Wiktionary talk:Wanted entries


 * December 2005 to June 2015

긴 한국어 낱말
If Google Translate (Korean to Japanese; I hear that it's fairly accurate) is right this just means "long Korean words". —suzukaze (t・c) 05:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing "arf caru"
I've removed  from the queue; it's Welsh for "weapon of love" (the plural arfau caru being "weapons of love"), a phrase which gets next to no Google hits, no mention in the University of Wales Dictionary, and probably doesn't mean anything more than what it seems to. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @Aɴɢʀ: It has an idiomatic meaning. An  is like a, but, rather than being wooden, it is made of iron. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Evidence? Google Books has nothing. Regular Google has one hit for the singular and one hit for the plural, neither of which is durably archived. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @Aɴɢʀ: The hit for the plural is in the right sense. The one for the singular translates to "fisting … The act of using a fist (and arm, if it stretches that far) as a love weapon.", in which is akin to the English . — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Still, that makes one single hit—in a non-durably archived source—for the word. Not enough to warrant an entry. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @Aɴɢʀ: Pfft. Well, I know it's a thing. One day, CFI-satisfying evidence will turn up to prove that. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

oligotropical [sic]

 * Re, I've added the only Google Book Search hit for that word to Citations:oligotropical, which use is indubitably an error for (I've added the correct form of the cited work to Citations:oligotrophic). Can you cite any uses of * that aren't errors for  or ? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No, that looks good. The word was in one of Visviva's lists - quite rich in misspellings. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added the citation, but it might not be formatted very well. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know why that article spells the words and *. I can't detect a difference in meaning, but it's weird that the article doesn't feature * or . — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it looks deliberate. That's why I originally added the word to this list. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can see why. If it is deliberate, I can't define the word. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

E.l.c.
I'm removing your request for "E.l.c." which you sourced to the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek dictionary because in my paper edition of LSJ, the entry in question says "ῑ in Hom.; ῐ in Att., Eur. l.c.", which confirms my suspicion that "E.l.c." in the edition used at Perseus is just "E." = "Euripides" + "l.c." = "loc. cit.". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @Aɴɢʀ: Yeah, that's great, thanks for looking into it; that totally stumped me! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding orange links
The first sentence is "This is a list of red links", and that's true, it is. But does it have to be? Is there any rule against adding orange links here, i.e. entries that exist for other languages, but not for the one requested? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Aɴɢʀ: What's an orange link meant to look like? A link to a page with any content always looks blue to me. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If you go to Special:Preferences and select the Gadgets tab and scroll down to User interface gadgets, you can select OrangeLinks. This will turn links orange when the page exists but not in the language linked to. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Aɴɢʀ: That is the first I've known about that. How well known is this gadget amongst the editing community? I suspect not very. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually I think it is. You're the first regular editor I've seen who hasn't immediately known what orange links are when someone mentions them. This page itself mentions them, though it calls them yellow rather than orange. Anyway, whether your links are orange, yellow, or blue isn't the point; the point is, is it OK to add a wanted entry to this list when the entry is there but not in the wanted language? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've always thought this page would be to request redlinks only. Shouldn't we just keep using "Requested entries (xxxxx)" to request for xxxxx-language entries specifically? This is the specific suggestion in the page now, but sure, it could be changed if people want. Then again, I was one of the people who had written/rewritten part of this page with this kind of use in mind. (back in the day the terms were just ... without language codes)
 * Also, I've seen cases where people ask here for terms in language X, then it gets defined in language Y, then it [the request] gets deleted by someone else. Until now, I've found that to be normal. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Aɴɢʀ, Daniel Carrero: Maybe I was uniquely ignorant. Nevertheless, I’d favour additions to this page being restricted to red links. Even in those cases where I’ve added terms in language X which have subsequently been defined in language Y, I have never objected to the terms then being removed, and I have oftentimes even removed them myself. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The sentence "Yellow links, which indicate that an entry exists but not for that particular language, should not be removed." was added in this diff from 17 August 2015. It kind of contradicts the beginning of the page, i.e. "This is a list of red links."
 * Can we revert that edit per this discussion? (I don't mind if people come to decide to keep orange links in the list, but as said above by me and I.S.M.E.T.A., that would be a substantial change to what we seem to have been doing for years, that is, deleting all blue/orange links and keeping this page strictly with red links only.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm in favour of that reversion, despite being newly enthralled to this OrangeLinks gadget. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I, too, am newly enthralled with that gadget after it was mentioned in this discussion.
 * Maybe would like to give an opinion on the reversion too? Also, I've called, since she's the author of the edit I'd like to revert. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think orange links should be considered unfulfilled requests. I don't understand the arguments given that "Requested entries" pages should be used for language-specific links. If this page isn't for requesting terms, then what is it for? Of course the language of the term matters; that's what the requester specified the language for in the first place. If I request a Spanish entry I wouldn't want to see an Italian one created and then have people call that "request fulfilled". It's not, because the entry I actually asked for still isn't there. —CodeCat 21:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be a request whose intention remained unfulfilled, but if you would then still want a Spanish entry, then add a request to WT:RE:es, because this is a page for red links. If we could add orange links to this page, then what would be the point of all the language-specific requests pages? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Meta (which is easier to type than the actual user name or punctuated acronym). Not to mention that the list is increasingly long as it is, with only red links; it would potentially become much longer if it allowed orange links. And if we did allow them, since not everyone has orange links enabled, many would be unable to make the necessary distinction to properly remove links from the list. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted the description back to the "red links only" version. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't really have a strong opinion on whether this list should contain orange links or not. I just wanted to request texas after Facebook went nuts over it, but then someone added it before I got around to requesting it, so the point became moot. But I did notice that if it hadn't already been created and I had requested it, it would have been the only orange link on the page, so I thought I'd better ask. I admit I sort of forgot about the language-specific requests pages, which can also hold red links, of course, so there's already a good deal of overlap between those pages and this one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * One drawback to the way this page is organized is that with redlinks, it's impossible to see which language is being requested without opening the edit box of WT:Wanted entries and looking. If I wanted to create a page for the current top word on the list, тиште, I'd have no way of knowing which Cyrillic-script language was being requested unless I actually opened up this page and looked at the text to see what code follows l. And some requests are made with bare links, so there's absolutely no way to know. I'm not sure how to fix that, but it's something that's bothered me for a long time. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have one idea that is not quite what you complained but is kind of related: Maybe someone could use JavaScript to make buttons like "Show only: English - German - Russian - " etc. That seems doable. I don't know about other people, but I'd use that if it were available. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a reasonable idea, but bear in mind that there are very many languages represented in the current wanted-entries list (of the mere eight terms currently in the active list, two are Ancient Greek:, two are Mari:  , one is Middle English:  , one is Turkish:  , and two are undetermined:   — that's at least four languages), so the list of language buttons may get very long indeed. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's true that the list of language buttons could get very long. Maybe we could try something along the lines of this design, a table with 32 language codes:

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I like it. All it needs is a thin border to box it. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅: Except I used separate pages rather than a JavaScript function as proposed. See examples:
 * Wanted entries/en
 * Wanted entries/mul
 * Wanted entries/und
 * and so on
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That is excellent. Great job! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've attempted a simple solution to the problem of not knowing what language is being requested. Feel free to undo it if you don't like it, or to try a different solution. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Extending the width of the active list
Can we extend the gray line that limits the width of the active list?

The active list is noticeably smaller than the "Logs – New – Cleanup – Verification – Deletion – Requests – Shortcuts – Vandalism – New editors’ contribs – Patrol Anons" above. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The ideal is that the "Utilities" and "Wanted" lines be the same length. Feel free to adjust the width of the active list so that those two lines match, but remember to take into account the "(+/-)" that follows the members of the active list in the "Wanted" line. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Mediolatinitas
This should be Latin, with a self-explanatory meaning, but it just doesn't seem to be sufficiently attested; I can only find one, maybe two cites. , what do you think? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @Μετάknowledge: I've added what I found to Citations:Mediolatinitas; did you see anything else? Those French sources all seem to be discussing a specific project called "Mediolatinitas". I don't know about the German ones. The Latin citation is interesting, because the actual title of Niermeyer's dictionary is  Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus; I'm guessing the usual Latin term for Mediaeval Latin is . — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * : That's more or less it; the specific work is not exactly helpful for independent citations, so I was largely ignoring it. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @Μετάknowledge: The French project or the Latin dictionary? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The project, given that the lexicon has a different actual name. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @Μετάknowledge: Yes, I thought that's what you meant, but I wanted to make sure. The French project definitely shouldn't get an entry; I suppose that the German and Latin terms simply don't have enough supporting quotations to satisfy WT:CFI. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @Μετάknowledge: Still, Latin is a low-documentation language, so I suppose I could create an entry for the Latin term. What do you think? Should I create the Latin entry, or just remove the request? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I would remove the request, personally. As for the LDL status... that's complicated. We've had the tradition here of only treating extinct languages as LDLs if citations come from when they were actually spoken, but I think that really ought to be codified in a vote. (If you have further opinions on this, please start a thread on WT:T:ALA, my talkpage, or somewhere else more appropriate than this venue.) —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @Μετάknowledge: I don't agree with that restriction. IMO, LDL status should apply to Latin pre-New Latin, because before then there isn't all that much of it (i.e., there is little documentation of it). But regardless, 1979 is about six centuries too late, so that difference of opinion has no impact on . Still, we have . I'll go remove “Mediolatinitas” from the list now. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

ja-l bug
Minor bug: Currently, Wanted entries/ja is not listing terms that use. Sorry, I'm not sure how exactly I'd fix that in the regex, so I won't try fixing it right now, maybe later.

The quickest way to fixing this problem would be converting all uses of into. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole point of is to provide Japanese-specific features not available in . Converting everything back would be a step backward. --WikiTiki89 20:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're gonna have to special-case it, since generates a link to both 縄抜け and なわぬけ. --WikiTiki89 20:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still thinking how could I accomplish that in the code of the module. I've thought of a quick fix, but being a kludge, all uses of would be listed above all uses of  in Wanted entries/ja. If all Japanese wanted entries use only, no one will notice a thing. But I'll try to think of something better. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at the code, it should be pretty easy. Instead of using, just iterate through the list line by line, and match each line individually to as many regular expressions as you want. --WikiTiki89 00:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you want me to do it for you. --WikiTiki89 00:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do it, I'd appreciate it. That was the first module I ever created except for sandbox stuff that I never actually used, so I'm still learning. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --WikiTiki89 01:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Don't remove links for entries you define."
Currently, it is written in italic:
 * Don't remove links for entries you define.

I suggest changing it to (non-italic):
 * Avoid removing links for entries you define.

Reason: I defined a few entries, I want to remove all bluelinks. I have no problem with giving people a little time to review new entries, but we should relax that rule and allow people to delete links they defined sometimes. (Plus, in all likelihood, a person who defined some entries has their attention on WT:WE at the moment, he/she may be the only person available to delete links, who knows.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Things that don't pass muster
Someone (Equinox?) opined once before that some people (including Wonderfool) seem to use this list to try to get people to create entries which are very borderline or outright don't pass muster. I just removed two rare misspellings of surreptitious, for example, since per CFI we don't include rare misspellings. (One of them had a total of one insufficient hit suggesting a syrup-related sense.) If you want such a borderline entry to be created, first demonstrate that it meets CFI. - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I really should have double-checked those "syrup-titious" things before putting them in the active list. Sorry about that. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'm not faulting you (sorry if it seemed like I was!), but addressing whoever added them to WT:WE in the first place. - -sche (discuss) 23:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was I. Part of the problem is that this page (unlike WT:REE) doesn't have space for people to add notes about what they have found or not found, etc., though I sometimes add them in HTML comments in the source, which will be visible to anyone editing the page. Equinox ◑ 23:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

de:Smichow
This is now at the Active list. Does a German name for a Prague district which even in the German Wikipedia is a redirect to the Czech name (click ) merit an entry here? (And no, we don't have the Czech name as an entry either. Should we?) --Droigheann (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "all words in all languages" SemperBlotto (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I know that's the motto, but considering Utopia was nominated for deletion and currently seems to be in for turning into a redirect I thought I'd better ask where we stand on placenames. --Droigheann (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just created the Czech, English, and German entries. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't have any limit on how large a place needs to be to warrant an entry here. I would be opposed to deleting, , and , and any cutoff between and  would be arbitrary, so I guess it merits an entry here. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

theremogene – cakravārtin – immissio membri – Gale’s Lump
I'm not sure if any of these would meet CFI in English. DTLHS (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Theremogene appears to be a one-off error for Thermogene, which I have created. Equinox ◑ 13:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ausführte
I've created the verb form (lower-case), but I'm removing Ausführte (upper-case) because AFAICT this word is never a noun. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

gueu

 * do you remember where you found the supposedly English word ? I can't find anything on Google Books except the Ivorian surname "Gueu Gbe" and some word in a now obsolete orthography of Breton . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @Aɴɢʀ: Sorry, it's French, not English; an early form of . — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * : OK, thanks. Could you take a look at Wanted entries/en and Wanted entries/und and see if there are any other requests of yours that need a different language code? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @Aɴɢʀ: Yes, sure. Unfortunately, however, I no longer have an Internet connection at home, so this is likely to take me quite a while. I'll start with the thirty-six in Wanted entries/und before moving on to the English ones. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Frühgeburtskernikterus
I'm removing this term because Google doesn't get any hits at all except this very page. If it exists, it means kernicterus in a premature infant, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of its existence online. If anyone finds cites, please add them to Citations:Frühgeburtskernikterus first. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @Aɴɢʀ: I've added one for the plural form of an alternative spelling,, to Citations:Frühgeburtskernikterus. Note that there's a scanno in the text layer generated by Google Books; it thinks that the term there is . — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The punctuation mark ߷
This character (U+07F7) is used only in the N'Ko language (which has no ISO code). It visually represents three stones that hold a cooking-pot over a fire, and is used as punctuation to end major sections of text. It's called gbakurunen. Does that give someone enough information to create a valid entry? Equinox ◑ 13:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * N'Ko is a script (its ISO 15924 code is ), not a language. It's used for such languages as Mandingo (man) and Dyula (dyu). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * So, should this get a Translingual language section as a punctuation mark in the N'Ko script? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was wrong about it not being a language. There is a koine compromise dialect of several Manding languages called N'Ko and its code is . N'Ko script is used for it, but also for other languages. If ߷ is used in more than one language, it should be tagged as Translingual. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * How's this? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Unciteable Greek words, I think
I don't speak Greek, but FWIW these words are in the active list and have 0 results in Google Books, Google Groups and Google Scholar. Let me know if I should have searched elsewhere (?).


 * Οὐϊκετία
 * σχημᾰτομετρίᾱ

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't object to their removal. Neither one is in LSJ. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * is the supposed Ancient Greek etymon of the Latin ; however, ObsequiousNewt suspects that the Latin word was formed in Latin from Greek elements, and not borrowed preformed. is mentioned in William Smith’s  (1854) s.v. “VICENTIA”. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed. See here for said discussion. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 18:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Pace Daniel Carrero and Aɴɢʀ, I've readded to the list. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Designer glasses?
There is a request for designer glasses. Does this phrase have some idiomatic meaning, or is it just SOP [[designer]] + [[glasses]], i.e. glasses created by a fashion designer? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * SOP, actually. Removed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Fomba
What is "Fomba"? I don't see any evidence that it is or was ever a taxonomic name. DTLHS (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently Fomba is a surname in some language. I don't know if it's a rare surname, and I don't know what language. Some Wikipedia pages like United Nations Security Council Resolution 1200 have people with the surname Fomba, and some books in Google Books also mention people with that surname. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's from Africa, and a given name as well as a surname; I'm seeing Liberia, Cameroon and Mali in a Google search. Equinox ◑ 02:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

shemomedjamo
Transliteration of a Georgian word, commonly included in "untranslatable words" lists. DTLHS (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Already created, please see (correct transliteration). --ReordCræft (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Removing "yr euog a ffu heb neb yn eu herlid"
I'm removing, as it's ungrammatical Welsh, and I can't find evidence of the existence of any of its grammatical alternatives: Even if this phrase exists, it's probably understandable from its component parts anyway. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "yr euog a fu heb neb yn ei erlid" would be "the guilty [man] without anyone persecuting him"
 * "yr euog a fu heb neb yn ei herlid" would be "the guilty [woman] without anyone persecuting her"
 * "yr euogion a fu heb neb yn eu herlid" would be "the guilty ones without anyone persecuting them"


 * @Aɴɢʀ: here is not a misspelling of  (the soft mutation of ), but rather a form of the verb . You're right, however, that it should be spelt  (as singular, not plural; my mistake, sorry) as, which you can see here. It's used to taunt someone being disproportionately and suspiciously defensive in his speech, in a manner similar to the English . — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it's still a misspelling or at least a rare byform; the usual 3rd person singular habitual present/future of is spelled ; the proverb with that spelling is attested at  and . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @Aɴɢʀ: My mistake (again :-(). We have one at Citations:yr euog a ffy heb neb yn ei erlid now; I'll add the other two shortly. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, the mistake is at ; that isn't your mistake. But the proverb with the ffy spelling gets 82 hits on all-purpose Google (including one at Diarhebion Cymraeg), while the ffu spelling gets only the one hit you already linked to. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @Aɴɢʀ: Well, at least we've found the form that should be the lemma. Thanks for all the corrections. God, I'm shit sometimes… — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I've now created . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @Aɴɢʀ: That’s great; thanks. I’ve also added the other two quotations. ‛Slookin’ good! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Feeling some type/kind of way
, I don't think this sounds SOP at all; if it were, I wouldn't have any trouble understanding what it means, which I do. Consider "My head was banging, my heart was beating fast, and I was feeling some type of way." From the context it seems to mean "feeling bad" or "feeling peculiar" or something, but that isn't obvious from the words feeling + some + type + of + way, at least not to me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay. I've never heard that. I just assumed it was the literal SoP meaning, since SoPs are often added here. Equinox ◑ 08:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

added sugar

 * Isn't this just [[added]] [[sugar]]? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops! Apparently, yes. I also checked Added sugar to make sure. Anyway, I deleted added sugar from the list now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Salafascist
I've heard this word used, but it just doesn't seem to be citeable. Nothing on BGC, one hit on GGC, nothing on Issuu (searching for both singular and plural). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Is it just a straightforward blend of + ? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

gernischt

 * Do you remember where you found German gernischt? I think it's probably just a scanno/typo for (e.g. here). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I can't remember. Feel free to delete the request. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

'ν
I don't think this is an Ancient Greek form. The only works on Greek Wikisource where I can find it are written in Modern Greek: Οψές αργά ΄ν επέρνουνα, Μα ΄ν έμπα στο περβόλι, Του φεγγαριού θα 'ν κλουθώ, etc. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

βατραχοφάγος
I've changed βατραχοφάγος from grc to el. R:LBG has an entry for Byzantine, which says to compare that term to βατραχοφάγος, which is listed in Ἱστορικὸν λεξικὸν τῆς νέας ἑλληνικῆς (Athens 1933–), i.e. a Historical Dictionary of Modern Greek. Obviously it means "eating frogs"; it's used in the definition of in this 1842 French–Greek dictionary. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

-мент
I am extremely dubious about the status of as a Russian morpheme. Russian includes мент in borrowings from Latin or Latin-based international scientific lexicon or English, but the мент is perceived as part of the root, not as a morpheme. I can't think of any productive use of мент as a suffix. Tetromino (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

can you explain why you added it to the list? Tetromino (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * added to the entry -mentum in  in 10 April 2011. I saw that link and got curious, added it to Wanted entries. Feel free to remove it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Removed from both places. Tetromino (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hard cash -> Cold hard cash?
Should "hard cash" be part of cold hard cash instead (or vice versa)? I think they are pretty synonymous. Ranged Ranger (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Three probable SOPs removed
I've removed the following requests: because I think they're SOP. has the relevant sense ("not stative, but fientive; indicating continued or progressive action on the part of the subject"), so a separate entry for "dynamic verb" isn't necessary. "make passes" is just "[[make]] [[passes]]", as in "Men seldom make passes at girls who wear glasses"; Etymology 2, sense 8 of is "a sexual advance". I've looked through b.g.c for "little bill" and it seems to refer mostly not to a bill in a restaurant but to a bill in the sense of "draft of a law", but "little bill" doesn't seem to be an idiom. It's just a bill that is either short or that someone is calling "little" to be pejorative ("that little bill of theirs"). Feel free to restore any of these to the list if you're convinced they have an idiomatic sense. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * : now covered at dynamic
 * 1)  - just a bill (?) as in the bill in a restaurant
 * 1)  - just a bill (?) as in the bill in a restaurant

Adding non-red links
, I've moved your requests for, , and to WT:RE:sga, because this page is really only for red links, not links that exist in other languages than the one requested. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , I reiterate: please don't add non-red links to this page. I've moved your requests to WT:Requested entries (Old Welsh) and WT:Requested entries (Welsh). —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it. Belatedly. Thanks for sorting me out. I thought - I don't really know what - there was either some bug eating my entries, or that I had perhaps screwed up and forgotten to save an edit, didn't realise it was the actions of a human.CecilWard (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Requests
und:per synaeresin - isn't this a Latin SOP, la:per synaeresin? -84.161.50.33 23:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In Latin, yes, it's SOP. However, it may be used in other languages, like is SOP in Latin but not in English. Google Books suggests it may be used, or may have once been used, in German, but I'm not sure to what extent. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 06:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC discussion: September 2018

 * Please make sure the active list is not very much wider than this.

With the terms
 * "la: · ·  · grc: ·  · fr: ·  · gmy:"

the list is already slightly longer than the bar but with the additional

it's much longer. -84.161.26.64 15:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The bar needs to be updated to reflect rhe fact that entries are now split onto multiple lines by the additional content that exists at the top of watchlists. The line is now nearly meaningless and we might do better to just allow a set number at a time. The list has been changed in any case. - -sche (discuss) 19:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

סימטא
Please remove this from the list. It is the name of a bar in Israel. GTContributor (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No. It's supposed to be an Aramaic entry, I think; certainly not a Hebrew one. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add (ml) Malayalam language list
Please make a Malayalam language (ml) entries list. Vis M (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

RFD discussion: September–November 2021
This list is no longer useful. In the end, it will be more useful for us to stick with Requested entries. If we have to create a Proto-Italic page, so be it. Ultimateria (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a lightning rod for vandals. In the past 2 months, "pagima" has been created by vandals 9 times.
 * It's full of questionable entries that maybe shouldn't be created. E.g., "agentive case", "intens.", "que raios", "vitalià". The last one brings up nothing on Google. Is it a typo?
 * There's no oversight or rules for adding to the list.
 * It's full of entries in languages edited by one or two people, if that. I see Mandinka, Iu Mien, Seneca, and a ridiculous amount of Proto-Italic.
 * Redlinks languish in the Recent changes for months and then get put back at the end the list. If "bannerus" didn't get created in 2016 when it was previously featured, why would it be created now? It's worth noting that it's not linked to by the main namespace.
 * You can't even tell what language an entry is supposed to be in.
 * Delete. I never look at the page.  I do look at requested entries.  You can also get list of pages containing red links for some languages, like Category:Ottoman Turkish redlinks. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. It just doesn't serve its intended purpose any more, and it only ever did because a small number of people liked it. The words should be distributed among the pages on which they belong. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. — Fenakhay ( حيطي · مساهماتي ) 20:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  16:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It's sad that this isn't very useful anymore, it used to be (useful) before a few users started adding a lot of e.g. reconstructed languages (which frankly shouldn't be on this list) and specialist languages (which are better on language-specific wanted-entry pages), but I suppose there's no easy way to prevent that. - -sche (discuss) 08:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Wanted entries page is partially included in Special:RecentChanges and Special:Watchlist. If it is deleted a person with superpowers will need to make those special pages change.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. --Myrelia (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * RFD-failed. I'm in the process of exporting as many links to the appropriate Category:Requested entries pages as I can before deleting. I'll make a userpage for the remaining links and post it here when I delete the project page. Ultimateria (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Where are re-constructed languages and other languages that do not have their own request pages supposed to be added, if not here? Will pages be created for all the languages currently requested in Wanted entries? Supevan (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Meh, I'd just remove them from the entire Wiktionary project. MooreDoor (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can add new subpages to WT:RE, but I'll only do it for languages that have a significant editing community. Otherwise I'd suggest moving them to a userpage. The whole point of the RFD is that we don't need a repository for redlinks in random languages. Ultimateria (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * All the Proto-crap with a * in it got put at Requested entries (Unknown language, Latin script). This was the first and last time I'm ever going to touch any *Proto-language MooreDoor (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Deleted. The few unsorted redlinks can be found at User:Ultimateria/wanted entries. Thanks to WF for exporting most of the links to the appropriate subpages of Requested entries. Ultimateria (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)