceptance, then it becomes clearer because authors are bickering about satifying international agreement requirements for publication.  However, if Quadrumana can be documented to languages like Swedish and Russian, then I think calling it "Translingual" makes sense.  --EncycloPetey 17:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Kept for lack of consensus and discussion. --Chicken is fun (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Category talk:en:Taxonomic names


text:
Template talk:of a person

Not needed; just use. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently created to get it off of Special:WantedTemplates. Not a good enough reason IMO, delete. No opinion —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 18:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC) 19:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's true, it should never have been made. The way works, it will always put stuff on that list. Delete in favor of using . —msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The main reason to create any template is to categorize, as in terms of displaying text, context does this well already. Any context template that doesn't categorize simply saves eight keystrokes -  instead of . But deleting them probably doesn't achieve much, if anything. For example would we get rid of  or . Similarly,  achieves the same thing; it saves a few keystrokes with no other advantages, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think "Of a person," should be a part of the definition rather than being marked as a context. --Dan Polansky 09:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Was deleted already. --Chicken is fun (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Template talk:of a person


text:
Template talk:stock symbol

Not a context. Neither do I think we should include stock symbols, but oh well. -- Liliana • 22:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is, if something is a stock symbol, it should be in the definition itself a bit like this. --Mglovesfun (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Template talk:stock symbol


text:
Category talk:Closed votes

IMO delete: the benefits of such a category are AFAICT three: The first two reasons do not exist in this case, as (respectively) The third benefit of this category is not enough IMO to keep it. Others may differ. If we do keep it, it should be completely populated, or it's worth less. —msh210℠ (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) the category can be browsed;
 * 2) the page can, at a glance, be seen to be closed (check the bottom line); and
 * 3) tools like CatScan (CategoryIntersect) can be used to search among pages in the category.
 * 1) [[Wiktionary:Votes/Timeline]] is better than a category for that purpose and
 * 2) we have a "decision" section at the bottom which is almost always very clear.

kept per no consensus. --ElisaVan (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC discussion: August–October 2011
Populate, or delete? —msh210℠ (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Either really. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Kept unfixed. Nominating at RFDO and striking here. —msh210℠ (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete category
On close inspection, this category does not seem to make any sense, so rather than waste our time with another RFDO, I'll go ahead and orphan/delete it. These are the current members of the category as of September 2016. Total: 16 members.

 * Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 3
 * Votes/pl-2014-04/Unified Chinese
 * Votes/2010-09/Enabling AbuseFilter extension
 * Votes/pl-2012-03/Moving "Coordinate terms" up in ELE
 * Votes/pl-2014-03/Unified Norwegian
 * Votes/pl-2010-03/Placename namespace
 * Votes/pl-2007-06/Placenames 2-A
 * Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2012-04/User:Chuck Entz for admin
 * Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2011-01/User:Aulis Eskola for desysop
 * Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2012-07/User:Bot-Jagwar for bot status
 * Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2012-05/User:Connel MacKenzie for de-sysop and de-checkuser
 * Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2012-06/User:JAnDbot for bot status
 * Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2012-04/User:WarddrBOT for bot status
 * Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities
 * Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2
 * Votes/pl-2011-12/Merging proper nouns into nouns

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Closed votes


text:
Category talk:Czech entries with audio links

Delete this category. Eventually, all Czech entries are going to have links to audio files, so this is at best a maintenance category. The list of Czech entries that have an audio section can be extracted from a dump; this is also true of the list of Czech entries that use the template "audio". --Dan Polansky 09:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. From experience I can say that in the past I tried to search for entries with audio (because it would help me learn to pronounce fluently and remember the words), but failed. I can't imagine that I would be the only one. Such a category would have helped me much. So: When will all have audio? What about in the meantime? --JorisvS 10:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you have searched for Czech entries with pronunciation and failed? Many common words already have pronunciation, imported from The Shtooka Project project, so randomly browsing common Czech words should get you a lot of words with pronunciation. See also Commons:Category:Czech pronunciation, which has 3,067 member files. --Dan Polansky 11:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not so much Czech in particular, but in general. I am getting at this from a more general perspective. Nonetheless, I would appreciate an answer to the questions I've asked. As for Commons, strangely these files do not say they're being used here on Wiktionary even though they are(!). --JorisvS 10:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your questions: Q: When will all [entries] have audio? A: I don't know. Ten years from now, there will probably still be many entries without an audiofile. Q: What about in the meantime? A: In the meantime: If a language has a significant number of audiofiles in Wiktionary, merely randomly browsing common words of the language gets you a lot of entries with audiofiles. If a language has a very small number of audiofiles in Wiktionary, the small set cannot be effectively used for language learning anyway, but even if you want to have a look at that set, you can look up the set of all audiofiles in Commons. On another note, in order to make it easier to find the Commons category from Wiktionary, used in language category pages such as Category:Czech language could be extended to link to the category for audiofiles in Commons. --Dan Polansky 08:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

kept per no consensus. --ElisaVan (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

RFDO discussion: August–December 2015
This category is redundant, since there is already Category:Czech terms with audio links, which is not filled manually but by a template. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. --WikiTiki89 11:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 17:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as redundant and manually maintained. I would also delete Category:Czech terms with audio links, but there won't be a consensus for this, I fear. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think Cirrus search would allow the members to be found fairly easily without Category:Czech terms with audio links, although not very efficiently. DCDuring TALK 17:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Needs to be orphaned before it can be deleted, if anyone wants to ask their bot to do it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. DTLHS (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Deleted. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


text:
Category talk:Japanese character counts

I think this may at best be categorized as "useless trivia". Even the Japanese entry by kanji categories are more useful than this! -- Liliana • 09:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this comparable to category:English seven-letter words (redlink)? If so, keep (and extend to other languages): useful category for word-puzzle solvers and natural categorization scheme for words. —msh210℠ (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, since it doesn't take kana into account, it counts only the kanji in every word. -- Liliana • 13:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically useless trivia, though we have a lot of that. Weak delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Japanese character counts currently only has subcategories in the format Category:Japanese terms written with ten Han script characters, that naturally don't count kana; they count only characters of another script ("Han script") mentioned in the category name. If people want a category for counting kana, possible names are the short Category:Japanese four-hiragana terms and the long Category:Japanese terms written with four Hiragana script characters. (I'd be inclined to choose the shorter.) --Daniel 18:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Kept for lack of consensus to deleted. --Chicken is fun (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Japanese character counts


text:
Template talk:mul-script/Latn-list

I don't have anything against the lists themselves, but this template is coded in what may be the most unintuitive and complicated way possible. It should be split up into subtemplates that do not depend on the name of the entry they're transcluded on (yes, that is how the template is coded currently!). -- Liliana • 13:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Kept for no consensus to deleted. --Chicken is fun (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Small bug with ligatures
The ligatures Ĳ, Ǉ, Ǌ appears twice in Variations of letter I and Variations of letter J for some reason (look at ɪ or ȷ). --Kritische Menge (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Template talk:mul-script/Latn-list


text:
sociologe

Etymology
From, 'company'.

Noun

 * 1) female

title: sociologe


text: nebibliaj

title: nebibliaj


text:
Category talk:English trademarks

This seems like a misnomer. In general a trademark is not essentially part of a language. It is something that has a legal status in one or more jurisdictions, often spanning multiple languages. For example REALTOR/Realtor/realtor is shown as an English term. If it is indeed a trademark at all, as it seems to be in the US, it is one in any language in which it appears in the US, eg, Spanish, Navajo, French. Since we have no practical ability to delimit and display the national or linguistic scope of the trademark status members, I suggest we simply include all trademarks in a single category or have no category whatsoever. I'm not sure whether we should even try to get at this as a context/usage label. Alternatively, perhaps we could recruit some intellectual property attorneys as contributors. DCDuring TALK 00:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep: Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

kept for no consensus. --ElisaVan (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Category talk:English trademarks


text: nebiblian

title: nebiblian


text: nebibliajn

title: nebibliajn


text:
Wiktionary talk:Webster 1913/1496

As far as I can tell, all the entries on here have already been created, so this likely serves no more purpose --Yakky snacks (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

 * All but these two:
 * therapeutæ, therapeutae — n. pl., from NL., from Gr. (pl.) an attendant, servant, physician — (Eccl. Hist.): A name given to certain ascetics said to have anciently dwelt in the neighborhood of Alexandria. They are described in a work attributed to Philo, the genuineness and credibility of which are now much discredited.
 * there-anent — adverb — (Scot.) Concerning that.
 * - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * therebiforn is also a redlink, because it is only attested once, so I moved it to therebeforn, which is attested more often. - -sche (discuss) 19:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But if attested in Chaucer and printed before 1500, it would be Middle English, hence would meet CFI as a once-attested term in a dead language. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Kept for lack of consensus. --ElisaVan (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Wiktionary talk:Webster 1913/1496


text:
Category talk:English proper adjectives

Mg and I discussed this on WT:ID, and he pointed out that this isn't a formal category (there's not formally any such thing as a 'proper adjective'). - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean. Is it an adjective that expresses a relationship to a single defined entity? Like English does to England? I think delete... 22:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but then we lose functionality. How else could we sort together entries like Hitlerian and Napoleonic? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (And don't say eponyms, because that includes nouns too and is thus of a much greater scope. It doesn't fulfill the same purpose). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's always "eponymous adjectives" Chuck Entz (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's pretty good.--Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No strong feelings, I'm not sure what a proper adjective is anyway, so categorizing them is gonna be hard if nobody can come up with a usable definition. So I lean towards delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some dictionaries and books have the term: ; AHD; Merrian-Webster; . Whatever the name of the category, I find having such a category useful or attractive; Category:English eponyms is too much of a mix of "Achillean" and "Aaron's rod" for my taste. On the choice of a name, (16,100 hits) appears way less common than  (177,000 hits). Following the Google books sources found by searching for "proper adjectives", proper adjectives include (a) "Achilean", "Popperian", "Chomskian", and (b) "English", "Spanish", "Swedish", "Namibian". German examples include "Berliner". Further category members are "Martian" and "Jovian". It follows that a proper adjective is not the same as an eponymous adjective. The definition of a proper adjective is of the form "Of or relating to ", with variations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So then what distinguishes "Of or relating to " from "Of or relating to " in any significant way? 19:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For one thing, capitalization marks proper adjectives off, in English anyway. Just like proper nouns are almost always capitalized, so are proper adjectives. For another thing, proper adjectives show specific suffixes, it seems; by having a glimpse at them as a group, you get a feel for how they are created in English (or another language). --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Capitalisation differs per language though. Dutch in particular has rather complex rules about the capitalisation (which don't make even the slightest sense to me), whereas for example Swedish and Spanish just spell such adjectives in lowercase. 19:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) There's one more thing: the current categorization of "Addisonian" into Category:English eponyms may be wrong, if one believes the definitions of "eponym" found at ; see Merriam-Webster: eponym and AHD: eponym. It seems to me that all these adjectives should be removed from Category:English eponyms. These dictionaries have the genus of "name" rather than "word" in the definition of "eponym". This would require research into what linguists usually mean by "eponym" to be on the safe side, though.
 * Capitalization varies per language, no doubt. It is the patterns of suffixing that are interesting in the first place, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But those, too, are language specific. It would seem a little inconsistent to call English a proper adjective, while engelsk, its translation and cognate, is not. 20:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The suffix patterns are a few within each language, which is what makes them interesting, to me anyway. As regards calling the adjective "English" a proper adjective in English, while its Swedish analogue is called just an adjective, you've got the same inter-language inconsistency in names of languages: "English" is ranked as proper noun in English, while its Swedish analogue "engelska" is not ranked a proper noun. Not really a problem, if you ask me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably you're judging that based on capitalisation. So what about German, where all nouns are capitalised and adjectives never are, so there is no way to tell 'properness' from the spelling? 21:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * German does capitalize adjectives in 'sch derived from personal names (Grimm'sches Gesetz, Verner'sches Gesetz, etc.) as well as the uninflectable adjectives in -er derived from place names (Berliner Luft, Kölner Straßen). Adjectives are also capitalized when they form part of a proper noun (Atlantischer Ozean, Schwarzes Meer) or a species name (Australische Kasarka, Kleine Bambusratte). —Angr 21:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The adjectival properness is not told from the capitalization. It is told from the definition form of "Of or relating to ", or the like. In Czech, proper adjectives are often not capitalized, as in "pražský" ("Praha"), "newyorský" ("New York"), "kansaský" ("Kansas"), "popperovský" ("Popper"), or "humovský" ("Hume"). --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Kept for lack of consensus. --ElisaVan (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC discussion: January 2015
Since there was no consensus to delete this category, would anyone like to help fill it up? "Proper adjective" is not a formally-defined part of speech, so you can potentially add any adjective you like; the category currently contains a small handful of the many adjectives derived from personal or place-names that we have entries for, so you could start by adding more of those. - -sche (discuss) 04:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a pretty unambiguous definition of . Renard Migrant (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

title: Category talk:English proper adjectives


text:
Transwiki talk:Multilingual list of Indian plants trees and flowers

Transwikied from Wikipedia, but I'm not so sure we want it either: Chuck Entz (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It basically duplicates what we do with categories and translation sections
 * 2) It only has three "starter" entries, which have very few names- and even fewer in the correct scripts.
 * 3) If populated, it would be astronomically huge, unless we came up with a system of lots of these.
 * It seems that it was moved from Wikipedia. I say delete, but before it’s deleted someone who speaks the languages, or at least understands the scripts, should add the content to the translation sections. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the rush? Keep until all items are wikilinked (preferably using ) and someone has added all orange- and red-linked items. Not even all the Translingual genus names and species epithets are new included. In many cases we would need the appropriate script added to do this properly. Perhaps we can recruit the person who initiated this at WP to work on this class of entries here. DCDuring TALK 16:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would tend to delete it as it contains very little usable content. If it gave us lots of red linked valid terms then it would be a definite keeper. There are however very few, few enough to move easily to WT:RE:hi and WT:RE:mul. Also benghalensis which it lists is probably a typo for bengalensis which we have. Only a Hindi speaker would know if the Hindi terms are also typos. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * NB most of the red links are wholly invalid because not written in the correct script. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm interested to add/update entries for Indian names of trees. Especially herbs as I'm interested in Ayurveda. This wiki page is a god-send for people who need to use both scientific and local names of plants/trees.
 * Guruduttmallapur (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it a godsend no matter how many errors there are? If kept we should tag it with, or more likely "this page is almost completely wrong and is not likely to be corrected". Mglovesfun (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Soon to be speedied. The scripts are mostly wrong. This page aint gonna be missed, --ElisaVan (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


text:
Template talk:tpi-noun

I was unaware of this template until today, and thus the vast majority of our Tok Pisin terms do not use it. In all cases, it gives exactly the same output as   and is therefore quite redundant. Originally, it was created to display the plural form of nouns (as its outdated documentation still claims), even though they are regularly formed by placing in front of the noun (we do not have entries for Tok Pisin plurals because they would all be SOP). It is used in so few places that I will replace all instances of it manually if there is consensus for deleting this.--Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not again. We've had this kind of discussion with already. strong keep. -- Liliana • 20:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that is related. In Finnish, it may actually make a difference for certain nouns; in Tok Pisin, it gives an identical output in every case. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I create new templates for languages even if they show the same as . keep. 12:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I seem to think one argument that's been used in the past is there's no way to add additional features to make it more useful if we delete it first. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What additional features would we add? Tok Pisin nouns do not decline or inflect in any way, never have diacritics or orthographical messiness, and have standard headwords. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Soon to be speedied --ElisaVan (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Template talk:tpi-noun


text: bijoutière

title: bijoutière


text:
Template talk:cc-by-sa-3.0

Where would this be used? Anything on this site is added with the understanding it's CC by-sa 3.0 anyway. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For licensing images. Except we're not supposed to have images to begin with, so delete -- Liliana • 17:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Some images are okay; the Far Side cartoon nominated above is certainly worth keeping, for example. Maybe keep this, but its use will be so limited (because we have so few images, especially so few by-sa ones (which can IINM be moved to the Commons)) that I'm not sure it's worth keeping. Ambivalent. —msh210℠ (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Not all of our images are CC-by-sa-3.0. Some our logos more restrictively licensed, aren't they? And some other images are non-free fair-use. Furthermore, sometimes images which should be shareable are mistakenly added here; they need to be explicitly licensed before they can be migrated to Commons, because Commons admins are understandably sticklers for proper licensing. Keep. - -sche (discuss) 22:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Kept for lack of consensus. --ElisaVan (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Template talk:cc-by-sa-3.0


text:
Category talk:Terms derived from Caucasian languages

This is not a family, so what does this mean? This is a bit like 'Terms derived from African languages'... 20:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the Old Armenian entries which are in that category I think it means that the term is derived from an unknown language native to the Caucasus, instead of PIE. Leaning towards keep, but I’d like to see what others have to say before voting. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 20:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's intended for terms which come from a Caucasian language, but you don't know which one. On that basis, it should probably be kept (see however the below) -- Liliana • 21:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Until further research clears up the relationship between North-East, North-West, South Caucasian and Hurro-Urartian languages and the paths by which Armenian borrowed from them, this category will be useful. --Vahag (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Kept --ElisaVan (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


text: bijoutières

title: bijoutières


text:
Template talk:nan-sample

And another. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Would it be simpler to say "all members of Category:Untranscluded templates?" SemperBlotto (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am worried that I am going to miss a preload, subst-only, work in progress, or just an interesting idea. After all, most of these have no documentation or are - ahem - "self-documenting". If folks would like to categorize or document a template in a way that indicated its current or potential value, then we could bypass RFDO. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well Category:Untranscluded templates ought to be redundant to Category:Templates that must be substituted, as substitute-only templates are used but not transcluded, while anything that is substitutable but not used really ought to be either used or deleted. As a rule, I say if potentially useful but unused, keep, as the one surefire way that useful template will never be used is if you delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Argh, this one's not well formatted it all. It could be turned into a subst: templates but I don't really see the point, it seems as easy just to write the stuff out by hand. Writing it out by hand gives more flexibility too. I'll abstain. But my instinct tells me this isn't used anyway, so wikifying it will have no benefit. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in an ideal, static world with perfect categorizers the two categories would have identical membership. It is because our world is not ideal or static and those willing to categorize are not knowledgeable enough to do so perfectly that there may be a need for other categories. Do actively used preload templates show up as transcluded? What about templates in development in Template, not User space? What about all of those orphan templates that are really worth keeping because of all the good ideas therein? DCDuring TALK 16:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "anything that is substitutable but not used really ought to be either used or deleted", note that some may be used substed even though usable and unused unsubsted. —msh210℠ (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * DCDuring, I'll take you literally:
 * "Do actively used preload templates show up as transcluded?"
 * No, like . Unless the template can either be used as a subst or a non-subst template
 * "What about templates in development in Template, not User space?"
 * Move 'em or delete 'em. That's what this page is for, such discussion
 * "What about all of those orphan templates that are really worth keeping because of all the good ideas therein?"
 * You've in effect answered yourself; if they are really worth keeping, keep 'em.
 * Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @msh: Where does one look to find whether a subst'ed template is in fact used?
 * @MG: How do we keep untranscluded, undocumented templates, not intended for preload or substing, so that they can be found and used? DCDuring TALK 17:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "Where does one look to find whether a subst'ed template is in fact used?", beats me. I suppose one could determine what its output would be when substed and see whether any edits have that output. (That wouldn't be completely conclusive, as people might be typing bar, hitting "Show changes", copy-pasting the result into the edit box, and editing it beyond recognition, but that seems like a fairly remote possibility barring some specific reason for thinking people do so with a given template.) —msh210℠ (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Gonna be Deleted --ElisaVan (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Template talk:nan-sample


text:
peldot

Participle

 * 1) swimming, floating, sailing;

title: peldot


text:
Template talk:youtube

Where would this be useful? --Yair rand (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There have been occasions where I think systematic rickrolling would drastically improve Wiktionary. This is not one of them. Rickrollers, format your own damn links yourselves. Delete. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, there are a couple of YouTube links on Wiktionary used to back up pronunciations. That of course, doesn't mean we need a template for it. Writing out links the traditional way is just fine. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Deleted (very soon). --ElisaVan (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Template talk:youtube


text:
Category talk:Transitive verbs by language

And Category:Intransitive verbs by language, Category:Ambitransitive verbs by language, Category:Ditransitive verbs by language, and their subcategories. They seem rather useless to me, like nouns by gender and countability. Ultimateria (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as a parent cat. In many languages, they are quite linguistically important. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea to distinguish transitivity in entries, but I just can't imagine any use for these categories. Is anyone really going to need a list of transitive verbs in Icelandic? Ultimateria (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel about the same as Ultimateria, but not strongly enough to care if these get kept or deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Maro 18:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What about Category:Ergative verbs by language? 12:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep all. Both linguists and language-learners can benefit from categories like these. —Angr 17:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If I'm studying how transitive verbs in Icelandic work, it's good to have a list of them to test my hypotheses on. —Angr 22:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The main problem with categories like these is that transitivity is dependent on sense. Some senses of a verb may be intransitive, some may be transitive. So the titles are a bit misleading: it's not the verbs that are transitive, it's their senses. 21:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, again that depends on the language. True in English, but false in Tok Pisin. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, in that case keep then. It would be nice if categorised entries in this category again, though.  11:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep per Angr and Metaknowledge. - -sche (discuss) 16:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

As already stated, these categories may be very misleading: e.g. in French, transitive verbs almost always have intransitive uses, and many verbs generally considered as intransitive (e.g. nager) also have transitive uses in some cases. Should they be included in both categories? If kept, the meaning (and the name) of these categories should be clarified, so that verbs such as nager don't appear in both Transitive and Intransitive verbs (which is currently the case with fr.wikt, very unfortunately, because categorization is automatic through templates). Or these categories could be restricted to some languages. Lmaltier (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Kept--ElisaVan (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


text:
Category talk:One

Category:Five
These are proper topics as such, but where does it stop? Category:Fourty-two? Category:Googol? 19:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * See also above. It has been closed as kept on 8 August 2012 for no consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Category: One, and Five - delete. Maro 19:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But not Two, Three and Four? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, only these two. Maro 20:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there something special about the numbers 2, 3 and 4 that you are not telling us...? 20:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Category Five has only one page in it and One has two entries. Category:en:Three has 83 entries so someone can find it useful. You've made separate sections for each category here so I suppose we do not consider them collectively but separately. Maro 22:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't really it make sense to me if we think a category for 'Three' is a good thing to have but a category for 'One' is not. What is important about 3 that it is more deserving of a category of its own than 1 is? 02:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We do have the option to add things to categories. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete I doubt that these are of use to anyone other than their creator. Criteria for existence of and membership in topical category tree are simply the whims of creators, patrollers, and voters. The membership in classes like this ends up being quite Borgesian. DCDuring TALK 13:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * delete and please stay with prefix/suffix categories instead of creating such pseudo-etymology categories. -- Liliana • 16:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have decided to vote keep, as I am unconvinced by the stated arguments for deletion, and as Roget's 1911 thesaurus has entries per several small positive integers: "87. Unity", "89. Duality", "92. Triality", "95. Four", and "98. Five". See for instance The categories are not really etymological; they contain words whose meaning contains the particular small number in some way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If we do decide to keep this, then we would have to agree where to stop, though. I doubt Category:Forty-two is something we would want to keep. 18:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We should stop when the category can no longer contain an interesting number of member entries. Have you had a look at Roget 1911? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thesaurus. I'd support a Wikisaurus:one, Wikisaurus:two etc. without second thought, but surely not this. -- Liliana • 19:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you support thesaurus but not a topical category? Which argument of yours applies to a category but not to thesaurus? What is the negative consequence of having these topical categories? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Categories appear at the bottom of every page. If we have topical categories for everything people can come up with, it will be an utter mess. -- Liliana • 19:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Links to the thesaurus will eventually appear in every member entry of each thesaurus page. So again, how are categories different from thesaurus pages? Furthermore, which of the member entries of the categories proposed for deletion are overcrowded with topical categories? Certainly not trimetallic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And not to forget, you cannot sort category members by hypernyms, hyponyms, holonyms, meronyms, synonyms, antonyms etc. like you can with a Wikisaurus page. -- Liliana • 20:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am the last one in English Wiktionary to fail to appreciate the charms of Wikisaurus over topical categories. But with "triality", "three" or "threeness", the semantic relations that you have mentioned do not find any use. I still do not see why you oppose topical categories while having no objections to thesaurus entries. I also do not see you respond the points I have raised, or admit an error. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete the categories; make and link from entries to an appendix, if desired. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the English variants of the categories now have the following numbers of member entries: The great job of filling the categories seems to have been done by ; kudos. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get the relevance of there being a thesaurus entry in Roget for having a category in Wiktionary. For having a Wikisaurus entry, yes.
 * Appendices are great places for laying out thematic relationships with much more detail and richness than a simple listing.
 * Delete each and every one. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have already voted delete, DCDuring. Topical categories classify words by semantics, just like a thesaurus does. (A true thesaurus like the Roget's one, not a dictionary of synonyms.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:en:One: 33
 * Category:en:Two: 47
 * Category:en:Three: 92
 * Category:en:Four: 52
 * Category:en:Five: 66
 * And six has 29, seven has 21, eight has 32, nine 18, ten 25, eleven 20, twelve 18, thirteen 13. There are no categories for fourteen and above yet. 19:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. Now what is wrong with these categories? Why do you want them deleted? What is it that you do not like about them? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As topical categories by themselves I am not sure if there is anything really wrong with them, although I do think there should be less and broader topics rather than more and specific ones. The issue I have with these categories in particular is the precedent they set towards having categories for more and more integers without end. Judging them based on how many entries they (can) contain does not work, because more can always be added. 20:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Only attested entries can be added. I doubt that you can find a meaningful number of memeber entries for Category:en:Thirty-five. I challenge you to find ten candidate entries in Wiktionary for that category. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Explicitly abstain. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that some people have been working to create new categories and fill them all, I am leaning towards keep myself. But I do hope we keep the highest at 20 for now. 01:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep now that they have a lot of entries. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep em, they're well populated now. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Kept as now well populated.--ElisaVan (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Category talk:One


text:
Category talk:Two

Category:Five
These are proper topics as such, but where does it stop? Category:Fourty-two? Category:Googol? 19:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * See also above. It has been closed as kept on 8 August 2012 for no consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Category: One, and Five - delete. Maro 19:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But not Two, Three and Four? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, only these two. Maro 20:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there something special about the numbers 2, 3 and 4 that you are not telling us...? 20:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Category Five has only one page in it and One has two entries. Category:en:Three has 83 entries so someone can find it useful. You've made separate sections for each category here so I suppose we do not consider them collectively but separately. Maro 22:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't really it make sense to me if we think a category for 'Three' is a good thing to have but a category for 'One' is not. What is important about 3 that it is more deserving of a category of its own than 1 is? 02:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We do have the option to add things to categories. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete I doubt that these are of use to anyone other than their creator. Criteria for existence of and membership in topical category tree are simply the whims of creators, patrollers, and voters. The membership in classes like this ends up being quite Borgesian. DCDuring TALK 13:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * delete and please stay with prefix/suffix categories instead of creating such pseudo-etymology categories. -- Liliana • 16:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have decided to vote keep, as I am unconvinced by the stated arguments for deletion, and as Roget's 1911 thesaurus has entries per several small positive integers: "87. Unity", "89. Duality", "92. Triality", "95. Four", and "98. Five". See for instance The categories are not really etymological; they contain words whose meaning contains the particular small number in some way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If we do decide to keep this, then we would have to agree where to stop, though. I doubt Category:Forty-two is something we would want to keep. 18:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We should stop when the category can no longer contain an interesting number of member entries. Have you had a look at Roget 1911? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thesaurus. I'd support a Wikisaurus:one, Wikisaurus:two etc. without second thought, but surely not this. -- Liliana • 19:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you support thesaurus but not a topical category? Which argument of yours applies to a category but not to thesaurus? What is the negative consequence of having these topical categories? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Categories appear at the bottom of every page. If we have topical categories for everything people can come up with, it will be an utter mess. -- Liliana • 19:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Links to the thesaurus will eventually appear in every member entry of each thesaurus page. So again, how are categories different from thesaurus pages? Furthermore, which of the member entries of the categories proposed for deletion are overcrowded with topical categories? Certainly not trimetallic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And not to forget, you cannot sort category members by hypernyms, hyponyms, holonyms, meronyms, synonyms, antonyms etc. like you can with a Wikisaurus page. -- Liliana • 20:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am the last one in English Wiktionary to fail to appreciate the charms of Wikisaurus over topical categories. But with "triality", "three" or "threeness", the semantic relations that you have mentioned do not find any use. I still do not see why you oppose topical categories while having no objections to thesaurus entries. I also do not see you respond the points I have raised, or admit an error. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete the categories; make and link from entries to an appendix, if desired. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the English variants of the categories now have the following numbers of member entries: The great job of filling the categories seems to have been done by ; kudos. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get the relevance of there being a thesaurus entry in Roget for having a category in Wiktionary. For having a Wikisaurus entry, yes.
 * Appendices are great places for laying out thematic relationships with much more detail and richness than a simple listing.
 * Delete each and every one. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have already voted delete, DCDuring. Topical categories classify words by semantics, just like a thesaurus does. (A true thesaurus like the Roget's one, not a dictionary of synonyms.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:en:One: 33
 * Category:en:Two: 47
 * Category:en:Three: 92
 * Category:en:Four: 52
 * Category:en:Five: 66
 * And six has 29, seven has 21, eight has 32, nine 18, ten 25, eleven 20, twelve 18, thirteen 13. There are no categories for fourteen and above yet. 19:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. Now what is wrong with these categories? Why do you want them deleted? What is it that you do not like about them? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As topical categories by themselves I am not sure if there is anything really wrong with them, although I do think there should be less and broader topics rather than more and specific ones. The issue I have with these categories in particular is the precedent they set towards having categories for more and more integers without end. Judging them based on how many entries they (can) contain does not work, because more can always be added. 20:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Only attested entries can be added. I doubt that you can find a meaningful number of memeber entries for Category:en:Thirty-five. I challenge you to find ten candidate entries in Wiktionary for that category. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Explicitly abstain. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that some people have been working to create new categories and fill them all, I am leaning towards keep myself. But I do hope we keep the highest at 20 for now. 01:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep now that they have a lot of entries. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep em, they're well populated now. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Kept as now well populated.--ElisaVan (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Two


text:
Category talk:Four

Category:Five
These are proper topics as such, but where does it stop? Category:Fourty-two? Category:Googol? 19:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * See also above. It has been closed as kept on 8 August 2012 for no consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Category: One, and Five - delete. Maro 19:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But not Two, Three and Four? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, only these two. Maro 20:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there something special about the numbers 2, 3 and 4 that you are not telling us...? 20:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Category Five has only one page in it and One has two entries. Category:en:Three has 83 entries so someone can find it useful. You've made separate sections for each category here so I suppose we do not consider them collectively but separately. Maro 22:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't really it make sense to me if we think a category for 'Three' is a good thing to have but a category for 'One' is not. What is important about 3 that it is more deserving of a category of its own than 1 is? 02:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We do have the option to add things to categories. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete I doubt that these are of use to anyone other than their creator. Criteria for existence of and membership in topical category tree are simply the whims of creators, patrollers, and voters. The membership in classes like this ends up being quite Borgesian. DCDuring TALK 13:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * delete and please stay with prefix/suffix categories instead of creating such pseudo-etymology categories. -- Liliana • 16:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have decided to vote keep, as I am unconvinced by the stated arguments for deletion, and as Roget's 1911 thesaurus has entries per several small positive integers: "87. Unity", "89. Duality", "92. Triality", "95. Four", and "98. Five". See for instance The categories are not really etymological; they contain words whose meaning contains the particular small number in some way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If we do decide to keep this, then we would have to agree where to stop, though. I doubt Category:Forty-two is something we would want to keep. 18:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We should stop when the category can no longer contain an interesting number of member entries. Have you had a look at Roget 1911? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thesaurus. I'd support a Wikisaurus:one, Wikisaurus:two etc. without second thought, but surely not this. -- Liliana • 19:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you support thesaurus but not a topical category? Which argument of yours applies to a category but not to thesaurus? What is the negative consequence of having these topical categories? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Categories appear at the bottom of every page. If we have topical categories for everything people can come up with, it will be an utter mess. -- Liliana • 19:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Links to the thesaurus will eventually appear in every member entry of each thesaurus page. So again, how are categories different from thesaurus pages? Furthermore, which of the member entries of the categories proposed for deletion are overcrowded with topical categories? Certainly not trimetallic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And not to forget, you cannot sort category members by hypernyms, hyponyms, holonyms, meronyms, synonyms, antonyms etc. like you can with a Wikisaurus page. -- Liliana • 20:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am the last one in English Wiktionary to fail to appreciate the charms of Wikisaurus over topical categories. But with "triality", "three" or "threeness", the semantic relations that you have mentioned do not find any use. I still do not see why you oppose topical categories while having no objections to thesaurus entries. I also do not see you respond the points I have raised, or admit an error. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete the categories; make and link from entries to an appendix, if desired. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the English variants of the categories now have the following numbers of member entries: The great job of filling the categories seems to have been done by ; kudos. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get the relevance of there being a thesaurus entry in Roget for having a category in Wiktionary. For having a Wikisaurus entry, yes.
 * Appendices are great places for laying out thematic relationships with much more detail and richness than a simple listing.
 * Delete each and every one. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have already voted delete, DCDuring. Topical categories classify words by semantics, just like a thesaurus does. (A true thesaurus like the Roget's one, not a dictionary of synonyms.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:en:One: 33
 * Category:en:Two: 47
 * Category:en:Three: 92
 * Category:en:Four: 52
 * Category:en:Five: 66
 * And six has 29, seven has 21, eight has 32, nine 18, ten 25, eleven 20, twelve 18, thirteen 13. There are no categories for fourteen and above yet. 19:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. Now what is wrong with these categories? Why do you want them deleted? What is it that you do not like about them? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As topical categories by themselves I am not sure if there is anything really wrong with them, although I do think there should be less and broader topics rather than more and specific ones. The issue I have with these categories in particular is the precedent they set towards having categories for more and more integers without end. Judging them based on how many entries they (can) contain does not work, because more can always be added. 20:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Only attested entries can be added. I doubt that you can find a meaningful number of memeber entries for Category:en:Thirty-five. I challenge you to find ten candidate entries in Wiktionary for that category. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Explicitly abstain. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that some people have been working to create new categories and fill them all, I am leaning towards keep myself. But I do hope we keep the highest at 20 for now. 01:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep now that they have a lot of entries. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep em, they're well populated now. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Kept as now well populated.--ElisaVan (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Four


text:
Category talk:Five

Category:Five
These are proper topics as such, but where does it stop? Category:Fourty-two? Category:Googol? 19:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * See also above. It has been closed as kept on 8 August 2012 for no consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Category: One, and Five - delete. Maro 19:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But not Two, Three and Four? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, only these two. Maro 20:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there something special about the numbers 2, 3 and 4 that you are not telling us...? 20:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Category Five has only one page in it and One has two entries. Category:en:Three has 83 entries so someone can find it useful. You've made separate sections for each category here so I suppose we do not consider them collectively but separately. Maro 22:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't really it make sense to me if we think a category for 'Three' is a good thing to have but a category for 'One' is not. What is important about 3 that it is more deserving of a category of its own than 1 is? 02:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We do have the option to add things to categories. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete I doubt that these are of use to anyone other than their creator. Criteria for existence of and membership in topical category tree are simply the whims of creators, patrollers, and voters. The membership in classes like this ends up being quite Borgesian. DCDuring TALK 13:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * delete and please stay with prefix/suffix categories instead of creating such pseudo-etymology categories. -- Liliana • 16:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have decided to vote keep, as I am unconvinced by the stated arguments for deletion, and as Roget's 1911 thesaurus has entries per several small positive integers: "87. Unity", "89. Duality", "92. Triality", "95. Four", and "98. Five". See for instance The categories are not really etymological; they contain words whose meaning contains the particular small number in some way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If we do decide to keep this, then we would have to agree where to stop, though. I doubt Category:Forty-two is something we would want to keep. 18:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We should stop when the category can no longer contain an interesting number of member entries. Have you had a look at Roget 1911? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thesaurus. I'd support a Wikisaurus:one, Wikisaurus:two etc. without second thought, but surely not this. -- Liliana • 19:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you support thesaurus but not a topical category? Which argument of yours applies to a category but not to thesaurus? What is the negative consequence of having these topical categories? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Categories appear at the bottom of every page. If we have topical categories for everything people can come up with, it will be an utter mess. -- Liliana • 19:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Links to the thesaurus will eventually appear in every member entry of each thesaurus page. So again, how are categories different from thesaurus pages? Furthermore, which of the member entries of the categories proposed for deletion are overcrowded with topical categories? Certainly not trimetallic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And not to forget, you cannot sort category members by hypernyms, hyponyms, holonyms, meronyms, synonyms, antonyms etc. like you can with a Wikisaurus page. -- Liliana • 20:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am the last one in English Wiktionary to fail to appreciate the charms of Wikisaurus over topical categories. But with "triality", "three" or "threeness", the semantic relations that you have mentioned do not find any use. I still do not see why you oppose topical categories while having no objections to thesaurus entries. I also do not see you respond the points I have raised, or admit an error. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete the categories; make and link from entries to an appendix, if desired. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the English variants of the categories now have the following numbers of member entries: The great job of filling the categories seems to have been done by ; kudos. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get the relevance of there being a thesaurus entry in Roget for having a category in Wiktionary. For having a Wikisaurus entry, yes.
 * Appendices are great places for laying out thematic relationships with much more detail and richness than a simple listing.
 * Delete each and every one. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have already voted delete, DCDuring. Topical categories classify words by semantics, just like a thesaurus does. (A true thesaurus like the Roget's one, not a dictionary of synonyms.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:en:One: 33
 * Category:en:Two: 47
 * Category:en:Three: 92
 * Category:en:Four: 52
 * Category:en:Five: 66
 * And six has 29, seven has 21, eight has 32, nine 18, ten 25, eleven 20, twelve 18, thirteen 13. There are no categories for fourteen and above yet. 19:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. Now what is wrong with these categories? Why do you want them deleted? What is it that you do not like about them? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As topical categories by themselves I am not sure if there is anything really wrong with them, although I do think there should be less and broader topics rather than more and specific ones. The issue I have with these categories in particular is the precedent they set towards having categories for more and more integers without end. Judging them based on how many entries they (can) contain does not work, because more can always be added. 20:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Only attested entries can be added. I doubt that you can find a meaningful number of memeber entries for Category:en:Thirty-five. I challenge you to find ten candidate entries in Wiktionary for that category. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Explicitly abstain. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that some people have been working to create new categories and fill them all, I am leaning towards keep myself. But I do hope we keep the highest at 20 for now. 01:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep now that they have a lot of entries. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep em, they're well populated now. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Kept as now well populated.--ElisaVan (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Five


text:
nepeldot

Participle

 * 1) not swimming, not floating, not sailing;

title: nepeldot


text:
Template talk:offensive to

Seems to be a very complicated way to achieve something that can be achieved much more easily just by writing it out in a sentence. It does categorize but again, you can write it out as a sentence and add the category at the end, and it would still be simpler than using this template. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the harm in it. That it categorizes makes it a keeper IMO. (Fwiw, old discussion is at [[Special:PermanentLink/24549046]].) —msh210℠ (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete. There were 2 pages using it, and I just de-templatized them. --ElisaVan (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete-able --ElisaVan (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Template talk:offensive to


text:
Template talk:computer languages

Since all its languages' glossaries are deleted or in the process of being deleted, this seems rather superfluous. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My initial react is to wait for those votes to finish. Appendix:APL looks like it has a slight chance of survival. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But, you see, if only one of them survives, then there's no point in having the template to navigate to the other ones. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if two survive, we don't need a template to link from one to the other: just include a link in the page. Heck, even if three survive. Delete. —msh210℠ (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point; delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Soon to be Speedy deleted. --ElisaVan (talk)

title: Template talk:computer languages


text:
aizstāvot

Participle

 * 1) defending;

title: aizstāvot


text:
neaizstāvot

Participle

 * 1) not defending;

title: neaizstāvot


text:
gaistot

Participle

 * 1) dissipating, evaporating, fading, disappearing;

title: gaistot


text: sociologes

title: sociologes


text:
negaistot

Participle

 * 1) not dissipating, not evaporating, not fading, not disappearing;

title: negaistot


text: soepelheden

title: soepelheden


text:
maintenance-free

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) Not requiring any maintenance.
 * A maintenance-free car battery.
 * A maintenance-free car battery.

Translations

 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: vedlikeholdsfri
 * Romanian: fără întreținere
 * Swedish:

title: maintenance-free


text:
Template talk:ladecl3

Same as above. Add the appendix wikilink to instead. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it's already part of . Silly me. --Mglovesfun (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

RFDO discussion: April–May 2014

 * See Template talk:ladecl1.

title: Template talk:ladecl3


text: gwerzioù

title: gwerzioù


text:
atteleur

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  the person who couples carriages together

title: atteleur


text: atteleuse

title: atteleuse


text: atteleuses

title: atteleuses


text: atteleurs

title: atteleurs


text: att'leuses

title: att'leuses


text:
att'ler

Etymology
From, from.

Verb

 * 1)  to hitch, yoke, harness

title: att'ler


text: Portugual

title: Portugual


text: graies

title: graies


text: atchusâtions

title: atchusâtions


text:
speechen

Verb

 * 1)  to hold a speech, to have an address

title: speechen


text:
chorrito

Etymology
From.

title: chorrito


text: speechjes

title: speechjes


text: speechje

title: speechje


text:
patidifuso

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  gobsmacked, astounded

title: patidifuso


text: avouôt'rêsses

title: avouôt'rêsses


text:
deshinchar

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to let down
 * 2) to deflate
 * 3) to let out

title: deshinchar


text:
astic

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

Noun

 * 1) a bone once used by cobblers to polish leather
 * 2) any of various other polishing tools

title: astic


text:
espetero

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) someone who sells

title: espetero


text:
hasta las cejas

Adverb

 * 1)  to the limit

title: hasta las cejas


text: soeplepeltjes

title: soeplepeltjes


text:
callejón sin salida

Noun

 * 1)  dead end, road to nowhere

title: callejón sin salida


text:
guarrada

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  mess
 * 2)  dirty talk
 * 3)  disgusting thing
 * 1)  disgusting thing

title: guarrada


text: soeplepeltje

title: soeplepeltje


text:
mindundi

Etymology
. but might be from

Noun

 * 1)  nobody; zero person of little value and unimportant

title: mindundi


text: soevereiniteiten

title: soevereiniteiten


text:
ni feu ni feunque

Phrase

 * 1)  neither fire nor smoke

title: ni feu ni feunque


text:
ni feu ni fouôngne

Phrase

 * 1)  neither fire nor baking

title: ni feu ni fouôngne


text:
tradigital

Etymology
, coined by.

Adjective

 * 1)  Produced through a combination of traditional and computer-based techniques.

title: tradigital


text: Category:Requests for gender in Walloon entries


text: carbon nanotubes

title: carbon nanotubes


text: strottenhoofdjes

title: strottenhoofdjes


text: strottenhoofdje

title: strottenhoofdje


text:
ພິດຊ້າ

Noun

 * 1) pizza

title: ພິດຊ້າ


text: dréch'rêsses

title: dréch'rêsses


text:
ນວດ

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

Verb

 * 1) to massage; to knead.

title: ນວດ


text:
ໝໍນວດ

Noun

 * 1) masseur, masseuse

title: ໝໍນວດ


text:
User talk:Zeete

Zeete (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zeete


text:
affétchîment

Adverb

 * 1)  snobbily, snobbishly

title: affétchîment


text:
Hippoboscidae

Etymology
From.

Hypernyms

 * ; - suborder;  - infraorder;  - section; Calyptrata - subsection;  - superfamily

title: Hippoboscidae


text: stipje

title: stipje


text: stipjes

title: stipjes


text: sojabonen

title: sojabonen


text: sojaboontjes

title: sojaboontjes


text: Dgibrâltar

title: Dgibrâltar


text: sojaboontje

title: sojaboontje


text:
活字体

Noun

 * 1) block letters

title: 活字体


text:
kıt

Etymology
From, from.

Cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, etc.

Adjective

 * 1) insufficient, not enough
 * 2) scarce, deficient

title: kıt


text:
silicyne

Noun

 * 1) an allotrope of silicon, consisting of a long chain of silicon atoms linked together with either (1) disilene units [ ...=Si=Si=Si=...] or (2) disilyne units [ ...–Si≡Si–Si≡Si–... ]

title: silicyne


text: silicynes

title: silicynes


text: sokpopje

title: sokpopje


text: sokpoppetje

title: sokpoppetje


text: sokpoppetjes

title: sokpoppetjes


text: sokpopjes

title: sokpopjes


text: sokpoppen

title: sokpoppen


text: soldijen

title: soldijen


text: soldijtjes

title: soldijtjes


text: soldijtje

title: soldijtje


text: wegwerkzaamheidje

title: wegwerkzaamheidje


text: wegwerkzaamheidjes

title: wegwerkzaamheidjes


text: Somaliërtje

title: Somaliërtje


text: Somaliërtjes

title: Somaliërtjes


text: Somalischen

title: Somalischen


text:
Somalische

Noun

 * 1) female

title: Somalische


text:
Talk:loka

a Sanskrit word for "world". See
 * Nope. Sanskrit does not use this alphabet. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See Chuck Entz (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:loka


text: songwritertjes

title: songwritertjes


text: songwritertje

title: songwritertje


text:
色情狂

Noun

 * 1) abnormal sexual desire; sex mania; sexual perversion; nymphomania
 * 2) person with abnormal sexual desires; sex pervert; nymphomaniac

Noun

 * 1) sex mania, erotomania
 * 2) a sex maniac, an erotomaniac

title: 色情狂


text:
代表作

Noun

 * 1) representative work of an author, artist, etc.; magnum opus

Noun

 * 1) one's masterpiece, one's representative work

title: 代表作


text:
һағыҙ

Etymology
From.

Cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, etc.

Noun

 * 1) chewing gum
 * 2) gum, resin

title: һағыҙ


text: лгу

title: лгу


text:
abominnabliément

Adverb

 * 1)  abominably

title: abominnabliément


text:
rereviewer

Noun

 * 1)  One who reviews something a second time.

title: rereviewer


text: расстаёшься

title: расстаёшься


text: расстанешься

title: расстанешься


text:
conversationalization

Noun

 * 1) The adoption of an informal, chatty tone, so as to appear to create an interpersonal relationship with listeners or readers.

title: conversationalization


text:
infiltración

Noun

 * 1) infiltration

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) infiltration

title: infiltración


text:
autocine

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) drive-in outdoor cinema

title: autocine


text:
heraldo

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) herald messenger

title: heraldo


text:
falbalá

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) furbelow

title: falbalá


text:
condenación

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) condemnation

title: condenación


text:
autoayuda

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) self-help

title: autoayuda


text:
sarpullido

Etymology
Probably from, from , from.

Noun

 * 1)  dermatitis, rash area of reddened, irritated, and inflamed skin

title: sarpullido


text:
Citations:manhwa

Noun: "Korean comics"

 * 2004, Christopher Hart, Manhwa Mania: How to Draw Korean Comics, Watson-Guptill Publications (2004), ISBN 082302976X, page 7:
 * In fact, many manga fans don't realize that their favorite comics — such as Priest, Ragnarock, and Island — are actually Korean manhwa!
 * 2007, Jason Thompson, Manga: The Complete Guide, Del Rey (2007), ISBN 9780345539441, unnumbered page:
 * Since the Korean language reads left to right (unlike Chinese and Japanese), manhwa are printed left to right in the same format as English books.
 * 2008, Mark James Russell, Pop Goes Korea: Behind the Revolution in Movies, Music, and Internet Culture, Stone Bridge Press (2008), ISBN 9781611725421, unnumbered page:
 * As the best Japanese titles were mined, the American companies began to look for alternatives, and Tokyopop's founder Stuart Levy already had a budding interest in Korean manhwa.
 * 2012, Kim Se-joon, "Manhwa: A Boundless Treasure Trove of Cultural Content", Koreana, Volume 26, Number 1, Spring 2012:
 * There is a virtual flood of manhwa varieties that cover not only academic subjects such as literature, history, and science, but also everything from Korean and foreign legends and myths to daily-life skills.

title: Citations:manhwa


text:
beza

Etymology
Probably a hypercorrection of from.

Noun

 * 1) dissimilarity
 * 2) difference

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1) meringue

title: beza


text:
pesquero

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) fishing which or who is fishing
 * 2) fishing related to fishing

Noun

 * 1) fishing boat

title: pesquero


text:
fisher-boat

Noun

 * 1) A boat used for fishing.

title: fisher-boat


text:
latigazo

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) lash, whiplash stroke with a whip

title: latigazo


text:
floreciente

Adjective

 * 1) blooming

title: floreciente


text:
bemadam

Verb

 * 1)  To call by the title of madam.

title: bemadam


text: rokov

title: rokov


text:
중복되다

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1)  to duplicate, overlap, repeat

title: 중복되다


text:
bred-in-the-bone

Etymology
From the past participle of.

Adjective

 * 1)  Firmly established or instilled; deep-seated.
 * 2)  Inveterate or habitual; long-standing.
 * 1)  Inveterate or habitual; long-standing.
 * 1)  Inveterate or habitual; long-standing.
 * 1)  Inveterate or habitual; long-standing.

title: bred-in-the-bone


text:
យាយ

Etymology 1
Compare 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) grandmother
 * 2)  sugar mama

Verb

 * : to speak, say, talk, relate, tell
 * 1)  to narrate
 * 2)  to discuss, talk over
 * 3)  to be involved (with), get involved (with)

Pronoun

 * , which is

title: យាយ


text: encariñarse

title: encariñarse


text: Letterist

title: Letterist


text: Letterism

title: Letterism


text: Letterists

title: Letterists


text:
Lettrist

Noun

 * 1) A supporter of Lettrism.

title: Lettrist


text: Lettrists

title: Lettrists


text: idéalaithe

title: idéalaithe


text:
Isouian

Adjective

 * 1) Of or relating to  (1925–2007; born Ioan-Isidor Goldstein), Romanian-born French poet, film critic and visual artist, and founder of Lettrism.

title: Isouian


text: idéil

title: idéil


text:
Lettrism

Etymology
, ultimately from.

Proper noun

 * 1) A French avant-garde art and literary movement established in the mid-1940s, owing inspiration to Dada and surrealism.

title: Lettrism


text:
hypergraphy

Noun

 * 1) A key method of Lettrism that merges poetry with visual arts.

Usage notes
Not to be confused with, a medical term.

title: hypergraphy


text:
metagraphics

Noun

 * 1) hypergraphy

title: metagraphics


text:
seastead

Noun

 * 1) A permanent dwelling or settlement constructed at sea, outside the territory claimed by any national government.

title: seastead


text: seasteads

title: seasteads


text:
smjaś

Alternative forms

 * ssmȧsch sse

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

Verb

 * 1)  to laugh

Derived terms

 * dosmjaś se
 * nasmjaś se
 * pósmjaś se
 * pówusmjaś se
 * rozsmjaś se
 * zasmjaś se
 * zawusmjaś se
 * zasmjaś se
 * zawusmjaś se
 * zawusmjaś se

title: smjaś


text:
participe pâssé

Noun

 * 1)  past participle

title: participe pâssé


text: participes pâssés

title: participes pâssés


text: Category:km:Amphibians

title: Category:km:Amphibians


text:
Template:dsb-conj-67

Conjugation of aś (perfective)
 * Participles
 * Present:
 * Past active (“ł-form”):
 * Past passive:
 * Infinitive:
 * Supine:
 * Verbal noun:

title: Template:dsb-conj-67


text:
Template:dsb-conj-67/documentation

Usage
This template creates a conjugation table for Lower Sorbian verbs ending belonging to class 67. It takes a single positional parameter, namely the stem of the verb (the infinitive minus -aś), and the named parameter  for the aspect, imperfective   or perfective. For example, at, add:

Conjugation
and for, add:

title: Template:dsb-conj-67/documentation


text: Category:Khmer letters

title: Category:Khmer letters


text:
pèrrotchet

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1)  parakeet
 * 2)  topgallant sail

title: pèrrotchet


text: pèrrotchets

title: pèrrotchets


text:
pèrrot

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1)  parrot

title: pèrrot


text: pèrrots

title: pèrrots


text: Category:Old Galician-Portuguese terms derived from Romance languages


text:
pourpais

Etymology
From, , , from , from +.

Noun

 * 1)  porpoise

title: pourpais


text:
perpunte

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1) a padded jacket serving as armor

title: perpunte


text:
poudre à laver

Noun

 * 1) washing powder

Noun

 * 1)  washing powder, detergent

title: poudre à laver


text: poudres à laver

title: poudres à laver


text:
publyiquement

Adverb

 * 1)  publicly

title: publyiquement


text: gulēšot

title: gulēšot


text: Category:Lower Sorbian semelfactive verbs


text: negulēšot

title: negulēšot


text: peldēšot

title: peldēšot


text: nepeldēšot

title: nepeldēšot


text: aizstāvēšot

title: aizstāvēšot


text: neaizstāvēšot

title: neaizstāvēšot


text: gaisīšot

title: gaisīšot


text: negaisīšot

title: negaisīšot


text: frouques

title: frouques


text: machinnes

title: machinnes


text: gulētu

title: gulētu


text:
martel'lie

Noun

 * 1)  hammering
 * 1)  hammering

title: martel'lie


text: negulētu

title: negulētu


text:
machinn'nie

Noun

 * 1)  machinery

title: machinn'nie


text:
File talk:Arc-charents.jpg

Con-Struct In-Tel
As for my Whale Orgone-BASIC proverb for Kam-Sa: 쟁기질 못하는 놈이 소 탓한다... --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

title: File talk:Arc-charents.jpg


text:
adouothabliément

Adverb

 * 1)  adorably

title: adouothabliément


text:
capabliément

Adverb

 * 1)  ably

title: capabliément


text: Wiktionary:Foreign Word of the Day/2013/October 12


text:
d'sagriabliément

Adverb

 * 1)  churlishly

title: d'sagriabliément


text: peldētu

title: peldētu


text:
faîthabliément

Adverb

 * 1)  feasibly

title: faîthabliément


text:
faibliément

Adverb

 * 1)  weakly

title: faibliément


text: nepeldētu

title: nepeldētu


text:
doubliément

Adverb

 * 1)  doubly

title: doubliément


text:
fouaibliément

Adverb

 * 1)  feebly

title: fouaibliément


text:
hôrribliément

Adverb

 * 1)  horribly

title: hôrribliément


text: aizstāvētu

title: aizstāvētu


text:
împôssibliément

Adverb

 * 1)  impossibly

title: împôssibliément


text: neaizstāvētu

title: neaizstāvētu


text:
lamentabliément

Adverb

 * 1)  lamentably, deplorably

title: lamentabliément


text:
humbliément

Adverb

 * 1)  humbly

title: humbliément


text:
mangeabliément

Adverb

 * 1)  edibly

title: mangeabliément


text:
mînséthabliément

Adverb

 * 1)  miserably

title: mînséthabliément


text:
notabliément

Adverb

 * 1)  eminently

title: notabliément


text:
nobliément

Adverb

 * 1)  nobly

title: nobliément


text:
paisibliément

Adverb

 * 1)  peacefully

title: paisibliément


text: pâssabliément

title: pâssabliément


text:
pénibliément

Adverb

 * 1)  laboriously

title: pénibliément


text:
pitchiabliément

Adverb

 * 1)  pitifully

title: pitchiabliément


text:
possibliément

Adverb

 * 1)  possibly

title: possibliément


text:
préféthabliément

Adverb

 * 1)  preferably

title: préféthabliément


text:
extrapyramidally

Adverb

 * 1) Relative to the extrapyramidal pathways.
 * extrapyramidally active dopamine antagonists

title: extrapyramidally


text:
raisonnabliément

Adverb

 * 1)  reasonably

title: raisonnabliément


text:
respectabliément

Adverb

 * 1)  respectably

title: respectabliément


text:
responsabliément

Adverb

 * 1)  responsibly

title: responsabliément


text:
risibliément

Adverb

 * 1)  comically

title: risibliément


text:
r'mèrtchabliément

Adverb

 * 1)  remarkably

title: r'mèrtchabliément


text:
tèrribliément

Adverb

 * 1)  terribly

title: tèrribliément


text: jāguļ

title: jāguļ


text:
véthitabliément

Adverb

 * 1)  really

title: véthitabliément


text:
visibliément

Adverb

 * 1)  visibly

title: visibliément


text: jāpeld

title: jāpeld


text: jāaizstāv

title: jāaizstāv


text: jāgaist

title: jāgaist


text: jāguļot

title: jāguļot


text: jāpeldot

title: jāpeldot


text: jāaizstāvot

title: jāaizstāvot


text: jāgaistot

title: jāgaistot


text: handicappeds

title: handicappeds


text:
unrewardingness

Noun

 * 1) The quality of being unrewarding.

title: unrewardingness


text:
gulējis

Participle

 * 1) having slept, having lain down;

title: gulējis


text: disableds

title: disableds


text:
undisabled

Adjective

 * 1) Not having been disabled.

title: undisabled


text:
negulējis

Participle

 * 1) not having slept, not having lain down;

title: negulējis


text:
peldējis

Participle

 * 1) having swum, having floated, having sailed;

title: peldējis


text:
nepeldējis

Participle

 * 1) not having swum, not having floated, not having sailed;

title: nepeldējis


text:
aizstāvējis

Participle

 * 1) having defended;

title: aizstāvējis


text:
neaizstāvējis

Participle

 * 1) not having defended;

title: neaizstāvējis


text:
gaisis

Participle

 * 1) having dissipated, evaporated, faded, disappeared;

title: gaisis


text:
negaisis

Participle

 * 1) not having dissipated, evaporated, faded, disappeared;

title: negaisis


text:
guļošs

Participle

 * 1) sleeping, lying down;

title: guļošs


text:
gulošs

Participle

 * 1) sleeping, lying down;

title: gulošs


text:
neguļošs

Participle

 * 1) not sleeping, not lying down;

title: neguļošs


text:
negulošs

Participle

 * 1) not sleeping, not lying down;

title: negulošs


text:
peldošs

Participle

 * 1) swimming, floating, sailing;

title: peldošs


text:
nepeldošs

Participle

 * 1) not swimming, not floating, not sailing;

title: nepeldošs


text:
aizstāvošs

Participle

 * 1) defending;

title: aizstāvošs


text:
neaizstāvošs

Participle

 * 1) not defending;

title: neaizstāvošs


text:
gaistošs

Participle

 * 1) dissipating, evaporating, fading, disappearing;

title: gaistošs


text:
negaistošs

Participle

 * 1) not dissipating, not evaporating, not fading, not disappearing;

title: negaistošs


text:
gulēdams

Participle

 * 1) sleeping, lying down;

title: gulēdams


text:
negulēdams

Participle

 * 1) not sleeping, not lying down;

title: negulēdams


text:
peldēdams

Participle

 * 1) swimming, floating, sailing;

title: peldēdams


text:
nepeldēdams

Participle

 * 1) not swimming, not floating, not sailing;

title: nepeldēdams


text:
aizstāvēdams

Participle

 * 1) defending;

title: aizstāvēdams


text:
neaizstāvēdams

Participle

 * 1) not defending;

title: neaizstāvēdams


text:
gaisdams

Participle

 * 1) dissipating, evaporating, fading, disappearing;

title: gaisdams


text:
negaisdams

Participle

 * 1) not dissipating, not evaporating, not fading, not disappearing;

title: negaisdams


text: gulēdama

title: gulēdama


text: gulēdami

title: gulēdami


text: gulēdamas

title: gulēdamas


text: negulēdama

title: negulēdama


text: negulēdami

title: negulēdami


text: negulēdamas

title: negulēdamas


text: peldēdama

title: peldēdama


text: peldēdami

title: peldēdami


text: peldēdamas

title: peldēdamas


text:
スス

Noun

 * 1) willow

title: スス


text: nepeldēdama

title: nepeldēdama


text: nepeldēdami

title: nepeldēdami


text: nepeldēdamas

title: nepeldēdamas


text: aizstāvēdama

title: aizstāvēdama


text: aizstāvēdami

title: aizstāvēdami


text: aizstāvēdamas

title: aizstāvēdamas


text: neaizstāvēdama

title: neaizstāvēdama


text: neaizstāvēdami

title: neaizstāvēdami


text: neaizstāvēdamas

title: neaizstāvēdamas


text: gaisdama

title: gaisdama


text: gaisdami

title: gaisdami


text: gaisdamas

title: gaisdamas


text: negaisdama

title: negaisdama


text: negaisdami

title: negaisdami


text: negaisdamas

title: negaisdamas


text: craftinesses

title: craftinesses


text:
guļams

Participle

 * 1) which can or should be slept (in), lain (on);
 * 2) usually definite forms that which is used for sleeping; that which is related to sleeping

title: guļams


text:
neguļams

Participle

 * 1) which cannot or should not be slept (in), lain on;

title: neguļams


text:
peldams

Participle

 * 1) which can or should be swum, floated, sailed (in);

title: peldams


text:
nepeldams

Participle

 * 1) which cannot or should not be swum, floated, sailed (in);

title: nepeldams


text:
aizstāvams

Participle

 * 1) which can or should be defended;

title: aizstāvams


text:
neaizstāvams

Participle

 * 1) which cannot or should not be defended;

title: neaizstāvams


text:
gulēts

Participle

 * 1) slept (in);

title: gulēts


text:
negulēts

Participle

 * 1) not slept (in);

title: negulēts


text:
peldēts

Participle

 * 1) swum, floated, sailed;

title: peldēts


text: breachers

title: breachers


text:
nepeldēts

Participle

 * 1) not swum, not floated, not sailed;

title: nepeldēts


text:
aizstāvēts

Participle

 * 1) defended;

title: aizstāvēts


text:
neaizstāvēts

Participle

 * 1) not defended;

title: neaizstāvēts


text:
Etruscus

Etymology
From or related to (compare Tuscus). Probably related to 🇨🇬, and Ancient Greek, , from , , itself of pre-Indo-European origin, in which case might be a native Etruscan word simply meaning "tower people" (as opposed to the Rasennae, see below). See Τυρσηνία.

Helmut Rix, based on the distinction made by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, assumed that, (nomen), , derived from the original  name, while Rasna (from Etruscan , and whence ), like populus, originally designated the part of the population of Etruria which had political responsibility.

Vladimir Georgiev suggested that the word had the same root as and, but Philip Baldi notes that "though superficially attractive, these claims do not stand up to linguistic scrutiny, with the unexplained E [...] and the spurious metathesis of r and the following vowel in Gk. Τυρσηνοί just two of the problems."

In the past, other scholars have proposed that the term might be.

Adrian Room compares other language isolate ethnonyms, such as Basque, hinted by the -sc- element found in, , and older Latin forms of 🇨🇬; see Liguria.

Adjective

 * 1) of or pertaining to Etruria, Etruscan

Noun

 * 1)  one of the people of Etruria, an Etruscan

title: Etruscus


text:
gulēšana

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) sleeping, lying down;

title: gulēšana


text:
negulēšana

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) not sleep, not lying down;

title: negulēšana


text:
peldēšana

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) swimming, floating, sailing;

title: peldēšana


text:
ambìdar

Etymology
.

Adverb

 * 1)  again

title: ambìdar


text:
ambràlle

Adverb

 * 1)  everywhere

title: ambràlle


text:
ambrùmme

Etymology
.

Adverb

 * 1)  why

title: ambrùmme


text:
amelméel

Etymology
First element ultimately from. Second element.

Noun

 * 1)  starch

title: amelméel


text:
ammèarst

Etymology
. Compare 🇨🇬.

Adverb

 * 1)  first, first of all

title: ammèarst


text:
amèerstenaan

Etymology
. Compare 🇨🇬.

Adverb

 * 1)  at first

title: amèerstenaan


text:
ammelésten

Etymology
. Compare 🇨🇬.

Adverb

 * 1)  finally, lastly

title: ammelésten


text:
ammìndor

Etymology
. Compare 🇨🇬.

Adverb

 * 1)  at least

title: ammìndor


text:
nepeldēšana

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) not swimming, not floating, not sailing;

title: nepeldēšana


text:
aizstāvēšana

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) defending, defense;

title: aizstāvēšana


text:
neaizstāvēšana

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) not defending;

title: neaizstāvēšana


text: andarn

title: andarn


text:
gaišana

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) dissipating, evaporating, fading, disappearing;

title: gaišana


text:
andarstba

Adverb

 * 1) elsewhere

title: andarstba


text:
andarstbìa

Adverb

 * 1)  otherwise, or else

title: andarstbìa


text:
negaišana

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) not dissipating, not evaporating, not fading, not disappearing;

title: negaišana


text: gulēšanā

title: gulēšanā


text: negulēšanā

title: negulēšanā


text: peldēšanā

title: peldēšanā


text: neaizstavēšanā

title: neaizstavēšanā


text: nepeldēšanā

title: nepeldēšanā


text: gaišanā

title: gaišanā


text: negaišanā

title: negaišanā


text: gulēšanu

title: gulēšanu


text: negulēšanu

title: negulēšanu


text: peldēšanu

title: peldēšanu


text: nepeldēšanu

title: nepeldēšanu


text: aizstāvēšanu

title: aizstāvēšanu


text: neaizstāvēšanu

title: neaizstāvēšanu


text: gaišanu

title: gaišanu


text: negaišanu

title: negaišanu


text:
Citations:jelly

Adjective: "(slang) jealous"

 * 2011, "Exchange smiles, not saliva", The Banner (Grand Blanc High School), Volume 47, Issue 2, December 2011, page 17:
 * "I think other people make rude comments because they're jelly [jealous] bro," Schroer said. "We're just showing our love to other people."
 * 2013, Advertisement, Blitz (University of New South Wales), Session 2, Week 9, September 2013, page 3:
 * Off-the-charts street cred (but be warned: those not living on campus will be totes jelly and may try to move in with you).
 * 2013, Advertisement, Blitz (University of New South Wales), Session 2, Week 9, September 2013, page 3:
 * Off-the-charts street cred (but be warned: those not living on campus will be totes jelly and may try to move in with you).
 * Off-the-charts street cred (but be warned: those not living on campus will be totes jelly and may try to move in with you).

title: Citations:jelly


text:
antòal

Pronoun

 * 1)  someone, some (people)

title: antòal


text: gulēšanas

title: gulēšanas


text: gulēšanai

title: gulēšanai


text: negulēšanas

title: negulēšanas


text: negulēšanai

title: negulēšanai


text: peldēšanas

title: peldēšanas


text: peldēšanai

title: peldēšanai


text:
aorn

Etymology
From, from. Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1)  maple

title: aorn


text: nepeldēšanas

title: nepeldēšanas


text: nepeldēšanai

title: nepeldēšanai


text: aizstāvēšanas

title: aizstāvēšanas


text: aizstāvēšanai

title: aizstāvēšanai


text: neaizstāvēšanas

title: neaizstāvēšanas


text:
èar

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

Pronoun

 * 1) he

Etymology 2
From, from.

Noun

 * 1)  air

title: èar


text: neaizstāvēšanai

title: neaizstāvēšanai


text: gaišanas

title: gaišanas


text: gaišanai

title: gaišanai


text: negaišanas

title: negaišanas


text: negaišanai

title: negaišanai


text: aizstāvēšanā

title: aizstāvēšanā


text: Category:Cimbrian adverbs

title: Category:Cimbrian adverbs


text: Category:Cimbrian adjectives

title: Category:Cimbrian adjectives


text: Category:Cimbrian pronouns

title: Category:Cimbrian pronouns


text: èrme

title: èrme


text:
armakhot

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  poverty

title: armakhot


text:
armaaran

Etymology
Borrowed from, from.

Verb

 * 1)  to arm supply with weapons

title: armaaran


text:
askh

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

Numeral

 * 1)  eighty

Derived terms

 * 81: òan-un-askh
 * 82: sbéen-un-askh
 * 83: drai-un-askh
 * 84: viar-un-askh
 * 85: bümb-un-askh
 * 86: zèks-un-askh
 * 87: ziban-un-askh
 * 88: acht-un-askh
 * 89: nòin-un-askh

title: askh


text:
asàbasen

Adverb

 * 1)  in the evening

title: asàbasen


text:
asbèg

Etymology
. Compare 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) out of the way, remote
 * 2) off-road
 * 3) adrift
 * 4) astray

title: asbèg


text: -atz

title: -atz


text:
au, au

Interjection

 * 1)  come on! expression of encouragement

title: au, au


text:
aubo

Etymology
From. Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) tawny owl
 * 2) a poorly-dressed woman

title: aubo


text:
aufar

Adverb

 * 1)  up here

title: aufar


text: Category:Cimbrian suffixes

title: Category:Cimbrian suffixes


text: Category:Cimbrian morphemes

title: Category:Cimbrian morphemes


text:
ausonte

Adjective

 * 1)  external

Noun

 * 1)  outside

title: ausonte


text:
darkfic

Noun

 * 1)  A fanfic which deals with disturbing situations and themes.
 * 2) * 2010, John Lennard, Of Sex and Faerie: Further Essays on Genre Fiction, ISBN 9781847601711, page 283 (footnote):
 * 'Tides' is not in the narrow, torture-room sense a darkfic but does provocatively posit great destruction and suffering.
 * 1)  Such fan fiction collectively.
 * 1)  Such fan fiction collectively.
 * 1)  Such fan fiction collectively.

title: darkfic


text: darkfics

title: darkfics


text:
aussòppan

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1)  to unclog

title: aussòppan


text:
autar

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

Noun

 * 1)  breast, breasts

Etymology
From.

Pronunciation

 * /awˈta/, /awˈtar/ limousin
 * France (Béarn)

Noun

 * 1) altar

title: autar


text:
avrell

Etymology
From, from , borrowed from. .

Noun

 * 1)  April

title: avrell


text: avrelle

title: avrelle


text:
azò

Etymology
From, from , from +. Cognate with 🇨🇬; compare also 🇨🇬.

Adverb

 * 1)  so, therefore
 * 2) so, like that, like, as
 * 1) so, like that, like, as

title: azò


text:
心気症

Noun

 * 1) hypochondria

title: 心気症


text:
ヒポコンデリー

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) hypochondria

title: ヒポコンデリー


text: Category:cim:List of related-to categories


text: Category:cim:All topics

title: Category:cim:All topics


text:
User talk:JTojnar

Ultimateria (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:JTojnar


text:
事情通

Noun

 * 1) An expert or someone who is quite knowledgeable about certain situations, especially the background of certain matters.

title: 事情通


text:
αργία

Noun

 * 1) bank holiday
 * 2) unemployment
 * 3) suspension, garden leave
 * 1) suspension, garden leave

title: αργία


text: αργίας

title: αργίας


text: αργιών

title: αργιών


text: αργίες

title: αργίες


text:
User:JTojnar

Hi, my name is Jan Tojnar and I am interested in linguistics, particularly etymology. My native language is Czech and I can also express myself in English quite well. One year during my high school time I also took some classes of Spanish and Latin but both were canceled pretty soon so I have only got basics. I am attending German class third year now but I wouldn’t consider it my strong point because I lacked motivation to learn it properly. Recently I've been studying Japanese so maybe I could be fluent someday.

title: User:JTojnar


text:
Πρωτομαγιά

Etymology
.

Proper noun

 * 1) May 1st, May Day, International Workers' Day

title: Πρωτομαγιά