text:
ܡܓܪܫ

Etymology
Causitive stem of the verb.

Verb

 * 1)  to prolong, protract, extend
 * 2)  to take, take up, last, expend an amount of time
 * 3)  to continue, to still do
 * 1)  to take, take up, last, expend an amount of time
 * 2)  to continue, to still do
 * 1)  to continue, to still do
 * 1)  to continue, to still do
 * 1)  to continue, to still do

Usage notes

 * This is a causative verb used for lasting or expending someone else’s time; for all other senses the verb is used instead.

title: ܡܓܪܫ


text:
baggage agent

Noun

 * 1) A baggage handler.

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

title: baggage agent


text: baggage agents

title: baggage agents


text:
nagyobbat

Etymology
From.

title: nagyobbat


text: Ankunftsbereiche

title: Ankunftsbereiche


text:
asztalomat

Etymology
From.

title: asztalomat


text:
child actor

Noun

 * 1) A child who works as an actor.

title: child actor


text: Ankunftsbereiches

title: Ankunftsbereiches


text: Ankunftsbereichs

title: Ankunftsbereichs


text: child actors

title: child actors


text:
Aslac

Etymology
From and.

title: Aslac


text:
okosat

Etymology
From.

title: okosat


text:
Ankunftsbereich

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  arrivals area

title: Ankunftsbereich


text:
way of thinking

Noun

 * 1) opinion; viewpoint

title: way of thinking


text: ways of thinking

title: ways of thinking


text:
sekkaa

Etymology
From. Cognates include 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Postposition

 * 1)  amongst; into the midst of

title: sekkaa


text:
nyitottat

Etymology
From.

title: nyitottat


text: sleeper sharks

title: sleeper sharks


text:
पण्य

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) ware, commodity

Noun

 * 1) ware, commodity

title: पण्य


text: wood-shaving flowers

title: wood-shaving flowers


text:
seast

Etymology
From. Cognates include 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Postposition

 * 1)  from the midst of

title: seast


text: pack-shepherds

title: pack-shepherds


text:
پنیہ

Etymology 1
.

Adjective

 * 1) holy, sacred
 * 2) laudable, meritorious
 * 3) auspicious, fortunate

Noun

 * 1) virtue; an act of virtue
 * 2) boon, godsend, as a result of virtue

Etymology 2
.

Noun

 * 1) ware, commodity

title: پنیہ


text: Sicilian codes

title: Sicilian codes


text: Sierra Nevada brushfinches

title: Sierra Nevada brushfinches


text:
Entschließungsantrag

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  motion for a resolution
 * 2)  resolution formal statement adopted (or rejected) by an assembly

title: Entschließungsantrag


text:
Template:U:hu:noun-at

 * Variants:
 *  is added to back-vowel verbs
 *  is added to front-vowel verbs
 *  is added to front-vowel verbs
 *  is added to front-vowel verbs

title: Template:U:hu:noun-at


text: VPCs

title: VPCs


text:
پاردم

Etymology
..

Noun

 * 1) crupper, a strap, looped under a horse's tail, used to stop a saddle from slipping

title: پاردم


text:
spychologia

Etymology
From ; under the influence of.

Noun

 * 1)  practice of shifting responsibility onto someone else

title: spychologia


text:
Entschliessungsantrag

Etymology
From.

title: Entschliessungsantrag


text:
Fimfer

Noun

 * 1) five digit or figure
 * 2) an academic grade indicating "poor" in Bavaria, corresponding roughly to a D- in English-speaking countries
 * 3) an academic grade indicating "unsatisfactory" or "failure" in Austria, corresponding to an F in English-speaking countries

title: Fimfer


text:
ܫܡܫܝܬܐ

Etymology
Derived from ; compare 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) parasol, sunshade, umbrella for the sun

title: ܫܡܫܝܬܐ


text: Entschließungsanträge

title: Entschließungsanträge


text: Entschließungsantrages

title: Entschließungsantrages


text: Entschließungsantrags

title: Entschließungsantrags


text: Hetzner

title: Hetzner


text:
віолончель

Noun

 * 1)  cello

title: віолончель


text:
ܡܛܪܝܬܐ

Etymology
Derived from ; compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) umbrella for rain, parapluie, rainshade

title: ܡܛܪܝܬܐ


text:
كرپیچجی

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) maker or seller of mudbricks or adobe bricks

title: كرپیچجی


text:
動植

Noun

 * 1)  animals and plants

title: 動植


text:
tail-buzzer

Noun

 * 1)  A thief who steals from coat pockets.

title: tail-buzzer


text:
off-prem

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1)  Located outside the premises of an organization, typically in the cloud.

title: off-prem


text:
kerpiççi

Etymology
From, equivalent to.

Noun

 * 1) maker or seller of mudbricks or adobe bricks

title: kerpiççi


text:
Swell Street

Proper noun

 * 1)  The West End of London.
 * 2) * Henry Pitman, The Popular Lecturer [afterw.] Pitman's Popular Lecturer (page 140)
 * the never-failing curling lotion, invented and manufactured by Fop and Co., of Swell-street, London.
 * 1) * Henry Pitman, The Popular Lecturer [afterw.] Pitman's Popular Lecturer (page 140)
 * the never-failing curling lotion, invented and manufactured by Fop and Co., of Swell-street, London.

title: Swell Street


text:
甘油酯

Noun

 * 1)  glyceride

title: 甘油酯


text:
zöldül

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to become (more) green to slowly take on a green color

title: zöldül


text: Template:zle-ort-decl-noun-a

title: Template:zle-ort-decl-noun-a


text:
-іст

Suffix

 * 1) -ist

title: -іст


text:
vähänäkyvä

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) barely visible

title: vähänäkyvä


text: Category:Old Ruthenian hard a-stem nouns


text:
ejf

Numeral

 * 1) eleven

title: ejf


text:
slanke sleutelbloem

Etymology
lit. 'slender primrose'.

Noun

 * 1)  oxlip,

title: slanke sleutelbloem


text: slanke sleutelbloemen

title: slanke sleutelbloemen


text: Category:Old Ruthenian nouns by inflection type


text:
баскетболіст

Etymology
From. Compare 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) basketball player, basketballer

title: баскетболіст


text:
zwejf

Numeral

 * 1) twelve

title: zwejf


text:
唔見得

Adverb

 * 1)  not necessarily; unlikely to

title: 唔見得


text:
攞彩

Verb

 * 1)  to win honour (for oneself or others)

title: 攞彩


text:
قوصمق

Etymology

 * cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Verb

 * 1)  to vomit, throw up, puke, to regurgitate or eject the contents of the stomach through the mouth

title: قوصمق


text:
Åchter

Noun

 * 1) eight digit or figure

title: Åchter


text:
pannog

Etymology
From earlier, from. Cf. Irish.

Adjective

 * 1) fluffy, hairy, furry, woolly

Noun

 * 1)  mullein

title: pannog


text:
fågelspindel

Noun

 * 1) tarantula (spider of the family )

title: fågelspindel


text:
執身彩

Verb

 * 1)  to be lucky, especially under bad circumstances

title: 執身彩


text:
ööf

Numeral

 * 1) eleven

title: ööf


text: bokstavskombinationen

title: bokstavskombinationen


text:
zwööf

Numeral

 * 1) twelve

title: zwööf


text: bokstavskombinationer

title: bokstavskombinationer


text: bokstavskombinationerna

title: bokstavskombinationerna


text: bokstavskombinations

title: bokstavskombinations


text: bokstavskombinationens

title: bokstavskombinationens


text: bokstavskombinationers

title: bokstavskombinationers


text: bokstavskombinationernas

title: bokstavskombinationernas


text:
pannog felen

Etymology
+

Noun

 * 1)  common mullein, great mullein, Aaron's rod

title: pannog felen


text:
laccal

Verb

 * 1) desire, want

Noun

 * 1) want
 * 1) want

title: laccal


text:
餵哺

Verb

 * 1)  to feed (usually breastmilk)

title: 餵哺


text:
ujumapereponka

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) webbing for swimming

title: ujumapereponka


text: Category:cy:Figwort family plants

title: Category:cy:Figwort family plants


text:
pereponka

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) webbing

title: pereponka


text: Category:yag:Healthcare occupations

title: Category:yag:Healthcare occupations


text: Category:yag:Healthcare

title: Category:yag:Healthcare


text: Category:yag:Occupations

title: Category:yag:Occupations


text: Category:yag:People

title: Category:yag:People


text: Category:yag:Health

title: Category:yag:Health


text: Category:yag:Medicine

title: Category:yag:Medicine


text: adjustest

title: adjustest


text: adjusteth

title: adjusteth


text: Category:yag:Sciences

title: Category:yag:Sciences


text: Category:yag:Work

title: Category:yag:Work


text: Category:yag:Human activity

title: Category:yag:Human activity


text: Category:yag:Human behaviour

title: Category:yag:Human behaviour


text: Category:yag:Biology

title: Category:yag:Biology


text:
krętlik

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  swivel

title: krętlik


text:
kurijara

Etymology
Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, as well as 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) curiara, dugout canoe

title: kurijara


text: spychologią

title: spychologią


text: w.m.b.

title: w.m.b.


text: wmb

title: wmb


text:
母奶

Noun

 * 1) breast milk; mother's milk

title: 母奶


text: Deuce

title: Deuce


text: psychologii

title: psychologii


text: psychologię

title: psychologię


text: psychologią

title: psychologią


text: psychologio

title: psychologio


text: dotcomer

title: dotcomer


text: dotcomers

title: dotcomers


text: komunizmu

title: komunizmu


text: komunizmowi

title: komunizmowi


text: komunizmem

title: komunizmem


text: komunizmie

title: komunizmie


text:
堅勁

Adjective

 * 1) strong and unyielding

title: 堅勁


text:
فائده‌لنمك

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to gain, profit, benefit, to derive a benefit or profit

title: فائده‌لنمك


text:
tʃø³¹ ʃaʔ⁵⁵

Etymology
From. Compare 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) till, until

title: tʃø³¹ ʃaʔ⁵⁵


text: Category:Pela terms suffixed with -ʃaʔ⁵⁵


text: Category:Pela terms by suffix

title: Category:Pela terms by suffix


text: rabatjes

title: rabatjes


text:
𒊭𒈠𒇻

Etymology
. For more information, see 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) apple, apricot?
 * 2)  apple tree

title: 𒊭𒈠𒇻


text: Mong Ri Mong Ram

title: Mong Ri Mong Ram


text:
makureru

Noun

 * 1) cactus

title: makureru


text: Gadamis

title: Gadamis


text:
con nhà tông không giống lông cũng giống cánh

Etymology
One (obsolete) variant of this phrase is attested in the Dictionarium anamitico-latinum (1772 manuscript) as.

Considering that both variants contain and, it is likely that the obsolete one, which has , is more conservative of the two. The modern form arose from the substitution of for its rhyme.

Proverb

 * 1) like father, like son


text: Ghadamis

title: Ghadamis


text: parakayda

title: parakayda


text:
Gadames

Proper noun

 * 1) Ghadamis

Proper noun

 * 1) Ghadamis

title: Gadames


text: -leda

title: -leda


text:
Ghadamesian

Adjective

 * Of, from, or relating to the Libyan town of Ghadamis.

title: Ghadamesian


text:
علاجسز

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) irremediable, irreparable, incurable, unable to be remedied or cured

title: علاجسز


text:
𒊭𒄠𒇻

Etymology
See.

title: 𒊭𒄠𒇻


text: Category:Rhymes:Estonian/edɑ

title: Category:Rhymes:Estonian/edɑ


text:
Gadamés

Proper noun

 * 1) Ghadamis

title: Gadamés


text: ᜑᜍᜓᜅ᜔

title: ᜑᜍᜓᜅ᜔


text: vlgm

title: vlgm


text:
طاوشانجیل اوتی

Etymology
From +.

Noun

 * 1) hogweed, any weedy, umbelliferous plant of the genus

title: طاوشانجیل اوتی


text:
Walnusskern

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  walnut meat walnut kernel

title: Walnusskern


text: футболко

title: футболко


text: Walnusskerne

title: Walnusskerne


text: Walnusskernes

title: Walnusskernes


text: Walnusskerns

title: Walnusskerns


text: Walnußkern

title: Walnußkern


text: Bôn-xơ Phi-lát

title: Bôn-xơ Phi-lát


text: Phong-xi-ô Phi-la-tô

title: Phong-xi-ô Phi-la-tô


text:
öfe

Numeral

 * 1)  eleven

title: öfe


text:
zwöfe

Numeral

 * 1)  twelve

title: zwöfe


text:
راستق

Etymology
Vulgarized form of.

Noun

 * 1) rastik, a preparation of sulphuret of copper blended with other ingredients, used as a cosmetic

title: راستق


text:
crasboeth

Etymology
🇰🇲.

Adjective

 * 1) hot and dry, torrid

title: crasboeth


text:
Abflugbereich

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  departures area

title: Abflugbereich


text:
𑜏𑜢𑜆𑜫𑜏𑜨𑜂𑜫𑜆𑜃𑜫𑜃𑜡

Noun

 * 1) Xishuangbanna, Sibsongpanna

Synonyms

 * 𑜉𑜢𑜤𑜂𑜫 𑜍𑜣 𑜉𑜢𑜤𑜂𑜫 𑜍𑜪

title: 𑜏𑜢𑜆𑜫𑜏𑜨𑜂𑜫𑜆𑜃𑜫𑜃𑜡


text: Abflugbereiche

title: Abflugbereiche


text: Abflugbereiches

title: Abflugbereiches


text: Abflugbereichs

title: Abflugbereichs


text:
kalanmukain

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) fishlike

title: kalanmukain


text:
鬢影

Noun

 * 1) shadow of hair on the temples

title: 鬢影


text: Đa-vít

title: Đa-vít


text:
mukain

Etymology
Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) fitting, compatible

title: mukain


text:
-ʃaʔ⁵⁵

Etymology
Compare 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Usage notes
is always suffixed to verbs. For the word for “until”, use the derived term, or simply the root.

title: -ʃaʔ⁵⁵


text:
全高清

Noun

 * 1)  full high definition (FHD), including  and

title: 全高清


text:
Giê-su Ki-tô

Etymology
. Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

title: Giê-su Ki-tô


text:
უკრაინისტიკა

Noun

 * 1)  Ukrainian studies

title: უკრაინისტიკა


text:
珠光寶氣

Idiom

 * 1)  dripping with jewels; luxurious; splendid; gorgeous

title: 珠光寶氣


text: 珠光宝气

title: 珠光宝气


text:
gantryless

Adjective

 * 1) Without a gantry.

title: gantryless


text:
pantryless

Adjective

 * 1) Without a pantry.

title: pantryless


text:
Check-in-Schalter

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  check in counter

title: Check-in-Schalter


text: Check-in-Schalters

title: Check-in-Schalters


text:
Ki-ri-xi-tô

Etymology
A peculiar formation, perhaps a conflation of different transcriptions. Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

title: Ki-ri-xi-tô


text:
sööttiissä

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to feed oneself

title: sööttiissä


text: Template:list:Gregorian calendar months/hrx


text:
Januer

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) January

title: Januer


text:
önümüzdeki

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) next, upcoming

title: önümüzdeki


text: Category:hrx:Gregorian calendar months

title: Category:hrx:Gregorian calendar months


text:
strap brake

Noun

 * 1) A brake that pulls a strap positioned around a rotating object.

title: strap brake


text:
чалбак

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) wide

title: чалбак


text:
merielokas

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) marine animal

title: merielokas


text: Template:gmh-adv

title: Template:gmh-adv


text:
containee

Noun

 * 1)  That which is contained; the contents.

title: containee


text: containees

title: containees


text:
超清

Noun

 * 1)  super definition

title: 超清


text:
undydd unnos

Etymology
Literally “a day, a night”.

Noun

 * 1) a day and a night
 * 2)  a short time
 * 3)  shortlived, ephemeral

Adverb

 * 1)  in a short time
 * 2)  ephemerally

title: undydd unnos


text:
ಆಟ

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

Noun

 * 1) game

title: ಆಟ


text:
🐙

Description
An octopus


text:
чаланъ

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) field

title: чаланъ


text: deepfry

title: deepfry


text: deepfrying

title: deepfrying


text: deepfried

title: deepfried


text: deepfries

title: deepfries


text: deep fries

title: deep fries


text:
დიდი პარასკევი

Proper noun

 * 1)  Good Friday

title: დიდი პარასკევი


text: strap brakes

title: strap brakes


text: Augustit

title: Augustit


text:
მეგობრული ცეცხლი

Noun

 * 1) friendly fire

title: მეგობრული ცეცხლი


text:
Rínia

Etymology
.

title: Rínia


text: Category:gu:Sponges

title: Category:gu:Sponges


text: หลวงปู่

title: หลวงปู่


text:
unnos

Etymology
Literally “a day, a night”.

Noun

 * 1) a period of one night
 * 2) an unspecified night in the past or future
 * 3)  any night

Adjective

 * 1) in one night
 * 2) accomplished in one night
 * 3)  one-night
 * 4)  in a short time
 * 5)  ephemeral

title: unnos


text:
putešestvenikka

Etymology
Borrowed from.

title: putešestvenikka


text:
yr unnos

Etymology
+.

Noun

 * 1)  the same night

title: yr unnos


text:
groundselbush

Etymology
🇰🇲

Noun

 * 1) The shrub.

title: groundselbush


text: groundsel bush

title: groundsel bush


text:
queddian

Etymology
From, from.

Verb

 * 1) to address
 * 2) to greet

title: queddian


text: groundseltree

title: groundseltree


text:
Santorí

Etymology
From, from.

title: Santorí


text: groundsel tree

title: groundsel tree


text:
ვოევოდინა

Proper noun

 * 1) Vojvodina

title: ვოევოდინა


text: groundsel-tree

title: groundsel-tree


text:
mutlaq

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) absolute, unconditional

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) absolute

title: mutlaq


text: sea-myrtle

title: sea-myrtle


text:
કૂકડી

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) hen

title: કૂકડી


text:
ვოევოდა

Noun

 * 1) voivode

title: ვოევოდა


text:
Reconstruction:Old English/as

Etymology
From. Appears in the historical record within the personal name (from ), an alternate form of.

title: Reconstruction:Old English/as


text: sea myrtle

title: sea myrtle


text: seamyrtle

title: seamyrtle


text:
Καμπουτιάν

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Statistics

 * According to data collected by Forebears in 2014, Καμπουτιάν is the 145225th most common surname in Greece, belonging to 1 individual.

title: Καμπουτιάν


text: chikarazuyoi

title: chikarazuyoi


text:
mutlaqiy

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) autocratic, monarchical

title: mutlaqiy


text: eastern baccharis

title: eastern baccharis


text:
carilló

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) carillon
 * 2) glockenspiel

title: carilló


text: salt-myrtle

title: salt-myrtle


text:
உருவாக்கம்

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) creation

title: உருவாக்கம்


text:
askeriy

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) military

title: askeriy


text: salt myrtle

title: salt myrtle


text: saltmyrtle

title: saltmyrtle


text:
Haselnusskern

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  hazelnut kernel, cobnut kernel the kernel of the seed

title: Haselnusskern


text: Haselnusskerne

title: Haselnusskerne


text: Haselnusskernes

title: Haselnusskernes


text: くらがり

title: くらがり


text: kuragari

title: kuragari


text: Haselnusskerns

title: Haselnusskerns


text: consumption weed

title: consumption weed


text: salt marsh elder

title: salt marsh elder


text: Haselnußkern

title: Haselnußkern


text:
waterbush

Noun

 * 1) The flowering plant.

title: waterbush


text: Category:Rhymes:Hunsrik/eləf/2 syllables


text: Category:Rhymes:Hunsrik/eləf

title: Category:Rhymes:Hunsrik/eləf


text:
ceolbhosca

Etymology
🇰🇲.

Noun

 * 1) music box

title: ceolbhosca


text:
ჰაიდუკი

Noun

 * 1)  hajduk

title: ჰაიდუკი


text:
groundshaking

Noun

 * 1) The shaking of ground during seismic activity.

title: groundshaking


text: Haselnussschalen

title: Haselnussschalen


text: Haselnußschale

title: Haselnußschale


text:
Haselnussschale

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) hazelnut shell

title: Haselnussschale


text:
धक्कादायक

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) shocking

title: धक्कादायक


text: しゅくぼう

title: しゅくぼう


text:
odejść do aniołków

Etymology
lit. 'to leave to join the angels'.

Verb

 * 1)  to pass away; to die

title: odejść do aniołków


text:
مطلقية

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) absolutism

title: مطلقية


text: Walnussschalen

title: Walnussschalen


text: Walnußschale

title: Walnußschale


text: deep frier

title: deep frier


text: deep friers

title: deep friers


text: deep-frier

title: deep-frier


text: deep-friers

title: deep-friers


text: deepfrier

title: deepfrier


text: deepfriers

title: deepfriers


text:
Walnussschale

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) walnut shell

title: Walnussschale


text: raked off

title: raked off


text: rakes off

title: rakes off


text: raking off

title: raking off


text:
User talk:DCDuring/2020

=2020=

User:User:DCDuring/mul-taxon
Can we delete this? The page title looks wrong: it's not part of your userspace. Equinox ◑ 22:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrong as rain. Deleted. Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit description
Would you mind adding an edit description for your edits like when you updated mountain ? If I see a mention of 'rfdatek' in the description, then it will likely satisfy my curiosity enough to not have to look at it. -Mike (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Extra keystrokes are a bit hard on my arthritic right thumb, but I will do it when I remember until the habit is established. DCDuring (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

When are brackets indicated?
Hi! I see in this edit that brackets for Langley's Rhetoric dictionary shouldn't be included? When are they needed? Should they be defaulted to off, if the definitional rhymes are considered a use rather than a mention? grendel|khan 15:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair question. It looked like a use to me. It wasn't in the form of a definition. Others may differ. To get more opinions try taking it to . DCDuring (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Taxonomic slip-up at tamarind
You listed "Gypsophila tubulosa" as the current name for "Diploglottis australis". This is nonsense, but it's a very easy mistake to make: Wikispecies doesn't have an entry for "Diploglottis"- it's a redlink on the Sapindaceae page- so it also doesn't have an entry for "Diploglottis australis". When you search for Diploglottis australis, it very helpfully gives you the results for Dichoglottis australis, instead, which redirects to Gypsophila tubulosa. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has no entry for "Dichoglottis", let alone Dichoglottis australis (though Gypsophila has a redlink for G. australis). When you search for Dichoglottis australis it very helpfully gives you the results for Diploglottis australis instead. In other words, the misdirections cancel each other out, giving the seamless illusion of the two wikis having different names for the same taxon.

As far as I can tell, however, "Gypsophila tubulosa" is the valid name for an annual herb related to baby's breath, while either "Diploglottis australis" or "Diploglottis cunninghamii" (Australian Plant Name Index vs. TROPICOS and The Plant List) is the valid name for a tree that gets over a 100 feet tall with a trunk 2 1/2 feet thick.

I'm not sure how best to fix this, since taxlink doesn't link to anything useful- but at least we have to keep users from ending up at Gypsophila tubulosa. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching the error. I often wonder how many careless errors I make. I've been a bit lazy about checking taxonomic names on non-Translingual entries. As my eyesight gets worse, the visual similarity of different names can fool me as it did on this one.
 * Usually I don't care much whether doesn't have a target at Wikispecies, because I view the more important function as counting uses of the taxonomic name for purposes of prioritizing taxonomic name entries. I have been relying on the failed search to help users get something useful if Wikispecies doesn't have an entry. It would have worked for this if Wikispecies at least had an entry for Diploglottis, especially one with a species listing.
 * I have removed the nonsense name. I may add D. cunninghamii as a synonym as WP says many use that name. DCDuring (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Your remark about "mean"
@Kent Dominic: I don't care about chronology and authorship. My remark was aimed at what I thought a weakness in the 5th definition that you were apparently advocating. DCDuring (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 * I couldn't care less about authorship, either. As for chronology, sorry I don't recall what remark you made about that 5th definition. At any rate, it was my bad for making a half-baked edit which, IMHO, should have been subsequently (a) edited by someone to fix its initial weakness, or (b) deleted along with the entirety of definition #5 rather than being reverted to its original infirmity. If you're the one who made that initial reversion under a different user name, shame on you for complicating things! (LOL) In fact, it's not a matter of my being too lazy to do a thorough edit in the first place. I simply wanted to defer to the (non)sense that was already there in case the definition resonated more with others than with me. That's in keeping with my tendency not to delete stuff.
 * Again, my only issue concerned transivity, neither ergativity re. express nor the semantics re. importance/importance. The ensuing discussion about the acceptability of "important a lot" or "importance a lot" leads down a linguistic rabbit hole for cross-lingual considerations. I resisted the urge to argue how "very important" or "utmost importance" challenges the silly assertion that "Importance is not a neutral term: unmodified, it usually implies a high degree of importance." The whole discourse along those lines was ancillary to my sole interest relating to transivity. I hope the entire episode is water under the bridge since no one has restored definition #5. Yet. If whoever wrote definition #5 feels possessed by pride in authorship to restore it, I surely will die in an apoplectic fit of laughter.--Kent Dominic (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Marchantiophyta
I notice you've split out two subdefinitions here, but "division" and "phylum" are considered the same rank in botany; those terms are 100% interchangeable. So the two subdefinitions are akin the saying "France is a country in Eurasia" and "France is a nation in Europe". There is no functional nor practical difference in the definition, the difference is in the phraseology. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though division is the equivalent specific to botany, with "phylum" being allowed as a synonym. I'm sure the "Ruggiero, et al" source uses "phylum" for consistency in naming of ranks between kingdoms. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was aware that they are at least approximately equivalent. The uses of division on Wiktionary often marks a different circumscription and/or placement. I was relying on the different terminology to draw attention to those differences.
 * Because higher taxonomic names often have little lexical meaning apart from circumscription and placement and both of these are subject to frequent adjustment and occasional drastic revision, our entries for such taxa will tend to be behind the curve. That's a reason for our taxonomic entries to have as links to as many of the better-staffed, likely-to-be-durable taxonomic databases as possible.
 * What, if anything, should be done to preserve the older placements and circumscriptions? Just link to the Wikispecies pages that show the variety of schemes for higher taxonomic ranks where such pages exist?
 * If we decide to keep it simple, then the consensus scheme of Ruggiero et al., which has been accepted by a few databases and may be updated soon, is probably our best bet, though there are areas where other databases depart from its scheme. Also, we use APG in the areas they cover. DCDuring (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Ruggiero classification has some drawbacks, but it's the best general classification I've seen. It will cause problems with certain groups of fossil seed plants. But again, the two definitions have no difference. The only real difference in our current definitions is that one identifies the kingdom to which the group belongs, and the other identifies the superphylum, but in fact both classifications put Marchantiophyta into kingdom Plantae. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't tried to apply Ruggiero to fossil-only taxa. I will probably never work on such taxa. I am also reluctant to spend time on the numerous clades which only exist because of the need to fit fossils into schemes such as that of Ruggiero et al..
 * I can accept any changes to [[Marchantiopsida]] that respect the Ruggiero placement and circumsciption. I wouldn't mind the conversion of any use of division above the level of order (There is lots of use below that level for insects.) to phylum or other taxonomic rank. But there are some definitions that are based on definitions, mostly superseded or disused, in Century 1911 which use division, for which I am not now willing to spend the time to reconcile with modern schemes. DCDuring (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But this instance is not such a case. This is a situation where you've added two subdefinitions that say the same thing in different words. I see no rationale for splitting the subdefinitions. Splitting definitions like this would create similar issues across the whole range of biota. (Def 1. Dogs are canids, Def 2. Dogs are a group of mammals, Def 3. Dogs are a group of vertebrates, Def. 4 Dogs are a group of animals) How many such subdefinitions are actually needed? Without justification, I will re-merge the subdefinitions you split.
 * Where I think you are setting yourself up for issues is that you are not simply identifying the rank and definition of the taxon, but you also are incorporating information about its placement within a specific classification system. The placement of a taxon has no bearing on its definition; if I move a book from one shelf to another it merely changes the location of the book, not its contents, appearance, nor any of its essential details. On Wikidata, descriptions of taxa are limited to statement such as "a class of plants" or "an order of animals", without specifying the parent group as part of the definitions.  Parent relationships are not inherent to a taxon, and are subject to all manner of changes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitions are written in terms of words. DCDuring (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made the merge, since I cannot tell whether you are understanding my argument at all. Please see my proposed revision. Also Metaknowledge is harassing me again, this time on my talk page. Your attention would be appreciated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, is Wiktionary concerned at all with the acceptability of name under the Code? I ask because Hepaticophyta is one of those names that's been used extensively in the literature, but a 2008 paper (by the creator of the "name") concluded that it is a nomen invalidum because the genus upon which it is based is illegitimate. This fact could be added as a Usage note, but doing so (potentially for every such name) may go beyond the utility of Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't been willing to remove any definition, even a mere wording difference, out of process.
 * I don't think that we can keep up with the code. It would be nice to note the status of various names, but I think we do well to just follow usage. DCDuring (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Even the definitions you added? This was a pair of sub-definitions you inserted. I have not removed them, simply combined them because they say the same thing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't add any definition involving division. I split an existing definition using division into a sense and a subsense. I added the subsense definition using phylum. DCDuring (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

niwa-fuji 庭藤
Hello. You changed a taxlink at 庭藤 from I. decora to an internal to Indigofera tinctoria. Unless I miss my guess, though, niwa-fuji is I. decora. See GRIN. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Right you are. Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is my usual source for botanical names of romanized Japanese terms. Of course, the taxonomy is a half century out of date, but you can use the usual taxonomic databases to track down the current names. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This time it was just my careless reading of the entry. DCDuring (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Burnout
Hey DCD. After an epic week Wiktionary-wise, I feel burned out. Literally, my eyes and head and wrist all hurt after working so hard. Please, if you see me around hit me with your admin block hammer. Thanks--Vitoscots (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I look forward to it. DCDuring (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Snake melon, yard-long cucumber
This rollback is an error: both links redirect to anyway and thus are useless. Ain92 (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Among the functions of the templates and  is to enable the creation of lists and counts of missing Wiktionary entries, such as User:DCDuring/vern and User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa. Inspecting the code for the templates would demonstrate that the templates also place the entry in categories.
 * The taxonomic names lists is relatively current. If you'd like, I could do a run to update the vernacular names list. DCDuring (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I updated the vernacular names list. DCDuring (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 * I don't see any changes in the article itself, but I checked the discussion of the template and the issue seems to be quite complicated and probably above my competences, so I won't insist. Ain92 (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't make any changes in the entry ("article"). I updated a list that depends on the large number of template transclusions. The list of missing vernacular names is located at User:DCDuring/vern. DCDuring (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverts to rhymes pages
Please stop reverting my edits to this page.

Linking to Wiktionary entries for surnames turns most of the links red. Wikipedia contains more information on the people linked to, and in some cases, a particular surname may only rhyme for the particular person linked to.

If you disagree with this approach, please raise it for discussion in the Beer parlour. Thanks. — Paul G (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you bring it up before you started. Our convention is to leave redlinks to indicate missing entries. DCDuring (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Red links are an intrinsic part of the wiki model: if you see 'em, create the entry (which might optionally link to Wikipedia). If the link isn't an everyday surname but some specific trademark, brand, or performer name (like, say, Ke$ha) then we probably shouldn't have it at all, per policy. Equinox ◑ 22:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, we are already having a BP discussion in which you have failed to participate. DCDuring (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out to me: I was unaware of it. I have replied there now. — Paul G (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

chip off the old...
Yep, it that's time again to give myself a wikibreak. Please could you do the honours? --Nueva normalidad (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

flowers - flowers of zinc, antimony, etc etc
Hi. Thank you for your reply on SB talk page. However, I still feel that flowers as a plural only noun should be in the plural name-space. As a plural only, the singular form is not the right place really, is it? Thanks. -- A LGRIF  talk 12:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's enough, but I don't object to double-posting. I wouldn't want someone who stripped the 's' to not find it at flower. To avoid divergent entries we might want to have a anchor at the relevant definition linked to from the other. Some other (mostly older) dictionaries have the various "flowers of" terms as run-ins for each material: benzoin, antimony, arsenic, sulfur/sulphur, tin, and zinc. Since that list of materials is probably not complete, it would be necessary to have definitions at the [[flower]]/flowers pair anyway. Are we sure that the singular is extremely rare relative to the plural? DCDuring (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The singular 'flower of' seems to be somewhere between 10% and 30% as common as the plural. It seems to have been used uncountably, as was the plural form. DCDuring (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I hate to impose, but I'm not too sure how to use the anchor. Could you possibly oblige? If so, most grateful then I will be (Yoda-speak). -- A LGRIF  talk  19:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm cleaning up some taxonomy messes at the moment. It's worth learning . The documentation isn't awful. DCDuring (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Re. "going to"
I think your recent edits represent an improvement vis-a-vis some that I made not long ago. I've returned a bit of the favor. Have a look. Cheers! --Kent Dominic (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Still recovering from power outages. Perhaps tomorrow. DCDuring (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

out
Hi, just to alert you, in this edit you added a new line that has a label "of a user of a service" but not an actual definition. Regards, Mihia (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

come
Hi DCDuring - I don't agree this is a preposition, even though some online dictionaries analyse it that way. I suppose it can be substituted with "by" and the overall meaning is not very different, but that doesn't mean it is a preposition. I don't know if you know the Jimmy Buffet song "Come Monday", but that's a good example of a case where the intended meaning is very much verbal: it means "when Monday _arrives_" not "by Monday". I myself have always understood it as a subjunctive verb, like other modern-day subjunctive uses fossilised to a certain degree. I suppose we could leave the preposition def but I would also like to add a verbal def and cross-reference them. What do you think? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that the origins of this usage of come are from the verb. I also wonder when one decides that a conversion of a word to a different word class has taken place. A number of prepositions have deverbal origins, such as my namesake and the other prepositions ending in ing. More similar to come is the preposition save. The key usage fact that makes me hesitant to insist that it is a pure preposition is that it partially inflects: one can find both come and came used with the same semantics, except for the tense difference. But number doesn't change come to comes (*comes Monday, ?come Mondays). I don't know whether there are other etymologically related prepositions that reflect a tense difference. I am pretty sure that there are no deverbal ones that do so. I think I would prefer to see more about this in an etymology section at come and came, but we don't usually have PoS-specific etymology sections (just as sense evolution generally is left as an exercise for the reader). It doesn't really have to do with usage, because thinking of come as a verb or a preposition makes no difference in how words are arranged around it.
 * What would a 'verbal' definition look like? DCDuring (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Webs3 has a verbal def: "to come to pass: take place — used in the subjunctive with inverted subject and verb to express the particular time or occasion." Also, OED1 sees it as a verb, def 35: "Come, the present conj., is used with a future date following as subject [...] 'come Easter'; i.e. let Easter come, when Easter shall come". The reason why it is not "comes Monday" is because it is in the subjunctive mood and therefore omits the -s. Of course, you are right that prepositions can begin life as verbs (regarding, during, are good examples - but they are continuous ones, so not exactly analogous to 'come' that we are discussing). However, I think that not all examples of this use of "come" can be seen as prepositional - for example, "Shanahan is a reactionary little toad who will be up against the wall come the revolution". The usage note says that it can be used in the past, but I wonder if that is the same sense exactly. I found this example (? maybe it is an example of what the usage note author as thinking of) "Came six-thirty and we were put out on to the cold street." I think this is just a playful/poetic reversal of subject and verb. But if this is an example of the same sense, then surely it is a verb, otherwise we would be saying that English now has an inflected preposition! - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

and In my book, it's less productive to parse a word according to a supposed part of speech than to identify it according to the lexical context in which the word occurs. So, "Come Monday" is a preposition as DCDuring explained; "come hell or high water" is a preposition for similar reasons; "Come All Ye Faithful" is a transitive verb in the imperative mood. As far as I can tell, the prepositional etymology of come is verbal but the usage is archaic in a way that differs from, e.g., "come one, come all," which is a transitive use in the imperative mood. Whether an archaic preposition derives from a verbal or deverbal basis might be interesting but isn't particularly relevant to its use in a fossil phrase, IMHO. However, for trivia's sake, the prepositional senses of come and save (and also except) indeed have verbal etymologies, as DCDuring hinted. Moreover, during also has a verbal origin, from the Proto-Indo-European root, deru-, which morphed into the Old French verb endurer in the 12th century, to the English endure in the mid-13th century, and then to during in the late 13th century. I can't rightly tell whether the earliest use of during was then considered a preposition or a so-called present participle of endure, but I'm nearly certain that any such distinction was immaterial to its usage at the time of its emergence. Kinda like how most people (not including me) consider "regarding" or "considering" to be prepositional parts of speech nowadays. (In fact, I deign to use the terms, present participle and parts of speech in my own lexicon; I prefer continuative participle and lexical category to avoid the anomalies and non sequiturs associated with the traditional terms.) --Kent Dominic (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

hard word
Hi, I commented on the Tea Room saying I've never heard of "hard word" in the context you cited. But English has many native speakers who have all heard of different usages. "Hard word" in the sense you cited is meaning 6b in OED, "outrageous demand". Do you have the OED? You could put an entry in Wikipedia if you wanted to - it is a dictionary anyone can edit. You can email me at djwebb1969 AT gmail.com and I will send you an OED image. 81.141.8.61 10:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

LBD
What do you reckon 'bout nominating User:Lingo Bingo Dingo for sysophood? Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:quote-case
. As the go-to guys in matters legal and templative, I have to ask you both. Do we have a template like or ? I feel we can do more with the bonesy quote at short notice. Returning2stadia (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I rarely use legal citations and am not very good at template matters, especially since modules are usually involved. DCDuring (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure we need to proliferate the number of quotation templates. Just use, in my view. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

puzzle
What word fits the pattern? ... of flats / stumbling ... / ... party / this is a request for another Wonderfool ... because it's been a month already since the last one. La más guay (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:DCDuring/2020


text: raked out

title: raked out


text: rakes out

title: rakes out


text: raking out

title: raking out


text: raked over

title: raked over


text: rakes over

title: rakes over


text: raking over

title: raking over


text: raked up

title: raked up


text: rakes up

title: rakes up


text: raking up

title: raking up


text: raked someone over the coals

title: raked someone over the coals


text: rakes someone over the coals

title: rakes someone over the coals


text: raking someone over the coals

title: raking someone over the coals


text: raked it in

title: raked it in


text: rakes it in

title: rakes it in


text: raking it in

title: raking it in


text: raked in

title: raked in


text: rakes in

title: rakes in


text: raking in

title: raking in


text:
User talk:DCDuring/2021

=2021=

Wealdish
Hi. I moved this page rather too hastily. Can you undo the page move, please? Alexfromiowa (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ DCDuring (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, mate
I apologize for requesting this again, but I'm going crazy here. I neeeeed a WT-break! Please block me ASAP so I can sort out my mental health. Alexfromiowa (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey
Some questions re. our mythical targeted users: I'll gladly participate in any survey you conduct or authorize, but I want CPAs involved in the process. --Kent Dominic (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) What do they know?
 * 2) What do they want to know?
 * 3) What do they need to know?
 * 4) What should they know?
 * 5) How does anyone know any of the above?
 * I'm sure that someone somewhere has studied some population, probably students, to find out what they retained from earlier schooling. I doubt that we would find more than a small fraction of non-linguists who would know how to diagram a sentence in any way. I think most remember the names of parts of speech and dimly remember the functions of the PoSes. Most don't find any use for even that knowledge. They don't need to know it for any practical purpose and don't find any part of grammar fun. These are my expectations. I look for disconfirmation when I talk to people like a guy who works in a writers talent agency, a budding author, a psychologist, a teacher, a social worker, a retired HBS grad, and an intelligent college dropout. Formally trained language learners are the one group of folks other than their teachers (linguists) who might know, want to know, and perhaps should know more, at least during the period when they are acquiring a new language formally. DCDuring (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You read my mind, stole my thoughts, and beat me to the punch for what I'd intended as my next post, dammit! In my ideal world, paradigmatic set linguistics prevails. Its consistency is unassailable. It's replicable algorithmically for machine learning under AI. But people first need to get their heads extricated from their traditional linguistics butts and wash their hands of the inconsistent excrement that gets pooped out. For instance, look up see ya and you'll find it labeled as an interjection. Rightly so, I'd say. Look up see you and it's labeled as a phrase. (Can you see me shaking my head right now?) Then go to Webster and look up see you, which is labeled there as a bloody idiom. LMFAO! I'd be a millionaire if I had a dollar for each time I've heard an ESL student ask, and an instructor fumble to answer, the precise meaning of idiom as that term has been bastardized in ESL classroom settings and literature.

 * The long and short: people don't need a physics PhD to see sunlight and they don't need a linguistics primer to say, "see ya." However, for those who do want to know its lexical category for whatever casual or academic reason, they're currently screwed under our inherited but traditionally beloved naive set linguistic legacy. By no means am I trying to change that mindset here. First, the data corpus here is too big to apply paradigmatic set linguistics an ad hoc basis even if there were a consensus to promulgate it as a basis for labeling. Second, I have no interest in developing the software to do it en masse. (I've long since transitioned from computer programming to encoding thanks to Windows.) Third, I have too much proprietary interest in the relevant work that I've done to freely offer it here prior to publication of the e-book that demonstrates it hypertextually. Rants such as these are mere rehearsals for doing it live once publication gets underway and the bashing from linguistic traditionalists invariably ensues. Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

 * P.S. In my book, the lexical category for "no matter" can't rightfully be construed as a noun phrase (Det + N) in the "no matter what" phrase. It has to be deemed an adverbial phrase (Adv+V). You'd be right in a context such as "There's no matter in the space between an electron and its neutrons." (Whether the statement itself is scientifically valid depends on some pretty spooky theory. --Kent Dominic (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

pourable
Why the two adjective senses? Are these properly distinct? Equinox ◑ 02:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is from a long time ago. BUT, I often think that many terms have two kids of definitions: everyday and techincal. Everyday use is sense 1; physicists and engineers automatically write as if their definition is the second. See the entry for iron, which has an everyday definition of the material and more technical ones, each for a somewhat different technical specialty. I don't know whether the second ("technical") definition is worth keeping. Almost every definition that has some technical causal element will be rendered obsolete by advances in theory and changes in the style of technical discourse and be so rendered more quickly than everyday definitions. DCDuring (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Short answer: Sense #1 entails anything that can be poured whether liquid (n.), fine powder, sand, figurative thoughts or emotions, etc. Sense #2 entails the attributive sense of the noun that became the adjective e.g. liquid (pourable) nitrogen. For anyone keeping score, words are "pourable" under sense #1 but not under sense #2. Conversely, words can be "liquid" in the adjectival sense included in sense #2 but not in the nominal sense included in sense #1 unless you literally throw a book into a blender. --Kent Dominic (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Re. as in
This article typifies my dissatisfaction with labels cut from the cloth of tradition PsOS as applied to phrases. The "as in" article has one label (i.e. Adverb) above two senses. Clearly, sense #1 is clearly parenthetically adverbial: "bow," as in the weapon, not the front of a ship (wherein as is an adverb: namely, and in is a preposition: concerning, regarding, or relating to). Sense #2 is absolutely is not adverbial: "In Sweden, as in most countries, ..." (wherein as is a conjunction: like, and in is a preposition: within or inside).

Long ago, as traditionalist, I would have created a Conjunction label for that second sense. Not so anymore. Nowadays, I'd put sense #1 under a phrasal preposition label, with an adverbial phrase sub-entry. I'd enter sense #2 as a phrasal conjunction. You've no doubt noticed that Wiktionary has defined the former but not the latter. And as usual, I don't want to upset the Wiktionary apple cart by posting edits with unfamiliar labels from my own yet-unpublished lexicon. Nonetheless, I have two questions for you:
 * 1. Do you honestly think the "target user" at Wiktionary:
 * (a) can't figure out what a phrasal conjunction means in the given context, and
 * (b) would have any more difficulty figuring it out compared to what "phrasal preposition" means? (If you quibble that sense #2 of "as in" is a collocation rather than an indivisible phrase, then perhaps the entry should be deleted from the article.)
 * 2. Can you empathize with -
 * (a) my refusal to add a naïve conjunction label for sense #2 as described above, and
 * (b) my sympathy for readers who try to figure out the POS regarding "as in" (i.e., the way I've left it under "Adverb" in the article)?

No, I'm not trying to linguistically evangelize anyone at Wiktionary on the moribund PsOS versus modern lexical category conundrum. My main reason for posting you on the "as in" article is to see if you have the linguistic conscience to do something on your own about its currently mislabeled sense #2. Regardless of whether you do anything at all and notwithstanding what you might do, I hope you give typical readers as much credit as I do, seeing how I took a survey of one and it's unanimous: the target user expects more regarding the labeling of lexical categories for phrases than Wiktionary typically provides. Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Whenever we have a multiword term, especially one that seems hard to put in a lexical class, the first question should be whether it is a constituent. I don't think this one is. Accordingly, I have RfDed it. DCDuring (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like you nominated the entire entry, not just sense #2. Where's the proper place for discussion? My own two cents: "As in" is part of the vernacular re. both senses despite how sense #2 is a criminal victim of linguistic malpractice, label-wise. --Kent Dominic (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ^Never mind. --Kent Dominic (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As to your immediately preceding comment, there is only one definition advanced as idiomatic. As for your earlier, lengthier comment, I would need a better example to address the matter fully. (Do you see what I did there?) I don't think labels should be at all technical and, still less, that they should reflect what seem to be merely the idiolects of our contributors. Part of the problem of technical vocabulary is that there are different schools of thought or practice that use terms in different ways. The bigger problem is that the more syllables to the NPs in a label, the more likely our users' eyes are to glaze over. I think repetition of such eye-glaze experience leads to the selection of other online dictionaries. I regularly consult other dictionaries for the greater clarity (and authority) they usually have relative to ours. DCDuring (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We've never had coffee, but I think I know you well enough to say we can respectfully disagree about certain conclusions. Yet, if we ever met in a café, the lawyer in me would have at your arguments a bit like this:
 * DCDuring: As to your immediately preceding comment, there is only one definition advanced as idiomatic.
 * Kent: You know it, I know it, but do average readers know that when they’ve learned only the sense #1 meaning and they mistakenly apply it to the sense #2 usage when they first encounter it? Rather than defining sense #2 (which, if done for every collocation, would go on endlessly) I think a usage note about it would be better than simply deleting it. That’s what I plan to do if the deletion goes forward, since sense #2 is definitely encountered a regular basis in the vernaculars worldwide.
 * DCDuring: As for your earlier, lengthier comment, I would need a better example to address the matter fully. (Do you see what I did there?)
 * Kent: Yeah, I don’t want you coffee to get cold.
 * DCDuring: I don't think labels should be at all technical. …
 * Kent: I agree. Now, let’s define “technical.”
 * DCDuring: [Still] less, that they should reflect what seem to be merely the idiolects of our contributors.
 * Kent: I won’t comment on how relying on “what seem(s) to be merely the idiolects of our contributors” expresses what I consider to be a condescending attitude toward the target users that I’ve surveyed.
 * DCDuring: Part of the problem of technical vocabulary is that there are different schools of thought or practice that use terms in different ways.
 * Kent: “Technical?” Did you say, “technical?” Sorry, I don’t know what that word means. Is it a noun? An attributive noun? An adjective? If so, when did it become an adjective? If the other way around, when did it become a noun? Speaking on behalf of the entire population of target users in my survey, I can safely say that my interest in lexical category (based on the various linguistic schools of thought) and etymology are the primary reasons I look up stuff.
 * DCDuring: The bigger problem is that the more syllables to the NPs in a label, the more likely our users' eyes are to glaze over.
 * Kent: For what it’s worth, I took that into account by limiting all of the labels in my own lexicon to three words. No exceptions.
 * DCDuring: I think repetition of such eye-glaze experience leads to the selection of other online dictionaries.
 * Kent: I can’t dispute what you think, but I respectfully think otherwise. Specifically, for the disinterested, I think the eye glaze leads to disregard of the labels; for the interested, I think the labels either lead to confusion regarding mislabels (e.g., one of my students said, "My boss was titling at windmills the project" after finding tilt at windmills labeled as a verb at Wiktionary) or to curiosity regarding unfamiliar but linguistically apt labels. If curiosity isn’t a hallmark of human intelligence, call me stupid.
 * DCDuring: I regularly consult other dictionaries for the greater clarity (and authority) they usually have relative to ours.
 * Kent: Accordingly, can you explain why – for a random phrasal example – you’re content to let “around the world” remain labeled as a prepositional phrase when Webster (to choose one of my four go-to dictionaries) has around the world labeled as a noun?
 * (An FYI: “Around the world” isn’t included as a phrase in my lexicon. But if it were, it’d look like this:

around the world (prepositional phrase) - Blah, blah, blah; Example: sailed around the world last year. (I.e., with each word linked not to a separate article, but to the corresponding sense of each word as defined according to their varying labels among the glossary's 14,000+ entries.) See generally adverbial prepositional phrase. (I.e., wherein interested readers can see how that works and also find a comparison link to an adjectival prepositional phrase).
 * Incidentally, Wiktionary labels “go ahead” as a Verb; Oxford (go ahead) labels it as Phrasal Verb; in my book it’s an intransitive phrasal verb. No one’s died or gone blind reading my stuff. At least, no one that I know of. Hope I can say the same about you after you’ve read these 645 words or after some well-intentioned numbnut tells you his boss "went ahead the project" upon reading the Wiktionary entry instead of mine. If you wanted to read about the "Hope I can say..." syntax from the preceding sentence, my book would internally link it to a null subject entry for additional reference. If you think of a way to include "null subject" as a label rather than as a linguistic term of art, I'm all ears. Ha! (Yes, Wikipedia has a null-subject language article and Zero (linguistics) article, but nothing relevant to how we, as native English speakers, regularly drop the subjects from casual speech. Know what I mean? Drives ESLers crazy. Say what? Anyhow, been nice chatting. Rant's done. See ya later. Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Re. go back
Under the logic you've applied to "as in," sense #1 and sense #3 re. go back should be RFDed. I'm not expressing an opinion whether to keep or delete either; I'm just sayin'. I do think, however, that the "go back" label needs some love. --Kent Dominic (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I apply the logic conservatively, but I believe that many of our definitions for "phrasal verbs" are NISoP, certainly not all, probably not more than a substantial minority of them. It's a little fuzzy because for most phrasal-verb entries there is at least one definition that is idiomatic. There is a rationale for including the NISoP definitions to contrast them with the idiomatic ones. DCDuring (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I know NoISP, but not "NISoP." Typo, or ... ? --Kent Dominic (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Non-idiomatic sum of parts. DCDuring (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

by way of analogy

 * a.k.a. "Food for thought as my one and only doomed attempt at linguistic evangelism re. the efficacy of labels with more description at Wiktionary"

Assume you’re reading an article about a certain 20th century poet. After prefacing his identity as T.S. Eliot, he’s subsequently referenced as “Eliot” in the majority of the article’s corpus. You’d probably be put off if he were alternately referenced as “T.S.” in the narrative despite the fewer number of syllables. And I don’t think your eyes would glaze upon seeing “T.S. Eliot” rather than “Eliot” in the various photos’ captions. Lastly, I don’t think you’d be confused, but it might satisfy your curiosity, to see his name as “Thomas Stearns Eliot” in the section regarding his early life. In my view, the article would be negligent without mentioning his full sextuplicately syllabic full name. (No charge for the “sextuplicately” neologism, which has exactly one Google Scholar hit.) --Kent Dominic (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, I didn't expect a comment. Just a shrug and an eyeroll. Or, instead say that you'll read my lexicon of grammatical terms when it comes out. In return, I promise to shrug and eyeroll to criticism that the lexicon's thrust deals with linguistics, not grammar. But, hey - most people seem to think grammar is bad enough while linguistics is downright scary and to be avoided at all costs.--Kent Dominic (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Inasmuch quotation reversion
The change you reverted was unjustified. The quotation I inserted was an example of usage, not prescription or definition. As such it was perfectly justified and informative. You would have a hard time finding a better example, whether you agree with Fowler or not. JonRichfield (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It was a mention, not a use. It is on the talk page. DCDuring (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Insofar that Wiktionary contributors confuse "inasmuch" and "insofar" in their titles for discussion, my reliance on their credibility and attention to detail evaporates. Ribbing aside, I agree the adverb label for "insofar" is troublesome. If Fowler called it a "compound preposition," I'd say that's exactly right. The consensus at Wiktionary (to which will attest) is to label stuff according to its contextual use rather than its technical POS or lexical category. So, yes - "insofar" is always used adverbially, and the adverb label makes sense from a word-economy standpoint. Nonetheless, in my lexicon, it would be labeled as a preposition, with usage notes that (1) it's in the compound preposition subset, and that (2) it occurs only as part of the "insofar as" or "insofar that" phrasal conjunctions. Silly me: coining a term such as "phrasal conjunction" and deigning to co-opt Fowler's "compound preposition" gem. Wiktionary is way behind the curve when it comes to labeling and defining compounds and phrases. --Kent Dominic (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sole PoS header for inasmuch as is "Conjunction". It is self-evident that it is a phrase. I always wonder how a single word, whatever its derivation, can be put into a "Phrase" word class. Is phrase much used to refer to single words outside of its use in compound nouns? DCDuring (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great point! Glad you asked. Using terms from my own lexicon:
 * inasmuch: Doesn't merit its own entry as it's a fossil word; searches are redirected as follows...
 * inasmuch as: Labeled as a phrasal conjunction, with etymology indicating it comprises inasmuch (a fossil word) + as (conjunction).
 * inasmuch that: Labeled as a phrasal conjunction with etymology indicating it comprises inasmuch (a fossil word) + that (conjunction), with usage that is dated if not nearly obsolete.
 * You say "It is self-evident that it is a phrase," but I think you're using an ordinary sense of "phrase," not a linguistic sense. In the linguistic sense that I apply regarding the term "phrasal conjunction," it means you can't segment and substitute the phrasal components without corrupting the meaning. E.g., you can't say "inasmuch because" or "inasmuch so." There's no fossil record of such articulations, and trying to invent such phrasing would earn you stares as a lunatic. So the "phrasal" moniker is a linguistic red flag not to muck with the syntax.

 * Similarly, a linguistic sense of "phrase" applies to something like "bite the dust," which is unfortunately labeled here as a Verb. Yet, in my lexicon, it's a verb phrase (which, I might add, Wiktionary defines pretty well in both of its linguistic senses). The "phrase" element of the verb phrase label red flags it: don't muck with it by trying, e.g. "eat the dust" or "bite the mud."

 * Sure, there are uses for the ordinary senses of "phrase" (e.g. 1. an expression that comprises more than one word, 2. an individual word that implies a specific meaning within a given professional or conversational context, such as "wicket" or "strings" or "skookum"), but that's not what's meant when we say "put it down" is a verb phrase. It's obviously a generic phrase; it's not an obvious verb phrase. In my teaching experience, student's know the difference. They know "put down the book" entails a phrasal verb. They know "put the book down" entails a verb phrase. They memorize which verbs can be collocated with separable objects and which ones can't, e.g. "He flew off the handle" is an inseparable verb phrase. If some leaky dictionary labels it as verb (please don't reference "fly off the handle" here; ha!) they'll attempt some inanity like, "My dad flew off the living room when he saw the F grade on my report card." By dumb luck some might try instead, "My dad flew off the couch..." In such a case, it becomes a generic phrase with a metaphoric meaning but not an idiomatic phrase likely to be found in any dictionary. So, does "fly off" merit a separate sense in Wiktionary's "fly off entry to account for such permutations? Hardly, but I think its Related terms section properly addresses the issue. --Kent Dominic (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I try to stick to the "ordinary" meanings of words for all definitions, labels, headword lines (excluding the headword and its inflections), etc. I am simply not interested in making Wiktionary into a specialist dictionary for logophiles. Linguistics students should hound their professors for approved vocabulary for their coursework. For normal humans "phrase" means what we might call in Wiktionary space an MWE (that is also a constituent).
 * BTW, I created Category:English non-constituents to make it easy to find them. They are ways for us to include certain snowclones without having full entries for the large number of varied forms they may have. In some cases we should try to replace them with better-formed entries.
 * If you can attest inasmuch that, by all means create an entry therefor. DCDuring (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Quibble, quibble, quibble: You stick to labels and headword lines re. ordinary meanings usage. I'd have no complaint if a word, say, "swimming," had a Usage headword line that identified it according to (1) Present participle (e.g. he is swimming), (2) Adjective (e.g. the swimming pool) (3) Gerund (I like swimming) (4) Noun (e.g. swimming is fun). But, labeling it as a noun to the exclusion of its identity as a gerund, or vice versa, is just plain sad. Here it's listed as a verb. Technically wrong. I can read your lips: "How many average users can distinguish a present participle from a verb?" I concede the point, but not the propriety entailed. As always, I'm not trying to change your mind. And I'm hardly a logophile.  God knows I'd rather practice law or, ideally, produce movies. In a nutshell, I wish Wiktionary had more entries that conform to the standards my own target readers expect so that I can link more words to this website instead of having to define them myself for the work that I do. Given the intransigence here, it's often just easier to expand that corpus to an unfortunate extent than bang my head against the WT:POS wall. As for inasmuch that, I used it only for illustrative purposes based on a quick gloss and distant memory. I mentioned it solely in the context of 's interest in this thread. It's not part of the 500,000-word corpus in my lexicon. But if it were ... --Kent Dominic (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

multi-word expression (new) and MWE (edited/updated)
Consider my multi-word expression creation to be an anti-Frankenstein; the poor man's approach to language acquisition; the ghetto-world of lexicographical taxonomic standards. I've gone into hiding from my students who'll read me the riot act after they somehow find out about my hand in it. The irony of labeling a multi-word expression under a one-word label - and my admission of condescension for adhering to the WT:POS guidance in so doing ... well, let it be our inside joke. Credit me for resisting the temptation to label it an Idiom. For what it's worth, "multi-word expression" is entered under a Grammar label in my own lexicon. (Fair criticism: It should be labeled as Linguistics, but I've learned most people are allergic to that word.) I don't otherwise use "multi-word expression" in my textbook. It's merely included as a glossary entry that has eight separate senses (unlike the one sense I've included at Wiktionary), with each sense being cf.'d to one or more relevant lexical categories for examples. Happy editing! --Kent Dominic (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

re. in order to
It's been more than a month since I last bothered you, so perhaps you've grown restless. Here's your fix: Please look at the POS label for in order to, edit it accordingly, and ping me afterward. I'm just interested in seeing how you'll handle it. Perhaps needless to say, "phrase" doesn't add anything relevant to its meaning. I'm not giving any hints how in order to is labeled in my own lexicon, but I will say it's the only item with its POS label in its lexical category. Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:MW1913Abbr
Does Template:MW1913Abbr serve any purpose and if not can we delete it plz? Indian subcontinent (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What harm does keeping it cause? I don't know whether its original purpose has been rendered obsolete. Do you have any evidence to the effect that it could not have any benefit or that its use causes harm, excluding "harm" to those with a compulsion toward 'tidiness' (OCD). DCDuring (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh, I don't care that much, TBH. Perhaps I have selective OCD Indian subcontinent (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have channeled my OCD into keeping certain maintenance categories empty. DCDuring (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It can be quite satisfying to have empty maintenance categories, yes. It's like a gold sticker, a reminder that we've done so much clean-up work and we are doing the world a huge favour. Alternatively, it is a reminder of our sad existence, the only achievements of our lives are cleaning up an unimportant dictionary that is destined to perish one day. Indian subcontinent (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Repeated addition of references that do not exist
Special:Diff/62609240; Special:Diff/62650963; Special:Diff/62650965. I am confused; what are you trying to do? J3133 (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Usually the links are there to show that there is nothing to be linked to. When the relevant discussions are closed they can be deleted. If such deadish links are upsetting to someone, they can be deleted just like almost any other non-definition content. DCDuring (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is fine for the temporary purpose of an rfv, but I totally agree that these links shouldn't be there outside the context of the rfv. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Using common sense, adding a list of sites that do not have a term seems absurd. Using them in a RFV discussion is fine but they do not belong in a dictionary entry. J3133 (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Requests for attention in Norwegian Bokmål entries
Hi there, you have added some requests for attention to a number of Sami languages in Norwegian Bokmål all the way back in 2013:, , , , , , , , and. You did not add an explanation, so I am wondering if you would like to either add a reason or remove them, if no longer relevant? Thanks! Supevan (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like the problem was the lack of an inflection line. I didn't want to add one myself since I don't know the language. It looks like the peroson (or bot) that added the inflection line didn't remove the request for attention. DCDuring (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, I have updated the inflections and removed your requests for attention, cheers. Supevan (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Viola wikipedia
Our entry suggests this is a valid taxonomic name, but WP's article indicates that it is not, and the species was renamed in error. Fancy sorting it out? Thanks. Equinox ◑ 23:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think they have a point: it's only mentioned as a synonym in the original description of Pigea banksiana. I would have to see a published description to back that up before I would base anything on such a mention. Kew, TROPICOS and The Plant List/World Flora Online all treat Viola angustifolia Phil. as a legitimate, accepted name. Most of them don't even mention V. wikipedia, but IPNI lists it as a "nom. illeg. nom. superfl.", i.e., a name that is illegitimate because there was already a vaild name for the taxon, and Kew lists it as a synonym of Viola angustifolia Phil., while it treats Viola angustifolia Banks ex Ging. (the name that supposedly invalidated Viola angustifolia Phil.) as a synonym of Afrohybanthus enneaspermus (L.) Flicker.

 * To sum it up:
 * , in his description of what he called Pigea banksiana, published in 1824 in the first volume of the, mentioned that it had the name Viola angustifolia in the herbarium. This was apparently the same as a plant that had already been described as Viola enneasperma by  in 1753.
 * published a description of a species he named Viola angustifolia in the journal Linnaea
 * were convinced that the name mentioned by Gingins was a valid name, which would make Philippi's name invalid, so they published an article pointing this out and renaming the species. So far, no one seems to agree.
 * by the a taxonomic name can only be used for one taxon, so any use of a validly published name for any other taxon gets thrown out. Since there have always been so many different taxonomic publications and no way to keep track of them all before the internet, just about every name more than a century old has been been accidentally published for more than one taxon, often many times. Any decent taxonomic publication will have a list of these synonyms for each taxon, but it's not unheard of for someone to discover an earlier publication that invalidates a widely accepted name. When a name becomes invalid for the taxon, the next name validly published for the taxon becomes the correct one. In this case, there wasn't one, so the person who discovered the alleged invalidation would have the chance to rename it.

Chuck Entz (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As the authoritative sources all now seem to agree that this is a synonym of V. angustifolia, that should be what our entry says of it. We can add whatever damning labels seem appropriate, too. DCDuring (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

on air
Hi, just to let you know that at RFV you accidentally put comments about "on air" under "Dovercoaster". Mihia (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was wondering where they went. DCDuring (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Rankf
Some messy taxonomic attempts that I thought you would be interested to see. The editor could use some guidance. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll take a look. DCDuring (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at a few of their latest edits. They seem to be copying from some kind of a list, perhaps the index from a book. Typos like "echinta" for "echinata" and "exelsum" for "excelsum" aren't encouraging. In one case they had "Hevea grewiaefolius Hassk.", which is impossible- "Hevea" is feminine, and the genus is strictly South American. Hevea brasiliensis is cultivated worldwide as a source of rubber, but according to TROPICOS the generic name has never occurred in any species name with any variation of "grewiaefolius". There is a Hibiscus grewiifolius Hassk., which is native to Indonesia, and one can find the Hibiscus grewiaefolius variant in the same snippet with Hevea brasiliensis in a few books. I'm guessing they missed the change in the genus from Hevea to Hibiscus in a list. At any rate, definitions consisting of nothing but taxonomic names regurgitated from some list by someone who obviously sees them as random text and has no clue what they refer to is dangerously close to useless. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is easy enough to check the validity of the taxonomic names and make corrections. It also seems easy to delete out of process such entries after they have been corrected. Fortunately is not only somewhat harder to revert the deletions. Why would one delete reviewed and corrected entries having asked for them to be reviewed? DCDuring (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw Chuck's comment, and I missed that you had edited them. I didn't know there was a reference for Sundanese botanical names — you should definitely add it to the entry. That information would also be very important for Rankf, so they can learn to create correct entries. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Chuck had preceded me in correcting the taxonomic names. I found a couple of other items that included taxonomic names by doing some searched on the user's contributions. I see good faith efforts to bring the entries closer to our standards. I'm fairly sure that all of the entries are copied from some print dictionary or word list. I suppose that, in principle, there could be a copyvio problem. It would be handy if the taxonomic names were enclosed in, however crudely or even wrongly, to make them easier to find and verify. I do that with some Polish entries and others. I added the English vernacular names from Wikispecies, Wikipedia, Wikicommons, or from USDA GRIN, which has a lot of vernacular names for plants, probably the best source for them. DCDuring (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

shrikethrush
Hi. You like cute animals - the es (Colluricincla) are supercute, and don't have a WT yet. Roger the Rodger (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And the (Premnoplex spp; Premnornis) not so cute, but missing Roger the Rodger (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried to make a redirect on Wikipedia for barbtail, but had to go through about 10 steps asking me "are you sure want to do this?" - screw that! Roger the Rodger (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not clear whether WP would need a redirect or a dab page. DCDuring (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Marchantiophyta
Crandall-Stotler and Stotler (2000) head their classification with "PHYLUM (DIVISION): MARCHANTIOPHYTA" The leading classification for the group calls it both in the same phrase. Splitting a second "definition" is unwarranted. Your edit would have definitions only in rank of the next-higher including group, which is not an inherent property of the taxon. It would be like splitting definitions of Canidae as: (1) a group within Carnivora, (2) a taxon within Mammalia, (3) a family within Animalia. --03:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The customary thing here is to put such a thing up to RfV, and certainly not to simply rely on a single authority. Our taxonomic entries are subject to the same rules as the others. Mostly, people don't challenge them, but there are instances where taxonomic names have failed. Are you sure that the definitions of the phylum and division Marchantiophyta have always been the same? We do pretend to be a historical dictionary. I see no reason why we should not strive to eventually (possibly even in this century) be a historical dictionary for taxonomic names.
 * I hope you also realize that, its categories, and its structure are needed for maintenance of taxonomic entries. DCDuring (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, they have always been the same. The paper I cite is the paper where the name was published.  There is no earlier history for the name Marchantiophyta. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Cracksonomy
I know you hate me adding taxons but an accurate (if lacking) stub is better than nothing. Maybe. I was wondering: when we talk about a genus, we usually talk about its parent being a family, but sometimes the "immediate" parent seems to be a tribe or a subwhatever or who knows what the hell. Suppose family A contains tribe B contains genus C. I would create my C entry with B as parent, because it's the immediate one (as computer nerd, I think that this will allow us to "follow the links" and build the whole tree): but is that right? Or should I pick the more important taxon level like the family. It seems particularly dumb to write something like C: parent tribe B: "A-aceous flowering plants", clearly this is a way to slide A in there without a template slot. EQUINOX STOP DOING TAXONOMY. never!!! Equinox ◑ 04:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Because families (and orders, classes, phyla, and kingdoms) have been around longer and seem to be more stable than the other ranks, let alone unranked taxa, I have limited parm2 in to those ranks, unless the placement would be incertae sedis, in which case I go to the next higher of those principal ranks. It would be very hard to maintain all of these hierarchies if we always had the next highest rank (or clade) directly in . Taxonomists are constantly inserting new clades into the tree of life, at locations between the traditional ranks, some of which clades they name. I don't think we want our Hypernyms trees to include all of these, though they can be good entries. Wikispecies has had the problem of excessive numbers of nested templates causing display errors.
 * I don't really think the various English adjectives derived from taxonomic family names are very helpful. The -id and -aceous suffixes (and others) are productive, so if something is in a given family with name ending in aceae or idae, the adjective is usually obvious in its formation and more often understandable in meaning. (The difference between "usually" and "almost always" having to do with the difference between the nominative form and the root of some genus names.) DCDuring (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

 * You didn't actually answer my question there. But you did remind me that taxons are not some perfect, eternal, God-given DNA thing but they might change next week. Hmm. Equinox ◑ 17:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "but is that right?" I don't like the consequences of trying to put the taxon that includes the lemma taxon and the smallest number of other taxa, because that will cause our entries to fall short of correctness more often than other approaches as new taxa are inserted in the tree and because many of the names not of the well-known ranks are obscure and unhelpful to most users. Many other taxonomic databases generally don't bother with names fro such ranks. "Or should I pick the more important taxon level like the family. [sic]" That is what I do and think both reduces maintenance and enhances usefulness. DCDuring (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Callitrichinae, not Callithrichinae- it's the law! (Grassmann's law, to be precise)
Five years ago you moved Callitrichinae to Callithrichinae with the edit summary "spelling". In reality, Callithrichinae is wrong and Callitrichinae is right. The reason is is something called Grassmann's law, which prevents two aspirated consonants from being in the same syllable in Ancient Greek. The case of is very tricky, because the nominative singular has a  at the end, which merges with the asprated  to become the unaspirated. The names of higher taxa, however, are formed by removing the inflectional ending from the genitive singular before adding the taxonomic ending, and the genitive singular of is. Since that form has a vowel after the stem, the remains, and Grassmann's law forces the aspirated  to become the unaspirated. That means you can have "-thrix" and you can have "-trichinae", but you can't have *" -thrichinae ".

This is obscure enough that some publications aren't aware of it, so Callithrichinae is attested- but it's not allowed by the ICZN. Wikipedia, Wikispecies and Mammal Species of the World all have Callitrichidae. I would be astonished if any of the taxonomic databases accepted "Callithrichinae" as valid. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm down with a move of the main entry. I'm neutral on whether the redirect from Callithrichinae should be soft or hard.
 * We could hunt down other entries with the issue, but I'm still trying to add taxon entries that have 10 or more links via (Usually with some ordinary redlinks and even unlinked uses too. I find it a bit frustrating that taxon entries that have no incoming links are being added regularly when so many important species entries have yet to be added.. DCDuring (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that I had not added links to non-wiki taxon databases to [[Callithrichinae]]. When I am not to tired or rushed I do and thereby discover error of that kind. Incidentally, Wikispecies has the wrong spelling. DCDuring (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I take it back: Wikispecies has Callithrichidae. I stand by the rest, though.Chuck Entz (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that we have the main entry under the erroneous spelling Callithrichidae with an inbound redirect from the correct spelling. In adding database links I am finding that many databases still have the group as a family, not a subfamily. I'll see what consensus exists. DCDuring (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 * No taxonomic consensus as to whether it's a family or subfamily. DCDuring (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:DCDuring/2021


text: raised up

title: raised up


text: raising up

title: raising up


text: rained out

title: rained out


text: rains out

title: rains out


text: raining out

title: raining out


text: raining off

title: raining off


text: rains off

title: rains off


text: rained down

title: rained down


text: rains down

title: rains down


text: raining down

title: raining down


text:
fflasg

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) flask
 * 2) basket

title: fflasg


text:
User talk:DCDuring/2022

=2022=

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser
Hello @DCDuring, can you add my name to AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage? I want to use the AutoWikiBrowser. ToprakM (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Sclerospongiae
The second Hypernyms heading should actually be Hyponyms, shouldn't it? 37.110.218.43 13:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. I made that correction. I should probably do a regex search to find other uncorrected instances of that particular mistake, which I have made and corrected several times before.
 * Feel free to make such changes once you understand the logic, such as it is, of taxonomic entries sections. Also feel free to ask any questions about taxonomic entries. I should probably revisit WT:Taxonomic names, but it does express aspirations pretty well. We are very far from having very many fully satisfactory taxonomic name entries. My current ambition is to work on the entries for the taxonomic names close the trunk of tree of life, "highest"/oldest taxa, to provide definitions that are more fundamental, more explanatory of the differences, in evolutionary terms, between each taxon and its sister taxa. But simply adding links to best external databases for orders, families, tribes, genera, and species helps both users and contributors a lot. DCDuring (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Cotingidae
Please check the taxonomic placement. Judging by Wikispecies and Wikipedia (not to mention the hyponym section at Tyrannida), these should be suboscines in the Tyrannida, not oscines in the Passerida. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Right you are. My favorite source for avian taxonomy is Boyd's website Avian Taxonomy in Flux, apparently a one-man operation. I have not idea what my source was for the incorrect placement. DCDuring (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Eriocaulaceae Hypernyms
Care to create Template:Eriocaulaceae Hypernyms? It was linked at Leiothrix years ago, and you probably forgot about it Notusbutthem (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Resolved, IMO. DCDuring (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Brazil cherry
Maybe you would be able to double-check this one, versus Brazilian cherry? Thanks. Equinox ◑ 18:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Not personally active here, but I remark in passing that common names in a context such as this are chaotic and inconsistent even within a single region. In this case involving radically different plants (herbaceous and trees) in different families. (In this case Solanaceae and Myrtaceae). Even if you could, the resolution would be temporary, as such names are volatile at best. JonRichfield (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly chaotic, but these two terms have overlapping, not identical referents. DCDuring (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the first thing I checked. But neither of the two is stable. I guarantee that you would find that the usage is inconsistent, even largely within a given region. But suit yourself; in a decade hardly anyone would know what you were talking about, and if you go down the street asking opinions, you could start fist-fights about which plant it is and whether it is Brazil or Brazilian or what not (not even to mention whether it is a cherry or not!). But, as I said, suit yourselves. I can't help you, beyond adding a word of caution. JonRichfield (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

AWB
Hi DCDuring! I'd like permission to use AWB to fix issues with Latin inflection templates. For example, all the forms of contain an inflection-of template saying that they are a passive form of. Even smaller jobs, like these forms linking to the non-lemma entry, would be easier to fix using AWB. Per WT:AWB, since you're a friendly sysop, I'm asking you for permission to be added to the checkpage. (I confess I asked Equinox first, but he declined on the grounds that he doesn't speak Latin.) What do you think? This, that and the other (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't speak Latin either. Some of the Latinists get touchy. Is there consensus about your proposed changes or just lack of expressed opposition? DCDuring (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your user page is in CAT:User la, so I assumed you did. In any case, I want to use AWB for uncontroversial cleanup. I'm not going to do anything drastic - it's mainly cleaning up after SemperBlottoBot's errors over the years. This bot created non-lemma form-of entries for Latin lemmas, and given how many inflections Latin verbs (in particular) have, these entries are very tedious to clean up by hand. If one day I did decide to make some drastic change, I would of course seek to discuss it before proceeding. This, that and the other (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I only claimed la-1 and I stated it was an exaggeration on my user page. What do I have to do to give you what you need? DCDuring (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe you have to add my username under "Approved users" at AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. This, that and the other (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Follow the directions. DCDuring (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I believe you have added a stray ⋅ character at the end of my username - could you check and remove that? This, that and the other (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, done. DCDuring (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to bother you again - it turns out AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage has been superseded by AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON. Is there any chance you could add me to the latter page? Unfortunately I can't edit AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage to add a note that it is obsolete... This, that and the other (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Both changes made. DCDuring (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! It works. This, that and the other (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

TaxNumber
Okay, I get the part now about adding the species. But whenever I go to wikispecies I don't see any number that you get. Where is it? Vininn126 (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 * "ver" is an indication of a date when I found some reliable source for the taxonomic name in YYMMDD form. It is really just a marker of verification; I rarely use the date itself. There are lots of uses of that have no such date. I sometimes check such taxonomic names to confirm some kind of validity, even if the term is not widely accepted at present. DCDuring (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. So the more important thing is adding the species tag when it's present? Vininn126 (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Parameter 2 is more important. The value could be any thing from "kingdom", through "clade", "group", "taxon", "class", "parvorder", "supertribe", "genus", "species", to "variety" and "form". For most entries of a vernacular name perm 2 is "genus" or "species", though "family", "subfamily", "tribe", "subspecies", and "variety" are possible. Sometimes the sources used for vernacular names don't use the latest taxonomic name. In those cases, I will add the current taxonomic name and may change the status of the original taxonomic name to "synonym of" the latest name. But I won't look if there is a ver=YYMMDD, so it's usually better to omit it unless you are certain parm 2 is correct. It is fairly easy for me to add parm 2, in part because the suffixes of the taxonomic name often indicate what taxonomic ranks the names have and in part because I know which online (and other) sources to use. DCDuring (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it, it's a little complicated for me, to be honest, but I'll keep that in mind. Thanks. Vininn126 (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why I don't go on crusades to get people to use "correctly". I'm happy if it gets used at all, because I otherwise can't find the taxonomic names that need to be added. DCDuring (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

tuan
Hiya - I have not heard of the brush-tailed phascogale, but you know taxonomy far better than I do, so I thought I'd flag up this obvious contender for expansion. Theknightwho (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Citations:pale male
See male, pale and stale for more acceptable ageism and racism. Equinox ◑ 13:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a UK anti-Tory thing.
 * Pale male seems to have achieved success as a meme:
 * It is derogatory whereas white male isn't (except in certain smallish circles), pale being more negative than white.
 * One cannot find pale females at Google News, whereas pale males is not at all uncommon.
 * In biology and genetics the term comes up a lot, making me wonder whether that has motivated some use of the term. Ie, there's the notion of paleness being bred out of a population.
 * In the center of the English-speaking universe, there was the famous red-tailed hawk called Pale Male, whose ultimately successful efforts to attract a mate garnered a lot of attention from New Yorkers.
 * It has a rhyme.
 * I think it has become a thing. DCDuring (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

 * So where do I find pale females? I'm dying here. Equinox ◑ 14:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The longer you live the higher the female-male ratio in your age cohort. Be patient. DCDuring (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:DCDuring/2022


text: readied up

title: readied up


text: readies up

title: readies up


text: readying up

title: readying up


text:
mütləqiyyət

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) absolutism
 * 2) autocracy

title: mütləqiyyət


text: reached for

title: reached for


text: reaches for

title: reaches for


text: reaching for

title: reaching for


text: reached down

title: reached down


text: reaches down

title: reaches down


text: reaching down

title: reaching down


text: rattled through

title: rattled through


text: rattles through

title: rattles through


text: rattling through

title: rattling through


text: rattled off

title: rattled off


text: rattles off

title: rattles off


text: rattling off

title: rattling off


text:
User talk:LoveMunich

Welcome
Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

 * Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
 * Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
 * Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
 * If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
 * If you have any questions, bring them to Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
 * Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
 * You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:LoveMunich


text: ratted through

title: ratted through


text: rats through

title: rats through


text: ratted on

title: ratted on


text: rats on

title: rats on


text: ratting on

title: ratting on


text: TFH

title: TFH


text: TFHs

title: TFHs


text:
dots and boxes

Noun

 * 1) A pencil-and-paper strategy game in which the players (usually two) take turns adding a single horizontal or vertical line between two unjoined adjacent dots in a square grid, aiming to complete the most boxes whose corners are four adjacent dots.

title: dots and boxes


text: ratting through

title: ratting through


text: rounded to

title: rounded to