text:
colombo-britannique

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  of British Columbia; British Columbian

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

title: colombo-britannique


text:
bipotent

Etymology
en

Adjective

 * 1)  Having the ability to develop into two types of cell

Related terms

 * bipotency
 * multipotent

title: bipotent


text:
オンマイタレイヤソワカ

Etymology
From :.

Phrase

 * 1)  An  mantra, directed to Miroku Bosatsu (Maitreya bodhisattva)

title: オンマイタレイヤソワカ


text:
Colombo-Britannique

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) British Columbian

title: Colombo-Britannique


text: Colombo-Britanniques

title: Colombo-Britanniques


text:
Module talk:zh/data/dial-syn/今天

Quanzhou Word
Where did you find "今仔" for Quanzhou Hokkien? Just wondering. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's from 泉州市志's chapter on the dialect and 泉州市方言志 (essentially the same). I've also heard it in some videos. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 11:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Module talk:zh/data/dial-syn/今天


text:
biquadratique

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  biquadratic

title: biquadratique


text: colombo-britanniques

title: colombo-britanniques


text:
bisérial

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) biserial

title: bisérial


text:
sérial

Adjective

 * 1) serial

title: sérial


text:
τρακαδόρος

Noun

 * 1) scrounger, cadger

title: τρακαδόρος


text: τρακαδόρου

title: τρακαδόρου


text: τρακαδόρο

title: τρακαδόρο


text: τρακαδόρε

title: τρακαδόρε


text: τρακαδόρων

title: τρακαδόρων


text: τρακαδόρους

title: τρακαδόρους


text: τρακαδόροι

title: τρακαδόροι


text:
αμακατζής

Noun

 * 1) scrounger, cadger

title: αμακατζής


text:
bivariance

Noun

 * 1)  The state of being bivariant.

Translations

 * Finnish: bivarianssi
 * German: Bivarianz
 * Polish: bycie dwu-zmienną

Etymology
From.

title: bivariance


text:
bivarié

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  bivariate

title: bivarié


text:
αμακαδόρος

Noun

 * 1) scrounger, cadger

title: αμακαδόρος


text:
borroméen

Adjective

 * 1) Borromean

title: borroméen


text:
takuling

Etymology

 * Compare

Noun

 * 1) hardened soot

title: takuling


text: αμακατζή

title: αμακατζή


text: αμακατζήδων

title: αμακατζήδων


text: αμακατζήδες

title: αμακατζήδες


text: αμακαδόρων

title: αμακαδόρων


text: αμακαδόροι

title: αμακαδόροι


text: αμακαδόρους

title: αμακαδόρους


text: αμακαδόρου

title: αμακαδόρου


text: αμακαδόρο

title: αμακαδόρο


text: αμακαδόρε

title: αμακαδόρε


text:
borélien

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  borelian

title: borélien


text:
蝴蝶餅

Noun

 * 1) palmier type of French biscuit
 * 2) pretzel
 * 1) pretzel
 * 1) pretzel
 * 1) pretzel
 * 1) pretzel

title: 蝴蝶餅


text: 蝴蝶饼

title: 蝴蝶饼


text:
가물가물

Etymology
Korean reduplication of 가물.

Ideophone

 * 1)  fading away into the distance
 * 2) moving away faintly
 * 3) in a blurred manner

title: 가물가물


text:
bourbachique

Adjective

 * 1)  Bourbakian

title: bourbachique


text:
Bourbakian

Adjective

 * 1)  Relating to Bourbakism.
 * 2) * Claude Chevalley, quoted in: 2006, Amir D. Aczel, The Artist and the Mathematician: The Story of Nicolas Bourbaki, the Genius Mathematician Who Never Existed, High Stakes Publishing, p. 94
 * It is the notion of structure that is truly Bourbakian.

Translations

 * French:

Noun

 * 1)  Any of the mathematicians involved in the formulation of Bourbakism.

title: Bourbakian


text:
cardinalité

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) cardinality (all senses)

title: cardinalité


text: αμελούμαι

title: αμελούμαι


text: αμελήθηκα

title: αμελήθηκα


text:
carrable

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  quadrable

title: carrable


text:
cassinoïde

Noun

 * 1)  cassinoid

title: cassinoïde


text: Category:Navajo terms with quotations

title: Category:Navajo terms with quotations


text: cassinoid

title: cassinoid


text: κήτους

title: κήτους


text: casualisant

title: casualisant


text: casualisé

title: casualisé


text: casualisée

title: casualisée


text: casualisés

title: casualisés


text: casualisées

title: casualisées


text:
casualiser

Verb

 * 1) to casualize
 * 2)  to randomize

title: casualiser


text: κητών

title: κητών


text: casualisons

title: casualisons


text: casualisez

title: casualisez


text: casualisent

title: casualisent


text: casualisais

title: casualisais


text: casualisait

title: casualisait


text: κήτη

title: κήτη


text: casualisions

title: casualisions


text: casualisiez

title: casualisiez


text: casualisaient

title: casualisaient


text: casualisai

title: casualisai


text: casualisas

title: casualisas


text: casualisa

title: casualisa


text: casualisâmes

title: casualisâmes


text: casualisâtes

title: casualisâtes


text: casualisèrent

title: casualisèrent


text: casualiserai

title: casualiserai


text: casualiseras

title: casualiseras


text: casualisera

title: casualisera


text: casualiserons

title: casualiserons


text: casualiserez

title: casualiserez


text: casualiseront

title: casualiseront


text: casualiserais

title: casualiserais


text: casualiserait

title: casualiserait


text: casualiserions

title: casualiserions


text: casualiseriez

title: casualiseriez


text: casualiseraient

title: casualiseraient


text: casualisasse

title: casualisasse


text: casualisasses

title: casualisasses


text: casualisât

title: casualisât


text: casualisassions

title: casualisassions


text: casualisassiez

title: casualisassiez


text: casualisassent

title: casualisassent


text:
Talk:dub

RFC discussion: January 2011–August 2017
Slovak section need its inflections inside a template. Etymology can be copied from dub. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good --WF on Holiday (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: July–August 2020
Tagged by User:DCDuring on 7 January 2020, not listed. Sense: "A trend in music starting in 2009, in which bass distortion is synced off timing to electronic dance music." J3133 (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * cited Kiwima (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are only two cites. Old Man Consequences (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops, I put one of the cites in the wrong place. It is fixed now. Kiwima (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:dub


text:
Talk:DMAGeC

RFC discussion: July 2011–August 2017
Quite a mess here. Equinox ◑ 18:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Simplified. --WF back from hols (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:DMAGeC


text:
Talk:dime

RFC discussion: April 2011–September 2017
English definitions are quite messy. -- Prince Kassad 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Looks good now --WF on Holiday (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:dime


text:
Talk:VFAT

RFC discussion: June 2011
Somewhat encyclopedic. Needs syns or alt forms. Not my cup of tea. DCDuring TALK 03:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are any alt forms. It's called VFAT for as far as I know. I modified the definition slightly. It really can't be shortened any more without forgoing essential information. Also added link to wp. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It initially had virtual FAT in the definition, I have no idea if that's real or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you could break it apart like that. Will need a new entry for it. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 03:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:VFAT


text:
Talk:plume

RFC discussion: July 2010–August 2017
Senses "An upwelling of molten material from the Earth's mantle." and "An arc of glowing material erupting from the surface of a star." Aren't these actually two different uses of the same sense? If not, how do they differ? When it's not in an arc shape, is there a different word for it, or is the fact it's an arc just incidental? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems straightforward enough to me. One of Earth, one in a star. Removed RFC--WF back from hols (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Etymology
English etymology divided into 1 and 2 are the same etymology from the same origin just verb/noun of feather/to feather. Someone should combine them. I'm not going to even try to tackle that overcomplicated senses1-x word vomit. Darkmagine (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:plume


text:
Talk:옆

RFC discussion: March 2011–February 2016
Tagged but not listed. Synonyms section seemingly lists synonyms of definitons that do not even exist. -- Prince Kassad 15:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The small Korean dictionaries I have only have that glyph in words or phrases (it is hard to tell if they are words or phrases), but the general meaning is "side" or "by". The entry was created by a creator of problematic Korean entries, KYPark. - -sche 18:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 * , can you take a look at this? In particular, as the original poster notes, the synonyms section lists words like "armpit" that correspond to definitions that aren't listed (if they are valid at all). - -sche (discuss) 22:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have deleted several words: . — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:옆


text:
Talk:مەركىزىي

بۇلۇڭ
How should these be formatted? --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any anything else that comes up with. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Format looks good now --WF on Holiday (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:مەركىزىي


text:
Talk:sealing

RFC discussion: June 2011–August 2017
Inconsistent presentation. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks OK --WF back from hols (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:sealing


text:
Talk:loyalty

RFC discussion: July 2010
Five definitions, one of which is for an adjective, and three of which seems to be the same (faithfulness to X, where X varies a bit). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as we have full entries for adverbs, where many dictionaries just have run-ins, so also this contributor has expanded "the quality or state or an instance of being loyal" to show the senses and subsenses, based on the senses/subsenses of loyal:. I think we would find different synonyms were appropriate for the senses/subsenses. DCDuring TALK 11:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are synonyms reason enough to keep these senses? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They suggest distinctions in meaning, don't they? DCDuring TALK 11:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I get it now, a normal dictionary will just says 'the property of being loyal' no matter how many entries there are for loyal. So, the real question is how many distinct meanings has, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:loyalty


text:
Talk:hats off

RFC discussion: August 2011–August 2017
Wording objected to. DCDuring TALK 21:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it a verb or a phrase? It seems to be worded like a verb, with the header 'phrase'. Also, is it an imperative? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me to be an ellipsis for a phrase with a verb in it, which missing verb is a natural part of the definition. It doesn't inflect like a verb. It seems to be used just like an imperative form of a verb. There are others of this structure, like eyes right. DCDuring TALK 11:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and one side which is, oddly, listed under a "Noun" header. —msh210℠ (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't one argue it's most commonly an interjection?
 * Interjection?! Yes, you could and many do. I'd prefer that we follow a definition of interjection that was limited to expressions of emotion, whose meaning is not covered by other parts of speech or the phrase pseudo-PoS. Many words can be used interjectively (?) such as "interjection" at the start of this. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Striked. Removed first sense as NISOP --WF back from hols (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:hats off


text:
Talk:sensu stricto

RFC discussion: July 2011
Translingual and Latin section, but the only category is Category:en:Biology! Mglovesfun (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The category tag was simply missing a language parameter. I've corrected it to  . --EncycloPetey 18:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion: March 2020–December 2021
Is this Translingual? Is this how citations of translingual terms should look? DCDuring (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I moved the list of abbreviations to synonyms and marked off the non-gloss portion of the definition, not sure what else to do with it. —Nizolan (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Me neither. DCDuring (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Putting this here since there's a recent discussion about the word. I have never seen this sense: "Added after a taxon to mean the taxon is being used in the sense of the original author".  In my experience it only means in a less inclusive sense when there is a more inclusive sense to contrast with.   The original author may have meant either or neither sense. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC-resolved in. --Fytcha (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:sensu stricto


text:
Talk:이젠

RFC discussion: May 2011–August 2017
Definition not written in English. I wonder if this is classed as a 'noun' in Korean. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

 * 이젠 (ijen) is a contraction of 이제는 (ijeneun). The suffix marks it as the subject of the sentence. It’s a noun: 이젠 안녕 (ijen annyeong, goodbye for now). —Stephen (Talk) 07:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Looks pretty good now. --WF on Holiday (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:이젠


text:
Talk:à la

RFC discussion: March 2011–September 2017
Current French entry is useless but I'm not sure what to do with it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Looks good now --WF on Holiday (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:à la


text:
Talk:猟犬

RFC discussion: August 2011–May 2017
Yet another. See alsos again. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 01:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Looks fine now --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:猟犬


text:
Talk:firmamentum

RFC discussion: June 2011
The etymology for this word requires a small bit of clean-up with regard to the references; the etymology is perhaps rather bloated as well. Caladon 09:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The etymology is extremely detailed, but it is also a relevant and interesting discussion of how definition two came about. 69.203.1.88 03:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put the additional details in a box. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:firmamentum


text:
Talk:بۇلۇڭ

RFC discussion: June 2011–August 2017

 * See Talk:مەركىزىي.

title: Talk:بۇلۇڭ


text:
catacaustique

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  catacaustic

title: catacaustique


text:
Talk:सिद्धार्थ

 * This seems like a fairly important word to de-Monierify — it needs to be made comprehensible and the adjective senses need to be defined as adjectives. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 13:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:सिद्धार्थ


text:
tassaavoq

Verb

 * 1)  be (copula)
 * 2) * 1992, Erik Münster (quoting anonymous), "Kinguaassiuutikkut nappaataava", Atuagagdliutit
 * "kl"

- Siggunni seerisut tassaapput herpes taakkulu qallunaatut taaguutit nuannarineqartut "forkølelses- imlt. kyssesår" atorneqarput, kiinami tinupasunut seerisunut, pingaartumik siggunni.

title: tassaavoq


text:
Talk:petits récits

RFD discussion: November 2016–September 2017
See the (apparently unfinished as of yet) discussion in Tea room/2016/October. --Jerome Potts (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * French entered to mean "Small narratives, often first-person." In the linked Tea room discussion, Benwing2 is the OP and the participants are, , and . --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 15:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:petits récits


text: istatuwa

title: istatuwa


text:
κητώδης

Adjective

 * 1)  cetacean
 * 2) relating to sea monsters

title: κητώδης


text: Category:tl:Sculpture

title: Category:tl:Sculpture


text:
Talk:food literacy

RFC discussion: February 2012–August 2017
Doesn't quite feel like a dictionary entry yet, and should the two senses be merged somehow? Equinox ◑ 23:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Note: the creator has tweaked this many times since I posted it here, and it's looking a lot better now. Equinox ◑ 00:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Now fine. --WF on Holiday (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:food literacy


text:
Talk:universalism

RFC discussion: June 2012–September 2017
RFC-sense "A part of Unitarian Universalism." I'm not sure what this is getting at, so I don't know word it better. - -sche (discuss) 20:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Looks good now--WF on Holiday (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:universalism


text:
Talk:signal transduction

RFC discussion: March 2012
Recent addition by new user User:Scienceexplorer (Talk, Contribs). The definition in its current form is quite dense, and I'm left feeling like I know less about signal transduction than I did before I read the entry. Could someone who knows about this field rework the definition for greater clarity? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, biology is a major side interest of mine, but some concepts assume so much knowledge that they can be hard to define understandably for laypeople. How is it now? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks much better, thank you! -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:signal transduction


text:
Talk:cyberdisinhibition

RFC discussion: March 2012–September 2017
I genuinely do not understand the definition. Equinox ◑ 01:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I get it, but I had to read it slowly, and more than once. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I gather it's what Penny Arcade more crudely terms John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Looks good now--WF on Holiday (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:cyberdisinhibition


text:
Talk:photocage

RFC discussion: March 2012–August 2017
A bit long and rambling. Shaky grammar. Equinox ◑ 14:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine. Someone modified SB's defn. --WF on Holiday (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:photocage


text:
Talk:montón

RFC discussion: March 2012
Shouldn't un montón and del montón be created separately? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I created del montón, which was pretty obviously idiomatic. I'm not quite sure what un montón is. There are variants like muchas montones and un montón grande that make it look more like SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:montón


text:
Talk:12°s

RFC discussion: March 2012–August 2017
Does Translingual language have a grammar? The first two entries were created as English and then changed to Translingual, so I think they should be deleted or changed back into English. 12° has a Translingual header but categories and templates are for English. Maro 19:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 12°s,
 * 4°s,
 * §§,
 * 12°.

 * I wouldn't think so, though an argument could be made for a kind of grammar for binomial taxonomic names. But that is a looser definition of grammar than I think we mean. I think delete. DCDuring TALK 19:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 12° seems Translingual, like the other paper sizes, and I have made it so.
 * §§ seems plural to me, even as a Translingual, though they could be.
 * For all of these and for all the paper and book size entries, some attestation would be useful. The families that are from Latin or are purely graphic or typographic, like §§, may well be used in many languages. It would not be fun to attest them. Probably the most effective way would be to find whether reference works in various languages contain them. DCDuring TALK 20:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

 * The -s forms look to me like a mixture of translingual and English, much like you see with kanji and hiragana in Japanese. The test would be whether such forms ever appear in any language that forms plurals differently. As for §§, I think we would be better treating it as a translingual representing a plural rather than the pural of a translingual. How do we treat Chinese characters that are different depending on the gender of the referent (spoken Chinese has no grammatical gender)? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I found the example I was thinking of: the 3rd person singular 她 is a version of 他 that's used to refer to females, as in English "she". Spoken Chinese has no grammatical gender, so the distinction is strictly translingual- they're both tā in pinyin and are spoken the same. We mention 他 in the etymology section of 她, but we don't treat it as the feminine form of 他. More evidence that we shouldn't treat translinguals as inflected forms. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also see spp. and pp. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have doubts about the translinguality of 12°. In fact I'm under the impression that most countries in the World use ISO 216 standard in which 12° does not belong. On the other hand, if it is translingual, twelvemo is hardly its translingual synonym, probably duodecimo neither. Might be safest to change it back from Translingual to English. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever they use now, the older standard (and a current standard among used booksellers) includes all the forms that are in the table that involve only Latin or Italian derivation. The singulars for many of these can be found in a few European languages. There may be some individual items that are not attestable, even in English. I can find the plurals for many in English, but not in other languages, not even French. I think we could start by making all the plurals English and, of course, eliminating any instances of from the inflection line for the Translingual entries. If we would like to make all of the paper/book sizes English, subject to attestation in other languages, that would be fine with me. I am personally much more confident in the English, I never have high expectations about attestation effort in languages other than English, and, after all, this is English Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK  23:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Some were fixed, others redirected. Nothing more to see here, chaps --WF on Holiday (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:12°s


text:
Talk:common purse

RFC discussion: May 2012–August 2017
Confusing definitions:

 * 1) A shared or community fund.
 * 2) The people's purse.

1. is obviously ok, is the second one just the same thing as the first? I assume purse doesn't refer to the physical object so if distinct from sense #1 it needs some clarity. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

 * You could've merged them, Gloves. Oh well, 5 years later, as always, it's muggins here cleanin' up. --WF on Holiday (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:common purse


text:
Talk:adjunction

RFC discussion: June 2012
Long, encyclopedic category-theory (mathematics) definition that abuses our formatting conventions. Can a good definition be salvaged? DCDuring TALK 16:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has the full formal definition, we just need an outline. Done. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:adjunction


text:
Talk:in line

RFC discussion: April 2012
An adjective sense needs to be merged with the adverb sense (I think). SemperBlotto (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

in line
Continuing the archived discussion from above, there may be yet another part of speech more appropriate than either adjective or adverb for in line. Consider "actions in line with regulations" and "we acted in line with regulations", demonstrating the phrase's ability to serve as either a (postpositive) adjective or an adverb. Not to be confused with in-line, as in "in-line code", which is more concretely adjectival. Rriegs (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:in line


text:
Talk:dichotomic

RFC discussion: May 2012–September 2017
Since the creation of the entry by an anon in 2005, this entry has content now in Usage notes and External links that looks misplaced and probably excessive. Someone familiar with Dichotomic search might be able to salvage something and finish cleaning this up. DCDuring TALK 15:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was bold and just removed all the links (except those in the definitions) and usage notes. They were all encyclopedic material. Still needs a decent pronunciation. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 04:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Looks good now--WF on Holiday (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:dichotomic


text:
Talk:degrees of comparison

RFC discussion: August 2012–August 2017
In his Revision of 03:45, January 25, 2004, Polyglot said "definition needs work". We should finally respond to his suggestion. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added some citations and modified the definition. I'm not completely comfortable with the plural being the lemma, but I've gone with it. Ngram indicates the plural is consistently more common. "See also" could perhaps usefully be "Hyponyms." — Pingkudimmi 11:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

 * 13 years later, struck off RFC page. --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:degrees of comparison


text:
Talk:ravenous

RFC discussion: June 2012–September 2017
"Eager for prey or gratification." Is this meant to be praise or gratification? In any event, given the citation, is this correct anyway? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Looks good now--WF on Holiday (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

so... nothing to do with the bird?
I'd always assumed this to be a transparent derivation from raven, but I see now that that's impossible. I'd even been pronouncing it wrong all this time. I wonder how common the misconception is. I wonder what the true etymology is .... our trail stops at Old French and fr.wiktionary seems not to have it at all. A link with ravine seems possible, despite the wide semantic difference between the words, as it seems both words have evolved along different paths. — Soap — 15:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A friend has shown me EtymOnline, which I honestly forgot about .... their claim is that it is indeed cognate to ravine. — Soap — 18:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:ravenous


text:
Talk:riddled

RFC discussion: June 2012–August 2017
Added to entry by DCDuring, but no entry here. No idea what need to be cleaned up. -- A LGRIF  talk 12:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll ask . I doubt he will remember tho. --WF on Holiday (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied by Ruakh's 2012 changes. The Rfc tag apparently wasn't removed when the rfc section was archived. DCDuring (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:riddled


text:
Talk:abrogate

RFC discussion: May 2012–August 2017
The synonyms need to be split up by sense. — Paul G (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good now --WF on Holiday (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:abrogate


text:
Talk:full-on

RFC discussion: May 2012–September 2017
The adjective definitions aren't of much help, IMHO. --Maria.Sion (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Looks good now--WF on Holiday (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:full-on


text:
Talk:oleen

RFC discussion: June 2012
Needs some kind of fi-verb or part of speech etc. or it won't be categorised. Equinox ◑ 16:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've categorized it, we still need a native/competent speaker to look at it. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is very common in spoken language. I added pronunciation, alternative forms and a usex. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:oleen


text:
Talk:squeeze in

RFC discussion: March 2012–August 2017
I'm reasonably certain that the last sense should be moved first and reduced to, but what about the others? And should we have an entry for squeeze into? One can squeeze a dinner into a tight schedule, after all, or squeeze into tight jeans, just as well as one can squeeze an appointment in or say "it was a small car, so we all had to squeeze in". - -sche (discuss) 08:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Looks cool now --WF on Holiday (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:squeeze in


text:
Talk:appeal

RFC discussion: August 2012–August 2017
Old-style quotations to be put in accorded form. H. (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Still Webstery, but the format is ok --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

chiefly US, informal elsewhere
England and Wales has the "Court of Appeal". This use seems very formal. I propose (for?) "chiefly US, informal elsewhere" to be changed. --PeterTrompeter (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

on appeal
As a result of an appeal to a higher court. Her conviction was overturned on appeal. https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/on+appeal --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:appeal


text:
Talk:sweeten

RFC discussion: July 2012–August 2017
Example sentences are in with the definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Looks good now --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:sweeten


text:
Talk:dinq

RFC discussion: June 2012
Chatty; encyclopaedic. Equinox ◑ 01:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this needs citing before cleaning up, we can't define it until we know how it's used. I couldn't turn up anything on a quick search - perhaps it should be deleted altogether. Spinning Spark  10:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a run at it. I used a bit of it to enhance [[behind the curve]]. DCDuring TALK 11:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Dinq is used universally across the US Navy; it just means "delinquent." For example, sailors who have not received their annual dental exam would be placed on the "Dental Dinq List" until they completed their requirements. Papa3Chuck

title: Talk:dinq


text:
Talk:talismanic

RFC discussion: June 2012
"Having a magical protective power". Not really sure what this means. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Could it be in the sense of these quotes;
 * The talismanic power of the victorious athlete is quite similar to the consecrating power associated with a purified murderer...
 * Was it something after this manner that Ficino himself composed images, in which the basic magical or, talismanic power was softened by expansion into Renaissance classical forms?
 * Nevertheless, there exist a number of prayers the purpose of which is to provide talismanic protection to the reader or wearer or, in some cases, to others less directly associated with them.
 * The talismanic charm of that missive will never be textually known, Madame Hanska's letters, one and all, having been destroyed.
 * Spinning Spark  15:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:talismanic


text:
Talk:púbica

RFC discussion: June 2012
are these right or is there some formulaic def for these female versions of púbico?Lucifer (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:púbica


text:
Talk:structural

RFC discussion: June 2012–September 2017
"Used in building." Sorry what, does this mean that a hammer is structural? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 * RFV it? It might be redundant to sense 1. Equinox ◑ 18:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Looks good now--WF on Holiday (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:structural


text:
Template talk:headtempboiler:letter

RFC discussion: April 2012
This is categorizing in Category:Latin script characters even when not in the main namespace. The code is so complicated I can't find the problem. -Mglovesfun (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed it...  22:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:headtempboiler:number
Categorizing in the wrong namespaces again. Sigh! Mglovesfun (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

title: Template talk:headtempboiler:letter


text:
Talk:kiganda

RFC discussion: September 2012
Says "From the Luganda language. Used about the way things are done by the Baganda." Is this etymology in the defn line? Meaning not clear, format needs updating too --81.9.217.33 11:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Kiganda, Luganda and Baganda seem to all be the same word, but with different noun-class prefixes (Bantu languages use prefixes a lot like European languages use endings). That suggests that this may be a Luganda entry posing as English. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:kiganda


text:
Talk:Winkler bottle

RFC discussion: July 2012
The term seems real, but I don't know what it means and our current definition certainly doesn't help. —msh210℠ (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I've had a go at this and added an etymology. Spinning Spark  21:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Winkler bottle


text:
Talk:스타킹

RFC discussion: March 2012
If someone can explain to me why an apparently ASL entry, which is incomprehensible to me in any case, is on a page with a title in Hangeul, I will be much obliged. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was created that way. If you look closely, you'll notice that the ASL part is just an empty framework. My guess is that the IP who created the entry copied it from somewhere to serve as a template, then forgot to take down the scaffolding after it was built. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, it's fairly common that people will creative 'new entries' with no content other than the preloaded scaffolding the new entry creators provide. I've deleted it as not being usable content. The Korean entry still exists, though, 'cause I presume it's OK. - -sche (discuss) 05:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's just a transliteration of the English word stocking:, but that seems citable. However, perhaps the author/vandal meant Star King (TV series). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My favorite quickie reality check is to go to the Wikipedia article for a word and click on the interwiki link for the article in the appropriate language. Korean Wikipedia indeed has an entry for stockings under 스타킹. I might add that transliteration would only be used to describe converting the spelling of a non-Korean word into hangul. This is the spelling of a Korean word borrowed from English- I'm sure it accurately represents the pronunciation of the word as it's used in ordinary Korean speech. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

 * The original question was about ASL (which has been cleaned up), not Korean. The Korean is correct. --Anatoli (обсудить) 04:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:스타킹


text:
Talk:4°s

RFC discussion: March 2012–August 2017

 * See Talk:12°s.

title: Talk:4°s


text:
Talk:§§

RFC discussion: March 2012–August 2017

 * See Talk:12°s.

title: Talk:§§


text:
Talk:12°

RFC discussion: March 2012–August 2017

 * See Talk:12°s.

title: Talk:12°


text:
Citations:istatuwa

Noun: a statue

 * 1964, Juan Palazón, Majayjay: How a Town Came Into Being
 * Nang panahong ng pagpapabago ng loob sa Kristiyanismo, ibinaon ng may-ari ang istatuwa. Nang siya'y sumama sa mga maghihimagsik, sinikap niyang pagsisihan ang kasalanan na sa kaniyang palagay ay nagbigay pasakit sa idolo  at ...
 * 1968, Jean Donald Bowen, Babasahing Panggitnang Baytang Sa Tagalog, Univ of California Press, page 151
 * Maaari natin marinig sa radyo o sa mga plaka ang mga dakilang tugtugin at maaari nating ligirin ng mga istatuwa ang sarili hanggang sa matutuhan natin  silang pahalagahan. Nguni 't ang mga libro na nagdadala ng mga piling hiyas ng  isip ...
 * 1948, Severino Reyes, Katalagahan at katarungan
 * He- to't iyong kunin ang susi kong ta- ngay, at buksan mo ngayon din ang silid na kinaroroonan ng magandang istatuwa ni Prinsesa Gracia, — ang utos'ng tagak.  — Salamat, kaibigan. Wala akong sapat na talasalitaan upang ipahayag ang ...
 * 1980, Philippine Journal of Education
 * Sch. Calauag, Quezon II 1LANG araw nang napupuna nina Kakatsoy at Kokokak ang isang wari'y ibon o istatuwa na nakatayo sa makagitna ng kanilang maliit na lawa-lawaang iyon. Nagaalinlangan sila kung ito ay tagak o amaboy.

title: Citations:istatuwa


text:
cataphase

Noun

 * 1) cataphasis

title: cataphase


text:
Category talk:Egyptian deprecated inflection-table templates

, can these all be deleted? (And do we even have templates that can currently handle conjugating Egyptian verbs?) —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, these can all be deleted; I orphaned them a while ago. They are all (1) very incomplete in terms of the conjugation paradigm, (2) made for Unicode hieroglyphs instead of transliterations, and (3) pretty inaccurate.
 * We do have templates that currently conjugate Egyptian verbs! — but not yet for every class of verb. I created these few templates for the most common classes but am unsure if I want to reorganize the table before I go ahead and create the rest. (Particularly, I’m thinking of moving the participles and relative forms to their own separate section, moving the verbal nouns to the top, possibly removing the personal endings section, and making the code more readable.)
 * Unfortunately, the Egyptian verbal system is still under great debate between proponents of the Standard Theory, the ‘Not-So-Standard’ Theory, and more radical ideas like Allen’s recent suggestion that gemination is derivational, not inflectional, and that all the forms can be collapsed into two. The terminology in the field for various verb forms is a mess, as every author invents new names for them (and one author’s ‘perfective’ is another’s ‘imperfective’!) The tables I made are mostly amenable to the Standard Theory, with various concessions to the ‘Not-So-Standard’, and largely drawing on Allen, Loprieno, and the Standard Theory for the terminology, but if Egyptological consensus changes, the tables might eventually need to change too. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 11:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I know those feelings of picking and choosing terminology and competing analyses with many of the languages I work on or speak. My knowledge of Egyptian conjugation is entirely from Allen's Middle Egyptian, but I assumed his couldn't be the only interpretation. It's best to write an appendix to document the way you're going about it, like Appendix:Egyptian verbs, that your templates can then link to. Incidentally, at least with the geminate ones, I reckon it would be a lot easier to use Lua so you didn't have to type in multiple parameters. Oh, and in the future, if you have deprecated templates whose function has been taken over by something else, tell me so they can be deleted! —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, I’ll get to work on an appendix. As far as verbs that geminate go, unfortunately using Lua wouldn’t necessarily cut down on the number of parameters; many classes of verb have a geminating and non-geminating subclass, so there would need to be a  parameter if the geminated stem parameter were removed (currently, leaving this stem parameter blank makes a verb take the non-geminating conjugation). Ultimately, though, it would be nice to use Lua to collapse most (or all) of the conjugations into one template, but my own knowledge of Lua is as yet rudimentary at best. Thanks for taking care of these templates! — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 00:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


text:
apophase

Etymology
Via from  from  from  from  from ; whence 🇨🇬, cognate to 🇨🇬,.

Noun

 * 1) apophasis

title: apophase


text:
cataphasis

Noun

 * 1) The use of positive statements to affirm the truth of something

Antonyms

 * apophasis

title: cataphasis


text:
cathète

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1)  cathetus

title: cathète


text:
Talk:ould

RFC discussion: August–September 2011
Apparently this is a Hassānīya prefix. Looking at Category:Hassānīya language, it doesn't indicate a script, but it's an Arabic language. Should this be moved to the Arabic script for? Or moved to ould-? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, enWP says it uses Arabic script, and Ethnologue says it uses Latin. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:ould


text:
Talk:segons que

RFC discussion: November 2011
Catalan conjunction meaning "according to"? DCDuring TALK 00:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The definition is not right, I think what's meant is just segons. segons que also exists but is used as a subordinating conjunction, so its definition needs to change. I don't know what it is though. —CodeCat 14:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:segons que


text:
Talk:fleet landing

RFC discussion: October 2012–August 2017
I cleaned up the formatting, but someone may want to look over the senses and add, subtract or merge some. - -sche (discuss) 08:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Merged. --WF on Holiday (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:fleet landing


text:
Talk:چ

RFC discussion: September–October 2011
Not a well-formed entry. (Egyptian Arabic). DCDuring TALK 23:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it had an Egyptian Arabic header, but Pashto language codes. Wikipedia only has it as a Persian letter (and other references have that Persian letter), so that's what I made it. - -sche (discuss) 20:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

मोःरो (Western Parbate Kham)
We have South Levantine Arabic and North Levantine Arabic. The code used in the entry is that of an unrelated language. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 * I moved the entry to South Levantine Arabic based on the comment about Israel and Palestine. Note that this is the only South Levantine Arabic letter defined so far.  I changed the links to previous and next letters from the Arabic code to the South Levantine Arabic code, but if the rest of the letters are shared with Arabic somebody may want to change them back.  (So I did not remove the rfc template.)  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've relabeled मोःरो as Kham and tagged it Western Parbate with lb, since according to Kham language, Western Parbate is a dialect of Kham. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:چ


text:
Talk:I see, said the blind man

RFC discussion: September 2011–May 2017
The alternative forms seem rather silly: some are not attestable and some are long jokes rather than short dictionary phrases. Also there's a guy who keeps coming and adding them when they are removed. Equinox ◑ 16:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Too many: remove all red not-very-common ones IMO. This is an example, though, of why alternative forms should be beneath definitions. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed them all. They can always be put back as needed. That aside, I wonder about the definition ("Said to express confusion"). I thought this was used the same way as I see (i.e. to express understanding), and to express confusion only when used euphemistically (or sarcastically perhaps). Anyone know? —msh210℠ (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Looks fine now --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:I see, said the blind man


text:
Talk:quelque chose

RFC discussion: September 2012
You'd think we could make a decent fist of this sort of really important entry, but no, we can't. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've simplified it, and added a couple of random quotes from a translation of Dracula (not properly sourced). SemperBlotto (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe the quelque chose d'important (etc.) bit should be usage notes, I don't think it's a separate definition per se. It's just that in English we don't say something of important, we say something important. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, could've done it myself, not had enough caffeine yet today. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:quelque chose


text:
Talk:cutchery

RFC discussion: October 2011–September 2017
The entry is really a huge mess and needs lots of cleanup. -- Liliana • 20:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go quite that far, but the citations should go with the sense the exemplify, and not under a ===References=== header at the bottom. Again, looks like a Wikipedian style where a Wiktionary style would be better. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Looks good now--WF on Holiday (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:cutchery


text:
Talk:zindelijk

RFC discussion: September 2011
Surely if zindelijkheid is the noun, this is the adjective. So it needs a definition to match, also categorization - zindelijkheid needs. NB I'm seeing Google Book hits, so deletion ought to be avoided. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned the two entries up now. —CodeCat 13:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:zindelijk


text:
Wiktionary talk:Word of the day/Archive/Alphabetic

RFC discussion: November 2011–May 2017
Needs updating for the last five or so months. There are also probably holes in the dates. Bot maybe? —Internoob 05:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

 * It doesn't "need" updating. I tagged it as inactive, which is the easy way out. --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

RFD discussion: March–November 2021
Since we've got Category:Word of the day archive, this page isn't so useful anymore. Do people care which date a particular word was WOTD? Probably not... Oxlade2000 (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Also Word of the day/FAQ has a grand total of 1 FAQ. This could probably be absorbed into Word of the day, if anyone cares enough about it. Oxlade2000 (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The intention is to add additional FAQs there if any arise, to avoid cluttering up the main WOTD page. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete subpage "Alphabetic". Ultimateria (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. Ultimateria (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


text:
Talk:mewl

RFC discussion: November 2011–May 2017
Suspiciously like the AHD sense. I can't think of a nicer way to define this though. —Internoob 00:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Isn't this onomatopoeic? That might be one piece of information to include by way of differentiating from the AHD entry.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that might work. I also found another one: solipsism, also a WOTD nom. —Internoob 00:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably Yahoo just changed one word in the OED definition "Esp. of an infant: to cry feebly, to whimper; to make a whining noise.". The OED claim the obvious onomatopoeia, via Middle French "miauleur" and "miaul" --> "meawl".    D b f  i  r  s   14:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Looks fine now --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 * see miauler in French (meow in English), very close

title: Talk:mewl


text:
Talk:無明

RFC discussion: September 2011–May 2017
Another frankly gawdawful mess of an entry, mostly by IP user Special:Contributions/90.209.77.109 with some "help" from the equally-clueless Special:Contributions/2.221.151.187. I've cleaned up the JA entry and removed the RFC from there, but the Cantonese and Mandarin entries need some serious help, including proper hanzi templates. I'd add them myself but I have no idea which ones are appropriate. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Looks fine now --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:無明


text:
Talk:heart attack

RFC discussion: October 2011
Sense one should read smoothly in one sentence; sense two needs to be better defined and its example sentence should be separated from the definition. ---> Tooironic 23:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good now? (I've detagged, as I think it's fine. Feel free to re-tag it if you disagree.) —msh210℠ (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Beautiful. Thanks. ---> Tooironic 01:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:heart attack


text:
Talk:mḥ

RFC discussion: October 2012
Hi All,

I've got two definitions of a verb with multiple defintions, which require a particle to take a certain meaning, and I am unsure how to format that.

Sense 4 of mḥ (verb: etymology 1) is "seize" - It uses the structure mḥ n X, where n is the particle meaning in/at/with/to, and X is the thing seized. How do I include that in the definition?

Similar questions apply to sense 5 & 6 of etymology 2.

Sorry for the bother - I'm still learning the ropes Furius (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You can add ‘always/sometimes/usually followed by foo, bar or whatnot’ to the context tag. — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

 * , it seems that Furius never solved his problem formatting this entry. Could you please finish the job? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, done. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 09:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:mḥ


text:
Talk:erheben

RFC discussion: October 2011–September 2017
Doesn't meet ELE in the slightest. -- Liliana • 13:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * better now? --Rockpilot 13:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Looks good now--WF on Holiday (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:erheben


text:
Talk:낮추다

RFC discussion: October 2011
Are the example sentences given violating copyright? ---> Tooironic 20:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see why they would. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Copyvio is a possibility, as specific Bible editions can be copyrighted, if my understanding is correct. At any rate, the formatting is a mess (CJK languages generally should never be italicised due to severe legibility problems; the relevant words are not bolded), transitivity isn't clear, reflexivity isn't clear, nothing is linked, the usexes given don't clarify anything, etc.  Looks par for the course for 123abc's work, unless I miss my guess. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how long a citation has to be before it's a possible copyright violation. Furthermore, I searched the entry to find where the page name is used in the citations, and it isn't. Why is that? Is it a conjugation issue? I can't read Korean so I can't bold the right bit. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure either about length. However, I can at least elucidate a bit about the verb -- the -다 (-da) on the end is the verb ending that changes through conjugation, but the 낮추- (natchu-?) stem should remain the same in at least a few conjugated forms.  C.f. the conjugation table for  ("to roll up", not sure if this is trans or intrans), where we find the stem 말- (mal-) in some forms but not all (changes due to phonemic environment).  -- HTH, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:낮추다


text:
Talk:shí

RFC discussion: October 2011
The Mandarin section seems a bit confused -- it has both ===Romanization=== and ===Pinyin=== subheadings, with some redundancy between the two. The ===Pinyin=== section also doesn't seem to clearly indicate traditional and simplified spellings. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand it either. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

 * I have cleaned up some. --Anatoli 22:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:shí


text:
Talk:few and far between

RFC discussion: September 2011–May 2017
's definition "rare and scarce" is crappy. --Rockpilot 18:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? 86.183.2.73 20:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because rare: and scarce: are synonyms in the applicable sense, whereas the expression implies something beyond mere rarity or scarcity, perhaps being "hard to find". DCDuring TALK 21:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Looks fine now --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

compositional
Isn't this one easily understood compositionally from it's parts of speech? --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:few and far between


text:
Talk:dichotomy

RFC discussion: November 2011–May 2017
Per my request on the entry page. I am not familiar with most of the definitions, so can someone who is more familiar with the word wikify and categorise the definitions? Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Looks fine now --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

dichotomy
Is dichotomy a synonym ? Backinstadiums (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:dichotomy


text:
pissuseq

Noun

 * 1) nature, way of being
 * 2) behaviour
 * 1) behaviour

title: pissuseq


text:
eqqaanarneq

Noun

 * 1) similarity, resemblance

title: eqqaanarneq


text:
eqqaanarpoq

Verb

 * 1)  resemble

title: eqqaanarpoq


text:
pissutigalugu

Etymology
, in the third-person singular contemporative, thus "while having [that] as reason".

Particle

 * 1) because of

title: pissutigalugu


text:
pissut

Noun

 * 1) reason
 * 2) cause
 * 3) excuse
 * 4) occasion (for doing something)

title: pissut


text:
트롱프뢰유

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) trompe l'oeil

title: 트롱프뢰유


text:
Talk:dialyzable

RFC discussion: February 2013–August 2017
This entry was added as an unformatted mess. I cleaned it up, then checked to see if it was redundant to a UK-spelled entry. It is, but clicking through the linked terms led to an annoying game of find-the-definition:
 * dialysable is defined as "Able to be dialysed".
 * dialysed is defined as "Simple past tense and past participle of dialyse
 * dialyse is defined as "Alternative spelling of dialyze"
 * dialyze is defined as "To subject something (or someone) to dialysis
 * dialysis (finally!) has useful definitions.

Can someone simplify this maze of links so it doesn't take so many clicks? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * dialyzable said "(of a substance) Able to be removed by dialysis", so I just copied that definition over to dialysable. Now it just takes one click to get to the useful definitions at dialysis. —Angr 21:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So far, so good. That solves one of the inefficiencies. There's still the other entries that link to alt-forms and derived forms. I also have the nagging feeling that we may be missing something: dialyze actually has two senses: one referring to the substances, and the other referring to patients undergoing dialysis. It's possible that one could talk about whether a patient is dialyzable/dialysable. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Let the fact that dialyzable and dialysable were out of sync show that attempting to duplicate content across entries is a bad idea which invariably ends with entries going out of sync. I've made "dialyzable" an alt form of "dialysable", having arbitrarily decided to standardise in that direction rather than in the other direction. - -sche (discuss) 01:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * dialyzable significantly more common than dialysable per Google n-Gram, so swapped. DCDuring TALK 02:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @Chuck Entz: I don't see any usage in the first 60 Google Books hits that dialyz/sable is used of people or of blood. And no hits at all on books for "dialyzable patient" or "dialyzable blood". DCDuring TALK 02:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Looks good now --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:dialyzable


text:
Talk:agathology

RFC discussion: January 2013
Needs Ancient Greek etymology and Greek script--Tobby (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Chuck Entz (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:agathology


text:
Talk:catracho

RFC discussion: February 2013–August 2017
This is apparently a real sense, but it has no PoS or even a language. I hope someone with better English or Spanish knowledge can fix it up? 21:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I used the Spanish Wikipedia, and then checked it's attestable in print too. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Looks good now --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:catracho


text:
Talk:Dido

RFC discussion: February 2013–August 2017
As I cleaned up a separate problem, I noticed the attention tag: can this be templatised? - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I notice that the template differs in showing plural forms, but there are other proper nouns using the same template, and also having plural forms. Still, I haven't done too many of these in Latin, so it wouldn't hurt for a more experienced Latin editor to check it. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I did a search of the whole PHI Latin corpus and it doesn't bring up any uses of Dido in the plural in any case (I can't think why she'd appear in the plural, either). My assumption would be that someone just used the regular 3rd declension table because they didn't know how to use a declension table for proper noun (I'm not deprecating them at all, if that's the case -  I freak out every time I encounter a template andd it is certainly what I would do) 01:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's actually something that's been bothering me for a while, but unfortunately many Latin names do pluralise. I'm not surprised this one doesn't, mainly because it's not Roman. I don't really think it's a big problem, in large part because it would be hell to change now that it's common practice to give plurals for basically everything that isn't a geographical feature. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We could always add a switch to the template to suppress plural forms, couldn't we? - -sche (discuss) 04:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but SB would also need to recode his bot, and he doesn't seem to care about Latin much right now. Oh, and somebody (not me, because I can't say I really want to) would theoretically need to go through and check the attestability of plural forms for tons of proper nouns, which is tedious. Just doing it to one entry doesn't solve anything. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Looks good now --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dido


text:
Talk:indlamu

RFC discussion: February 2013–September 2017
The definition seems to be taken from that at Indlamu, which in turn was apparently copied word-for-word from this passage. It needs to be restated in more original language. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

 * no it doesn't Chuck. Nobody's gonna notice --WF on Holiday (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:indlamu


text:
Talk:alternative

RFC discussion: February 2013–August 2017
Definition "other". Hard to be more vague than that. Was wondering which of our senses covers the meaning of alternative in, and my conclusion is that we don't have one. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * to your question, "other". --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Looks good now --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:alternative


text:
Talk:desire

RFC discussion: January 2013–August 2017
Sense 1: "More formal or stronger word for want." Sense 3: "Another word for want, connoting emotion." These definitions are terrible: "desire" doesn't mean "another word for want", it is another word for "want", just as "cat" doesn't mean "noun", it is a noun. They also seem redundant to one another. - -sche (discuss) 10:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think "another word for" is wrong so much as much it's pointless and bad style. It would be like starting definitions with "defined as" or "may be defined as". Mglovesfun (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Or "used to refer to", like "used to refer to a breed of domestic cat native to the Isle of Man" (Manx cat, hypothetical example). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Looks fine now --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:desire


text:
Talk:vielen

RFC discussion: February 2013–August 2017
A bit... too long? 14:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks correct to me -- Liliana • 14:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Better now? I've used at  and added a declension table to  so the reader isn't overwhelmed with a hard-to-read list but can still find the information he's looking for. —Angr 15:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, who decides if the list in inflected forms is too long? The list was completely correct, so why should someone decimate it? I want to redo the old version. --Bigbossfarin (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand why you're unhappy with this: you put a lot of work into the list of forms that got eliminated, there are no rules that I know of that prohibit making such a list, and I'm sure every single item on that list is correct. Still, there are some occasions when the sheer volume of information makes it too difficult to use. The declension table at viel has the same information, but structured in such a way that you don't have to go through the list item-by-item to find a given combination of strong-vs.weak, case, gender, etc.
 * There are lots of things that are allowed by the rules that aren't a good idea, such as adding example sentences to the entry for every possible form in the declension table, or having a "see also" list with all the nouns that the adjective could be used with. One has to look not just at whether something is permissible and correct, but also whether it would be of any use to those who are trying to find information about the word. Too much relatively unstructured information in one place increases the work needed to find any one piece of it. The quantity of items on the list provides an odd sort of illustration of the definition, but it would be an even better illustration for zu viel... Chuck Entz (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

 * FWIW, Bigbossfarin's comprehensive entry was the kind of entry de.Wikt has, and indeed the kind of entry en.Wikt has for languages like Latin where individual forms have smaller numbers of senses (see e.g. portibus). I'm on the fence about which diff is better in cases like this, where forms have large numbers of senses. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have no problem with listing the senses of a syncretic inflected form separately, up to about five or six. After that, one starts losing the ability to keep track of them all. If other people feel it's preferable to list all the senses of vielen separately, then I would at the very least recommend removing the "mixed" forms, since there isn't really a "mixed" adjective declension in German: it's just that some forms of ein and kein are followed by strong adjectives and other forms are followed by weak adjectives, so the so-called "mixed" declension is always identical to either the strong form or the weak form. In the case of vielen, the "mixed" forms are always the same as the weak forms. But generally, I do think that if the entry of an inflected form is going to have more than five or six senses, it's preferable to just say and let a declension table at the lemma entry do the work. —Angr 16:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I oppose the removal of information. A better solution, IMO, would be merging some of them, for example:

Mixed masculine, feminine and neuter singular genitive of viel. Mixed masculine, feminine and neuter singular dative of viel.
 * Instead of:

mixed masculine singular genitive form of viel. mixed masculine singular dative form of viel. mixed masculine singular accusative form of viel. mixed feminine singular genitive form of viel. mixed feminine singular dative form of viel. mixed neuter singular genitive form of viel. mixed neuter singular dative form of viel.
 * I don’t see how a list showing the various uses of viele overwhelms the user with information, while forcing them to pick out the vielens in a conjugation table doesn’t. — Ungoliant (Falai) 15:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If we do want to list them all rather than just using, then I'd recommend merging the whole shebang to:

strong masculine and neuter singular genitive form of viel. strong, weak, and mixed masculine singular accusative form of viel. strong, weak, and mixed weak plural dative form of viel. weak and mixed masculine, feminine and neuter singular genitive form of viel. weak and mixed masculine, feminine and neuter singular dative form of viel.
 * That leaves only five lines, which is much easier for the reader to parse than 20 lines. —Angr 15:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Later: I edited the above to indicate that the masculine singular accusative and dative plural forms are strong, weak, and mixed rather than just strong and weak. —Angr 13:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm down with that. It's in line with how we combine the "Simple past tense and past participle of" of English verbs for which those forms are homographic. - -sche (discuss) 01:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Looks good now --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:vielen


text: sikuijuitsoq

title: sikuijuitsoq


text:
sikuiuitsoq

Noun

 * 1) ice-sea

title: sikuiuitsoq


text:
รับสั่ง

Etymology
Perhaps from, , , , , + 🇨🇬.

Verb

 * 1)  to command; to order; to direct; to instruct; to decree.
 * 2)  to utter; to pronounce; to state; to say; to speak; to tell; to talk; to declare.

Noun

 * 1)  command; order; direction; instruction; decree.
 * 2)  utterance; pronouncement; statement; speech; word; declaration.

title: รับสั่ง


text:
aihetunniste

Noun

 * 1) hashtag

title: aihetunniste


text:
趾高氣揚

Etymology
From the book :

Idiom

 * 1)  to be on one's high horse; to be very self-righteous; to be arrogant

title: 趾高氣揚


text:
تفريغ

Etymology
Morphologically from the root.

title: تفريغ


text: 趾高气扬

title: 趾高气扬


text:
إفراغ

Etymology
Morphologically from the root.

title: إفراغ


text:
استفراغ

Etymology
of

Noun

 * vomiting
 * vomiting

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) vomiting, belching
 * 2)  seeking relief [from]

title: استفراغ


text:
-sima

Suffix

 * 1) * 1992, Erik Münster (quoting anonymous), "Kinguaassiuutikkut nappaataava", Atuagagdliutit
 * "kl"
 * 1) * 1992, Erik Münster (quoting anonymous), "Kinguaassiuutikkut nappaataava", Atuagagdliutit
 * "kl"

- Pasipiluppara kinguaassiuutitigut nappaat herpes pineqarsoralugu, tassami pineqartumut receptimi allassimammat tarnut Zovirax.

title: -sima


text:
蝴蝶刀

Noun

 * 1) butterfly knife

title: 蝴蝶刀


text:
toqqarpaa

Etymology
From. Compare.

Verb

 * 1)  choose
 * 2)  move directly towards
 * 1)  move directly towards

title: toqqarpaa


text:
Talk:洎

RFV discussion: December 2016–September 2017
Rfv-sense for "till" sense. Listed in the Unihan database but I couldn't find it in other online dictionaries. Possibly a misspelling of "until" (which is a valid sense)? Bumm13 (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't know the language but since "till" and "until" are synonyms (no misspelling!) we should probably just merge those two lines. Equinox ◑ 08:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Yeah, sometimes the Unihan database gives too many definition lines. Nibiko (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 * RFV passed, I suppose.__Gamren (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:洎


text: húdiédāo

title: húdiédāo


text:
進口量

Noun

 * 1) import volume

title: 進口量


text:
出口量

Noun

 * 1) export volume

title: 出口量


text:
Talk:嫑

RFV discussion: December 2016–September 2017
Rfv-sense: (Min Nan) a contraction of bô iàu (無要). It seems to be from the article on on Wikipedia, tracing back to this edit on Wikipedia. I can't find it outside of Wikipedia. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 06:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:嫑


text: 进口量

title: 进口量


text: chūkǒuliàng

title: chūkǒuliàng


text: jìnkǒuliàng

title: jìnkǒuliàng


text:
進口稅

Noun

 * 1) import duty

title: 進口稅


text: 进口税

title: 进口税


text: jìnkǒushuì

title: jìnkǒushuì


text:
reinstecken

Verb

 * 1)  to insert, stick in, stick into
 * 2) to tuck in
 * 1) to tuck in
 * 1) to tuck in

title: reinstecken


text:
Talk:Διόνυσος

 * I'm not sure who wants to be pinged for AGr. etymologies nowadays, but in any case, this one sure needs some rewriting. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, this is an ugly block of text. I'm tempted to remove everything and put an until someone competent (which I'm not) works on it... --Barytonesis (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Διόνυσος


text:
學如逆水行舟，不進則退

Proverb

 * 1) Learning is like making the boat go against the current; if you stop moving forward, you will go back.

title: 學如逆水行舟，不進則退


text:
Talk:a'n't

RFC discussion: August 2013–August 2017
I dun know if this format is good. Should it be instead? Or perhaps ? --Æ&Œ (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Looks good now --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:a'n't


text:
Talk:शिव

RFC discussion: September 2013–August 2017
Defined as "Marsilea dentata" or "Marsilia dentata" (original spelling).

Marsilea is a real genus, Marsilia is not.

Web search shows it to appear almost entirely in South Asian language - English dictionaries. They must have had something in mind. But what? This kind of thing is not uncommon in our Sanskrit entries. DCDuring TALK 01:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

.
 * They seem to all go back to Monier-Williams, who gives the definition as "Marsilia dentata, L.", meaning he's seen it in dictionaries, but not in any text. Marsilia can be seen here and there in the 1800s as an alternate spelling for Marsilea, so Marsilea is likely the correct genus (The spelling "Marsilea dentata" can be found elsewhere in the same dictionary). One or two of the dictionaries equate it with Marsilea quadrifolia, which sounds right, but I've been unable to find "Marsilea dentata" or "Marsilia dentata" in any botanical reference, so far. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I took a run at this. Please review. DCDuring TALK  19:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Looks good now --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:शिव


text:
Talk:𑩜

RFC discussion: July 2017
Needs a language and other formatting. DTLHS (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

𑩐
Needs a language and other formatting. DTLHS (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

 * It could arguably be Translingual because it's used in writing more than one language, but so are e.g. Greek letters, which we don't seem to call Translingual, so I guess it should just be Mongolian, and possibly also Tibetan/Sanskrit. - -sche (discuss) 16:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tried to fix them up. - -sche (discuss) 16:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:𑩜


text:
Talk:cardinal virtue

RFC discussion: July 2013–August 2017
also Cardinal Virtues and Cardinal virtues

I am not sure of various aspects of these entries:
 * 1) Are they not essentially encyclopedic and thereby beyond our scope, meriting ?
 * 2) At least Hinduism and Buddhism have lists of cardinal virtues, Hinduism's list consisting of three, four, five or twenty virtues. Shouldn't we have all of the attestable ones? (most of the lists mentioned above seem attestable.)
 * 3) Are the names for the specific lists proper or common nouns?
 * 4) Phrases such as the Four Cardinal Virtues in that capitalization seem attestable, with multiple meanings.

Accordingly, I leave these to someone gifted with greater certainty. DCDuring TALK 15:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Theological virtues and heavenly virtues seem to have similar issues. DCDuring TALK 19:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Looks good now --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:cardinal virtue


text:
Talk:おすすめ

RFC discussion: June 2017
Needs to conform to standards. —suzukaze (t・c) 07:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up. Wyang (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:おすすめ


text:
Talk:kontor

RFC discussion: July 2017
Three different language codes being used in Estonian section. DTLHS (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:kontor


text:
Talk:anticlinal

RFC discussion: July 2013–August 2017
rfc-sense: "In a spine, the anticlinal vertebra has a dorsal-pointing neural spine towards which the spines of all the other vertebrae are inclined." While this may be true, it provides no definition of the word 'anticlinal'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at this. It now reads "The spinal vertebra which has a neural spine towards which the spines of all the other vertebrae are inclined; the vertebra at which the spine orientation changes."  I think that about captures it but feel free to improve. Spinning Spark  11:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think images would help both a user and a definer. This is not the only sense that needs cleanup. DCDuring TALK 14:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * MW 1913 has as a run-in entry: "Anticlinal vertebra (Anat.), one of the dorsal vertebræ, which in many animals has an upright spine toward which the spines of the neighboring vertebræ are inclined"
 * MWOnline has a definition for this behind its paywall.
 * They seem to think that the sense has no use apart from this particular collocation. They don't seem to think it can be readily understood from the other definitions of anticlinal either, a conclusion I don't find hard to accept. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that we should move the anatomical sense to anticlinal vertebra and change it back to a noun. As for a diagram, it could be marked on this picture.  Apparently, the human anticlinal vertebra is usually at T11 (eleventh from the top of the thoracic vertebrae).  However, it is not clear from this picture, or any other diagrams or photographs of spines I have looked at, why it is anticlinal.  This only really becomes clear when looking at images of individual vertebrae such as  (note this is cat, not human).  That book also calls the neural spines neural processes which might be a good idea for our definition, avoiding as it does the use of spine in two different senses.  In my view, the best way of describing this with an image would be with a stick diagram so all superfluous information could be removed.  I can produce one if it is agreed that it is needed.  I would propose to draw it flat (ie, with no spinal curve) to avoid the natural tendency of the reader to think that it has something to do with the curve by comparison with the geological meaning. Spinning Spark  10:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your approach seems right. Keep up the good work. In my short-attention-span way, I added images to two of the linked entries, (chemistry) torsion angle (not too good because concept is 3-D, video would help) and (geology) anticline (perfect for the job) and didn't immediately find what would be needed for anticlinal vertebra.
 * If you can produce an image by whatever (legal) means and enjoy doing so, there are many opportunities to do so. I hope you upload to wikicommons so that the most advantage can be taken from your efforts.
 * We have conflated and  into .  Either we ought to use the Wikicommmons request process more when we can't find what we need or we should have some kind of explicit request template for new images that suit our purposes when nothing seems to be available at Commons. DCDuring TALK  12:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. By my reading of your linked text. One can't have an anticlinal vertebra without curvature, which curvature is most intuitive in a quadruped with a basically horizontal spine. One could presumably have a synclinal vertebra, too. On a sway-backed animal the geological metaphor is obvious. DCDuring TALK  13:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's not right. I thought the same thing too when I first saw the term but the anatomy books say different.  It has nothing to do with the curve of the spine.  It is all about the spines (processes, protusions, or, as I will call them to make it clear, sticky-out-bits) of the vertebra.  The upper vertebrae have sticky-out-bits pointing towards the rear of the animal.  The lower vertebrae have sticky-out-bits pointing towards the head.  The vertebra at the transition between the two, that is, the one with a sticky-out-bit perpendicular to the spine, is the anticlinal vertebra.  It is not the curve of the spine which makes the sticky-out-bits point in different directions, each vertebra individually has them set at different angles relative to the body of the vertebra, and hence the local line of the spine.  This book  (dog) maybe has a better description and this one  (horse) has a pretty clear photograph at figure 1.7 of what is going on. Spinning Spark  15:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I take your point. But it is not accidental that the low point in a swaybacked animal (See picture there.) — or a youthful, vigorous animal —is approximately the location of the anticlinal vertabra.  From the point of view of sense development, they must originally have focused on the superficial geometry, before focusing on the detailed geometry of the vertabrae, which allows them to define a location even on a young, healthy animal without the sway that makes the location easy to identify in middle-aged and older animals and even on animals whose spine is more or less vertical. DCDuring TALK  15:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt that you can substantiate that assumption with cites. Or can you?  The oldest quote that I can find for the term is 1818 where it is still being defined in terms of the slope of the spinous processes.  It may coincidentally coincide at the bottom of the curve in horses, but that is certainly not true in human anatomy and probably many other mammmals.  This anatomy book  (1898) explicitly states that the term is borrowed from geology, but still has a definition in terms of spine slopes:
 * "This process marks the point where a change in the direction of the spinous processes takes place ; the spinous processes of the remaining thoracic and of all the lumbar vertebrae point toward the head. The eleventh thoracic is therefore known as the anticlinal vertebra, a. term borrowed from geology, in which it is used to denote the line from which strata dip in opposite directions."
 * I would also point out that even the geological senses of syncline and anticline did not originate from the curve of rockbeds. Rather, they originated from what could be deduced about the (often unobservable) shape of beds from measurements made with a clinometer at discrete sites where the beds happened to outcrop. Spinning Spark  18:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't have access to the OED so I don't know what the sequence of sense development was across disciplines. I am not proposing to define anything in line with my intuitions, just to make sure that the metaphorical imagery is not trashed in the course of our efforts. Please forgive my conjectural folk etymology in pursuit of understanding. DCDuring TALK  19:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The OED is consistent with my understanding of the geological origin of the term. The etymology is given as,
 * Greek ἀντί against + κλίν-ειν to lean, slope + -al suffix1. Compare Greek ἀντικλίν-ειν to lean against (each other)
 * The geological meaning is given as,
 * Applied to a line or axis from which strata slope down or dip in opposite directions; also said of the fold or bend in such strata, or of a ridge so formed.
 * And the anatomical meaning as,
 * (A vertebra) having an upright spine, towards which the spines on both sides incline.
 * Spinning Spark  09:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, here is the diagram. I am going to create anticlincal vertebra now. Spinning Spark  13:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Diagram looks good. BTW, does a human have an anticlinal vertabra? DCDuring TALK 21:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See Talk:anticlinal vertebra. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Antonyms or coordinate terms
By the way, why do you think that anticline and syncline are not antonyms? Spinning Spark  09:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * re: antonyms: Because they are merely different features of a whole, one not existing without the other, like sinus and lobe on a leaf. It isn't entirely a question of what they "are" as much as how we present them. It is no accident that few dictionaries ever have antonyms, though many have synonyms. If we took the trouble to say "antonym with respect to [attribute 1]" explicitly for our antonyms or limit ourselves to "customary antonyms", we might make antonyms a more useful semantic relation. Synonyms usually do not suffer from the same problem. "Coordinate terms" is a more inclusive class, that, for example, permits terms for intermediate points in a scalar range, without squandering vertical screen space on a semantic relation (antonymy) that typically has but one member. DCDuring TALK  12:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree with that reasoning. An antonym can be preceded by a sense, as is done at good.  However, in this case the two meanings are "leaning towards" and "leaning away from" which is quite unambiguous.  Those are antonyms in just about the same way as convex and concave which we have no problem calling antonyms.  Calling them coordinate terms instead completely loses the semantic relationship.  The claim that anticlines and synclines must exist together is just plain wrong.  The geology of England more or less consists of one giant syncline (with London at the bottom) with no corresponding anticline.  It is true that in folded beds they commonly occur together but there is no compulsion that they must. Spinning Spark  13:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have problems with almost all uses of the term antonym here. I can't speak for others here.
 * My main problem is that the terms that we slide under the heading do not bear the same relationship to their purported antonyms. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I really feel that this ought to be put to the community before going round arbitrarily removing antonym listings. In any case, changing the heading to coordinate term is rubbish, it completely loses the sense that the terms are in opposition. Spinning Spark  20:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * An alternative heading that we have is "See also", truly a "residual" category if ever there was one. DCDuring TALK 21:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because we have an even worse heading available does not justify a bad one. Spinning Spark  11:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Looks good now --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:anticlinal


text:
Talk:ha'

RFC discussion: August 2013–August 2017
No such language in Module:languages. DTLHS (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed "Classical Maya" to "Epigraphic Mayan", which is what we call, which is the language code used in the  template of the entry. —Angr 17:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I had changed it from to head, and changed the language code to emy based on the Wikipedia article (mny is a language family, not a language), but forgot about the L2 header. Thanks for catching that, and sorry for not posting about it here. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Looks good now --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:ha'


text:
Talk:/-j-/

RFC discussion: May 2017
A Latin-script or IPA symbol inside slashes, for a Russian morpheme, seems ... nonstandard. See also WT:RFM. As we are a written and writing-oriented dictionary, it would seem that the typical thing to do would be to put the entry at the most common (Cyrillic) spelling and have other spellings as alternative forms pointing to it. - -sche (discuss) 07:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to -ье. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:/-j-/


text:
Talk:buang

RFC discussion: July 2013–August 2017
Needs clarification (or unify various codes in Module:languages to simply Bisaya) DTLHS (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Looks good now, apparently --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:buang


text:
Talk:wonce

RFC discussion: November 2013–August 2017
This is probably mostly correct, but the sense at least is confusing (Obsolete elsewhere? Where are we? What?) Haplogy (話) 16:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's trying to say "still used in some dialects and obsolete in all other dialects". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * However, on reflection, that makes no sense. This is just an eye dialect spelling of once, not genuine dialect. It was probably used occasionally in the days before English spelling was standardized; if it's ever used nowadays, it's surely intended to suggest an uneducated speaker, much like the spellings sez and wot. Maybe someone with access to the OED can see how long it's been since this was a common spelling (I suspect at least 300 years). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It makes sense but whether it makes sense and whether it's truthful are two different things. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it makes no sense to say an eye-dialect spelling is "used in some dialects and obsolete everywhere else". The pronunciation of once and "wonce" is AFAIK the same in all dialects. As far as I can tell from b.g.c. it's used (1) to indicate that the speaker has a nonstandard accent, even though the pronunciation of this word is the same as the standard (that's what eye-dialect is), as here or (2) in attempts at a novel phonetically based orthography, as here and here (both by the same author). I'd just call it unless there's evidence it was formerly in widespread use (by other people than, in which case it's also an . But no matter what, we need to get rid of the comparative "more wonce" and superlative "most wonce". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, in modern usage I agree that it's just eye dialect (in the old, original sense). The OED does record it as a regional spelling with cites from 1599 (in a report to Queen Elizabeth that uses other obsolete spelling) and 1839 (in a publication by A Bywater on Sheffield dialect: "He sed at hah he wer wonce bahn up t'oud Park Wood" where is looks like eye dialect to me).    D b f  i  r  s   10:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we get a quote of the 1599 use? --WikiTiki89 16:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to be from the papers of John Harington (inventor of the flush toilet). The cite seems to be from Nugæ Antiquæ published in 1775 (but the cite is verbatim as far as I know, and from a 1599 paper):  "The rebell wonce in Rorie O More shewed himselfe."  As you can see, spelling at that time was variable.    D b f  i  r  s   22:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Looks good now --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:wonce


text:
Category talk:Japanese

RFC discussion: August 2017
This is a topical/semantic category, and should have no entries in it, but there's a bunch of Japanese entries there instead. —CodeCat 12:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why some of the entries are categorising into it. ? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed now. Wyang (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There's one left. —CodeCat 16:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Wyang (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Striking. —CodeCat 21:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Unstruck. It's because Module:ja-headword doesn't know how to cope with POSs that it doesn't recognize or which aren't in the right positional parameter. There are entries in it again because an anonymous user has been using  instead of  . —suzukaze (t・c) 04:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Module:ja-headword
—suzukaze (t・c) 04:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Japanese


text:
Talk:shiKomori

RFC discussion: August 2013–August 2017
No such language in Module:languages. DTLHS (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a Bantu language, so it's analogous to Swahili/kiSwahili and Zulu/isiZulu: the "Shi-" is a noun prefix, which is analogous to an inflectional ending in most other languages, and which most dictionaries leave off of the lemma form. There are lots of Bantu languages, and I'm sure pretty much all of the ones known by indigenous names have similar pairs of prefixed and non-prefixed forms for the language name. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops! I missed the point. Comorian is a complex of dialects that shades into Swahili. I believe we're currently deliberating over whether to treat it as Comorian, with its own language code, or Swahili. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, at the moment resolves as Comorian rather than as "Maore Comorian", but Category:Comorian nouns and Category:Comorian proper nouns, which use, have tags saying they ought to be called "Maore Comorian (proper) nouns". Comorian is usually considered to be a cover term for Maore plus Ngazidja Comorian (zdj), Ndzwani Comorian (wni), and Mwali Comorian (wlc). I don't know how we're supposed to know which dialect the word "Shikomor" is in; maybe more than one or even all of them. I'd say Comorian should be treated as a single language, rather than four, but separate from Swahili, if only because (according to WP) it's more often written in the Arabic script than the Latin script, while with Swahili it's the other way round. There also seem to be lexical differences. —Angr 18:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See WT:RFM. - -sche (discuss) 08:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Looks good now --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:shiKomori


text:
Category talk:Translingual language

RFC discussion: November 2013–August 2017
I don't know how to clean this up, though its faults are obvious.

I think it should be softly redirecting to more sensible categories, such as for CJKV characters, taxonomic names, Translingual symbols etc. It should also contain a brief rationale for why we have the page at all: it is a miscellany for items that don't fit elsewhere. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the faults are obvious. 'A miscellany for items that don't fit elsewhere' is I suppose accurate, but only because some terms have no inherent language, or not only one. It's really no different from saying that English adverbs don't belong in Category:Classical Nahuatl adjectives. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is the text:

"This is the main category of the Translingual language, represented in Wiktionary by the code mul. It is written in unknown script . [edit details]

"All terms in Translingual should be here, divided into subcategories by parts of speech, subjects, etc. A complete list may also be available at Index:Translingual.

"Please see About Translingual for considerations about Translingual entries.

"Definitions, translations and related terms may be found at the entry Translingual ."

Further the box at the right hand site has mostly non-links or dead links.

Each of the underlined items is problematic:
 * 1) "language" It is not a language
 * 2) "script" Items in the category could, in principle, be in any script, provided that the word or symbol was shared by two languages.
 * 3) "[edit details]" takes one to a module editing window with no clues.
 * 4) "Index:Translingual" is redlinked
 * 5) "Translingual" is redlinked

Which of these problems are not "obvious"?

Is the remedy to simply delete the template and start over? DCDuring TALK 23:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right just I don't really consider this a problem. Or only a small one. The intention of the category is clear even if technically Translingual is not a language. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I think we should "subst" the current template and start editing it. Or copy/paste it as an actual subst would make a mess. Not surprising that the normal template doesn't fit for translingual, but the current structure is probably a good starting point. e.g. instead of "script unknown", mention some of the more common scripts and types of translingual entries, with links to categories if they exist; Mention briefly that there is no index, etc, etc. Pengo (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree with Mglovesfun, we could just leave it as is. --WikiTiki89 17:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Looks good now --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Translingual language


text:
Talk:見える化

RFC discussion: July–August 2017
The definition is too long. —suzukaze (t・c) 01:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I had a go at cleaning it up. I adapted some wording from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_control. Please make any further edits that you think are appropriate. Mihia (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:見える化


text:
Talk:Columba

RFC discussion: August 2013–August 2017
Encyclopedic, includes a translation, I think. DCDuring TALK 12:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Looks good now --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Columba


text:
Talk:tuyệt

RFC discussion: September 2017
The content looks dubiously similar to the Chinese entry for 絕. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 04:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it looks like a word-for-word duplicate, with the senses rearranged and given POS headers (I think they changed too far-->far, but that's it). That's a copyvio and a violation of the attribution requirements of our license. It's also outrageous to be adding a whole entry in a language that's not even in their Babel as one they speak using this kind of crude fakery to fill in the blanks. This is part of a pattern where they add something, then think about whether it was a good idea, and not much different from their practice of making mass edits from sources that they don't understand very well.
 * I've deleted the entry as a copyvio and blocked them for 3 days. I have a hunch they're too young to understand what they're doing, or it would have been much longer. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:tuyệt


text:
Talk:白左

RFC discussion: August 2017
Needs normal Chinese stuff. DTLHS (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Cleaned up. Wyang (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Where does the 白 come from?
Some sources say it comes from 白种人 ("white person") and others say it comes from 白痴 ("idiot"). I don't think one or the other (as opposed to both or none) should be included without reference to some kind of authoritative study. 50.202.21.73 16:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:白左


text:
Talk:effective nuclear charge

RFC discussion: September 2017
Recently created, possibly with encyclopedic content that shouldn’t be here. Also not sure if SOP. Needs the attention of someone with expertise in chemistry. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 00:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I was debating with myself earlier whether it was SOP, but as a set term, I suppose it merits inclusion. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:effective nuclear charge


text:
Talk:onium

RFC discussion: April 2013–August 2017
Merge noun sections or split by etymology. Is the suffix really derived from the plural? — Pingkudimmi 06:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Looks good now --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:onium


text:
Talk:learning curve

RFC discussion: August–September 2013
Terrible definition by a permablocked. BrentDT (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WF is useless at definitions. Rewritten from scratch. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:learning curve


text:
Talk:trái

RFC discussion: December 2013–August 2017
As well as trái cây and quả cây. They're both synonymous qualifiers and their noun equivalents are also synonymous, but I don't know whether to tie them together by designating one as or some other method. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

 * There is a lot of overlap, but they aren't the same word spelled differently. It's sufficient to list them as synonyms of each other. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Looks good now --New WT User Girl (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:trái


text:
Talk:learning streak

RFC discussion: June 2016–July 2017
Tone/style. Doesn't seem like a very common phrase anyhow, and I'm not even sure the meaning is correct: a streak would be a series of successes, not of failures, right? Equinox ◑ 20:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 * One could have a losing streak, so streak in the sense of "a continuous series of like events" is not strictly positive. The etymology of learning streak is likely a play on words based on losing streak, though with the implied benefit of having learned from one's failures.  I agree the phrase seems uncommon, and I'm not sure it would be immediately understood even by speakers familiar with losing streak and the humorous use of learn as in "to fail or face unfavorable consequences, but gain knowledge in the process" (not yet documented on Wiktionary).  Rriegs (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:learning streak


text:
Talk:fellatio

RFC discussion: April 2017
The Latin entry only. It's a complete mess, and completely defies WT:REE. Someone who knows about Latin, could you please add the etymology, etc., and put everything where it needs to go? Thanks. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, I think. — Eru·tuon 00:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hindi translation
Hello. I'm trying to clean up the translation tables, and put all standard terms at, all vulgar terms at. Could you check the Hindi translations for both? --Per utramque cavernam 10:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

 * Hello. Could you check that the Mandarin and Cantonese translations are properly sorted too? --Per utramque cavernam 11:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 14:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

минет and other East Slavic translations
Re: - perhaps 🇨🇬 and descendants in other languages should be relabelled. I don't know if it's really 'vulgar'. There's even a Wikipedia article on it. There's often no label like "colloquial" or "vulgar", e.g. in gramota.ru. is also probably better understood and known than. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Hi Vahagn. Please check if 🇨🇬 is vulgar as well. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See also a related discussion at Talk:מציצה. It seems splitting doesn't work for every language. Per utramque cavernam 15:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've changed the label. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:fellatio


text:
Talk:키위

RFC discussion: August 2017
Weird formatting in the definitions (the slang for a national of New Zealand) + a weird synonyms section. —suzukaze (t・c) 09:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Wyang (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

다래
—suzukaze (t・c) 09:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Wyang (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:키위