Wiktionary:Tea room/2015/February

alpinus and a big list of just the missing epithets
User:Pengo/missing epithets:


 * 1) tuberculosis, tuberculosa, tuberculosus, tuberculosum (28) —  (4)
 * 2) pylori, pylorus (5), pylora (2)
 * 3) botulinum —  (1)
 * 4) typhi, typhae, typharum (14), typha (5), typhus (2), typhia (1) —,  (49)
 * 5) solani ( < Solanum), solana (55), solanus (7), solanum (3) ( < Solanum), solanii (1), solano (1), solanae (1) —
 * 6) lamblia ( < Lamblia)
 * 7) arundinacea, arundinaceus, arundinaceum, arundinaceae (2)
 * 8) tetani, tetanus (1) —  (1)
 * 9) mulatta
 * 10) juncea, junceum, junceus, junceae (1), iunceus (1)
 * 11) pertussis
 * 12) stolonifera, stolonifer, stoloniferum, stoloniferus (16)
 * 13) stramonium, stramonii (1) —  (12)
 * 14) mariana, marianum, marianus, marianae (28), marianii (12), mariani (4), marianarum (3), marianiae (2), marjana (2), marianorum (1), marian (1) —  (3)
 * 15) salar, salaris, salarius (8), salaria (4), salara (3), salarii (1) —  (53),  (9),  (2),  (1)
 * 16) pennsylvanicus, pennsylvanica, pennsylvanicum
 * 17) papaya, papayae, papayas (1), papayum (1) —  (88)
 * 18) helix, helixus (1) —
 * 19) dactylon, dactyloni (4), dactylonii (1), dactylonis (1) —  (1)
 * 20) cereale, cerealis, cerealium, cerealia (3)
 * 21) alpina, alpinus, alpinum, alpiniae (22) ( <), alpini (9) (mostly in two-part epithets such as polygoni-alpini)), alpinia (3) ( < ), alpinii (2), alpinae (1) ( < ) —,  (16)
 * 22) more...

Here's just the epithets which are missing, from most common to least commonly found in books.

Only entries with either Latin or translingual sections are counted as "not missing". The list currently includes a lot of orange links (if you have them turned on in preferences), because there's a lot of them without Latin (or translingual) sections.

Items with numbers after them are less important but included for completeness (and someone might want to add them too all the same)

is in the list because it was moved to Alpinus at some point with just a redirect left behind. and were not moved. Should probably be fixed up.

Might try to refresh this list semi-regularly if it gets used and if I can fix some speed/caching issues. The full list also includes the most common example species for each group of epithets. Pengo (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The alpinus case is instructive. The base lemmas in Latin are alpinus (=> alpina, alpinum) and Alpinus ( => alpini, alpinus). The base taxonomic lemmas are the subgenus, sections, and subsections (probably at least one obsolete genus) Alpina ( => alpinae) and the genus Alpinia (=> alpiniae). alpini, a genitive form, may also be contributed as part of compound epithets (See Category:Species name using Latin specific epithet (compound).) such as that derived from the species Polygonum alpinum . So is alpinae, contributed from compounds from species like Poa alpina . alpinii seems anomalous. DCDuring TALK 01:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Alpinia is a ringer- according to Alpinia, it's named after an Italian by the name of Prospero Alpini Chuck Entz (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Alpina is a genus name in Geometridae (moths), not in Wikispecies, but in the Catalog of Life. It is possible that some instances of alpina and alpinae are of this genus, not of the Latin adjective. The only instances we are likely to detect are the genitives and those where alpina is used with a masculine or neuter genus name. DCDuring TALK 16:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think my conclusion is that we need to focus on the low-hanging fruit: those of the 1st/2nd declension (-us, -a, -um}, those 3rd with two or three endings, (usually -is, -e). For obsolete genera, the names of subgenera, sections, and subsections (marked, subg, sect, and subsect in botany etc and capitalized between a genus name and a specific epithet in geology) would be a good start. Stems of the higher taxa from subtribe to magnorder that have regular rank-indicating endings would be a good list. We can usually infer a single candidate generic name or a short list of candidate generic names from those stems, especially if we know the class (eg, Aves, Insecta, Mammalia) or phylum (eg, Mollusca, Nematoda, Porifera) of the higher taxon that is the source of the stem. DCDuring TALK 04:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a list now of the "low hanging fruit", candidates for first/second declension. Hopefully will be useful. Pengo (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. So although I've been putting together these lists, my understanding of Latin grammar is still pretty poor. I partially understand the alpinus/Alpinus explanation but I don't at all understand the steps that it takes to pick a declension and be confident about it. But I figure from my epithet lists now it should be relatively easy to pick out the 1st/2nd declension terms? Might be easier to create an example of how you imagine an entry to look than trying to describe it?
 * Would it do if I added other ranks to the epithet lists in much the same way Genus has been included? E.g. "bufo  — Bufo — family:Bufonidae" (including Bufonidae because it shares a common stem, not because it's the family). Including phylum/class can be tricky, as none of the taxon bits listed are necessarily related. I know kingdoms have different naming rules, but can you clarify how you'd use this info? It would be easiest to add to the example species.
 * Subgenera and sections are tricky. I've just tried to extract them from CoL without success. Although the database is structured to allow for their inclusion, there are none in there at all. I'm probably not going to attempt to scrape other sources just yet. I'm only thinking about improving my current epithet lists, but I'm not sure if you're thinking of different kinds of queries?
 * So, the main things that should be relatively easy to do are (1) to add any other ranks which share the epithet's stem (ala the Bufonidae example above); (2) mark any obsolete taxon with a double dagger (‡) (epithet, species, genus, etc which only exists in synonyms); (3) list two-part epithets within the entries of their single-part counterparts. Pengo (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort involved in finding the best way to do this. In part, I'm thinking simpler is better for rapid addition of new entries. A list of all the stems where the forms were all in lower case and ended in -us, -a, and -um, having at least one instance of each ending would be a very good way of adding a lot of epithets quickly. Ordering them from most to least frequent is further assurance that the most important are added first. Additional information is not very helpful and may be a distraction for the core task. Another useful list would be similar for epithets ending in -is and -e.
 * Once we have these regular, common epithets covered we can work on the harder cases with more complex listings such as those you have produced. The double-dagger enhancement is useful. Adding the use of the stem in other taxa is distracting. I thought it might be useful to find more obsolete genus names, but mining Wikispecies would be much better. A two-part epithet will be much less common. The genitive endings of a compound epithet usually indicate that the species "X y" is a host for the species "Z X-y" of a parasite or symbiont. It is more helpful to have them on a separate list from which we would add the species, which is probably important economically or in research.
 * The Wikispecies dump might be the best source for subgenera, sections, and subsections, as well as for higher taxa. They explicitly label each taxon used in an entry and have a hierarchy of hyponyms in every entry. DCDuring TALK 13:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By definition, specific epithets can only be nominative singular/plural or genitive singular/plural nouns or adjectives. The adjectives agree in gender and number with the generic name, but I've never heard of a plural generic name, so the adjectives should be all singular. The first and second declensions are easy, but the third depends on the ending of the stem and how it interacts with the inflectional endings (of which there are variants)- not that easy to code for. I've never worked with the 4th and 5th declension, but there are very few of them, which you can ignore. See Latin declension. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you have the direction of the derivations wrong: higher-level taxa are usually named by taking the genitive of the type generic name and replacing the ending with the rank-specific ones. Thus the bird order Passeriformes is ultimately derived from Passer domesticus (genitive ), the English Sparrow, and the family Bufonidae gets its name from Bufo bufo ( genitive ). For animal taxa in the "family group" and below, this is explicitly specified by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, but above that, it's only a matter of relatively recent custom. In the case of plants, there are a few family names such as Leguminosae and Umbelliferae that have been grandathered in and coexist with the standard Fabaceae (dating from when Vicia faba was classified in the genus Faba) and Apiaceae from ''Apium graveolens. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not trying to derive genus names, we're trying to infer them from higher taxa. We are doing this to get at obsolete/archaic genus names. Once we have a list of candidates we can attempt to determine whether such candidate names actually ever existed. We would have the reasonable assurance that such names were at one time at least the names were important enough to be the source of higher taxon names. The point of looking at infrageneric names at the rank of subgenus, section, and subsection is similarly because they are also candidates to have been genus names.
 * If you know of some reliable source of obsolete/archaic generic names, I am all ears. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly, we're probably one of the leading sources, what with all of the Webster 1913 articles. I've been changing a lot of species names to use lately, and more often than not the links go to a page that says Wikispecies doesn't have a page for it. A good bit of that is due to Wikispecies only having a page for the genus, and often the specific epithet is obsolete- but there are a significant number where the generic name is out of date. Just comparing the contents of the -generated categories for genus and species with Wikispecies and Wikipedia would probably turn up more obsolete generic names than the above methods. For that matter, when I go looking for plant and animal names to categorize, I find lots of entries with taxonomic names either redlinked or hardcoded as italicized text. From that, I would infer that we haven't ed or created taxon pages to cover more than a fraction of the candidates. Do we have a list somewhere of entries with italicized binomials? Just checking for word word, word word and word word would be extremely useful. As for converting old generic names to new ones: this is not a simple mechanical process. Yes, there are a good number of generic names that have been found to be invalid and replaced with new names, but species get moved around so much that a single old genus might easily have its former members in a dozen modern ones. Even extant ones get changed a lot. Think of all the common names based on generic names such as chrysanthemum, geranium and azalea. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * We have only 123 members in Category:Taxonomic names (obsolete).
 * It might be possible to find some unlinked taxonomic names using the capabilities of Cirrus search, by searching non-Translingual entries for "species" or "genus" and an absence of the template . I fear that the list you propose would generate many false positives, but it's worth a shot.
 * The process of generating candidate generic names would be mechanical, but validating them would not be.
 * I certainly don't think that we can recreate the history of membership of species in a genus. I'd be happy if we could reference some contemporary taxon, preferably a genus. Type species would be nice. DCDuring TALK 16:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Century would be an even better source for obsolete/archaic taxa than Webster has been. DCDuring TALK 16:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback and help. I've updated the common and missing lists to mark synonyms/obsolete taxa with a double dagger (which does seem quite helpful). I'm pretty happy with the lists now, although I haven't done a bunch of things on my to-do list (such as including other ranks; special treatment of two-part epithets; and highlighting possible 1st/2nd declensions). I'm going to leave obsolete taxa searching for another time too. I'm going to move on to other projects for a while, namely an audit of IUCN red list statuses (statī?) on Wikipedia, and some other personal projects. Hope the lists are useful for a while. Seems there's no shortage of things to do here regardless. Hopefully the alpinus/Alpinus thing can be sorted out soon too :) Pengo (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There are now 224 members in Category:mul:Taxonomic names (obsolete). We probably have as many again that are wrapped in . DCDuring TALK 03:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

ring road
If this is British English, what is it called outside Commonwealth countries (and China for that matter)? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In the US this corresponds to beltway. But beltways are limited-access roads. I don't think of ring roads (eg, in Vienna) as being limited in access. circumferential highway is a (SoP?) hyponym that is more inclusive, but would still not include Ringstrasse, which is not a highway. See  and . DCDuring TALK  00:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think German Ringstraße or Umgehungsstraße would still fit "beltway". Straße could also be various kinds of roads including  "highway".--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was specifically talking about the one in Vienna with does not fit in any definition of beltway that I can find.
 * The poor correspondence between the empirical membership in the categories corresponding to the terms ring road and beltway exemplifies the general problem of poor matches of words and concepts between cultures. It limits the utility of translations as we will never have both base English definitions that are useful to English speakers and definitions sufficiently atomic to allow all FL terms to correspond to a set of such definitions. DCDuring TALK 02:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: mismatches - It's nothing new. There may be no perfect match but a close match. If a translation is too loose, a qualifier or a descriptive SoP translation can be used, especially when a concept/term is missing in a given FL. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As for Austrian "Ringstraße" (spelled "Ringstrasse" in Switzerland and Liechtenstein, not Germany or Austria), it's a "circular road/street" but "ring road" is one of its senses. The US "beltway" has a narrower sense.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Atlanta has something called the Perimeter, which is basically a beltway. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In the UK, I think we only have one road similar to a beltway - the M25. That is described as the "London Orbital" - definitely not a ring road. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's (for example) the Manchester Inner Ring Road (a mixture of American-style elevated motorway and standard A-roads) and the Manchester Outer Ring Road (fully separated motorway). This might be less an issue of language, and more of different approaches to road planning on different continents. There are quite a lot of American books that refer to "ring roads" in a US context, both to mean beltway and to refer to a non-freeway solution to circulatory roads (mostly in New England, it seems, where dense population and historical city centres make the beltway a poor solution). Notably, the city of Providence used to have a system that was officially referred to as a ring road. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Melbourne, Australia, has the (and that's its official name). Its definition here is a freeway or highway which runs around a city, instead of radially out from the center. Sydney has the  (a system of ring roads), Perth has the ring road made up in part by the, and  is building one now. In all cases they are described as "ring roads". --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 11:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a lot like terms for stages in schooling: in the US we have preschool, kindergarten, elementary/grade school, middle school/junior high, high school, with grades from 1 to 12 that overlap with some of those (and k-12 schools that have kindergarten, elementary and junior high in one school). They can be hard to convert to school systems in other countries, regardless of language. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Many thanks to everyone who replied. The entry looks great now. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you a noun if you feel like yourself?
Yourself has a noun section with the definition "Your usual, normal, or true self", with the usex "feel like yourself". Myself with the more opaque definition "that being which is oneself", with the same usex. None of the other pronouns have noun sections, although they can all be used in exactly the same way ("feel like himself/herself/ourselves/etc"). Are the noun sections unnecessary (do the plural sections cover "feel like _self"-type usage)? Or should noun sections be added to the other pronoun entries? This is part of the more general issue that our pronoun entries are quite inconsistently formatted. - -sche (discuss) 04:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not only -self, since you could say "I feel like them" (i.e. like they do). Equinox ◑ 16:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

cassia
What does this mean? " The sweet osmanthus (O. fragrans)"

Can it be said more clearly, so normal folks could understand? DCDuring TALK 16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * My guess is that it means there is a Chinese word, which properly refers to the 'sweet osmanthus', which is commonly translated as 'cassia' instead of as 'sweet osmanthus', for reasons. Whether it is true that there is such a word, I don't know. (RFV?) - -sche (discuss) 02:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, both cassia (the type of cinnamon) and sweet osmanthus were originally referred to by the same single-character term,, with the compound terms and  emerging to remove the ambiguity. There's also  that refers to sweet osmanthus as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If one knew that, then the label would make sense. But how does the label begin to convey that to someone who doesn't know the underlying situation. It would seem to be merely a canard to someone using the entry. DCDuring TALK 03:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to have a usage note saying that cassia and sweet osmanthus are often confused by translators of Chinese. For one thing, I would imagine it would be possible for references to cassia to be mistranslated as sweet osmanthus, too. Older translations of all sorts of works are rife with mistranslations. We do have similar senses for biblical mistranslations at cony and fitch, though. The entry at tare has a sense that also comes from a biblical mistranslation, but is deceptive because it doesn't mention the fact. It quotes the biblical passage that's the original mistranslation, but also quotes another that's obviously an indirect allusion to the biblical passage. Just off the top of my head, the word rose as used in Bible translations is definitely wrong, as are references to hyssop and most (maybe all) references to lilies. I know there are similar issues with many other works, but biblical translation is the area I've studied in greatest depth and therefore the easiest for me to come up with examples for without research. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

force of will
Would the term "force of will" pass CFI? It seems idiomatic. There are also some idiomatic translations, e.g. Chinese, Japanese , Korean. . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * force of will is the fourth most common term of the type force of [noun], after force of nature, force of gravity, force of arms and ahead of force of law and force of habit. We join other references ( and ) in what we include (and exclude). It is not a set phrase, as possessive and adjectival modifiers may be inserted. Both of the included force phrase have definitions and application that makes them idiomatic. Force of will does not. It's definition would be something like "power of one's one's own strongly felt intention and choice", which is pretty much "willpower" or "force of will". DCDuring TALK 02:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Since OneLook dictionary is often used for references, it could be a candidate for Lemming tests, no? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no force of lemmings in Wiktionary policy, just as there is no . DCDuring TALK 03:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

mascula
Some etymological references mention this as a medieval Latin noun meaning "mesh"; for instance, it is the posited etymon of mascle. Is it attested? Homography with the adjective masculus/mascula makes it hard to search for. (Incidentally, I've just found one reference that derives mascula from macula; the other references I've seen derive it from Germanic and relate it to mesh.) - -sche (discuss) 02:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging User:I'm so meta even this acronym and User:Metaknowledge, who are familiar with Latin. - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be too surprising if occurred at some point as a variant spelling of  (which exists in a “mesh” sense; see sense 2.2), but it isn't recorded by Niermeyer, and the Old High German  is also a plausible cognate, if not an etymon. Johann Jacob Hofmann has an entry for, but it reads merely "MASCULA, urbs Numidiæ, Antonin. & D. Auguſt.", which is of course irrelevant. That's as much as I know. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

capital works, capital construction
What does "capital" mean in capital works/capital construction? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but according to one .gov.uk website, "Capital works are works to the structure and exterior of your flat and building, and to any other premises that your lease grants you the right to use". According to the Australian Taxpayers' Guide 2013 ISBN 0730307263, "The term 'capital works' includes buildings, structural improvements and environmental protection earthworks that are used for an income-producing purpose". And Tax For Australians For Dummies ISBN 1118551206 says "Ordinarily, you can't claim a tax deduction in respect of the purchase of a building. This rule applies because the outlay is considered to be capital in nature and not tax deductible under the general deduction provisions However, you may be able to claim a tax deduction under the capital works provisions, which allow you to write off certain construction costs of a building over a period of time." The Dictionary of Property and Construction Law ISBN 1135801177 defines "capital improvement" as "Capital works undertaken on an asset with a view to enhancing its value. It does not include repairs or maintenance." Is any of that helpful? - -sche (discuss) 03:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just sense 1 of capital, in that "capital works"/improvements/etc are improvements to "Already-produced durable goods ... such as ... structures"? - -sche (discuss) 03:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can tell you not to bother with Capital (economics), a "vital" article, rated C- by their economics project. DCDuring TALK 03:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:över-, Talk:huvud-
Someone questioned (ages ago) whether these were really Swedish prefixes. Discussion went nowhere. Are they prefixes or not? sv.Wikt has an entry for the first one but not the second one. - -sche (discuss) 07:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say över- is prefix but huvud- is not. I don't know if there are any clear criteria but at least this would be analogous with our English entries: "over-" is considered a prefix but "head-" is not. Also, this line would be in agreement with sv-Wiktionary. However, sv-Wikipedia has a list of Swedish prefixes (förled in Swedish), but över- is not included. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * seems like a prefix to me, comparable to, , . —CodeCat 20:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox
Hello,

It is indeed a great pleasure for me to participate in the magnificent endeavor that is Wikipedia!

I am creating a new page, using Sandbox, since I am a new user - - - I do posses programming skills and have a diploma in computer science. ...also fluent in 6 languages; ...which means I intend to create these pages in other languages.

The pages are about one of Canada's best musicians, known world-wide; I have about many.. virtually thousands newspaper and magazine articles, media, etc. to choose from. So I will be working very hard to encapsulate this celebrated 45 year international career, in due encyclopedic form of course.

I tried creating in Draft mode, inadvertently broke some rules, and the page was deleted. So now I work in Sandbox and I copy my code every day, just in case.

So my questions are:

1) might my Sandbox page also be deleted. 2) I am wondering what to expect when I click "Submit your draft for Review"; I am hoping I will have a chance to correct whatever is required.

Many thanks, and of course I appreciate any feedback.

very best wishes, Michael
 * That seems like a Wikipedia article, not a dictionary article. Wiktionary is a dictionary. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

tomate de colgar
The original user (WF) translated this is "hanging tomato", although there doesn't seem to be much evidence of that name being used. Any ideas what was going through his head at the time of creating? --Type56op9 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * A Google Image search for "tomate de colgar" turns up bunches of tomatoes hanging on vines like grapes. In some cases, they seem to have been strung onto artificial vines (for storage?). - -sche (discuss) 17:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is a tomato varietal grown around Alcalà de Xivert, Province of Valencia, Catalonia, and Majorca. In English, garland tomato. —Stephen (Talk) 07:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

depict pronunciation
currently the first vowel is given as [ɪ], based on my own pronunciation I believe it is more accurately [ɨ]. (in english linguistics this is used to represent a vowel in free variation between [ɪ] and [ə].) Can someone check a definitive dictionary about this?

It's your ass
I'm wondering about expressions like "If anyone finds out, it's your ass". I think they are idiomatic and reasonably common, and don't seem to be explained by ass. Should there be an entry for be someone's ass? Siuenti (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Never heard it. Is this an elliptical form of "it's your ass on the line", or "it's your ass that's going to get kicked", or some such? Equinox ◑ 21:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I would have said it's the same as "be fucked", dictionary.com has a less vulgar definition under it's one's ass . These quotes might help:
 * "Tell him to do what ever it takes to close that loan or it's his ass"
 * "There is a lot of deterrents for a QB to override the last play of the super bowl, even if the called play is dumb. If things don't pan out, it's his ass."
 * " He’s stuck on the shitty missions, in all of the danger, and if something happens, it’s his ass, because he’s not worth saving in their eyes"
 * Siuenti (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say it certainly came from something like "it's your ass on the line". Of course can be pluralized, used with many possessives, and with any tense of be, eg. "It would have been the whole team's asses had it failed". DCDuring TALK 00:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * We have a sense at ass for "one's self or person". That seems close to what this phrase is saying: i.e. it's you, it's your problem, or your responsibility, or your whatever. Equinox ◑ 00:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I thinks it's a bit more specific than that. We should add a sense to ass like "responsibility; jeopardy".
 * If we were to add a phrasal idiom I conclude that it would be be one's ass with lots of redirects thereto. DCDuring TALK 00:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In a related question, how should we categorize the similar phrase "to have someone's ass," as in "They'll have my ass if I don't get this report in on time"? Do we think that this form came from a transitivization of the phrase "It's my ass" or from a different usage? —JohnC5 01:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Possibly a vulgar modification of "they'll have your head" (on a spear, on a platter, etc.). Sometimes people just change a word for a rude word, as in "can't be fucked" for "can't be bothered". Equinox ◑ 01:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense. —JohnC5 01:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

science questions
'''Q.1. what is fungi ?

Q.2. what is algae?

Q.4. why did potato regarding modified stem ?

Q.5. what is perculation ?'Italic text''--Anjalikumari090 (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)anjali


 * fungi — any of a large group of eukaryotic, unicellular, multicellular, or syncytial spore-producing organisms that feed on organic matter, including molds, yeast, mushrooms, and toadstools.
 * algae — any of a large group of simple eukaryotic nonflowering plants that includes the seaweeds and many single celled forms. Algae contain chlorophyll but lack true stems, roots, leaves, and vascular tissue.
 * why did potato regarding modified stem (incomprehensible; it is not English)
 * percolation is the process of a liquid passing slowly through a filter. —Stephen (Talk) 06:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:on the defensive
Linking to a question on Talk:on the defensive. Someone left a frustrated message on Feedback --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to admit, this message of yours amused me (though I’m still depressed). --Romanophile (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Why did it amuse you? Were you the one who left the message in Feedback? I only copied the question to a better location, where it has a better chance to be answered. I have no opinion (or interest, sorry) on the substance of the question. It's up to you to follow it up or expand the topic. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a prepositional phrase. Almost all of them can be used both adverbially or after some copulative verbs, almost always after forms of be. "Prepositional phrase" is a better L3 header. DCDuring TALK  23:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Primally
The entry for "primally" lists it under the heading "Adjective" even though it is clearly an adverb. However, the hot links at the bottom of the entry include "English Adverbs" rather than "English Adjectives" -- the entire entry needs to be reconfigured somehow. Also, the entry for "primal" lacks a link to "primally."
 * Fixed. It was only the "Adjective" header that was wrong: the entry was created that way, apparently as an absent-minded error that no one else noticed. Thanks for letting us know. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

battle of the bulge
Should we include "battle of the bulge" under battle of the bulge or just at bulge? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends.  Do we consider "battle" to be idiomatic? Pur ple back pack 89   04:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it a WWII term? I think it is used now in cases where someone has too much around their middle, and would like to get rid of it. I could consider it to be an idiomatic term in today's usage. Donnanz (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would consider it idiomatic. It is used to reference a back-and-forth effort at weight loss, but named for a World War II battle that is increasingly obsolete to modern youth. bd2412 T 19:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a cliche already. It must be idiomatic. We should memorialize so someone unfamiliar with the allusion to will understand it as dated or soon to become so. DCDuring TALK  20:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with its origin. Perhaps someone could help me create an entry for it? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've given it a go Pur ple back pack 89  22:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well done, but it may need some fine tuning, especially the plural. Donnanz (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

shower tea
Neenish tart is said to have originated when someone was preparing for "an unexpected shower tea". What is a shower tea? All I can come up with is "a tea-time taken while in the shower", but that seems implausible both in context and, for that matter, out of context. - -sche (discuss) 09:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Could it be a ? SemperBlotto (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to be Australian term for what Americans would call a bridal shower. 1 2 3 Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Aha! Thank you both for the explanation. - -sche (discuss) 19:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

storm in a teacup
Why has it been redirected to storm in a tea-kettle? (a term I'm not familiar with). I think it may be a British term, and should be treated accordingly. Donnanz (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh. I woulda thought it should be redirected to tempest in a teapot. Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   18:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoever did it was rather naughty to say the least. I think there should be a separate entry, saying it's a British term, THEN refer it to wherever. Too much of this goes on, it's upsetting the natives. Donnanz (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, there's no entry for upset the natives either. Donnanz (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In my experience, only variants of long idioms and verb-based idioms (couldn't punch one's way out of a paper bag) get hard-redirected; variants of short nounal idioms like this (and like e.g. give a rat's ass) get soft-redirected. So, yes, this shouldn't be a hard redirect. But sorting things out is made complicated by the fact that there are two entries to which various forms are redirecting; ugh. - -sche (discuss) 03:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So how do you undo the dirty work? I think it's beyond my powers. Donnanz (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe hard redirects should be banned / outlawed altogether, or is that a subject for the Beer Parlour? Donnanz (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To "undo" a hard redirect, you just go to it (and get redirected to another page, but then click the small "redirected from" link at the top of the page to get back to the redirect...which admittedly seems to have become slightly more difficult after one of the recent software changes) and replace the "#REDIRECT" text with some other text. (Or you go to the redirect using this format: <tt>https://en&#46;wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=forget,_when_up_to_one%27s_neck_in_alligators,_that_the_mission_is_to_drain_the_swamp&redirect=no</tt>)
 * Hard redirects are "mostly banned" already; the two circumstances where there seems to be agreement that they're good are, as I mentioned, long idioms (forget, when up to one's eyes in alligators, that the mission is to drain the swamp→forget, when up to one's neck in alligators, that the mission is to drain the swamp) and verbal idioms with pronoun and tense and object changes (burn his fingers → burn one's fingers, ). In my experience most existing hard redirects date from 4+ years ago, like this one did. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @-ische: I didn't realise that you'd already undone the hard redirect (while I was tucked up in my bed). Many thanks!! Donnanz (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Declension of ales in Romanian
Hi.

I am not 100% sure, but I think I detected a mistake in the declension table of the word "ales" in Romanian. According to http://dexonline.ro/definitie/ales the feminine indefinite singular should be aleasă (not alesă). Now... I don't know how to change this on the wiktionary page, because it is not a table but a template.

Thank you.

number one
Is a sense missing here - e.g. as in "enemy number one"? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't that covered by def #2, the one who is at the top of a ranking? <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I think it's not. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to be either noun def 2, or an adjective(?) version of noun def 2. (But perhaps the definition could be worded better.) It doesn't seem substantively different from "he's our number one suspect", "prior to 2011, bin Laden was fugitive number one", "X was our number one informant", "neenish tarts are Australia's number one export", etc. - -sche (discuss) 03:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, probably adjective section is needed. From Google: (adjective sense, here with a hyphen): most important or prevalent; foremost: "a number-one priority". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

noyau
Noyau is in Wiktionary but the entry carries only a definition that refers to a liqueur. Noyau is French for "core" and is a scientific term for "a social structure in which a male's territory overlaps the smaller territories of several females," according to http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/glossary#N.
 * Thanks! I've added that to the page. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Definitions of redact are sorted oddly, new definition
I had thought that dictionary definitions are supposed to be sorted by popularity of use. The first six definitions of redact are all labeled as obsolete, the seventh is (I believe) bordering on obsolete, the eighth is labeled as rare, and the last two (#9 and #10) are the only forms of the word that are at all common.

Those are close to the definition I was trying to link; as a security professional, sometimes it is necessary for me to redact a malicious link. One common form of that would be e.g. hxxp://evil.example.com, which should not be interpreted as a link (thus you cannot accidentally click on it and get infected). This is a somewhat common practice; just search for "hxxp".

I am requesting a reordering of the definitions (something like 9,10,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6) and the addition of the security usage. I'm not performing the edits myself because I'm not sure my understanding of ordering is correct, and I'm not decided on whether my new definition should be a part of #9 or #10 or whether all three should be merged since the principle is the same: content removed to protect some interest, such as censorship, privacy, legal protections, or security threats. (Another example that doesn't fit into the existing definitions: some Jews redact "God" as "G-d") <small class="IPA" style="border:1px solid #00f;padding:0 4px">Adam Katz<b style="background:#00d;color:#fff;padding:4px;margin:0 4px">Δ</b>☎  19:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Most (although not all!) users here agree that it's not very user-friendly to put obsolete terms at the top. I've reordered the page, and made the definitions slightly more general so that they should cover the computer security and the religious case as well. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that will do, even though it's still rather specific about the usage (which doesn't cover security threats). <small class="IPA" style="border:1px solid #00f;padding:0 4px">Adam Katz<b style="background:#00d;color:#fff;padding:4px;margin:0 4px">Δ</b>☎  23:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

working committee
What does "working" mean in the term "working committee"? Seems we don't have this sense of working on Wiktionary. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A committee which is working on a particular matter? Governments seem to use them a lot. Donnanz (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It could be in more than one ordinary sense of 'working'. Inn that it contrasts with standing committee which uses standing in the archaic sense of "permanent". DCDuring TALK 18:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

-in-law
I would regard it as a suffix, rather than a postpositive adjective. Donnanz (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's probably a better characterization of what it has become. Formerly it was a preposition phrase, sometimes used as if a sentence adverb, as well as otherwise as if an adjective or adverb.
 * Incidentally it is productive, as evidenced by such terms as dog-in-law and others to be found here at OneLook, some only at Urban Dictionary. Apparently "Related by marriage" has now been generalized to mean "Associated indirectly by marriage, a sexual relationship, or otherwise." in some of these cases, while retaining its narrower, traditional meaning for most speakers. One can find similar generalizations such as granddog "dog belonging to one's child". DCDuring TALK 18:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the most bizarre in that list is "urinal-in-law". Anyway, shall I change it? It occurred to me that a list of words suffixed with -in-law would also be useful, as I have done with in Norwegian. Donnanz (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

schwieger-
This entry was altered from Schwieger- last year by a Japanese user. I have read the reference left in the history, but this is only used with nouns, so was this a useful change or not? My Duden is no help. Donnanz (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, is found on adjectives like  (even though it's pretty clearly  +, not  + ), so it can be lower-case. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, OK, that's not shown in Duden either. I only found schwieger- when adding to the translations for -in-law. I don't think it should have been altered without leaving a redirect; it wasn't very joined-up thinking. Donnanz (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently Schwieger (feminine noun), which is shown in Duden Online, is an outdated term for Schwiegermütter. Donnanz (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It should be lowercase, for reasons outlined on Talk:ur-. Namely, compounds like Schwiegermutter are not Schwieger- + mutter(!), they're schwieger- + Mutter + (rule that the first letter of a noun is capitalised, and not other letters). - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * R-right, but bearing in mind case sensitivity versus user friendliness I feel a redirect from Schwieger- is also desirable. However not all German -in-law words use schwieger-, see Schwägerin for instance. Donnanz (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary. Searching for  will find schwieger-, and people are far more likely to search for the whole words than for the prefix anyway. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, you're right. I had to alter the etymology for "" though. Donnanz (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

experience
Is it just me, or do the first two senses have the same meaning? Also, if the second sense is countable, why is the example given ("experience has taught me...") uncountable? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't just you, but MW Online has eight definitions to our four:
 * "1a : direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge
 * "1b : the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation
 * "2a : practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity
 * "2b : the length of such participation <has 10 years' experience in the job>
 * "3a : the conscious events that make up an individual life
 * "3b : the events that make up the conscious past of a community or nation or humankind generally
 * "4 : something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through
 * "5 : the act or process of directly perceiving events or reality"
 * 4 is the only one that seems clearly countable to me, perhaps 5 as well.
 * I don't think that the edit adding the countable/uncountable labels and adding indefinite articles was good, not that I'm sure the entry before the edit was in good shape. There needed to be usage examples, if not actual citations, to illustrate each usage. And there probably weren't enough definitions. The entry needs revision. DCDuring TALK 11:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was hoping you could help with this. After all, "experience" is one of the commonest words in the English language. We really should get this entry right. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * How, according to measurable evidence, is "experience" one of the commonest words in English? Equinox ◑ 23:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * We should get every entry right for all word terms in all languages for all users in everybody's opinion now. 03:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Call me crazy, but I consider it a very common word. Surely you're not arguing it's rare or uncommon. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

yo
Nothing about the Baltimore gender-neutral slang pronoun? A comment on this article makes an interesting observation about the Haitian Creole pronoun yo meaning "they". Makes you wonder if perhaps the similarity just might be more than an accident. See also Language Log. Has there been any follow-up research on it? Perhaps there are sentences where yo is truly ambiguous between interjection and pronoun, providing a possible pivot. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's right there, sense 2 under pronoun. I find the Haitian derivation a bit dubious - Baltimore doesn't seem to have a very large Haitian population, compared to other cities in the Northeast or Florida. It's not unheard of for pronouns to jump around in terms of case, person and number (e.g. the royal/editorial we, the Scouse us, the singular they), so it seems at least plausible that a pronoun might go from second person to third person (although not quite the same, the Irish your man is a similar sort of development). Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It makes more sense to me as a derivative from the look-at-me attention-getting sense via look-at-that-one. But that's just an untested hypothesis. The borrowing of Haitian into AAVE seems implausible for social reasons even if there were a Haitian population in Baltimore. DCDuring TALK 11:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

spare wheel, spare tire, spare tyre
Spare tyre is an acknowledged misnomer for spare wheel, so should the translations be moved to spare wheel (a more neutral term anyway), just leaving the ones for extra fat behind? Donnanz (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If spare tyre and spare tire were not misnomers for spare wheel, they would be SoP, as spare wheel is. DCDuring TALK 11:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that doesn't answer the question. I don't think there is any doubt that all these terms should be kept. Are you trying to say "No, it's not feasible"? I am disinclined to enter translations for spare wheel under spare tyre. Donnanz (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am saying that we shouldn't have spare wheel as it is absolutely transparent. It is also vastly less common than spare tire in US usage when referring to a wheel carried as a spare in a car (172:2 at COCA). At BNC spare tyre and spare wheel are roughly equal. What have your researches found? DCDuring TALK 15:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I must admit that the only research I have done is in Oxford (both Br. and Am. sides), and Cambridge; they both list spare tyre and spare tire but ignore spare wheel, which doesn't help my cause. I'm retired now, but spent many years in the motor trade (a British term?), and I think both terms are used interchangeably, but I personally prefer spare wheel. When a wheel is taken off a vehicle and replaced by the spare wheel, the removed wheel automatically becomes the spare wheel, even if it needs a new tyre. Because spare wheel isn't used much in Am. English, it isn't grounds for deletion, I think all three terms should be kept for the sake of completeness, regardless of soppiness. This policy regarding SoP terms can be Wiktionary's worst enemy if taken too far. And what about spare part? A spare part once it is fitted is no longer a spare part, unlike a spare wheel, which remains the same even if it's a different wheel than before (as long as there is a spare wheel, manufacturers are trying to do away with them). On a different subject, I entered trolley jack today after some deliberation, as it doesn't meet the normal concept of trolley, and is just one of the many meanings for jack. Donnanz (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If, in someone's native language the word for what I would call a spare tire is a single word that is composed of morphemes for spare and wheel and they find "spare wheel" as the definition in Wiktionary, they may be surprised, even mystified, when they subsequently encounter spare tire or spare tyre.
 * Compare and  with . Many dictionaries have a full entry for spare tire. Only Collins has a full entry for spare wheel. BTW, we are already doing the world a service by being explicit about spare tire/spare tyre normally including the wheel. Surprisingly few of the OneLook dictionaries make that clear. Also, given your years in the car/auto/automobile racket/game/business/industry you might want to make this industry glossary a favorite in your browser. (It's one of the OneLook references too.) It is one of the best industry-specific glossaries I've seen.
 * One good reason to keep spare wheel is its widespread use in UK usage where the US would have the misnomer (with few exceptions). If large groups of people allegedly speaking the same language are in the position of saying "They call it 'X', but we call it 'Y'.", there's a good case for including both 'X' and 'Y' in Wiktionary, even if one is SoP. DCDuring TALK 21:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

empirical evidence
Where is the entry for empirical evidence? There is a corresponding entry for anecdotal evidence. I came here from the wikipedia entry, but found only a special page. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A dictionary is focused on words, not concepts that cannot be defined in one- or two-line definitions. Would it be handy for users such as you if a search for a term with multiple words did not yield an exact match generated something that provided links to the component terms, ie, to empirical and evidence. DCDuring TALK 14:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have split the interwiki link at Empirical evidence to interwiki links to [[empirical]] and [[evidence]]. DCDuring TALK 14:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sports definition of bib
Looking at the page here:

I see there is no definition for "bib" that includes the use of a "bib number" in sports. Where a contestant at an event is expected to wear a "bib number" or "bib" to identify them separately from the other contestants. 82.2.100.205 14:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Added. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

for the love of god
someone help me out with this guy  Equinox ◑ 16:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've RFVed enough things lately, and enough things by this user, that I'd like to leave RFVing this to someone else, but...is this even attested? I'm not seeing any uses on Google Books or Groups or Issuu. (Btw, the only significant page on it I've found, [//acotwf.blogspot.com/p/novel-kratocracy-ch-1-6.html this non-durable one], confirms it's an adjective.) - -sche (discuss) 19:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

sniper
Sense 1 bothers me:

<blockquote style="border:1px solid gray;padding-left:5px;padding-right:5px;"><ol><li>A person who carries the professional title of sniper.</li></ol>

It seems bad form to use a word to define itself. “Sniper means a person called a sniper.” The tautology is problematic. &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 21:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, It needs to be deleted - but you then have to figure out the translation sections. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it refers to people who are members of a team or squadron of snipers, but is not a sniper himself, such as a spotter. If kept, it definitely needs rewording and to be moved after the other senses. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We can do for the entry what Writer's Cramp, for some reason, failed to do: RfV the questionable senses or build a full entry by looking at the full range of uses in some corpera. It is a topical word, worth some effort. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the recursive sense and sorted its translations into the appropriate tables. - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we would do justice to the term by having its sense evolution in English. I haven't yet attested all the senses, but candidates would be: "One who hunts snipes", "A marksman", "one who shoots at persons from a concealed position, especially one so trained in combat or in police service", "one who snipes ('criticizes')". DCDuring TALK 22:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, "an auction sniper" and/or "a bid sniper". DCDuring TALK 22:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (Supplement) has a couple more. DCDuring TALK 22:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

аскер
The etymology of is wrongly attributed to Latin Exercitus instead of Turkish (Asker) which is derived from Arabic (Askar) which is derived from Persian (Lashkar). See Ottoman Askar at @. --
 * You are right. I have updated the etymology with a reference. PS. In the future such comments belong in WT:ES. --Vahag (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

διφθέρα
This descendant tree is suspect. Could someone look over that (and probably remove all the arrows as well)? ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 17:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it’s suspect? — Ungoliant (falai) 18:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, why do you? I have added references. --Vahag (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The tree isn't "suspect" to me (although it is very interesting); the arrows are a bit suss though. What do they mean, I wonder? This, that and the other (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Arrows mean "borrowed", as apposed to "inherited". This practice is unofficial. We can make it official or devise something better. --Vahag (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Monosyllabic meus, tuus, suus?
In some of the Romance languages, the accusative forms of these pronouns preserve the final -m: French, , , Catalan , , (alongside , , ). The Strasbourg oaths attest the early form, which still preserves the diphthong. I would imagine that this is only possible if the words were monosyllabic originally, as in this case the -m was preserved as a normal consonant rather than becoming a nasal vowel. Compare for example <. So is there anything that is known about this? —CodeCat 18:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

pronunciation of ogin - the sea
My father was in submarines in royal navy and pronounced this like. log in. without the L

I dimly recall the three simple rules of sailing

1. keep the crew in 2. keep the ogin out 3. don't bump into anything

can't remember origin of rules


 * Thanks, I've added that pronunciation to ogin. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

prescind
I am having trouble with this entry. As I see it the definitions are all worded as if the verb is intransitive. But by simply inserting parentheses around the word "something" in the definition the definitions could be read as being transitive. There are no usage labels, usage examples, or citations to help clarify. As best I can determine, the word is almost exclusively used in academic works, especially in philosophy and philosophical theology. It seems to only have to do with the content of conscious thought or of discussion.

Does anyone have some familiarity with the term who can clear this up? The problem I'm having with the entry doesn't fit what RfC is supposed to do. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have taken a run at two new definitions, but I don't think I've capture the full range of use. DCDuring TALK 22:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

-@: the suffix
So, when I was creating the entries for Chicano studies and Chicana studies, I noticed that Chican@ studies is an alternative name for the discipline. So that got me thinking, "is -@ a gender-neutral suffix?" And in what language? English? Spanish? Inter? <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  17:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not a suffix because you don't form Chican@ by adding @ to "Chican". It's a blend of a and o, supposed to highlight gender-neutrality. There's also Latin@ (again, Latina/Latino). Equinox ◑ 17:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * But, by that logic, -o and -a are also not suffixes... <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89 


 * You have to think about how the word is formed. A suffix is a morpheme added at the end of an existing word. @ isn't used that way for the reason I gave. The words Chicano, Latina, etc. were borrowed into English from Spanish, as entire existing words, so that suggests -a and -o are not suffixes in English (though they might be in Spanish; I don't speak it). Equinox ◑ 17:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Many morphologists distinguish between suffixes and endings; suffixes alter the meaning of the root, while endings don't (instead they mark grammatical functions like case, gender, number, person, etc.). By that definition, Spanish -a and -o are endings, not suffixes. However, we don't seem to make that distinction here, as we have a fair number of ===Suffix=== entries for endings in various languages, not to mention various categories "Fooish words suffixed with -blah" where -blah is an ending. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Part of that is due to all the affix templates: they make it too easy to make morphology-based etymologies without thinking about/understanding the nature of the morphemes. I work a lot with Special:WantedCategories, and I prefer to stay away from the "<Language> words ed with -foo" redlinks- more often than not they're bogus, but it's not always obvious how to fix them. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

advance person
How can this be considered a politically correct term? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Some people think that any use of person where one might use man is political correctness. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Would we feel better if we put this in a category called gender-neutral, linked to the current category? DCDuring TALK 13:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This is certainly not "politically correct", and "politically correct" is itself a POV (pejorative) term, so I question if it's appropriate to have a "politically correct" category at all, particularly without references to support the claim that the terms in the category are "politically correct".
 * Putting this term in a category for gender-neutral terms would be preferable to leaving it where it is now, although simply removing the category might be the best option, and is what I've done. (I remember [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=grandparent&diff=20195353&oldid=18996471 Equinox having to remove "grandparent" from the "PC terms" category]!) A category for gender-neutral terms would be hard to name, define, and maintain in such a way that anons wouldn't add terms like doctor and armadillo and most other words for people and animals to it. - -sche (discuss) 18:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

white vinegar
Should we include this term on Wiktionary? It's arguably more than just vinegar that looks white/clear, right? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should. White vinegar is not white, it’s clear, and it is a particular type of vinegar, with its own flavor and uses. —Stephen (Talk) 06:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a quick definition. Feel free to improve. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! Still amazes me after so many years of hard work you still from time to time come across simple, every day words we haven't got entries for. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not so surprising: people tend to concentrate on the interesting terms, and don't bother with the plain old ordinary ones. There's also an element of what was referred to in the old quote: "We don’t know who it was discovered water, but we’re pretty sure it wasn’t a fish". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

caddie
Two separate etymologies, but several overlapping and duplicated meanings. Equinox ◑ 03:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The first three sense of etymology 1 look like they should be merged into etymology 2, which lacks the box-for-tea sense that the Online Ety. Dict. says it should have. As no definition will actually be deleted, I don't think even those here who are legalistically inclined can validly object. DCDuring TALK  04:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

About parallelogramma
On the article about parallelogramma it says the plural is "parallelogramme". It also says the form "parallelogrammo" is a variant. Now, both Treccani and my Devoto-Oli vocabulary seem to think "parallelogramma" is the variant and "parallelogrammo" is more correct. This is consistent with the etymology: "parallelogrammum" gives "parallelogrammo", whereas "parallelogramma" must be a misuse of the plural form. I for one have been taught to say "parallelogrammo", not "parallelogramma". The etimo.it Etymological Dictionary doesn't even 'have' the form "parallelogramma", whereas it has "parallelogrammo". This seems to confirm the idea that the "-a" form should be marked as a variant of the "-o" form, not vice versa, as is now. Also, both me and my brother, who are mother-tongue in Italian, sort of started when we heard the form "parallelogramme" as the plural of "parallelogramma", since we never heard it once, and though we know of the variant in the singular, the plural never exhibited this variation as far as we heard. Neither Treccani nor the Devoto-Oli report this form. It is my impression that this for is either an invention of the Wiktionary, or an incredibly rare and non-standard form, perhaps even incorrect. I therefore ask if someone could verify how much of what I think is correct and edit the articles accordingly, replying here to notify me, in particular, about the plural form. MGorrone (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Parallelogrammo seems to be almost twice as common as parallelogramma, so I support making it the main entry. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

strap or loop for hanging a towel
How do you call in English the little strap or loop that is often sewn in the corner or edge of a towel for hanging it up on a peg? Is a similar loop in a jacket etc. called the same? --Hekaheka (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's just called a hanging loop. Same for a jacket. Equinox ◑ 14:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Our definition at hanging loop was overly specific. A pendant, a picture frame, a hammer can have one.
 * An appropriately generalized definition starts to look SoP, only justified by translations. Normal practice for determining the meaning of a noun phrase like this is to determine which of a limited set of relationships is possible between the components, ie, "a loop that hangs", "a loop for hanging (object under discussion)", "a loop for hanging (execution)", "a loop (circuit) inventing by Han-ging", "a loop has a process hung up (ie, infinite loop)", etc. What makes this definition special lexicographically? It's not in . DCDuring TALK 16:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Mm, the construction is similar to "walking shoes" or "cooking ingredients" (i.e. Y intending for Xing &mdash; not Y that Xes, as in "a walking man"). Equinox ◑ 21:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * At least this sort of entries will help the learners of English. This is an example of a simple everyday item, the name of which is self-evident for the native speakers and grammatically a SOP, yet very difficult for a non-native to deduce or guess. Another example of such term is spare wheel, which is being discussed a few lines up. If I had to guess, I would probably call it "reserve tire". When using it, I would probably be understood, but might collect a few questioning looks. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I wasn't aware of the term "hanging loop" when I read your initial query, and had to use search engines to verify the term that people use for it! Equinox ◑ 22:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of any term for it, either. As for spare wheel: I've never heard one called that, though, strictly speaking, that's what they are. I've only heard them referred to as spare tires, and I doubt anyone outside of automotive professions would call them spare wheels. I think it's just one more example of technically-incorrect usage overwhelming attempts to "correct" it. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for US usage, though- elsewhere, it may be different. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. I'll use "hanging loop" as translation for raksi. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

tylandria
A poem by Walt Whitman mentions "the red cedar festoon'd with tylandria". What is that? A Google search only seems to turn up Tylandria as an African-American female name. Equinox ◑ 06:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , according to this —Pengo (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As to where the term came from, I can't find a trace of it in the usual botanical sources- or much of anywhere, really. The term does sound vaguely like the real taxonomic name (Tillandsia usneoides), so it's conceivable that Frederick Law Olmstead misremembered it, and Whitman used the name from the descriptions of southern scenery in Olmstead's newspaper dispatches- but that's just an unsupported hunch. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

scour?
What's the word for when the police scour an area looking for clues? Is there a noun for that? --Type56op9 (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * comb, search, examine minutely, go through with a fine-tooth comb. The noun could be search: following the search, the suspect was arrested. —Stephen (Talk) 12:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you thinking of a stakeout, maybe? Where they snoop and sleuth about for clues? Tharthan (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In the UK, this is a fingertip search - American English doesn't appear to have an equivalent. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It exists where I live, but it doesn't have any name as far as I am aware. Police investigators go in and scan the crime scene. Again, no name that I am aware of. Tharthan (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * American crime serials tend to use the word canvass as in "The police canvassed the neighborhood." —JohnC5 01:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That refers to interviewing people, not to searching. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, duh. —JohnC5 02:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Serbian љ analogy to "ll" Spanish is not accurate
Hello, good day, I just wanted to ask for a review. The content is not true. I am a native Spanish speaker, I am living in Serbia and this is not the sound that we have in "ll". That sound does not exist in Spanish and the sound of "ll" in my language sounds more like Serbian "ђ" letter. 89.216.230.254 17:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Juan Carlos Martínez
 * It depends what dialect of Spanish you speak. There are certainly some Spanish speakers who pronounce words like with a sound very much like Serbian љ, although that pronunciation seems to be losing ground in both Spain and the Americas. We'd probably be better off comparing Serbian љ to Italian gl, since the sound is much more robust in Italian than it seems to be in Spanish. What page did you find the comparison to Spanish on? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * љ. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The correct pronunciation of Spanish ll is only losing ground if one speaks a weak idiolect of Spanish. c and z being /θ/ and /ð/, as well as ll being /ʎ/ are still the right ways to pronounce those sounds (although Rioplantense isn't too bad either with certain sounds. I could go for that if necessary [not that I'm any linguistic authority or anything. This is just my personal opinion]). Tharthan (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Jesus
Can anyone work out the specific meaning(s) of this verb? See and  (there also seem to be quite a few derivations, like re-Jesus and un-Jesus). - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've heard it used in the context of sports, e.g. "they trailed by twenty points until the last two minutes, then Jesused (or Jesused out) a win", where it seems to mean something like "to accomplish (by) miracles in the manner of Jesus", but I'm not sure if that sense is attested (maybe on Usenet?).
 * "in class rooms across America each and every year ... there is always one child being Jesused" seems to mean "subjected to Jesus / Christian teachings" or (based on the following sentence) "made to suffer like Jesus".
 * "He didn't seem to be all Jesused out anymore — alcohol was once again his crutch of choice" maybe means "religiously Christian"?
 * I suspect that your third example is really Jesus out, and is probably somewhat parallel to phrases like max out. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

horseshoes and hand-grenades
I think there should be an entry to explain sayings along the lines of "close only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades". Siuenti (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We have close only counts in horseshoes. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  04:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

wode
The use of the word "wode" that is most familiar to me is as the name (one name, also "woad") of the blue dye with which British aborignes painted themselves when going to battle. But reference to that appears nowhere in the Wiktionary entry for "wode". Why? Andyvphil (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because Wiktionary awaits contributions from folks like you. ✅ DCDuring TALK 20:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What is a "downward dog"? Do we care?
I was puzzled by the phrase used in this BBC News article 'Yoga pants': Are leggings and other tight trousers indecent?, in the context of leggings recalled by their manufacturer in 2013 "because wear over time led to sheerness (and subsequently awkward downward dogs)."

I don't remember ever hearing of "downward dogs", though I accept that I tend to glaze over when people start discussing fashion (or indeed yoga), and it doesn't seem to fit with any definitions we already have. I've thought of several possibilities:
 * It is a misprint -- but I can't think what it should have been.
 * It's a nonce abusage of the English language, which we can ignore, particularly as it's more opaque than the leggings.
 * The "sheerness", appearing at awkward times, was a similar shape to laddering of tights, and is being likened to frankfurters (or even wieners).
 * Dog means "penis" (or is that my imagination -- we don't include it yet) and men are (strangely) being turned off in the bedroom by patches of "sheerness"
 * Dog can now mean a furtive glance.
 * Downward can now be an adjective meaning "below the waist", complemented by dogs meaning "people unpleasant to look at", who are therefore embarrassed.
 * Or just possibly, downward dog is a phrase which has been used for years, with a meaning too NSoP for me to guess, and is therefore a phrase we should include.

Any ideas? --Eng in ear 01:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is the technical term for a yoga pose, being to place ones hands and feet on the ground, and make a Lamda shape with one's bottom in the air. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 01:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- I must have miss-keyed when searching for downward dog the first time. It seems to fall into my last category, and indeed we already have it -- and it falls into the category of yoga-speak which, when I know the context, causes me to "switch off".  Oh well! --Eng in ear 01:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you knew it better under its "English" synonym adho mukha shvanasana. Why would we call this English? I'm glad it's still a redlink. It's more grist for the Romanized Sanskrit mill. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

gulag
The pronunciation given seems rather implausible: I'm finding it hard to imagine any speaker of contemporary English (even a conservative RP speaker) producing "", and if they did, I doubt they'd follow it up with a short "". Is this a valid pronunciation anywhere? Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like a simple, albeit strange, error for /ˈɡu.læɡ/ (maybe someone assumed all /Cu/s optionally have /j/?), which some dictionaries list as an alternative to /ˈɡu.lɑg/. - -sche (discuss) 16:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Emotionless/Neutral Face
What is another way of saying a "neutral" or "emotionless" face that doesn't sound cold (emotionless is a bit of a cold word)?

Expressionless, maybe? Tharthan (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * deadpan and poker-faced are relatively common idiomatic terms for it. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

girl
"A boy with qualities that are allegedly girl-like, especially squeamishness." I get that people sometimes derogatorily call boys "girls", but I dispute that that's actually a separate sense — it seems to mean that the people are, well, calling the boys "girls" in that word's usual sense. Compare all the American movies that depict drill sergeants calling male recruits "ladies", "women", etc. Thoughts? - -sche (discuss) 23:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. It is not a separate sense. It is a usage point relating to the ordinary sense. 109.152.146.128 01:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd tend to agree - it's just sarcastic, like calling a stupid person Einstein or Sherlock. Doesn't literally mean that Einstein and Sherlock mean "stupid person". Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too. DCDuring TALK 04:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I've removed the sense in question. - -sche (discuss) 08:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

analogization
I imagine this entry was generated by an algorithm, this seems really silly though. Has anyone ever seen this word before? I suggest it be removed, it's really excessive.


 * generates plenty of hits for sufficient citations. Do you object to the definition, or to the existence of the entry?  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 01:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

million
Its part of speech is given as "Numeral", so there is no link to millions, which is a "Noun". How to resolve? Equinox ◑ 00:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Good question. Maybe it needs to have both a noun section and a numeral section? Ten does, although not in the way I would expect — I would have expected a noun sense to cover uses like "tens of people attended the rally". Or perhaps the numeral template needs to allow a plural form to be set, to cover uses like the one in millions?, suggests that many numbers can be pluralized while still referring to a quantity. Small numbers can also be pluralized while referring to glyphs (e.g. "she drew her nines like gs"). - -sche (discuss) 05:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper poster, headline poster or what?
How do you call a poster that promotes a particular issue of a newspaper at newsstands (see pic)? Google searches for "newspaper poster" and "headline poster" produce right-looking hits, but they do not seem to be as directly to the point as Finnish lööppi, and the number of hits looks modest as well. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe broadside. DCDuring TALK 07:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * DCDuring TALK 07:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Majority of the pictures here are not ads for individual issues of a newspaper but for the newspaper as a whole. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Headline poster" seems to be the dominant term. I'm now disappointed that we don't have a better word for it in English (and also that lööppi doesn't have an entry, so I can't look up its etymology). Pengo (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Lööppi is now added. According to the Swedish Wikipedia the UK term is "newspaper billboard poster", or "newspaper billboard", which gets support from the BBC . Further, the Swedish Wikipedia states that this type of billboards are used only in a relatively small number of countries and in most countries the front page of the newspaper would double as an ad. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Brabans
aintno dim/plural!163.32.124.124 06:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why should there be? It's the name of a dialect. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

sur-pl.luk@theprompt[i/daENTRYimade[nitsmynativLANGUAG[dad=y.iteluppl2talk~LECTSsigh163.32.124.124 07:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that a native speaker of Dutch has tagged Brabans for speedy deletion as a misspelling of Brabants. I assume the question of whether or not it has a plural applies as much to the spelling Brabants as to Brabans. What does our other Dutch speaker,, think? - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I deleted it. It's a misspelling, at least for Dutch. It might be a Brabantian spelling, but we don't recognise that as a language, nor is there any standard or written tradition for it. —CodeCat 14:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

=therGUIDELINES4brabans?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wijf#Dutch <usag-ex

aDEMONYM=notaPROPRNOUN?
IFso,thenpartofmyeditnedsundon+theusagnotmovdbelo http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Brabantian#English anothrpairofeyes'db.gud:) 163.32.124.124 07:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * k,ifelthishascontradictni/it n

Examples

Mike, United Nations

proper noun (plural proper nouns)

A noun denoting a particular person, place, organization, ship, animal, event, or other individual entity.

Usage notes Main appendix: English proper nouns <MISPLACED??

In English, a proper noun normally is not preceded by an article or limiting modifier and is written with an initial capital letter. NOARTICL,THENaBrabantian=noproper1,buthenWICHPARTICULRPERSON[S[c.def=PROPERNOUNS??[ilukd@history+bergarden,thistopik[proprnoun]dunsemclear/diverginopinions..acivildiscusion+[re]solutn'db.nice[nimightlearnsth.myslfofkors:)163.32.124.124 08:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * k,dad=mybestshot[c.history,othrppl.welkom!163.32.124.124 08:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * WTF? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the user is asking why the "person from Brabant" sense of "Brabantian" is not a proper noun? Or perhaps why the language sense is a proper noun? "Person from Brabant" is a common noun because it's clearly very countable; just ask the Brabantians (any two Brabantians, your nearest Brabantian, etc). The language, in turn, is labelled a proper noun because Wiktionary currently labels languages proper nouns, but see Beer parlour for discussion of this. - -sche (discuss) 18:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

scatophagous vs coprophagous
It seems to me that these two words are functionally equivalent in technical usage certainly. I have checked and found that there never since the early 19th century has been a time when scatophag-- and its derivatives came anywhere close to the frequency of coprophag-- derived terms. In fact one really has to search for functional instances in most periods; in modern times a google search records it mainly in dictionaries and similar philological works! Henceforth I shall make a personal point of not using scato when copro is a reasonable alternative, but I see that the Wiktionary entry for scatophagous links to coprophagous without comment or further definition.

Now, that is not unreasonable and I have no intention of meddling, and I do not propose this in the spirit of imposing "correct" or "approved" usage, but it seems to me that it would be a service in such a case to include a remark to the effect that the usage is unusual and unhelpful in technical works at least.

Comments? Policies? Thanks if so. JonRichfield (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no explicit policies that make a positive recommendation. I agree that in English there are many occasions where some synonyms become so uncommon in use that it seems a disservice to a user to not indicate that in our entry. I recently had occasion to change the use of subterraneous to subterranean in our definitions and to amend the entry for subterraneous to reflect its relatively uncommon use in current English. I doubt that anyone would object to your undertaking the same kind of thing with the words in question. One very useful tool to make sure that you have the facts is Google n-gram viewer. DCDuring TALK 17:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

What we actually know about "KTV"

 * We know it did not arise in an English speaking country.
 * We know it was not preceded by a long-form phrase "karaoke television" or "karaoke TV".
 * It evolved in Taiwan circa 1988 as a modification of its immediate ancestor "MTV".
 * "MTV" was appropriated from English in the early 1980s taken from the cable TV network of the same name, "Music Television" or "Music TV".
 * The cable channel "MTV" was not available in Taiwan at that time.
 * In Taiwan the term "MTV" had either or both meanings "music video" or "cafe playing music videos".
 * "MTV" soon acquired a novel meaning "movie television" or "movie TV" in Taiwan due to an entrepreneurial innovation.
 * The innovation was to set up multiple TVs and VCRs (or videodisc players) in a space, partitioned for private viewing of pirated movies. Apparently VCRs were scarce in Taiwan at this time and IP laws were lax. MTV establishments evolved into having private rooms which were rented out separately to persons or groups.
 * In 1988 the US moved to stop this practice and protect the IP of its movie industry. This was the Uruguay round of GATT.
 * Most MTVs were forced to close. Some increased their prices and apparently a couple still exist in Taiwan.
 * Another entrepreneurial innovation was to convert MTVs from private rooms for viewing movies with your friends into private rooms for doing karaoke with your friends.
 * It has been stated that MTV establishments merely changed one letter in their signs and thus became "KTVs".
 * So far I don't know for sure when the first KTV opened. It may have been conceived before GATT 1988 but it took off from GATT 1988.
 * Karaoke already existed in Taiwan before this. It didn't come from an English speaking country. It came straight from Japan.
 * Apparently some karaokes used the Japanese katakana spelling "カラオケ" and then the hybrid Chinese/Latin transliteration 卡拉OK was devised in Taiwan and caught on.
 * At this time karaoke establishments were of a similar kind to what we had in the west, having come to Taiwan in 1976. One machine in a public space. Some Chinese speakers still claim this to be a distinction between a 卡拉OK and a KTV.
 * So the "K" of "KTV" comes from Chinese "卡拉OK", which came from Japanese "カラオケ" while the "TV" in "KTV" came from "MTV" (movie TV) which came from "MTV" (music TV).
 * The evolution did not stop with "MTV" -> "KTV". Further innovations include "RTV" (R for "restaurant"), "DTV" (D for "disco"), "BTV" (B for "barber[shop] TV). All natively devised in Taiwan.
 * "KTV" seems to have recently been borrowed into English to a very limited degree from Taiwan and/or China. It's restricted to people of Chinese and Taiwanese descent and people familiar with those cultures. This includes Chinese and Taiwanese expats in English-speaking countries, English speaking former expats and exchange students who lived in China or Taiwan, Chinatowns, English speakers travelling in China or Taiwan, or returned from those places.
 * The Korean term "noraebang" has a similar usage pattern in English and seems to get more search engine hits than "KTV". (The Japanese term "karaoke" is of course already well established in English.)
 * The descendent terms "RTV", "DTV", "BTV" have not been borrowed into English as far as I can tell.

Are English-looking terms invented in non English speaking countries and not used in English still English terms?

 * So we know "KTV" arose in Taiwan and spread from Taiwan to China.
 * Is there such a thing as "Chinese English" or "Taiwanese English"?
 * English-looking terms invented in German such as "Handy" and "Beamer" are counted as pseudo-English. They are counted as German words and not counted as English words.

Counterevidence or other commentary from the Chinese contributors
*

I invite your evidence showing one or more of the above to be false or to back up one or more of the following hypotheses if the evidence is true but "KTV" is not to be admitted as a Chinese word:


 * "KTV" was coined not in Taiwan, but in an English-speaking country.
 * "KTV" was used in English before it was used in Chinese.
 * "Karaoke TV" or "Karaoke television" was used in English and afterwards became abbreviated to "KTV".
 * "KTV" was coined in a Chinese speaking country but only used in English.
 * Chinese speakers do not have the ability to coin terms to use in their language that look like English terms.
 * Chinese speakers do have the ability to coin terms in languages other than Chinese.
 * When Chinese speakers coin English looking terms they become English words and may never become Chinese words *but* when German speakers coin English looking words they become German words and do not also become English words.
 * Chinese English, China English, Taiwanese English, or Taiwan English is a variety of English as far as the English Wiktionary is concerned.
 * This list is open in case I've left out a potential hypothesis.

Stuff moved here from the Chinese requested entries page
Discussion moved from Chinese requested entries page:


 * I'm staying out of this one, but just for another opinion, here is a previous message from "KTV request removed, pls don't restore. Citations are unnecessary, Chinese texts use a lot of English abbreviations in a Chinese texts. They don't need Chinese entries, if an English entry exists. See archived discussions. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)" --WikiWinters (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to achieve by forcing the abbreviation "KTV" as a Chinese term? What sort of lexicographical research is required? In any case, it's a wrong place for such a discussion. We had an RFV, which resulted in an English entry. I think that's enough. You can restart an RFT, RFV or RFV discussion but I see no point, really. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 17:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What are others trying to achieve by forcing out the term "KTV" as a Chinese term? The sort of lexicographical research required is the same as per any term. Investigating its origins and usage patterns. It's origin is Taiwan in the 1980s, it's mainly used in China, it's barely known to English speakers since it's recently introduced from Chinese culture. All of the quotations in the English entry clearly indicate the references to Chinese culture. There is so far zero evidence to support the theory that "karaoke television" began in English, got shortened to "KTV" in English, and has since been used in Chinese without even being borrowed. All I can tell is that some people don't like foreign words or script being used in Chinese and have prescriptivist objections.


 * What's more disturbing is the summary dismissals on strawman arguments such as citations not being necessary to decide such things! Such as use a lot of English abbreviations in a Chinese texts means all uses remain Chinese. Despite OK having a Chinese entry here. Despite KTV originating in Taiwan.


 * When did checking the citations become unnecessary in lexicography? When did finding citations from earlier in history become unnecessary in lexicography?


 * I'll try to figure out the current official way to restart the RFT/RFV to move this discussion there. In the meantime please do not delete lexicographical evidence without investigating. &mdash; hippietrail (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet you deleted the lexicographical evidence without checking and in direct opposition to your statement "I'm staying out of this one". Bad form. Unprofessional. Dishonest. )-: &mdash; hippietrail (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Chinese term: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%A1%E6%8B%89OK 173.89.236.187 22:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The English term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/karaoke - are you trying to make a point that Chinese doesn't have synonyms? That would be incorrect.


 * What are you talking about? I never removed any evidence. Unless, of course, you're referring to my removing the entire discussion itself, as, at that time, it had already been moved to the Tea room. If there was lexicographical evidence contained in the text that I removed that hadn't also been moved to the Tea room, then I apologize. I assumed the evidence was moved with it. You added a Tea room direct template that messed up the page, as that template is for specific entries' pages, and so that, along with the fact that it had already be presumably moved in its entirety to the Tea room, or at least should have been, was the reason for which I removed the text. If you're not talking about that, then I don't know what. --WikiWinters (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved the entire discussion. I left the request since it is a genuine request. I left a link to the Tea Room because that's what it looked like I was advised to do. I find all these Wiktionary protocols very murky so I read the docs I can find and do as best I can. I imagine it's very difficult for most people. It's always best when deleting any information to check your assumptions before acting hastily. I can accept your apology but a better way is to help people with the tricky protocols when you understand them better. Maybe this is an opportunity to clarify this "template is for specific entries' pages" part of the documentation. &mdash; hippietrail (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

And Here are the attestations of early use in Chinese context which was just summarily deleted from the requests page without consideration and without being moved here, by a member of the Wiktionary Chinese clique who claimed to be "staying out of this one"! &mdash; hippietrail (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 大衆傳播與資訊..由於開放報禁,報紙出版之家數增加,而張數也大幅增加,各類型理財與休閒雜誌也大量出現. 此外 MTV 、 KTV 與衛星直播電視的興起,使得資訊不易再被壟斷與歪曲. 6 .生活素質..由於國民所得增加,民間消費型態,行與育樂全部消費額的 - 國立台灣師範大學敎育心理學系., 1987
 * ... 例如: PUB 〔註二〕、 KTV 〔註三〕、 MTV 〔註四〕、卡拉 OK 、 GO 〔註五〕 康 V.S. 康寧祥〔註八〕. ( 2 22 3 )你時作天有去台南嗎? - 世界華文敎育協進會, 1989
 * 註一、載:在台北一般人稱「我載你去火車站」之用法,正式國語應說成「我途你去火車站. 」註二、 PUB 酒廊註三、 KTV 卡拉 OK 配合電視情景與歌詞字幕註四、 MTV 音樂電視註五、 GO 地中海俱樂部團隊領隊註六、 DIY (Doityourself)註七、 PV 人工跑道 - 世界華文敎育協進會, 1989
 * ... 許多人都喜歡下班後喝杯雞尾酒,綺子解工作 娛樂場所除了 MTV ,進展至 KTV 、 DTV 71 「上班族」、「火車族」(指常坐火車的人)、「香腸族」、「火腿族」(指夜間使用. - 世界華文敎育協進會, 1989
 * 曾從事「宗教活助」舌計 7 祁萬人或 53 . 16 % .即半故以上之國人具有宗教信仰.常利用休閒時間從事信仰性之活功.致其排名位居第八. 反視最近流行之熱門休閒活劫- . KTV 、 MTV 與卡拉 OK 等,制位有 459 萬 7 千人或 32 . 37 %國人曾從事過該項活劫, ... - Xing zheng yuan zhu ji chu, 1990


 * It is not my responsibility to make sure that your evidence remains intact. I removed the entire discussion because you added a Tea room template, which wasn't even meant to be placed on such a page, saying that the discussion had been moved. The assumption is that the entire discussion is moved. If I am in the wrong in this case, then I apologize, but I'm not so sure about that. Also, you can always just go to the revision history and pull out your evidence. I didn't "destroy" it or anything of the like, so please do not be hostile. I am neutral in this issue and continue to be. --WikiWinters (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the entire discussion. I left the request and the link. You removed the request and the link. I welcome your neutrality and accept your apology. I interpreted hostility and replied defensively because I have several times found my contributions on Chinese summarily reverted though never before by you I believe. At this point I have no idea whether it's OK to reinstate the request or if that too will be interpreted as a hostile act! &mdash; hippietrail (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

drone
The sense "One who performs menial or tedious work; a drudge." seems like it would be a better fit to the bee etymology, but I can see how the second etymology might work (the drone on a bagpipe just plays the same note constantly without rhythm or melody, and a drone worker just does the same work constantly without variation). Does anyone know which of the two roots this sense evolved from? Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

PTSD
Should it be "posttraumatic stress disorder" or "post-traumatic stress disorder?" See Posttraumatic stress disorder. --WikiWinters (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

gratulieren: is intransitive, not transitive, right?
German wiktionary points out gratulieren is intransitive. English one claims it is transitive, and I guess needs to be fixed. (I haven't seen an example of transitive usage, but I also haven't researched as well as I could have. In the future I'll research more thoroughly and be bold in making corrections myself, are there people that would notice and correct me if I make mistakes? :) --Hugovdm (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, I had a look at vs. .  A number of the top hits are pages that discuss (in German) which form is correct, suggesting that there is some question about this even in the German-speaking community.  Granted, that discussion might be along the lines of "only non-native speakers get confused by this", but it's still a topic of some conversation.   generates sufficient hits for citation purposes to show transitive use.  That said, given the greater preponderance of hits at  (38.8K vs. only 44 for the transitive), and the discussions online, it probably makes sense to add a  or even  notice to the transitive sense.  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 23:28, 22 February 2015


 * Looking at the discussions. I've only found two of them. One is some person who said they were discussing it with someone (for whatever reason, probably hypercorrection), but they state that they themself had never heard "gratuliere dich". The other one specifically says that it is the son (who may be rather young) who said "dich" was correct (and the mother probably just opened the discussion to quiet the son)... And the hits from google books! Please look at them a bit: They are all, without exception, either deliberate non-standard usage, or texts written by non-native speakers, and/or very old. Many are even in books called "Common mistakes by Russian learners of German", "The influence of English on Nataler German", and so on.
 * Long story short: I'm a native speaker of German who is always interested in non-standard usage and indeed fond of it, but gratulieren + accusative is just not common in native German speech, I assure you. There are regions (today the Ruhrgebiet in particular, but at least historically the whole of northern Germany, and remember that many of those areas also had strong Slavic populations) where dative/accusative distinction has always been a problem, and you will get non-standard usage for just any verb. "Gratulieren" is by no means particularly likely to arouse such "mistakes" (if we want to call it that). — Therefore: let's make it an intransitive verb and everything is fine.Kolmiel (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Kolmiel, we aim to describe how terms are used, not prescribe how terms should be used. If transitive use of  can be shown in a way to meet our criteria for inclusion, then we have grounds for creating such an entry.  If such use is rare, we mark it as .  If such use is broadly regarded as incorrect, we mark it as  or even  (and ideally add a usage note with more explanation).  We definitely do not remove entries on the grounds that a term is regarded as “wrong”.  By way of example, have a look at the English terms  (for ), or  (for ), or  (for ).  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 02:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Please look at my talk page where I say that I am "fighting" against prescriptivism. Don't lecture me about that, please. --- I think a non-standard usage in this dictionary should be common. And if I have a text written in the 18th century by someone who obviously not a native speaker of German, then I don't regard that as a valid usage. But please go ahead. But then add each and every verb with a dative construction to that list.Kolmiel (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, maybe it is possible to find some citations from the 18th/19th century that are from native speakers. There are one or two between your citations on google books. In that case we could tag it "obsolete". See, I'm not against "proscribed" because it is nonstandard. (Again, the contrary is true. I spend much of my time here adding nonstandard usages.) I'm against it because no-one proscribes it because no-one uses it. It just doesn't exist. (Except in speakers who, because of their dialect background, do not distinguished dative and accusative at all. And as I said, you can't include these unless you want to add the same note to each and every dative verb.)Kolmiel (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It was late last night. I think I may not have made my point clear enough. Let’s go step by step.
 * (1.) Of course you are able to give a limited number of citations for gratulieren + accusative. You will able to do that for any verb that usually takes dative (cf. ich helfe dich, ich folge dich, ich vertraue dich, etc. etc.). The reason for this is (a.) that non-native speakers find this distinction particularly difficult; and (b.) that there are many traditional dialects (including a majority of Low German and a minority of High German) in which dative/accusative distinction does not exist at all.
 * (2.) Given 1, what would justify making a special note in the lemma gratulieren would be that there might be a special tendency to use accusative among those users of German who, in general, correctly distinguish the two cases (as there is indeed with e.g. the verb kündigen). I’ve tried to show you that such a tendency doesn’t exist: (a.) from my position as a native-speaker, who – given their extensive work on nonstandard German on wiktionary – is, I think, beyond the suspicion of holding back nonstandard usages for ideological reasons; (b.) by stressing the fact that in the two (quite relevant) internet discussions you found the persons who ask have both never heard the accusative use, that is, they are not in doubt themselves, they are just fighting a claim someone seems to have made (who in one case is likely a child); (c.) by showing that there are no contemporary printed sources using the accusative case and that even the old ones are mostly written by non-native speakers.
 * (3.) It is possible that the verb was (to a limited degree) used with accusative case by users of standard German in the 18th/19th century. We could – although I’m not necessarily in favour of it – add this usage as “obsolete”. It is, again, not part of contemporary standard German in any form.
 * (4.) If you want to add a special note about the fact that some users of German may construe gratulieren with accusative, you will consistently have to do the same thing with literally every verb that takes a traditional dative. I don’t think you want to go there. At any rate it would be against wiktionary’s normal policy: You don’t have a note in every single English verb that speakers from northern England and Scotland may use the s-form for the 3rd person plural. You don’t have a note in every single English verb that speakers from the southern U.S. may use the endingless form for the 3rd person singular. These are general grammatical features of these dialects, and not particular to any one verb.Kolmiel (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with what Kolmiel has said. Use of the accusative is a fairly general phenomenon, not specific to this verb. - -sche (discuss) 23:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and changed "transitive" to "intransitive". It also says "+ Dative" though, which I should probably remove now? On my own flash cards for learning German, the important details are that it is intransitive, and that it takes "zu" with Dative - but I don't think this is common to show explicitly in Wiktionary: it mostly shows up in examples, when I find it here. --Hugovdm (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, "intransitive" is right but when I just looked the "+ dative" was gone. I have put it back on, because it is of course used with dative. A verb that takes a dative object is intransitive (at least according to German terminology; I'm supposing English as well.) Only accusative verbs are transitive. Only they can form a direct passive.
 * What you mean is another thing that should be added in a usage note. English "I congratulate you on your birthday" is German "Ich gratuliere dir [you] zu [on] deinem Geburtstag." I'm making edit just now. Kolmiel (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch! I've learned from your edits, I might be bold enough to add "+ dative" to verbs in the future. :) (My removal of "+ dative" was on the theory that it meant "this verb could be used in transitive fashion as well as with dative", I trusted someone would revert if inappropriate, and I'd learn from that.) --Hugovdm (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. If you have questions about another word some time, feel free to leave a note on my talk page, too. I think it a very important task to provide lemmas with notes about grammatical construction, frequency of synonyms, formal vs. colloquial usage, etc. So it would quite all right if you gave some inspiration. Cheers! Kolmiel (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

socio-economy, social economy
Do these words exist in English? I'm just checking to see if they are Chinglish, or just very academic English. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Social Economy is an entire field of study. Socio-economy also has more than a few attestations. Yes, they both exist, and not just as Chinglish. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 23:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

痛い
Would "cringeworthy" count as a slang definition? (痛い子, 痛車(?) etc) —umbreon 126 02:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to add a noun, Akpagher. It is a village in Benue State of Nigeria

Swatch
I notice that the word swatch: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/swatch Does not include the definition that refers to a patch work of sewn together swatches or a collection of swatches bound together with, say, a ring. Despite being made of many swatches I believe it is still acceptable to refer to it as simply "a swatch". 82.2.100.205 17:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

entfernen
The entry for entfernen has this, to me, poor translation:

Der Flug MH-370 entfernte sich auf mysteriöse Weise vom Weg. Flight MH-370 went off the way mysteriously.

Leaving aside whether it's necessary to mention an actual flight that has disappeared, would someone with better German agree that something involving "departed from its route" would be better? So should sense 2 have "to depart" added?
 * First: I also think that no actual flights should be named. Second: While the English translation seems to be poor, the original is also poor German to me: a) "auf mysteriöse Weise" sounds like the style of a high school kid (or possibly that of a tabloid journalist, which may be the same); b) an airplane doesn't usually have a Weg, it has a Route or a Kurs; c) it is idiomatic to say vom Kurs abweichen, not sich vom Kurs entfernen. We could make it into: Das Flugzeug entfernte sich auf unerklärliche Weise von seinem Kurs. But I would prefer to make a different phrase altogether.
 * Then I don't know if it was you also who proposed to delete senses 3 and 4. I agree to delete sense 4, which is the same as 2 (just with a person as subject and with a different preposition, but the preposition is dependent on what follows it, not the verb). I wouldn't delete sense 3 because sich von der Truppe entfernen and similar constructions are idiomatic; they mean to desert, to leave without permission. Kolmiel (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and we must add a sense, the literal one actually. I don't know a proper English word, but "to (gradually) become further away from something". For example: Der Planet entfernt sich von der Sonne. (“The planet [gradually] becomes further away from the sun.”) Die beiden Sprachen haben sich immer weiter voneinander entfernt. (“The two languages have become further and further away from each other [linguistically speaking].” And so on. Maybe you could help with a translation :-) Kolmiel (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm the original asker; I didn't suggest the deletions of senses 3 and 4. But if you don't like 2 and think 4 is the same sense, why not just get rid of 2? 99.162.150.176 22:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My attempts at translations of your new phrases: “The planet (gradually) retreats from the sun (Sun?).” and “The two languages have increasingly diverged from one another.” 99.162.150.176 22:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That helps. Yeah, I'm editing the lemma now. Can't make it much worse I suppose :) Now I'm thinking sense 4 should be kept, however. It is different; it's just not the preposition that makes it different but the sense of "to leave a place".Kolmiel (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Feel free to have a look and make some changes in the translations if you want!Kolmiel (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I was tempted to replace "has deliberately gone absent from" with "has deliberately absented himself from", but decided it was perhaps overly formal. But that said, would sich entfernen be used to translate a sentence such as: "For legal reasons, he has absented himself from this meeting." ? 99.162.150.176 11:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Err... I'm not quite sure what your sentence means. I'm understanding that someone left the meeting? But why for legal reasons? I'm sorry, my English is rather okay, I suppose, but really not perfect... Kolmiel (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When a decision-maker has a conflict of interest regarding an item being discussed, they may need to recuse themselves. In such cases, it's better that they leave the meeting entirely until the discussion is over so that they don't appear to be influencing the discussion. By the way: we need to fix the definition for recuse, because judges aren't the only ones who are recused- it can be anyone with authority to act or vote on something. I've seen prosecutors recusing themselves from an investigation or a case being prosecuted, board members or commissioners recusing themselves from voting on items being decided by bodies they're voting members of, etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. Thus I can say that entfernen is definitely not used for that. Possibly sich ...? I'm supposing there's no perfect match. The concept of recusing for a judge is covered by German . Kolmiel (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

有る page claims there is information on ある page which doesn't seem to appear
On the 有る page, it says "有る is usually written in hiragana. Please see the article for ある for more information."

I can't seem to find any information about ある being written as hiragana on the ある page.

ready-made
Our definition says:
 * 1) Made or prepared in advance of need.

I find this confusing. If I prepare a dinner or whatever directly from raw materials for immediate consumption, it is not ready-made. But if I put the same dinner into fridge to wait for tomorrow, it's clearly made or prepared in advance of need. Does it thus become ready-made or is there another condition required for "ready-madeness"? --Hekaheka (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I like to think of "ready-made" as a shortening of "already made". The meaning and usage is quite similar. So on the day I make the dinner, I wouldn't call it "ready-made". I might say I'm making this dinner to have tomorrow, but not *I'm making a ready-made dinner for tomorrow. Then, the day after, I could say This is a ready-made meal I prepared yesterday. (I should note that for me, ready-made meal gives the impression of a commercially-available "freezer meal" that you just need to put in the microwave or oven for a little while, then serve up.)
 * It also appears we are missing a sense: one along the lines of "a product, item, etc. that is mass-produced, instead of being made to order". For example, ready-made clothing and ready-made curtains. This, that and the other (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

志气: loop of redirections
IMHO one should ALWAYS make two pages for the traditional and simplified form of a word instead of redirecting from one to the other. When however the redirections make an infinite loop, someone really should do something about it. This is the case with 志气: both the simplified form and the traditional form have no definition but only a redirection to the other form. Now I am not good enough with Chinese to go straightening this evident error by myself, so I ask you other editors to fix this. As soon as possible. Also, I strongly suggest you add the link to the Chinese article in the simplified form. The traditional form has no corresponding Chinese article. MGorrone (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. In this case, someone had mistakenly marked a traditional form as simplified. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Only we use "Chinese", not "Mandarin" L2 header now, which allows housing readings for various Chinese lects. Fixed 志氣. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 19:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)