Talk:et ceteræ

RFV
¶ Are any of the citations unacceptable? --Pilcrow 20:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See Citations:et ceteræ. I think it's awfully fair-spirited of you to nominate your own entry for rfv even after providing 9 citations, but to be honest I'd rather you didn't. If nobody disputes the entry, assume it's valid. IMO rfv-passed (before it was even listed). --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

¶ This topic has not received many responses, so I am goïng to mark this as closed. --Pilcrow 19:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)--Pilcrow 03:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Usage notes
"a list of women"? Does it definitely have to be restricted to "women"? Surely it should be at least broadened to female humans, but could it be also applicable to female animals, deities, and so on? Or perhaps even objects with 'female' quality? —DIV (1.145.44.125 05:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC))