text:
Talk:六人行

RFD discussion: May–July 2016
"Friends; a popular American television show." This doesn't belong in a dictionary. —suzukaze (t・c) 07:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Delete, at least this sense. Of interest, the Chinese word for "friends" is 朋友们; the subject of this RfD literally translates as "six people in a row (in descending order)". The TV show started airing in 1994, but a Google Books search for uses before that date yields a number of hits. However, I can't tell if these are SOP, or if there is a set phrase in there that could justify an entry. bd2412 T 15:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not very sure, but it seems like the entry has the wrong pronunciation. AFAIK, it should be read as liùrénxíng, so "six people in a row (in descending order)" doesn't make sense. 六人行 generally means a trip with six people. 六 could be replaced with any number. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 06:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do we need an entry for 人行, then? bd2412 T 11:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. 六人 means "six people", and modifies 行. This just uses another sense of 行. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:六人行


text:
Talk:การที่ผู้ชายมีเพศสัมพันธ์กับเด็กชาย

RFD discussion: May–July 2016
The creator of the entry possibly took the phrase from the name of an article on the Thai Wikipedia. And the person who created that article might have taken a "definition" provided by Lexitron Dictionary to be the name of the article. But, as I said, it's a "definition" rather than a "term". การที่ผู้ชายมีเพศสัมพันธ์กับเด็กชาย literally means "an act in which a male person has sexual relationships with a male child" or "an act of a male person having sexual relationships with a male child". As for the Thai Wikipedia's article, I will have it properly renamed later. --YURi (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, entry creator does not actually know Thai. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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


text:
Talk:Asianization

RFD discussion: June–August 2016
The second sense should likely be merged into the first one while meaning nearly the same thing. There is no difference when translating to Mandarin.--Jusjih (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the salient difference is def 1 is based on an intransitive verb sense (becoming), and def 2 on a transitive verb (converting to), dunno if these can be combined neatly in one def. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn.--Jusjih (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Asianization


text:
Talk:I need a compass

RFD discussion: June–August 2016
I admit I created this in 2010, but "I need a compass" does not sound like an entry very likely to be used, even though people added translations in multiple languages. Maybe the entry could just be speedied. We do have "I need ...". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Easily constructible from I need ... and compass, which will even make it possible to determine which sense of "compass" is meant. (As it stands, I don't know whether to use the entry when I need a little watch-like thing with a needle that points north or when I need a pointy thing to draw a circle with.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Weak delete. I think that having "I need" + noun is generally sufficient: even if someone gets the gender or case wrong somehow they are still very likely to be understood. OTOH I've seen worse phrasebook stuff. Hah! Equinox ◑ 08:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - along with most of the phrasebook. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. How many people actually need a compass these days? Or, more to the point, how many people need to ask for one in another language? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * lol, I want Chuck logic to be applied to all the sexy phrasebook entries. Equinox ◑ 12:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently I need a GPS would score more phrasebook points than I need a compass. (but I'm not suggesting we should have the GPS one) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Delete per Chuck and also, does not find anything. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:I need a compass


text:
Talk:second language acquisition

RFD discussion: June–August 2016
Hi all, just added this, and don't believe it is SOP. Basically, SLA studies people learning a third language, or a fourth language, etc., as well as just a second language. There is no "third language acquisition" as a subject, etc. Taking a strictly SOP view of the word, it would only ever apply to the acquisition of a second language. But, as it was speedily deleted first time around I have RFD'd it. Voting open. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 * It's second language + acquisition. Note that second language already covers things like a third or fourth language. Equinox ◑ 09:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Equinox. DCDuring TALK 10:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Equinox. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Okay, point noted about second language. Nevertheless, second language acquisition in the def I have given it is not simply SOP second language + acquisition. There is nothing in the term itself that indicates that it is a field of study, thus it is not in the same class as first language acquisition, or foreign language acquisition, or mother tongue acquisition which are indeed SOP and are not fields of academic inquiry. I can't really see how it is not in the same class as discourse analysis (clearly the analysis of discourse), or physics or chemistry or environmental science or philosophy of science etc., all of which we have entries for the semantic field of academic discipline. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * First-language acquisition is a field of academic study, but it's usually simply called language acquisition. That said, I agree that this is a set phrase or term of art, so we should probably keep it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. We keep idioms, not terms of art (i.e. collocations that someone likes). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's SOP, we need to add a sense to acquisition and/or acquire, because at the moment none of the existing definitions of those words cover this sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That we lack a definition that would be required to make an MWE SoP is not evidence of anything, except that we need to look at entries for the word at dictionaries we didn't copy from. Sometimes we omit a current sense, sometimes we deleted a sense that MW 1913 or Century 1911 had, sometimes our wording is excessively narrow. There are other possibilities. DCDuring TALK 19:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is, I don't know what other words besides "language" this sense of "acquire"/"acquisition" is used with. We could add a sense "experience" to and a sense "death" to  and then delete  as SOP too, but I wouldn't recommend it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't matter, because it is used with any language acquisition, not only with the phrase "second language". You can say "first language acquisition", "during the early period of acquisition", "acquisition of Chinese", etc. --WikiTiki89 20:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Skill/expertise/fluency/taste and hyponyms thereof can be acquired.
 * Some collocations in which acquisition follows an attributive modifier:
 * audio lingual acquisition
 * data acquisition
 * first language acquisition
 * infant language acquisition
 * knowledge acquisition
 * language acquisition
 * ontology acquisition
 * blood unit acquisition
 * sample data acquisition
 * source data acquisition
 * speech acquisition
 * talent acquisition
 * target acquisition
 * vocabulary acquisition
 * windows image acquisition
 * DCDuring TALK 23:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of those examples seem to be just SOP (e.g. talent acquisition, blood unit acquisition), which are well covered by the defs of those individual terms if they were to be looked up in isolation - however, if you look up second language and then look up acquisition you do not find out that second language acquisition is a field of study. Thus it is an idiom (in Wiktionary's sense of that word). As in this quote ...obviously the acquiring of a second language is not "concerned with hypotheses" - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the sense of acquisition in collocation with skill, fluency, vocabulary, speech, and knowledge is completely different from its sense with language? To me they seem virtually identical. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying anything about the meaning of acquisition. What I am saying is that in some terms of which the word forms a part are idiomatic, not SOP, or rather, specifically in the compound noun second language acquisition - which means more than the acquisition of a second or other language. I can't really see why environmental science is not SOP while second language acquisition is. Can anyone explain the difference? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one to best defend having an entry for environmental science. I think the underlying logic is that there is an institutional reality to it, such as that underlying ESL. Perhaps it is also that one says "The science involved is environmental science." rather than "The science involved is environmental.". But just as we don't have entries for titles of books, we don't have entries for titles of courses or groups of courses or headings in course catalogs, which classes of uses would seem to be the best support for the entry.
 * I don't see what additional meaning there is to second language acquisition other than second language + acquisition or acquisition of a second language. (Note that the commonness of the latter alternate demonstrates that second language acquisition is not a set phrase.) DCDuring TALK 12:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you comments DCDuring. What seems clear to me is that you cannot substitute acquisition of a second language into the sentence "Additionally, second language acquisition is concerned with the nature of the hypotheses" - it just wouldn't make any sense. However, you could substitute the name of another field of academic study, e.g. chemistry, environmental science, etc. Then the sentence would make perfect sense. Thus we can conclude acquisition of a second language is not equivalent to second language acquisition ... in this case (i.e. for this meaning). Originally, I wrote two defs, the first being "the acquisition of a language other than one's primary language or mother tongue" (or something along those lines) and the second being, "the field of study ..." - I don't deny the first is SOP, it most assuredly is, but I maintain that the second is not SOP. SLA is not just the name of a course (or book, or chapter), though there are many courses named SLA, since it is commonly studied. There are many courses named Philosophy of Science, Environmental Science, etc., but this doesn't preclude those words having a dictionary definition. Finally, a set phrase can have a synonym (that is either a set phrase or not) - so I don't agree that the existence of a synthetic synonym demonstrates that a lexical item is not a set phrase, as a general rule, that is. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Equinox and Wikitiki89. - -sche (discuss) 01:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't argue to keep this, but either way we should have language acquisition. Ƿidsiþ 08:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say keep - it is a term that crops up quite often, more so than language acquisition. DonnanZ (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. Umm, not looking good for keeping this (despite my entirely logical arguments, heigh ho). But, if the entry does get removed, then, what will become of this discussion? Where will it be archived? Also, if someone else tries to add the same entry in the future, will they be provided with the info amassed here? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be at Talk:second language acquisition. DCDuring TALK 02:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 21:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:second language acquisition


text:
Talk:Regrexit

RFD discussion: June–August 2016
I don't think this can be considered a hot word. I don't see any reason to believe people won't forget about this word within a year. --WikiTiki89 19:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not? It's no more unpredictable than any other hot word. DTLHS (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hot words are supposed to be things that are almost certain. Like official new names for species or chemical elements, or perhaps the nicknames given to an event itself (Brexit could have been a hot word if it weren't already attestable for several years), but a feeling about an event does not have any momentum behind it. --WikiTiki89 20:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Brexit has a lot of momentum behind it, and people are certainly going to keep talking about their feelings and regrets about it for many years. DTLHS (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course Brexit itself is going to be talked about, but people aren't necessarily going to use the word regrexit for their feeling of regret. Brexit itself has become the accepted name of the event, so whenever people talk about it, they are likely to use this name, but the feeling of regrexit can easily just be called regret. Of course it's possible that regrexit could become a more politically significant feeling and phenomenon like, I don't know, glasnost or something (not an exact equivalent, but close enough), but I don't see any evidence of that yet. --WikiTiki89 20:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We adopted the "hot word" idea to allow Wiktionary to include topical terms that our "spanning one year" rule allowed. One benefit is that once we have three citations that demonstrate usage of a term in current use, we don't have to argue about whether its conditional inclusion will become permanent. We just wait and see. DCDuring TALK 20:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Delete. This is an abuse of hot words. We can't allow protologisms in that even the media are not using in a widespread way. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not used in a widespread manner? It's been used by all the major English language media outlets, print, TV and radio. I suppose that would not not even used by the media if all the English language media were considered to not be the media. -- 70.51.200.20 03:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it citable now? (3) from our usual sources, News and Usenet being the ones that are timely? DCDuring TALK 00:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, since it was only invented last week. DTLHS (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Keep The Guardian used it 24 June. There have been a flood of uses in durably archived print media since. IOW, it is the very model of a hot word. DCDuring TALK 00:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems to have an aroma of censorship prescriptivism dyspepsia? DCDuring TALK 10:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 * We adopted the hot word policy to allow premature inclusion of words that we agree are likely to remain in use for over a year since the first attestation . Not to allow any neologism that happens to have been used recently in durably archived sources. This isn't about censorship, this is about whether we are confident that we won't have to delete it in the future, and I am not confident. --WikiTiki89 16:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 * On the other hand, from a technical standpoint, if we allow such terms as "hot words" and categorize them appropriately, it's very easy to find such "hot words" that are now one year old, and then systemically go through and see if they're still in use / still citable.
 * Put another way, if correctly categorized, we can fix any potential problems easily enough once the one-year time limit has come due. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See Category:Hot words older than a year. DCDuring TALK 20:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But that's not the point. That enables us to verify that we didn't make any mistakes, but that doesn't give us the right to be careless. --WikiTiki89 20:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What is careless about adding these "hot words"? Do you mean that we shouldn't be careless as we gaze into our crystal balls, attempting to discern if a given term might still be in popular use one year from now?  I'm more interested in lexicography than prophecy.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're not interested, then why are you discussing this? We're not attempting to predict the future, we're attempting to evaluate whether there are any objective criteria that would make the term likely to survive. Not every neologism can be added as a hot word. I nominated it for deletion because I don't think there is anything about this term that makes it more likely to survive than any random neologism. If you disagree, you can state your reasons and vote keep, but there's no need to scream about censorship and crystal balls. --WikiTiki89 18:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Suppose we establish some baseline of sources that make it reasonable to proceed with a hot word for some set period? bd2412 T 19:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not about sources, it's about reasoning. Hot words started with the word, which was announced as the new of a newly discovered species. It was almost certain that the word would survive, because it was officially announced. There is nothing (yet) about the word regrexit that guarantees its survival. I'd appreciate it if we would go back to talking specifically about the word regrexit and not about the process in general. I have seen no one explaining why it is likely to survive. --WikiTiki89 20:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * after edit conflict: @WikiTiki89, it seems my tone did not come across as I intended. I'm more puzzled and querying than screaming.  And I haven't said anything about censorship...?  Re:  specifically, I counter that I see no reason for it to completely disappear -- it's a useful enough portmanteau of  +  that I can more easily imagine that it will find some use, perhaps sporadic, than that it will fall into complete oblivion.  Beyond our respective opinions, however, we have nothing to go on -- we are attempting to divine the future, which I believe to be both not lexicography, and not particularly fruitful.
 * That aside, @bd2412, that proposal sounds good to me. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it was DCDuring who was screaming about censorship. And I'm sorry, but I couldn't hear your tone through the all those cyberwaves. --WikiTiki89 20:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't understand the motivation for singling out this particular term or, for that matter, any particular term. I often wonder about my own visceral, usually negative, reaction to new terms. Eg, I hate almost all blends, unless they are funny. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that it is likely to survive for at least a year since the subject is of such broad significance and since the press will be talking about the process of Britain leaving the EU for at least the next two years. It is certainly not a foregone conclusion that this will be around for more than a year, but I would put money on it surviving our CFI after a year has elapsed. - TheDaveRoss 20:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Our normal standards for attestation seem adequate for this purpose. So, relaxing only the "spanning one year" requirement should give us attestation in durably archived sources, probably mostly newspapers, UseNet, and scholarly journals. I see no reason to limit sources. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would prefer a limitation to higher-level sources (professional, peer-reviewed) for "hot" words. I do think regrexit is covered in those, so a imposition like that would be of no moment to this particular discussion. bd2412 T 10:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This suggestion is an excellent bit of evidence supporting my intuition that there is an academic/intellectual-elitist bias among many here. Such a requirement would cut us off from the vital living edge of language, while it was in its earliest, but popular and visible, stages. DCDuring TALK 10:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Such a requirement would also cut us off from the vital living edge of people abusing the process and literally making up words that will never see use by the public and throwing them on internet forums in order to get them in Wiktionary. bd2412 T 11:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do any two people want to WP:GAME and collude with me in a Usenet thread where the three of us use the same word? Equinox ◑ 11:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I regrexit to inform you that I will not be able to participate in such deceit. Did I do that right? - TheDaveRoss 11:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @bd2412, is used extensively in major media.  "Gaming the system" appears to be a red herring, at least with regard to not requiring peer-reviewed sources.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have noted above that I don't think this objection would apply to regrexit; however, precisely because the word has been used in professional publications. Don't put it past people to try to manufacture words into the language, particularly where there is some political or commercial angle to exploit. We have seen a share of those come through here. bd2412 T 17:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But, words get "manufactured" all the time, by corporate entities or by people.  Just because a word is "manufactured" doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. It does mean it will eventually have to pass RfV, though. Pur ple back pack 89   14:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Right now, however, we are talking about the special case of "hot words", which need to offer some exceptional reason to believe that they will be used for years into the future. bd2412 T 21:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Keep: This is another one of those RfVs that's pretending to be an RfD. Nominator has provided no reason why this violates SOP (which it clearly doesn't) or anything else we address at RfD.  We can mark it as a hot word now, and if it really dies out, we can delete it in a year. Pur ple back pack 89   13:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to Keep, agreeing with PBP although I don't feel super strongly. Regrexit is all over the news, to such an extent that it seems likely it will still exist in a year, and if not we can always delete it. My one beef is that most uses of the word appear to capitalize it so we should probably do so too. Benwing2 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 * It does seem that this word is catching on and I no longer feel as strongly about it as when I nominated it. However, I do think think that at the time it was added, it was a bit too early. --WikiTiki89 20:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Keep. It seems to me that this word is likely to catch on enough to make it past the one-year mark, and even if it doesn't, there's no harm done. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 17:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Abstain: I am not too happy about the whole hot word concept, but many seem to like it, and it does not seem really harmful, merely an avoidable increase of complexity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * in pursuit of increased relevance of Wiktionary to new, ordinary users, which may be a vain pursuit, given the greater attentiveness to such users by commercial dictionaries, like Collins and UD. We could be more inclusive and responsive that Collins and more discriminating than UD, but only at the price a avoidable complexity. DCDuring TALK 10:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't seem to qualify as a hot word to me either, especially as it still isn't clear whether this term or bregret/Bregret is going to be the dominant term. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So now we're picking winners in a language chock full of "duplicate" words. Are we trying to be the English version of one of the language-protection organizations? We have a simple procedure for dropping "hot words" that don't keep their traction. DCDuring TALK 12:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We're following our own rules: three attestations in permanently archived media over the course of more than a year. "Hot words" are meant to be exceptions for blatantly obvious cases where it's clear that (1) people are still going to be talking about the concept in a year's time, and (2) people are still going to be calling it by this name in a year's time. It's not at all clear that either of those conditions are met for "regrexit". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is ever really crystal-clear that something is going to last a year? Is it clear this isn't?  It seems to me that a lot of the arguments for deletion here boil down to either a) guessing about something you can't know for a year, but WILL know then, or b) disdain at the process of hot words altogether. Pur ple back pack 89   14:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are cases like olinguito that are a lot clearer than this one. For olinguito, there was little doubt that the animal would continue to be talked about and that olinguito would continue to be its name. It isn't clear that this isn't going to last a year, but that's not a high enough bar to break the rules over. The point is, it is entirely possible that no one will be talking about "regrexit" in 13 months' time, and even if they are, it is entirely possible that they won't be using the term "regrexit" for it. That possibility says to me that this isn't a "hot word" and needs to wait 13 months before being entered into the dictionary. In the meantime, citations for it can be added to Citations:regrexit. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it makes perfect sense to create words as soon as they become "hot words" and keep them until people stop using them (assuming they fail to meet CFI), since that's when people are going to be encountering the word and looking up what it means. It doesn't always make sense to wait until we're fairly confident they're going to stay, since people are going to be looking them up before then. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There you go again, bringing up points like utility to normal users. I suppose you think "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means."
 * It might be reasonable to exclude UseNet as sole source of attestation unless the "spanning one year" standard were met. That way we could remain elitist and yet include new terms that PLUs might be interested in. DCDuring TALK 12:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what Andrew's position on utility is, but what you've said in quotes sums up mine. Pur ple back pack 89  13:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought you'd recognize the quote as being from WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 17:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Keep. My crystal ball tells me that people - including academics - will be writing books about the whole Brexit event and who voted for it and against it and why and what the consequences were for a long time to come - and the regrexit part of the even will find a place in such texts - esp. as it will be interesting to see if regrexiters sustained their regret as the true outcomes of the vote eventually eventuated. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Kept - for now. Since the basis for keeping is inclusion as a hot word, this can be revisited if it seems like the word will die off without becoming CFI-worthy under normal circumstances. bd2412 T 01:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Regrexit


text:
Talk:one-time-only

RFD discussion: March–July 2016

 * See Talk:one time only.

title: Talk:one-time-only


text: acetylchitooligosaccharides

title: acetylchitooligosaccharides


text: acylglycerophosphoglycerols

title: acylglycerophosphoglycerols


text: acylglycerophosphoinositols

title: acylglycerophosphoinositols


text:
thunderbug

Noun

 * 1) A thrips.

title: thunderbug


text:
קוויטל

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * : little note, slip of paper
 * 1)  a kvitel a petitionary prayer given to a rebbe

title: קוויטל


text:
Talk:balzamizar

RFV discussion: March–August 2016
Ido for embalm. All I can find is this mention. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:balzamizar


text:
Talk:mapuey

RFV discussion: March–July 2016
rfv of the English section:
 * 1) Another name for the vegetable name

I've been rewriting everything with this definition, because name is a rather local name for true yams, and shouldn't be used as the main entry. In this case, though, I have my doubts as to whether mapuey is truly an English term. It certainly appears in English texts, but so far all I've been able to find look to me like mentions of it as a Spanish word. Maybe others will have better luck. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:mapuey


text:
Talk:aktoriĉo

RFV discussion: March–August 2016
Esperanto for "male actor". I see one mention on Usenet, but no uses on Google Groups, Google Books, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 * This is a "riismo" form, not standard traditional Esperanto. AnonMoos (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:aktoriĉo


text:
Talk:leoniĉo

RFV discussion: March–August 2016
Esperanto for "male lion". Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 * This is a "riismo" form, not standard traditional Esperanto. AnonMoos (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:leoniĉo


text:
Talk:evidation

RFV discussion: March–July 2016
Any takers? (other than as the name of a US healthcare company) SemperBlotto (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:evidation


text:
Talk:各子

RFV discussion: May–August 2016
Is this an incorrect form of 個子? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 20:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:各子


text:
Talk:อาชีพที่เก่าแก่ที่สุดในโลก

RFV discussion: May–August 2016
Possibly a straight translation of English "world's oldest profession". But the existence and usage of such a term in the Thai language are in doubt. --YURi (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:อาชีพที่เก่าแก่ที่สุดในโลก


text:
Talk:higher being

RFV discussion: May–August 2016
Rfv-sense: "When not classified by a specific religion, common title for the indefinite belief in a god of some form." Not sure what that is supposed to mean exactly. A being is not a "belief" is it? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Apart from that bad phrasing, it seems redundant to sense 1. Equinox ◑ 11:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this an RfV, an RfD, or an RfC? Or should obvious errors (eg, def worded for wrong PoS, wrong hypernym, eg, "A being is not a 'belief'") be corrected in lieu of RfC? DCDuring TALK 11:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

 * RFV failed: no citations provided. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:higher being


text:
Talk:สวัส

RFV discussion: April–July 2016
There's no such word. --iudexvivorum (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The right word is สวัสดิ์ (สวัสดิ-) which becomes สวัสดี. สวัสดี is not come from สวัส+ดี. Additionally, all of them do not mean happiness. (We could request for deletion instead?) --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If lack of existence is its problem, it's in the right place. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 02:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:สวัส


text:
Talk:monophasis

RFV discussion: April–July 2016
rfv of both definitions:

 * 1) monophasia
 * 2)  A single phased state of neuronal firing; a pattern of nerve impulses that are negative or positive but not both.

As far as I can tell, this term just means an instance or state of having one phase. I'm pretty sure the first sense is unattested, but the second one will require someone with the correct background to check the handful of neurology-related hits to determine whether they involve polarity.

This editor's modus operandi is to find very technical and specialized fields where it's hard to find anyone who knows the subject, then guess and/or make stuff up. I'm seriously considering shooting anything they do on sight just to discourage them. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 02:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:monophasis


text:
Talk:cosmic latte

RFV discussion: May–August 2016
Challenging the adjective. Equinox ◑ 20:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 * RFV failed. I've moved the two quotations to the noun sense. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:cosmic latte


text:
Talk:kont

RFV discussion: May–August 2016
Dutch, Rfv-sense: "A ridiculous, undignified person, notably female". If it is actually true and citable, it's probably dialect-specific. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I live in the Netherlands where I've been speaking Dutch for over 25 years. Kont means 'butt', but I have never heard of the term being used to refer to a person. Amin wordie (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Same here, I speak a Hollandic dialect and have never heard any senses other than "butt". Now the person who added that meaning is Belgian, so it could be dialectal, but then again he was also weirdly obsessed with butts. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:kont


text:
Talk:argyrothecology

RFV discussion: May–August 2016
No usage. DTLHS (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:argyrothecology


text:
Talk:Norrie

RFV discussion: June–August 2016
Rfv-sense Australian slang contraction of "no worries". Even if it's real, I doubt it's capitalised. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No chance. This, that and the other (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Norrie


text:
Talk:ブルシャーク

RFV discussion: June–August 2016
Is this really used in Japanese or just a mere English transcription? ばかFumiko￥talk 01:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * RFV failed ばかFumiko￥talk 12:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:ブルシャーク


text:
Talk:remorid

RFV discussion: May–August 2016
"Any member of the family Remora, the suckerfishes." I can't find usages of this, and the entry looks odd in any case: is a genus, not a family — the family is. Wikipedia redirects to (the English word) which is also a redirect for Echeneidae.— Pingkudimmi 15:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Looks as though Remorid might be a French surname. (Oh, it's a scanno for Rémond.) Perhaps it got onto a word list and someone made a bad guess at the meaning? Equinox ◑ 15:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The same, now-blocked user's entry for Remora had it as a family. I found one possible cite for an adjective use and many mentions in Scrabble books. DCDuring TALK 15:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks like it only existed in that user's mind. Apparently there never has been a family called Remoridae, so the normal formation of "-id" words doesn't apply here. It's kind of scary how many other sites copy from us... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:remorid


text:
Talk:kiriru moji

RFV discussion: June–August 2016
What is this? ばかFumiko￥talk 01:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A really, really bad early entry (header: "Japanese and English Romaji") by a rather careless editor who speaks no Japanese. It was cleaned up somewhat over the years and the incorrect Japanese definition replaced with a "romaji-of" entry, but the English seems to be nonexistent and the definition is based on a misunderstanding of the Japanese. I can find nothing viewable on Google Books at all (one no-preview hit that looks to be an error), and Google Groups just has a single mention (as Japanese) in the course of discussing the word "romaji". Even the general Google search has only 86 hits, and most of them are copies of us. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Delete. This isn't English.  It's not even really Engrish.  The corresponding romanized Japanese is at .  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 * RFV failed; deleted by User:I'm so meta even this acronym. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:kiriru moji


text:
Talk:kunstig intelligensernes

RFV discussion: July–August 2016
I think this and similar entries may be wrong - should be I think. It is best not to enter inflections for entries like this, as the unwary can get in all sorts of tangles; and  can be referred to instead. DonnanZ (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

There's actually no Danish entry for, but that can soon be rectified. DonnanZ (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops. That's my bad. I actually should've put "kunstige" instead of "kunstig". Just go ahead and delete it. I'll put an RFD. Philmonte101 (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope you read the first paragraph properly. DonnanZ (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I did. I usually enter inflections for nouns. But this time I forgot to add the "e" after "kunstig" in the inflections, as an adjective becomes plural with its plural noun. Thanks for pointing it out. kunstig intelligens is not an SoP, therefore it hypothetically must have an entry here. Same with all its inflections; its inflections are also not SoP, therefore they must be entries. There's nothing left to discuss here. If you don't like the way that Wiktionary deals with locutional nouns like these, please discuss it in the Beer parlour. I'll create soon. It's on my list. Philmonte101 (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The entry for is still wrong, I'll leave to you to work out why. You could have saved yourself a lot of bother by not recording and entering the inflections. Yes, it's a valid entry apart from the balls-ups, and I have added a reference. DonnanZ (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you're saying. Danes would say den kunstige intelligens right? Philmonte101 (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Although, how in the world would we make an entry for that? Philmonte101 (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, de kunstige intelligenser. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have RFD'd all of them except for the correct ones. The only ones in this case that would hypothetically be correct forms are kunstige intelligenser and kunstig intelligens'. Perhaps we should bring this locutional issue up in the Tea Room. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have to ask questions like this, you have no business mass-creating entries. For a dictionary, wrong information is worse than no information at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 * And how do you know there's a plural anyway? Do you check it out? DonnanZ (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 * @User:Donnanz I checked before even making the entry. I found https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22kunstige+intelligenser%22 Philmonte101 (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I have now created a Tea Room discussion about this. Please see the discussion at and direct further discussion of this there. Philmonte101 (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 * RFV failed on 16 July 2016 by Chuck Entz. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:kunstig intelligensernes


text:
קוויט

Etymology
From

Noun

 * 1) receipt written acknowledgement

title: קוויט


text:
ohueyix metztli

Alternative forms

 * oueix metztli

Etymology
From the augmented preterite form.

Noun

 * 1) it is a full moon
 * 2) * Idem, f. 78r. col. 2.
 * Oueix metztli. luna llena.
 * Oueix metztli. full moon.
 * Oueix metztli. luna llena.
 * Oueix metztli. full moon.

title: ohueyix metztli


text:
קוויטונג

Etymology
Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) receipt written acknowledgement

title: קוויטונג


text:
hollow body position

Noun

 * 1)  A position with a posterior pelvic tilt, i.e. with the lower back held flat

title: hollow body position


text:
קאַפּיטל

Noun

 * 1) chapter section in a book

Usage notes
The plural is used when it is treated as a masculine noun, and the plural  when it is treated as a neuter diminutive.

title: קאַפּיטל


text: hollow body

title: hollow body


text: hollow position

title: hollow position


text: hydroxycinnamoyltransferases

title: hydroxycinnamoyltransferases


text:
קאָמיטעט

Noun

 * 1) committee group of persons convened for the accomplishment of some specific purpose

title: קאָמיטעט


text:
צענטראַל

Etymology
International word, ultimately from.

Adjective

 * 1) central being in the centre; being the most important

title: צענטראַל


text:
Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Estonian noun declension templates/reply (2)

Ok, but is there a way to fix those 2 aforementioned templates?


text: monogalactosyldiacylglycerols

title: monogalactosyldiacylglycerols


text:
זומערקורס

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) summer course

title: זומערקורס


text:
endisaeg

Etymology
🇰🇲

Noun

 * 1) the past, former times

title: endisaeg


text: acetylgalactosaminyltransferases

title: acetylgalactosaminyltransferases


text: үү

title: үү


text:
Talk:церка

Is this reducible? ruwikt says yes but I'm not sure given its origin. Not in Zaliznyak. Benwing2 (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, reducible.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:церка


text:
italesættelse

Etymology
From 🇰🇲,. Coined by philosopher Søren Gosvig Olesen in 1978, with analogy to e.g.,.

Noun

 * 1) the act of entering something into discourse; of articulating concepts, of putting to words
 * 2) discourse itself
 * 1) discourse itself
 * 1) discourse itself
 * 1) discourse itself

title: italesættelse


text: Category:Spanish terms prefixed with termo-


text: Category:Otomaco nouns

title: Category:Otomaco nouns


text: Category:Old Javanese terms by prefix

title: Category:Old Javanese terms by prefix


text: Category:Taparita nouns

title: Category:Taparita nouns


text: Category:German terms prefixed with aero-


text: Category:Selk'nam lemmas

title: Category:Selk'nam lemmas


text: Category:Inuvialuktun lemmas

title: Category:Inuvialuktun lemmas


text: Category:Old Javanese terms by circumfix


text: Category:Carabayo nouns

title: Category:Carabayo nouns


text: Category:Selk'nam nouns

title: Category:Selk'nam nouns


text: Category:Inuvialuktun nouns

title: Category:Inuvialuktun nouns


text: Category:Macedonian terms prefixed with полу-


text: Category:Foreign words of the day in Jumaytepeque


text: Category:Kyrgyz terms derived from Uyghur


text: Category:Rama language

title: Category:Rama language


text: Category:Foreign words of the day in Burushaski


text: Category:Mondé nouns

title: Category:Mondé nouns


text: Category:Macedonian terms derived from Uto-Aztecan languages


text: Category:Taparita language

title: Category:Taparita language


text: Category:Yuri nouns

title: Category:Yuri nouns


text: Category:Macedonian terms derived from Atlantic-Congo languages


text: Category:Tinigua nouns

title: Category:Tinigua nouns


text: Category:Yuri language

title: Category:Yuri language


text: Category:Tinigua language

title: Category:Tinigua language


text: Category:Gayón nouns

title: Category:Gayón nouns


text: Category:Mimi of Nachtigal nouns

title: Category:Mimi of Nachtigal nouns


text: Category:Ticuna-Yuri languages

title: Category:Ticuna-Yuri languages


text: Category:Kazakh terms derived from Khitan


text: Category:Gayón language

title: Category:Gayón language


text: Category:rth:Nature

title: Category:rth:Nature


text: Category:ln:Vertebrates

title: Category:ln:Vertebrates


text: Category:Otomaco numerals

title: Category:Otomaco numerals


text: Category:Carabayo language

title: Category:Carabayo language


text: Category:Mimi of Nachtigal lemmas

title: Category:Mimi of Nachtigal lemmas


text: Category:Turkmen terms derived from Uyghur


text: Category:Low German terms interfixed with -en-


text: Category:Karkar-Yuri terms with IPA pronunciation


text:
diskursanalyse

Noun

 * 1) discourse analysis

title: diskursanalyse


text: Category:rth:List of set categories

title: Category:rth:List of set categories


text: Category:lb:Government

title: Category:lb:Government


text: Category:Mimi of Decorse nouns

title: Category:Mimi of Decorse nouns


text: Category:Karkar-Yuri nouns

title: Category:Karkar-Yuri nouns


text: Category:Selk'nam numerals

title: Category:Selk'nam numerals


text: Category:Haush nouns

title: Category:Haush nouns


text: Category:Otomaco language

title: Category:Otomaco language


text: Category:Buryat terms derived from Persian


text: Category:Hijazi Arabic terms derived from Sino-Tibetan languages


text: diskursanalyses

title: diskursanalyses


text: Category:Mimi of Decorse lemmas

title: Category:Mimi of Decorse lemmas


text: Category:Terms inherited from Sanskrit

title: Category:Terms inherited from Sanskrit


text: Category:Karkar-Yuri lemmas

title: Category:Karkar-Yuri lemmas


text: Category:Haush lemmas

title: Category:Haush lemmas


text: Category:Russian terms derived from Khitan


text: Category:Buryat terms derived from Middle Persian


text: Category:Wirö nouns

title: Category:Wirö nouns


text: Category:Hijazi Arabic terms derived from Austronesian languages


text: Category:Jirajara nouns

title: Category:Jirajara nouns


text: Category:Portuguese terms suffixed with -ptero


text: diskursanalyserne

title: diskursanalyserne


text: Category:Wirö lemmas

title: Category:Wirö lemmas


text: Category:Ngazidja Comorian terms derived from Volta-Congo languages


text: Category:Jirajara lemmas

title: Category:Jirajara lemmas


text: diskursanalysernes

title: diskursanalysernes


text: Category:Selk'nam compound terms

title: Category:Selk'nam compound terms


text: Category:Gulf Arabic terms by etymology

title: Category:Gulf Arabic terms by etymology


text: Category:Portuguese terms suffixed with -pode


text: Category:Duit nouns

title: Category:Duit nouns


text: Category:Italian terms derived from Uyghur


text: Category:Greenlandic terms derived from Wolof


text: Category:Portuguese terms suffixed with -cefalia


text: Category:Duit lemmas

title: Category:Duit lemmas


text: Category:Javanese terms by circumfix

title: Category:Javanese terms by circumfix


text: Category:Latin terms derived from Uyghur


text: Category:Sundanese terms by usage

title: Category:Sundanese terms by usage


text: Category:Greenlandic terms derived from Spanish


text: Category:Romani inherited terms

title: Category:Romani inherited terms


text: Category:Portuguese terms prefixed with agora-


text: Category:Chinese terms borrowed from Proto-Turkic


text: Category:Javanese nonstandard forms

title: Category:Javanese nonstandard forms


text: Category:Latin terms derived from Khitan


text: Category:Greenlandic terms derived from Portuguese


text: Category:Dorasque nouns

title: Category:Dorasque nouns


text: Category:Pamigua nouns

title: Category:Pamigua nouns


text: Category:Old Nubian terms derived from Hellenic languages


text: Category:Inuvialuktun terms inherited from Proto-Inuit


text: Category:Javanese male given names

title: Category:Javanese male given names


text: Category:Tatar terms derived from Uyghur


text: Category:Sardinian particles

title: Category:Sardinian particles


text: Category:Greenlandic terms derived from Old Danish


text: Category:Dutch terms prefixed with aero-


text: Category:Dorasque language

title: Category:Dorasque language


text: Category:Pamigua language

title: Category:Pamigua language


text: Category:Inuvialuktun terms derived from Proto-Eskimo


text: Category:Nafaanra terms derived from other languages


text: Category:Taparita numerals

title: Category:Taparita numerals


text:
Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Estonian noun declension templates/reply (3)

In the module, yes.


text:
Talk:абилка

I'm guessing that this and абевегедейка are reducible. Neither one in Zaliznyak nor ruwikt. Benwing2 (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 * The -ка suffix is always reducible. --WikiTiki89 21:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:абилка


text:
Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Estonian noun declension templates/reply (4)

Sorry, what module? I apologise, I'm just a beginner.


text:
Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Estonian noun declension templates/reply (5)

Module:et-nominals


text:
do the dirty on

Verb

 * 1)  To treat (someone) in an unfair manner; to cheat or betray.

title: do the dirty on


text: gentlier

title: gentlier


text: gentliest

title: gentliest


text: thunderbugs

title: thunderbugs


text:
Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Estonian noun declension templates/reply (6)

Thanks a lot :) I think I figured it out.


text:
krijgshamer

Etymology
.

title: krijgshamer


text:
strijdhamer

Etymology
.

title: strijdhamer


text:
monobromated

Adjective

 * 1)  Containing one atom of bromine in the molecule.

title: monobromated


text:
kamppailu-urheilu

Noun

 * 1) combat sports individual combat sports collectively

title: kamppailu-urheilu


text:
monochorea

Noun

 * 1) chorea confined to a single member or part of the body

title: monochorea


text:
monoballism

Noun

 * 1) monoballismus

title: monoballism


text:
monoballismus

Noun

 * 1) ballismus confined to a single limb

Synonyms

 * monoballism

title: monoballismus


text:
monochroic

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) Having only one colour.

title: monochroic


text:
monoideism

Noun

 * 1)  The domination of a single idea, as in certain mental disorders

Related terms

 * monoideistic

Translations

 * Italian: monoideismo

Etymology
.

title: monoideism


text:
mononeuritis

Noun

 * 1) neuritis affecting a single nerve

Derived terms

 * mononeuritis multiplex

title: mononeuritis


text:
mononeuritis multiplex

Noun

 * 1) neuritis that simultaneously affects single nerves remote from each other

title: mononeuritis multiplex


text:
monopsychosis

Noun

 * 1)  monomania

title: monopsychosis


text: morphiomania

title: morphiomania


text:
אויסהערער

Noun

 * 1) listener someone who listens

title: אויסהערער


text: morphoea

title: morphoea


text:
צוהערער

Etymology
Compare 🇨🇬. .

Noun

 * 1) listener someone who listens

title: צוהערער


text:
muciferous

Adjective

 * 1) Producing or secreting mucus.

title: muciferous


text:
muawine

Noun

 * 1)  A poisonous alkaloid obtained from the bark of the muawi, a tree of Mozambique.

title: muawine


text:
muscicide

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) Any substance that kills flies.

title: muscicide


text: muscicides

title: muscicides


text:
Talk:散打

sandaLAXengl.ntry
+cedict:san4-=MMA..83.134.143.232 19:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 * MDBG/CC-CEDICT says it's supposed to be san4; is it a mistake? (also, is the pronunciation of 散手 correct? are these the same 散?) —suzukaze (t・c) 09:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 * I think it's a mistake. In real life the pronunciation of 散打 is almost always san3 da3. I have never heard the word 散手 pronounced, but some dictionaries online list it as san4. Wyang (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:散打


text:
Talk:muscicide

There are some more words to add listed messily at -cide. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:muscicide


text:
Citations:at leastway

 * 1617, John Salkeld, A Treatise of Paradise. And the Principall Contents Thereof , London: Edward Griffin, page 188:
 * And this may alſo be the reaſon, why God preſenting all other creatures to the preſence of man, he did not likewiſe bring him the fiſhes as well as the beaſts of all ſpecies and kindes, because the beaſts being domable, and eaſie to be tamed by man (at leaſtway whiles man was ſubject to God) might serue for the vſe of man, while man was not diſobedient to God:

title: Citations:at leastway


text:
dáʼátʼąąʼ

Etymology
Compound of.

Noun

 * 1) cornhusk

title: dáʼátʼąąʼ


text:
dahooltsé

Noun

 * 1) sightseeing

title: dahooltsé


text:
mycelian

Adjective

 * 1) Of or relating to the mycelium.

title: mycelian


text:
mycetogenetic

Adjective

 * 1) Produced or caused by fungal growth.

title: mycetogenetic


text: lancet arches

title: lancet arches


text:
dishchʼid

Noun

 * 1) eczema

title: dishchʼid


text:
japonesitat

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) Japaneseness quality of being Japanese

title: japonesitat


text:
myelinic

Adjective

 * 1) Relating to myelin.

Derived terms

 * intramyelinic
 * intramyelinic
 * intramyelinic

title: myelinic


text:
myoctonine

Noun

 * 1)  A highly poisonous alkaloid from the plant, resembling curare in its action.

title: myoctonine


text:
myogenous

Adjective

 * 1) Originating in muscle.

title: myogenous


text:
myogenetic

Adjective

 * 1) Originating in muscle.

title: myogenetic


text:
myringotome

Noun

 * 1) A surgical knife used for paracentesis of the eardrum.

title: myringotome


text: myringotomes

title: myringotomes


text:
myristicol

Noun

 * 1)  An oily substance extracted from oil of nutmeg.

title: myristicol


text:
myronate

Noun

 * 1) A salt or ester of myronic acid.

title: myronate


text: myronates

title: myronates


text: ohueyix

title: ohueyix


text: Category:Classical Nahuatl verb forms

title: Category:Classical Nahuatl verb forms


text:
lycaconitine

Noun

 * 1)  An alkaloid obtained from the roots of.

Derived terms

 * methyllycaconitine

title: lycaconitine


text:
Talk:cryptozoology

Syllables
Why is there no syllabic breakdown, with stresses shown? Skysong263 (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 * None of our unpaid volunteers has got around to that yet. Equinox ◑ 20:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:cryptozoology


text:
ajacine

Noun

 * 1)  An alkaloid found in various  species.

title: ajacine


text:
oyahualiuh metztli

Alternative forms

 * oyaualiuh metztli

Etymology
From the augmented preterite form.

Noun

 * 1) it is a full moon; a fully rounded moon.
 * 2) * Idem, f. 76r. col. 1.
 * Oyaualiuh metztli. luna que eſta ya llena.
 * Oyaualiuh metztli. a moon which is now full.
 * Oyaualiuh metztli. luna que eſta ya llena.
 * Oyaualiuh metztli. a moon which is now full.

title: oyahualiuh metztli


text: 艾丝特

title: 艾丝特


text: oyahualiuh

title: oyahualiuh


text:
Talk:手柄

cedict:controlr(gamin
83.134.143.232 20:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:手柄


text: precommissure

title: precommissure


text:
anterior commissure

Noun

 * 1)  A bundle of nerve fibers connecting the two temporal lobes of the cerebral hemispheres across the midline, and placed in front of the columns of the fornix.

Synonyms

 * precommissure

title: anterior commissure


text: anterior commissures

title: anterior commissures


text:
anthocodial

Adjective

 * 1) Relating to the anthocodia.

title: anthocodial


text:
anthroposophically

Adverb

 * 1) In terms of anthroposophy.

title: anthroposophically


text:
anthologization

Noun

 * 1) compilation as (part of) an anthology

title: anthologization


text: anthologizations

title: anthologizations


text: puppers

title: puppers


text:
chordae tendineae

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  The heartstrings.

title: chordae tendineae


text:
volunteeristic

Adjective

 * 1) Of or related to volunteerism; done on a volunteer basis.

title: volunteeristic


text:
honeeni

Noun

 * 1) fun, amusement, merriment
 * 2) entertainment, sport

title: honeeni


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/pérdetor

Etymology
Mediopassive root present of.

Verb

 * 1)  to be farting


text:
honeesnánígíí

Noun

 * 1) winner, victor

title: honeesnánígíí


text:
Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/pérdetor

Deponent?
Hellenic, Indo-Aryan and Phrygian attest a deponent verb here. Do you think this should be reconstructed for PIE also? —CodeCat 21:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point—one I should have observed. Yes, I think that would be a very good idea. — JohnC5 22:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


text:
iiʼnííyą́ą́ʼ

Noun

 * 1) infection (medical)

title: iiʼnííyą́ą́ʼ


text:
Czechnology

Noun

 * 1)  Czech technology

title: Czechnology


text:
catalanità

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) Catalanness identification with Catalan values and customs

title: catalanità


text:
katkerosuola

Noun

 * 1) Epsom salts common name for magnesium sulphate

title: katkerosuola


text:
karvassuola

Noun

 * 1) Epsom salts common name for magnesium sulphate

title: karvassuola


text:
Ilford

Etymology
The name is first recorded in the Domesday Book of 1086 as Ilefort, meaning "ford over the Hyle" (an old name for the River Roding that means "trickling stream"). Equivalent to Hyle + ford.

title: Ilford


text: Category:German terms suffixed with -de

title: Category:German terms suffixed with -de


text:
have a jag on

Verb

 * 1)  To be drunk.

title: have a jag on


text:
Paese del Sol Levante

Etymology
.

Proper noun

 * 1)  the Land of the Rising Sun Japan

title: Paese del Sol Levante


text:
get a jag on

Verb

 * 1)  To get drunk.
 * 2) * 1899, Roswell Martin Field and (translators), "The Preference Declared" from, Ode I.38, in Echoes from the Sabine Farm
 * Myrtle is good enough for us,— / For you, as bearer of my flagon; / For me, supine beneath this vine, / Doing my best to get a jag on!

title: get a jag on


text:
Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-08/Definitions — introduction

Two questions
1. The closer of the previous vote suggested that having some discussion would be helpful. Was there any discussion between that vote and this one?

2. Does the proposed change have the intended, but unstated, aim of bringing WT:EL closer to a system where each definition has to be placed in a template, like e.g. # ? This would explain the removal of "They are simply added in one big block, line after line, each beginning with a number sign (#)".

Equinox ◑ 21:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 * 1. No, sorry.
 * 2. No. I don't see why it would. The proposed text does not intended to change any regulations other than removing the stuff about starting with a capital letter and ending with a period. Aside from this, I thought of this proposal as a minor edit/rewrite.
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 * About the question 1: the previous vote was Votes/pl-2015-12/Definitions. In retrospect, I feel that I should not have created the previous vote without properly discussing that huge proposal that intended to review a whole EL section. Still, the current vote is a minor rewrite, and I believe the "starting with a capital letter and ending with a period" thing was discussed enough. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the current vote should be pretty uncontroversial. In the future, I believe there are reasons such as those (minor edit, uncontroversial, was discussed enough in my opinion) for creating a new vote without creating a new discussion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Vote ending in a few days
Sometimes, when a vote is going to end soon and only a few people voted, I invite more people on the BP to vote, or there's some conversation about extending the vote by 1 month. I'm not really interested in doing either of these things right now. This vote had low attendance too, but it's basically a minor edit to WT:EL and all the 5 voters support it. I'd like if more people voted, but if nobody else votes, I'll close the vote as passed when the day comes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest, if a bunch of people don't vote, I think it's their own fault for not looking at the watchlist/vote page/beer parlor every now and again. Or, if not that many people vote, not that many people care that much about the vote, likely because it is a very uncontroversial vote like this one. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For more important stuff, I feel it would be correct to do the things I mentioned: inviting more people, and/or extending the vote. This vote is just a minor edit. Bot votes also usually pass with only a few votes, especially when they have 0 opposition. I closed Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2016-08/User:OctraBot for bot status as passed today with 5 supporting votes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"The numbers are generated by adding the number sign (#) at the start of each definition"
Just a minor point, but: unlike the old text, this proposed text might misleadingly suggest that the # sign generates numbers when the page is saved, rather than causing numbers to be displayed when the page is viewed. Equinox ◑ 10:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. I agree that this is not a huge problem. It seems the vote will pass; it would be nice if we changed the wording a bit, later, to address your concern. If that wording confuses someone at first sight, presumably they are going to learn the truth quickly after seeing the definitions in the code of any entry. IMO, this does not change the fact that the voted text is a noticeable improvement. The previous version was not amazingly accurate either, concerning what the # does. It said: "They are simply added in one big block, line after line, each beginning with a number sign (#).", which might suggest that definitions start with # instead of numbers:
 * # The first definition.
 * # Another definition.
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


text: Category:Italian terms borrowed from Japanese


text:
gunwork

Noun

 * 1) The art or skill of firing a gun.

Related terms

 * gunplay
 * gunworks

title: gunwork


text:
gunworks

Noun

 * 1) A facility where guns are manufactured.

Related terms

 * gunwork

title: gunworks


text:
neontologic

Adjective

 * 1) Of or pertaining to neontology.

title: neontologic


text:
meta-argon

Etymology
en

title: meta-argon


text:
neuromechanism

Noun

 * 1)  A neural mechanism

Related terms

 * neuromechanistic

title: neuromechanism


text: neuromechanisms

title: neuromechanisms


text:
nearliness

Noun

 * 1)  The quality of nearly being something, or nearly reaching a point; incomplete state.

title: nearliness


text: nearlyness

title: nearlyness


text: intuitivt

title: intuitivt


text:
fit to wake the dead

Adverb

 * 1)  At a very high volume; extremely loudly.
 * They were screaming fit to wake the dead.

title: fit to wake the dead


text: Category:Portuguese terms prefixed with algo-


text:
合鍵

Noun

 * 1) spare key

title: 合鍵


text:
лэжьын

Verb

 * 1) to cultivate
 * 2) to practice (To perform or observe in a habitual fashion)

title: лэжьын


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic/kar

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) friend, relative

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic/kar


text: VCPI

title: VCPI


text: bőrgyárak

title: bőrgyárak


text: Category:Spanish terms prefixed with algo-


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic/karr

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) wagon
 * 2) cart
 * 3) load

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic/karr


text:
Talk:configurator

Not just computing?
This word also seems to refer to other systems for customizing certain products. Equinox ◑ 22:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:configurator


text:
arkade

Etymology

 * From, from , from , from.
 * for other senses than a row of arches.

Noun

 * 1)  a row of arches.
 * 2)  a covered passage, usually with shops on both sides.
 * 3)  an establishment that runs coin-operated games.
 * 1)  an establishment that runs coin-operated games.
 * 1)  an establishment that runs coin-operated games.

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) an arcade

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) an arcade

title: arkade


text: doggos

title: doggos


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic/kareð

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) mistake, sin

Descendants

 * Cornish:
 * Cornish:

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic/kareð


text:
-gráfico

Etymology
From.

Suffix

 * 1) -graphic

Suffix

 * 1) -graphic

title: -gráfico


text: Category:Portuguese terms suffixed with -gráfico


text:
pseudomeningitis

Noun

 * 1) A condition that resembles, but is not in fact, meningitis.

title: pseudomeningitis


text:
geneticization

Noun

 * 1) The process of geneticizing.

title: geneticization


text: boy-cut

title: boy-cut


text:
bad quarto

Noun

 * 1) A quarto-sized publication of a play, especially a Shakespearean play, that is considered spurious by virtue of having been copied down during a performance or later reconstructed from memory.

title: bad quarto


text: bad quartos

title: bad quartos


text:
culturalize

Alternative forms

 * culturalise

Verb

 * 1)  To adapt to the norms of a particular culture.

Related terms

 * culturalization
 * deculturalize
 * reculturalize

title: culturalize


text: culturalizes

title: culturalizes


text: culturalizing

title: culturalizing


text: culturalized

title: culturalized


text:
culturalization

Alternative forms

 * culturalisation

Etymology
or

Noun

 * 1) The process of culturalizing.

title: culturalization


text: culturalizations

title: culturalizations


text:
reculturalize

Verb

 * 1)  To adapt to the norms of a different culture.

Related terms

 * reculturalization

title: reculturalize


text: reculturalizing

title: reculturalizing


text: reculturalizes

title: reculturalizes


text: reculturalized

title: reculturalized


text:
reculturalization

Noun

 * 1) The process of reculturalizing.

title: reculturalization


text: reculturalizations

title: reculturalizations


text:
deculturalization

Noun

 * 1) The process of deculturalizing.

title: deculturalization


text: 显微

title: 显微


text:
deculturalize

Verb

 * 1)  To divest of a culture; to remove cultural elements from.

Related terms

 * deculturalization

title: deculturalize


text: deculturalized

title: deculturalized


text: deculturalizes

title: deculturalizes


text: deculturalizing

title: deculturalizing


text:
顯微

Verb

 * 1) to show microscopic objects

title: 顯微


text: Category:zh:Microscopy

title: Category:zh:Microscopy


text:
禮遇

Noun

 * 1) courteous reception

title: 禮遇


text:
生化學

Noun

 * 1) biochemistry

title: 生化學


text: 浆膜

title: 浆膜


text:
User talk:UtherPendrogn

You need to look at how the other entries in each language are done, and you need to pay more attention to details. First, though, read the links I've provided so you know what you're doing and we don't have to spend as much time cleaning up after you. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. UtherPendrogn (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Language codes
I reverted your edit to Module:languages/datax because 1) A simple check of our List of languages or Category:Aquitanian language would have shown that xaq was already a valid code 2) No one should be adding language codes without discussing it with the community at an appropriate venue such as WT:BP, WT:RFM or WT:GP. 3) You shouldn't be editing the Module:languages data submodules at all, since they're used by millions of entries (it's only by a complete fluke that it wasn't edit-protected in the first place).

It's not enough to be able to figure out technically how to do things- a wiki like this is a community, and major changes like this should discussed to make sure you have consensus. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, sorry. Thanks for reverting it. UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

pruiam
If you're contesting the term's existence, why do you even create an entry for it? —CodeCat 17:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What? How am I contesting the term's existence? @CodeCat UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're going to add Lepontic terms, add them in Old Italic script, not the Latin alphabet. Also, where is coming from? — JohnC5 17:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, where is it coming from? And it's silly to put things in Old Italic. I have given the Old Italic form on the page itself. UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For one thing, we have Lepontic inscriptions in Latin, Etruscan, North Italic, Old Italic and Lugadno scripts. I'm using the one 2600000000 people use. UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Every one of those except Latin is encoded under Old Italic. — JohnC5 19:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I will use the Latin Script. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean, what are your sources for that declension? Also, we put entries under their original script, as with Gothic, Glagolitic, and many other dead scripts. — JohnC5 19:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Except Old English is not in Futhorc, Old Latin words are not in the Old Latin script. Plenty of Proto-Norse languages are not in their original script on Wikitionary. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The documentation is there. Why don't you lay off? UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to come off as overbearing, but if I must, I shall be. You have a recent track record of creating unreliable or inaccurate entries. I'm just doing the due diligence to ensure that correct information is added under the correct entry titles. You yourself have been creating entries with the template at the top, which either means you aren't even sure of what you are doing, or you are very careless. Neither of these options inspire confidence. — JohnC5 19:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I know what I'm doing. Lay off. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Uther, don't be rude. You're speaking to editors with extensive experience in ancient languages, both in general and with respect to their treatment on Wiktionary. If you continue to make bad entries while ignoring what people tell you and being extraordinarily impolite (as you have been to Angr and JohnC5), you will be blocked. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * They're destroying my work. Besides, it's very much debateable whether they should be under an OI or Latinised form. JohnC5 was peddling his opinion as a rule. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We're filtering the good parts out of the information you submit to Wiktionary and deleting what is not usable. That's not destroying your work, that's just doing what good editors are supposed to do and are perfectly entitled to do. —CodeCat 22:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Good parts"? I'm not sure what to say to that. For one, nothing I've added so far has been kept (or at least, not without hot debate), to be honest. Actual entries in Tacitus and Matasovic's dictionary are being DELETED. I'm fucking losing my temper against this idiotic shit that could be handled so much more efficiently than just deleting things behind my back without warning. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not our fault if you have no clue. First of all, please read the text at the bottom of the edit box: once you click "Save changes", it's no longer solely your work. Other editors have the same rights as you do to add to, subtract from replace or delete the entries. This is a wiki, so if you don't want to irrevocably yield control of your contributions, you're in the wrong place.
 * Secondly, this is a reference work, so "sort of right" won't cut it. Just about every entry you've created has had serious flaws that have to be fixed. If you can't handle people doing things to your entries, you're in the wrong place.
 * You have very good command of the letter of the references, but you're missing critical context- I'm guessing because you haven't been exposed to it yet. For instance, you've given as a source for an Old English entry, but Tacitus died centuries before Old English even existed. You also don't seem to have much background in historical linguistics, which is really a prerequisite to properly using the reference material. For instance, a proto-language is a theoretical construct that summarizes the results of applying the comparative method to a group of related languages in an attempt to deduce what their common ancestor might have been like. Goidelic languages such as Gaulish and Irish are not descendants of Proto-Brythonic. Individual Goidelic languages may contain terms that were borrowed either directly or indirectly from individual Brythonic languages, but that's the exception rather than the rule. Yes, there are entries in Category:Irish terms derived from Proto-Brythonic, but there's already one entry in Category:Irish terms derived from Proto-Sino-Tibetan, and the potential for more. Your edits are a strange combination of advanced knowledge and complete ignorance of very basic information, and you tend to go straight from data to detailed conclusions without going through the necessary intermediate steps, overlooking details along the way.
 * Finally, it's hard to tell if you're a very precocious child or an adult who simply acts like one, but a wiki is a community, and you have to interact with other contributors. If you're going to keep pulling the same "How dare you question me- I know everything!" routine while repeatedly demonstrating that you don't, you're not going to last here very long. You've been telling people who have degrees in subjects you've just been dabbling in that they don't know anything. You've been acting like Wiktionary is your own personal property and you can do anything you want. It may not seem like it to you, but people have been very patient with you. If you continue to abuse that, and if you continue to refuse to learn how to do things right, I will block you myself- if any of a dozen other admins doesn't beat me to it. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I spent a good five hours researching Lepontic script to NOT make a mistake. CodeCat decided that it was the same as Old Italic (it's not) and now my page has been deleted and innacurate information is being presented. I linked to both scripts but CodeCat dodged the proof and went on trying to delete it. UtherPendrogn (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I do find it a bit humorous that after 5 hours of research, in the entries for, , , and you gave the transliterations 𐌊𐌏𐌆𐌉𐌏𐌌, 𐌊𐌏𐌆𐌉𐌏𐌌, 𐌉𐌆𐌏𐌔, and 𐌀𐌌𐌀𐌆𐌉𐌋𐌖 respectively, as opposed to the correct 𐌊𐌏𐌑𐌉𐌏 (𐌊𐌏𐌑𐌉𐌏𐌌 appearing to be unattested), 𐌉𐌑𐌏𐌔, and 𐌀𐌌𐌀𐌑𐌉𐌋𐌖. You also see to be using (often unattested) masculine accusatives as lemma forms instead of attested masculine nominatives. I'm just sayin'. — JohnC5 05:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it humorous that as a "linguist" and supposedly one who has ANY authority on Lepontic, you don't know acute s is shown as 𐌆 and not 𐌑. UtherPendrogn (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

RFD removal
Have you read what the template says? Do not remove the template until the RFD discussion ends with a consensus to either "keep" or "delete". If you continue to remove the template, you may be blocked. —CodeCat 22:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's obsolete, the form is not reconstructed and does not require descendants. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not for you to decide. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Who, then? God? UtherPendrogn (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we have a process, as outlined at the top of the Requests for deletion page. Everyone has their own opinions about the merits of rfds, so letting everyone decide the outcome without following any process would just be a mess. As obvious as everything seems to you, others disagree. This is a wiki, and you can't always have your way. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to act accordingly- tantrums and insults rarely work with adults. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If being taken seriously means people destroying my articles, no thank you. UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * They're not your articles, they're Wiktionary's entries. By posting them you agree to the licence terms, which gives us permission to edit things however we wish. —CodeCat 17:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How more narcissistic can you be? So they're not MY articles, but they are YOURS? Give me a break. UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the licence terms, which you agreed to by submitting edits to Wiktionary. They're listed at the bottom of the page and also right above the "save" button whenever you make an edit. —CodeCat 17:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Never said they weren't. But it's VERY telling you said "us" excluding me. UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, this is an awful way of conversing. Can we go into an IRC maybe? UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The Beer Parlour
Please stop posting rants at the Beer Parlour. The Beer Parlour is for topics that concern everyone at Wiktionary. Your rants only concern editors of very particular languages. You should discuss these things at individual users' talk pages, or at the Tea Room if it concerns one particular word, or at the Information Desk if you are asking about how things work at Wiktionary. --WikiTiki89 16:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't care. These people are destroying things and putting false words on the site. UtherPendrogn (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if you care. You are disrupting the Beer Parlour. The Beer Parlour is not the place to complain about these things. If you cannot hold yourself back from posting things in the wrong place, then you will be blocked again. --WikiTiki89 16:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll stop when people stop raping the Lepontic Lemmas. UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I'll ask you once again, please post your questions to the Information desk. --WikiTiki89 13:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:desctree
Desctree is a "smart" template that automatically takes descendants from one page and puts them on another. That way, the two are always kept synchronised and there's no duplication of information. It's still a bit wonky though, it doesn't work on entries with multiple descendants sections for example. That's why I've used it for links to Brythonic entries but not yet for Old Irish ones. We will probably want to do that in the future, once the problems in the templates are fixed. —CodeCat 22:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

hnefatafl
Hello. I was going to delete Template:table:hnefatafl... but I restored it. The table seems to be in the middle of being created from a table of chess pieces. Feel free to carry on. If you'd like, I can help you if you tell me what are the names of the pieces without me having to read that whole Wikipedia article. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't interfere if you don't know anything about it. There are only two pieces. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Was the game called "chess"? If not, it probably shouldn't say "chess". Did the pieces look exactly like the modern chess king and pawn? If not, you should use images of what the pieces actually looked like. To be honest, I don't think this template is particularly useful, you'd be better off just listing the terms in an ordinary "See also" section, and include images of real pieces of the game at the entries for the pieces themselves. --WikiTiki89 14:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Moderatus
Please don't leave entries with module errors. If you can't get a headword-line template like la-proper noun to work, just use head with the appropriate part of speech. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

"Replace them with the correct form".
I did. These are not of PIE origin. They're baby talk. —CodeCat 15:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Matasovic says otherwise. And I've yet to see baby declense "tatos" correctly anyway. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Take it to WT:ES. —CodeCat 15:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why don't you? You're the one who has the BOP. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your edits are disputed. That means a consensus is needed for them to stay. WT:ES is where you may find it (or may not). —CodeCat 15:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You disputed them, you should defend YOUR opinion, I shouldn't have to defend mine. This is like being shot and then arrested for being shot. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You were the one that added something that wasn't there before, so the burden of proof is on you. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You can find minor variations of mama meaning mother in languages throughout the world, and not because of borrowing or inheritance: babies go through a well-documented sequence of sounds in their babbling as their ability to control their speech improves, with labial sounds appearing very early, and parents are the focus of their attention at that age. It's really a sort of onomatopoeia, and thus very problematic as far as etymology goes.

 * Sometimes the relevant sounds are affected by sound changes, so you can tell whether the forms are inherited (as in English father from PIE vs. papa). In the case of m next to a vowel, though, there aren't any sound changes. While you can't prove that inheritance didn't occur, anyone's opinion (including Matasovic's) is about as valid as a coin-toss, so a statement one way or the other isn't useful information. I'm not as sure about "tata", which is from a later stage of babbling and much rarer, but the same principals apply. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing rfv, rfv-etymology, rfd, etc.
Once a matter has been taken to one of the forums for consideration, you are not allowed to remove the tag from the entry until the discussion has been closed. You may believe that your addition of information on Norse mythology at the etymology for go to hell settled the question, but that's not for you to decide. Feel free to defend your edits in the discussion at WT:Etymology scriptorium, but be prepared for the possibility that people may not agree with you. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 * So if I slap an rfd on thousands of pages, you'll be FORCED to debate every single one? UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Nope, just forced to block you. Equinox ◑ 18:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 * But not block other vandals. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 * And block other vandals, which he does all the time. "[Slapping] an rfd on thousands of pages" would be a clear demonstration of bad faith and intent to disrupt things, worthy of blocking and mass reversion. Fortunately, that doesn't happen. I said "has been taken to one of the forums for consideration" for a reason: there's a difference between sticking a template in an entry and actually starting a discussion in a forum.

 * I posted this myself because I had serious doubts about the methodology behind the etymology, and there has been extensive discussion on the matter, including the matter of Hel in Norse mythology. My point has been that, while it's plausible that pre-Christian Old-English speakers may have known of the goddess and even had positive beliefs about her, the etymology made several unsupportable assumptions in the assertion that the phrase "dates back to Old English, where it literally meant to go to Hēl, who was the Goddess of Hell (also called Hēl). It was not an insult".

 * Since all but a few fragments of the OE corpus were written by Christians after the adoption of Christianity, there's surprisingly little direct evidence about the gods and goddesses in Old English beliefs- there's only one reference I know of that might refer to the goddess, and it's ambiguous. Hel as a goddess is well attested in Old Norse writings, so she might have been part of the Old English pantheon- or she might have been forgotten and only the place remembered. Who knows? At any rate, I've yet to see evidence of the phrase being in use "dating back to Old English", and all of the ancient uses I've seen so far are of variations on the modern, negative type.

 * If you have any evidence at all relevant to its use in Old English and its meaning back then, or want to otherwise make your case, feel free to join the discussion. No consensus has been arrived at yet, and there have been points made on both sides of the issue. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds good. I do have evidence found in both Beowulf and on a Saxon stone and would be happy to provide them once I'm unblocked. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

 * , CodeCat is in the wrong here, not me. I was only undoing her edits, despite her having seen my evidence and completely disregarding it. It WAS discussed and ignored. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It takes two to edit war. It doesn't matter who had the correct facts, you both behaved wrongly. --WikiTiki89 15:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What was I meant to do, let her keep on adding misinformation, despite her threats to have me banned? A discussion was had, where both JohnC5 (and also technically Anglom, since he added the pages in the first place) agreed, but that discussion was willfully ignored by CodeCat. I'm going to have to assume, whatever she says. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I only saw JohnC5 asking for more information, I didn't see him agreeing or disagreeing with anything. But feel free to post some links to the discussions you are referring to. --WikiTiki89 15:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * He said "never mind", which presumably means he realised that what I was saying was correct? I'm not sure. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Vahagn_Petrosyan#Vandal UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually have no idea what he meant by "never mind", but if that's the only discussion you can refer to, then that happened after the edit war and is completely irrelevant with regard to your block. PS: I don't feel the need to respond here any further. --WikiTiki89 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For reference, I wanted Uther to provide evidence from the attested reflexes for the reconstruction (Welsh, Breton, Welsh to PB), not from inter-protolanguage evidence (PC to PB). When no such evidence seemed forthcoming, I gave up. I do not have sufficient experience in the matter of PB to make this determination. — JohnC5 15:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll have to ask Anglom. He made the words, I just created the pages. Also, you asked for that in a very roundabout manner. I didn't get your question at all. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

*ni
If you add the other Breton words again, I will RFV them. Spare us the trouble. —CodeCat 22:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * They are literally attested, added by YOU yourself. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Very well... —CodeCat 22:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are deleting attested forms. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's for RFV to decide, now. It's your move. Attest or see them deleted. —CodeCat 22:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Funny how it only works one way. You really are unpleasant, and too much of an egotist to ever admit you're wrong. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I care for the integrity of the dictionary and the reliability of the information presented in it. —CodeCat 23:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You refusing to admit that those numbers had barred i's is proof enough that that is a lie. UtherPendrogn (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would I have to admit that? There's no evidence to the contrary. —CodeCat 23:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Basic PC > PB sound changes, which I offered as proof several times. Stop lying. UtherPendrogn (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And here I hoped you'd stay civilised. Never mind my attempt then. —CodeCat 23:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

 * It is you, Uther, who are the unpleasant egotist. You call us | crazy bastards who | need new eyes to stop us | RFDing random shit and | raping the Leontic lemmas with our | insane, | ignorant | holier-than-thou complexes — and then you have the gall to say that | nobody else gets hounded like you do. If you are totally unable to collaborate with other human beings, then set up your own wiki and don't let anyone else join. Equinox ◑ 23:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You should learn how to actually operate an efficient wiki and not a fuckfest. UtherPendrogn (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * CodeCat's confidence here isn't since they think they're right (they admitted they can't even find the forms), only since they know I'll be overruled despite being right. UtherPendrogn (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Grecland
should do it. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And links to Grēcland . Renard Migrant (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is this entry correct then? UtherPendrogn (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Can someone stop Victar?
He's started butchering entries by adding butchered Latin forms like and quoting some unsourced paper written by some random person. It seems someone else pointed out he was wrong (I think? The whole discussion was bizarre) but he just responded with "-_-". UtherPendrogn (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're ignorance is complete if you can say Anna Morpurgo Davies is "some random person". --Victar (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You just called at least seven and a half billion humans ignorant. Also, thanks for not denying what you're doing is essentially vandalism. UtherPendrogn (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocking me but not the vandal who called me ignorant? You insulted me yourself, going to ban yourself? UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hypocrisy
@Equinox Blocking me but not the vandal who called me ignorant? You insulted me yourself, going to ban yourself? UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Victar is just approaching the level of block-worthy conduct. You, on the other hand, have been practically living there for long periods of time. It's great that you're interested in reconstructed languages, and you certainly have considerable skill with them, but this is a wiki, not a personal vanity project. You constantly try to assert ownership, assume bad faith, adopt a battleground mentality, gratuitously insult people, edit-war, and generally behave like a spoiled child who's stayed up past bed-time.

 * Also, your interest in the subject isn't matched by a corresponding attention to detail or commitment to accuracy- you're very sloppy, you jump to conclusions, and you refuse to listen to those who point out problems with your edits. You have far too high an opinion of yourself and very poor judgment when it comes to others: your comment "Apologies if I trust the linguist who has been doing this for two years rather than you, a vandal", is really ironic, given that you've been treating Angr like an ignorant newbie- and he's a linguist whose been "doing this" on Wiktionary for over a decade.

 * You seem to think that someone with no background in a very complex and difficult subject can master it completely and flawlessly in a short period of time by reading through a few reference works, and that everyone else should take the assertions of such a person as fact without question.

 * While you've added a lot to the reconstructions, the unnecessary work for others who have to clean up after you and the bad feelings from your unrelentingly negative and disruptive behavior are making it look more and more like your contributions are more trouble than they're worth. If you keep this up, at some point the community as a whole is going to come to that conclusion and you'll end up being blocked permanently. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't have a high opinion of myself at all, and I don't pretend to be a linguist. I've- several times, now- called myself a "translation monkey". I look at changes and apply them to the words. I'm always happy for my edits to be undone or superceded if it's justified. CodeCat was wrong on the barred i's and has refused to admit it. I've "edit warred" about three or four times. Three or four too many, but Victar has decided to make it his hobby.

And my additions aren't valuable, they usually are incomplete or superficial. UtherPendrogn (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Renard Migrant had a similar experience to mine today ONCE and he just gave up. He's a valuable member who has been here for years. Imagine how I feel. UtherPendrogn (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I'm pretty sure that calling us all scum (and other insults; see my comment above) stops you from playing the "I feel so bad!" card. I really meant it when I said you should set up your own wiki if you can't stand other people, more so if you think ours is a "fuckfest". Equinox ◑ 00:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

 * It's not YOUR wiki, it's a communal one. Says a lot that you used the possessive there. UtherPendrogn (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A factual observation: persistent repeated incivility like that which you have been producing recently will lead to further blocks. Note that I am not an admin. Admins have been very tolerant of your incivility so far, but the patience is probably gone. I hope that you can tone it all down and become a respected contributor. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I hope you can become that too. UtherPendrogn (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

 * It appears this block was fair. I've not been paying close attention to everything that UtherPendrogn does, but it seems Chuck Entz is correct in his assessment. For the record, User talk:Wikitiki89 is one recent discussion in which UtherPendrogn insulted others and claimed to be fixing Reconstruction:Gaulish/Uercassiuellaunos but was in fact repeatedly breaking the entry by engaging in an edit war. This backs up the notion that UtherPendrogn should improve on their attention to detail and commitment to accuracy; the italicized terms were used by Chuck above. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Because she was and IS wrong. I am the one paying attention to detail and accuracy there, she is persistig in an error. UtherPendrogn (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As someone who has watched these debates over the past while, I cannot find only one situation in which CodeCat might have been wrong, though evidence was not provided on either side. Uther, on the other hand, has been demonstrably wrong about the Lepontic alphabet, Lepontic lemma forms, edit warring to preserve a module error, and the creation of unattested proto-forms or proto-forms that cannot be reconstructed back to a certain proto-stage. Also, in response to Dan's advice above, Uther again was rude for no reason. I really appreciate what Uther is trying to do, but this is a pattern whether (s)he will admit it or not. — JohnC5 19:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I provided EVIDENCE of barred i's only happening if the xt is preceded by an a (I've stated this three or four times and am now tired of doing so). Otherwise, it would become a normal i. It is CodeCat who refuses to listen to this, and there are several ordinal numbers which are just simply false right now. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Her being wrong once does not outweigh your pattern of errors. — JohnC5 20:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Her being wrong once does not outweigh your pattern of errors. — JohnC5 20:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course not, but it shows she's unwilling to accept being wrong. I was wrong about the Lepontic lemmas, though did not think reconstructing names that had Irish cognates would be an issue. I suppose those cognates magically sprung up on the isles and in Gaul by sheer luck, with the correct sound changes from Proto-Celtic. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Victar
Victar mocked me, insulted me based on an article he hadn't even understood. I tried to protect the articles and got banned. Sorry. UtherPendrogn (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"I" page vandalised
, I've noticed the page for the pronou "I" has been vandalised with expletives. "=====Synonyms=====
 * my ass, m'ass
 * , " UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Block review

 * Hello, man. (your gender is "unspecified", but Uther is defined as a male name) Nobody here is a "little shit". Please remain civil. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Uther has emailed me the following message: ''Hello Metaknowledge, I regret harassing Victar and continuing the harassment on my talk page despite my ban. I would like to appeal sincerely this time.'' The block already in place seems to me to be a reasonably short one considering this user's history of insults and aggressive interactions with other editors. The evidence of sincere regret for past actions will become apparent once Uther resumes editing, but for now I have decided not to shorten the block. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As a direct consequence of the language used in this unblock request, I have extended the length of Daniel's block and removed Uther's access to his talk page, as it seems to serve as a means of harassment now. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I support both the block extension and the removal of access to their talk page. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Uther now emails me thus: I would like to ask you to reconsider. While a month may seem short, it isn't for me, and I have some interesting words I would like to contribute to further our understand of Proto-Celtic. I have already explained my reasoning. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Appeal

 * For anyone following this case, a CheckUser investigation concluded that User:ÞunoresWrǣþþe, who engaged in personal attacks against multiple users, including racist elements, is likely the same editor. Given this sockpuppetry, under no conditions should this user ever be unblocked. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:UtherPendrogn


text: 书生

title: 书生