Archives:

Note

Please add new messages at the bottom.

Welcome!Hello,welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or createhyperlinks. Feel free to practice in thesandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a shorttutorial.
• Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
• OurCriteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things thatWiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
• TheFAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are severalhelp pages that you can browse for more information.
• We havediscussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, aglossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more commoncommunication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being aWiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to theWiktionary:Information desk, or ask me onmy talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! --Cirt (talk)05:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why was it done, why is{{cognate}} and{{mention}} used instead of{{arameogram}} for arameograms thanks

WordFeel (talk)07:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)WordFeelReply

The source I put down for the entry lists it as an adjective & all books I’ve read where it appears use it in an adjectival sense. Could I change it back?Pvanp7 (talk)10:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Pvanp7: Simple answer: no. More complex answer: for this page and its synonyms, your definitions ("a page size", "a book") and templates ({{head|fr|noun}}) are for nouns, with only the headers saying they're adjectives. Wiktionnaire, on the other hand (fr:in-18), has two entries: an adjective, and a noun.

For a similar page-format entry we haveoctavo with both the format and the book definitions as nouns, while Wiktionnaire hasfr:in octavo with a noun and an adjective (it derives the "in" from Latin, not English). English doesn't need an adjective because we can use nouns attributively where other languages would use adjectives or prepositional phrases ("car keys" aren't "keys that are car").

You would need to split each of these entries into:

1. An adjective definition (probably a non-gloss one) with an adjective headword template and an adjective header for the format
2. A noun definition with a noun headword template and a noun header for something printed in that format.

It's been four decades since I took French, so I may be missing something- but that's basically it.Chuck Entz (talk)15:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Clés de voiture." I've never thought about this before. Thanks! I'll try to make the suggested edits. Yeah, I forgot I copy pasted part of it, so that was why it was {{head|fr|noun}}.

Pvanp7 (talk)22:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I saw that you edited the entry I made on 'jalu' in Swedish. I'd like to see any sources you have that supports that this word has ever been used in the comparative or superlative form, rather than being conjugated using 'mer'/'mest'.Yenx (talk)22:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are none. I don't claim to know Swedish enough to do more than very basic edits. Feel free to add any of the parameters mentioned atTemplate:sv-adj to change or suppress those forms. My concern was that there was no headword template at all (the template you had there was for displaying a declension table). I took the calculated risk that the attention category added due to missing parameters would get a Swedish editor to look at the entry before any damage might be done.WT:EL requires a headword template for every part-of-speech section, which has no doubt changed in the decade and a half since you were active in creating new entries. Every entry should be in either the lemmas on non-lemmas category for the language, which is added by a proper headword template. This was in neither, so it showed up in a cleanup list.Chuck Entz (talk)22:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

CAT:E will be flooded with Arabic entries I will start fixing them in 10 mins or so. —Fenakhay^{(حيطي ·مساهماتي)}19:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The only change I did was that I added a couple of categories indicating it is a Spanish non-lemma noun form as it was a Mexican Spanish slang word (but there was no Mexican Spanish non-lemma noun category), but you have reverted my change without giving an explanation. Please see alsow:WP:RBREVOKE on the English Wikipedia, regarding the use of rollback with the default summary to revert good faith edits, which can likely be considered misuse of the tool. Thank you.Codename Noreste (talk)10:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

First of all, this isn't Wikipedia, and we don't have a lot of the rules and procedures they have- we have far fewer admins and more pages. More importantly, the categories are for finding entries and should only be added by the headword template in a Spanish entry. Until there's a proper Spanish entry on that page, there shouldn't be a category saying there is one.Chuck Entz (talk)15:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the clarification. What I understand about that this is not Wikipediais the fact that when I linked about WP:RBREVOKE, that was a simple guideline over there that might also apply to other projects, and not just here.Codename Noreste (talk)22:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Codename Noreste What Chuck is saying about rollback is that Wiktionary has different rules and norms from Wikipedia; rollback of good-faith but bad edits is not considered misuse here simply because admins don't always have time to explain the issue, for the reason Chuck mentioned: the admin/editor-to-page ratio is MUCH lower for us than for Wikipedia. In particular, we have a similar number of pages to the English Wikipedia but our active editor and admin base is maybe 1% of Wikipedia's.Benwing2 (talk)06:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I apologize for the late response, but I hereby thank you for clarifying. The thing is, I rarely do content/dictionary work here as I mostly patrol projects for vandalism and spam.Codename Noreste (talk)14:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just want to make clear that you can refer to these words on "Bausastra Jawa" and "Pepak Basa Jawa" (these two books we used for reference for words, and the usage of "Aksara Jawa" as I'm a Javanese.)Mrachmad59 (talk)18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I saw you struggling with{{tcl}}. The intended use is to transclude definitions of toponyms and similar technical terms from English into a foreign language. The reason this wasn't working is the Spanish entry was trying to transclude the Basque entry, rather than the (nonexistent) English entry, which I just added.Benwing2 (talk)05:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ty so much!Whoami313 (talk)01:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck, I'm just wondering what the reason is for having this filter "hidden". There doesn't seem to be anything especially secret about it, and it not being hidden would have assisted Polomo47, according tothis BP thread. Can I unhide it?

(As an aside, it makes me glad to see you, and others, fixing the errors identified in theWT:Todo/Lists. When I started that project I wasn't sure if anyone would pay it any attention, but I'm glad to see people like you are making use of the lists to improve Wiktionary.)This, that and the other (talk)12:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed that you deletednothing to see here a couple of years ago. I was thinking about making a page for that and am wondering exactly what your reasons were for deleting it in the first place. Thanks!Manuductive (talk)19:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Manuductive: A mass delete usually means that it's more related to the person who made the entries and the quality of their edits rather than anything inherently wrong with the possibility of such entries being created. In this case I was trying to discourage someone who was repeatedly evading a block.Chuck Entz (talk)21:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I thought we'd agreed that there was an interaction ban between Knight and I in a previous discussion. Then why is he going around deleting redirects I've created and claiming they are vandalism? It sure feels like he's trying to start a fight to justify blocking me again. That bugger CANNOT avoid being confrontationalPurplebackpack8912:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Isn'ta bit part of its etymology?JMGN (talk)01:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Actually, Oxford has as possibe idioms:not a bit andnot one (little) bit

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/bit_1JMGN (talk)01:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@JMGN That can go in the etymology. You trashed the headword line, removing the headword template and replacing it with text. Don't do that.Chuck Entz (talk)01:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

It must go in the headword line, as is the current case withon top of withinon top of that. I thought that was the standard procedure...JMGN (talk)01:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@JMGN:on top of has an intact headword template. That kind of thing would be okay. What you did wasn't.Chuck Entz (talk)01:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, it'son top of that's headword where it's specified as[on top of] + [that].JMGN (talk)01:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

See my modification to the entry. You tried to do things with one of the parameters without checking the documentation, so it blew up on you. Replacing the headword template with wikitext didn't fix the problem, it just replaced it with another one. In this case, you needed to add the extra stuff to the|head= parameter, not the first positional parameter. If you can't figure out how to get the templates to do what you want, ask someone who can.Chuck Entz (talk)01:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Where can I find the corresponding info about the edition of those parameters?JMGN (talk)10:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello!

Hope you're doing well. I've just seen your edit inএকশগুণ (adding bn-adj module). You are right according to rules of Wiktionary but in adjective form, we only use একশগুণ or আরো একশগুণ, not সবচেয়ে একশগুণ. I am very much interested to know how you will consider this.

Eagerly waiting for your response.Sabah Azman Nahean (talk)00:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Sabah Azman Nahean: I'm obviously not qualified to say what the headword is supposed to display, but a headword template is required. Please look through the documentation at{{bn-adj}} to see if you can fix it to output what you want. If that's not possible, try the documentation at{{head}} to see if you can use it to replace{{bn-adj}}. If neither template will work, ask for help at theGrease pit. I would also suggest looking at similar Bengali entries to see how others have dealt with the same issues. Believe it or not, we have had a number of good Wiktionary editors over the years who know a lot about Bengali- no need to reinvent everything.Chuck Entz (talk)03:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I am getting "Invalid CSRF token." error.Anatoli T.^{(обсудить}/^вклад)03:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

All good now, I was able to respond onWiktionary:Tea_room/2025/March#Черняк.Anatoli T.^{(обсудить}/^вклад)03:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your rollback is absolutely in error. I have coined a new word — Gamet, and I thought I'd make an entry. If Wikitionary allows that and is truly made by people like me, kindly don't have me go through this. Thank you.

Could you please reply?

@Verbivore Vasanth: I've replied elsewhere, but: no, Wiktiomarydoesn't allow that, and your attempt to do so is against the rules. I would suggest trying another platform.Chuck Entz (talk)15:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, could you disable the empty{{enPR}} template, and swap out{{der-top|List}}/{{der-bottom}} for{{col-top|2|List}}/{{col-bottom}}, in your2015 archive? It seems you made one edit after locking the page, I think these edits should be fine as well.

Thank you,83.28.247.25406:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think your rollback onfudging might be an error. Not to be a snotbag about it.

You know, I've always expected "fudging" to be used as an intensifier, more of a euphemistic substitute of "f***ing"", while not as standard like other substitutes: "fricking", "frigging", "flipping". Since "fudge" is already a substitute for "f***", I guess the similar thing for "fudging" might make sense.

The word could be grammatically standard as onlyadverbial and not adjectival. You wouldn't normal say something like "a fudging disaster" as purely adjectival use, so it's much better understood as a modifying adverb placed before the adjective.

Overall, should the rollback should be fixed with slight changes? Let me know.SequelEmpire (talk)23:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@SequelEmpire More than slight changes: first of all, readour Entry layout page: you left out all the headword templates. Second, "possibly" doesn't belong in definitions- if you're not sure, why are you adding it to a dictionary? As it turns out, there's enough usage in Google Books to meet ourCriteria for inclusion if you search for things like "fudging hot", "fudging cool", "fudging cold"- basically all the adjectives that get intensified that way. It seems to be used mostly in fiction aimed at younger teens that has to meet age-level restrictions on vulgar language. Since it's in use, leave out the "possibly". Look at how similar terms are defined and formatted. Finally, "fudge" isn't a derived term- if anything, it's the other way around. It certainly is much older and far more common. I suppose you could have a "Related terms" section, though.Chuck Entz (talk)04:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I added the "intensifier" part to the page again.SequelEmpire (talk)01:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi — Regardingdiff — apologies: I am usually conscientious about updating via search for "linksto:FOO insource:/\BAR/", but in that case I got distracted before doing that one. I will do better with jotting down on a scratchpad any time I am replacing words with wikidata ID, so as to make sure not to forget one.Quercus solaris (talk)03:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Given my young age and lower status, would it be polite to refer to you as Mr. Entz?

Thank youFlame, not lame (Don't talk to me.)21:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Young age, yes, but not lower status. A wiki is a collaborative community, so we have roles but not hierarchies. As the old joke goes: call me anything you like, just don't call me late for supper...Chuck Entz (talk)22:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

That is agreeable.Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.)22:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello there. I noticed that on the page for thePIE reconstruction *mon-, you reverted my edits which categorized and moved derived terms out of the 'Descendants' section into the 'Derived Terms' section, before you self-reverted. I realize that you already undid your initial revert, but I just wanted to check in to see if I'd done something wrong or anything of the sort that I'd ought to avoid doing in the future. Thanks.MexicanAvocado (talk)16:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Thanks for cleaning up after me! I do try to be careful, and usually I double-check, even triple-check, all my work, including links; but it's dismaying how often I still miss even egregious typos. Perhaps I should quit relying on the convenience of copying and pasting syntax from one entry to another, at least when I'm changing languages. —HelpMyUnbelief (talk)18:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Again, I'm glad you're catching my mistakes, but please read the above. I'm aware that a template containing "es" is for Spanish only. —HelpMyUnbelief (talk)22:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I assume you had a good reason torevert my addition. But I have no clue what it was. Would you please provide an explanation? -Butwhatdoiknow (talk)15:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I should totally add this as a substitute for"what the fuck". You can see that on theUrban Dictionary. Same thing with"fluffing" as well, substituting"fucking".SequelEmpire (talk)00:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@SequelEmpire: First of all, Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source- people go there to post things they just made up. Before you create an entry, you need to check sites like Google to see if there's any usage that meets ourCriteria for inclusion. Second, you need to read ourEntry layout page and make sure you've got the formatting right. If you keep adding mangled stubs with all the headword templates missing, I'm going to keep reverting you. It also doesn't help that your usage examples are a bit silly: giving milk to cows? And who talks that way about surviving a tornado?Chuck Entz (talk)01:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I will make sure the headword templates are there for a page I edit. I'll stop trying making unique sentence examples and go for something standard.SequelEmpire (talk)01:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thank you for catching myflawed edit. I did not realize that a character swap would cause a rendering issue on the page.

I still believe that specific mention of the character能 should be replaced with態, as 態 is more aligned with the rest of the sentence which currently doesn't make sense. I'm just not sure how to make the edit properly.Volumity (talk)04:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chuck Entz,

for some reason it seems that I am in fact able to edit here even though there appears to be apartial block for a whole year for "adding nonsense/gibberish". I am not quite sure how these things work, and I fully trust that you know what you are doing, yet one question if I may: An IP address with these numbers and letters is what I frequently get assigned, and I see it a lot on the German language WP. It seems to be a pretty widespread IP range there. Are all these addresses from a whole country meant to be blocked?

Thanks, --2003:C0:8F43:3E00:6DA2:8A71:92FB:4B0A07:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Very simply, someone in your IP address range was repeatedly adding nonsense to entry talk pages, so I blocked the range only fromediting entry talk pages. Because editing entry talk pages is rather unimportant here at Wiktionary and there are plenty of ways to communicate with us if itis needed, I felt comfortable making it a very long block. I would never do a total block on a large IP address range for more than a few days unless I knew something about the address range that guaranteed everyone using the range deserved to be blocked- there are address ranges owned by individuals, and there are school districts that have entire ranges allocated to use by students who often have nothing better to do than to make a mess of things. I hope you understand.Chuck Entz (talk)00:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Same for me, never esited anything. You blocked about 100k IP addresses.2003:ED:F72B:6172:A58E:81C0:249A:117622:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Which entry talk page do you need to edit, and why? You can edit any of the entries themselves with no restrictions, or just about anything else on Wiktionary that you would have been able to edit before- just not thetalk pages of the entries. In fact, there's a message that displays for those that do edit entry talk pages that says it's better to report things at the Wiktionary forums like theTea room or theBeer parlour because many of the entry discussion pages aren't monitored (there are over 8 million of them, after all).Chuck Entz (talk)22:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

yes i do chuck wanna know what down n poppin meansIM Serious (talk)07:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@IM Serious: If you want people to tell you something, ask a question. Don't just post a random piece of text and expect them to guess why.Chuck Entz (talk)07:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason why you changed "Action nominal" header to "Verb" in these entries?аас,ассано,еиӈ,иʼнь andит

Ket grammars would tell you that these are not "verbs", in the sense we use the word. They are called action nominals. They don't take adverbs, inflect in a similar fashion to nouns and cannot exist by themselves in their positions without a base verb (See the usage example of the second sense ofеиӈ, for example, where the "base verb" is-bɛt ("to do") and "-ɛjiŋ-" carries the sense of "riding".)

AmaçsızBirKişi (talk)16:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also in the case ofит, etymology 2, I don't think two "verb" headers back to back for clearly different parts of speech is good for the look.

AmaçsızBirKişi (talk)17:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

why did you revert my edit, back for sense 2 of the term is a shortening of the word "backside"Duke of slang (talk)10:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Duke of slang: please readWiktionary:Entry layout#Etymology. Etymology headers are for grouping things, not for adding a comment to an existing etymology. On top of that, both senses are really frombackside (do you really think sense 1 refers to people with lots of space between theirshoulder blades?), so there's no reason to have two etymologies.Chuck Entz (talk)13:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chuck Entz, how do you track non-existent Wikipedia links?Rentangan^{(talk,contribs)}17:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Rentangan:Wiktionary:Todo/Lists/Broken links to Wikipedia.Chuck Entz (talk)17:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you!Rentangan^{(talk,contribs)}17:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, do you have any idea why adding|altform= to{{ga-preposition}} causes the entry to go intoCAT:E, especially since there's no big red text indicating a module error? I've already added it to{{ga-noun}},{{ga-verb}}, and{{ga-adjective}} with no problems, so why is{{ga-preposition}} failing, and in such an odd way? —Mahāgaja ·talk21:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja I'm not sure, but silent module errors are almost always caused by a module error being fed into MW template syntax, which just sees it as more text. I did find it odd that you were feeding a parameter into itself, but what do I know?Chuck Entz (talk)21:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Comparing with one of the others, I noticed that ga-preposition has a lot more after the insertion point. I can only guess that you put the new code inside of something rather than after it.Chuck Entz (talk)21:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I tried it again, adding|altform= at the end of the code instead of the beginning, and it seems to have worked. Weird. —Mahāgaja ·talk06:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You might findthis of interest. I wonder whether we want to cover all the confusion. I also wonder whether Spjut's nomenclature has gained acceptance or reflects accepted usage. He lived at one time near Bakersfield.DCDuring (talk)20:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I'm trying to make a category for Maltesemt:Hybrid Words (basically, this would be a list of words that are made up of lemmas which have different origins, for example a base word from Arabic and a suffix from Italian). I added this category then added the usual 'auto cat' but it didn't work and I am having a very hard time understanding how to create a category, mostly because I can't find a Module for just lemmas. Can you help me in any way please? Thanks!Melithius (talk)08:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you please addCategory:SpongeBob SquarePants to the auto cat thing? Thanks.110.150.37.10901:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Por tabela" is a Portuguese multiword adverb, not a translingual word – that's whyTemplate:trans-top should not be used. Thanks for reverting. Let me know if I understood correctly? I'm not used to edit here yet.MikutoH (talk)05:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just regarding thisdiff - What was the module error? Was it the POS parameter?نعم البدل (talk)23:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@نعم البدل: Yes. You can view the previous revision from the revision history and see the error message yourself. I would have to spend time researching the different parameters in the documentation to explain the error, and it would be better for you to do that yourself so you would know how to avoid making such mistakes again.Chuck Entz (talk)23:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: Oh, well the weird part is when I first published the edit I didn't get the warning and I never got even after submitting the edit, but now when I went back on my revision, it showed me the error.نعم البدل (talk)23:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hey, we're a collective of ancient Greek scholars looking to further expand the etymology of the terms linked to actual lexicon and sources. You keep removing our edits in before we can finish linking sources. These are unbias. and historically linked. Please re-establish our research that contributes to the evolution of humanity's understanding of the Greek texts especially as it concerns what a christ accurately is. Thanks, The MusesΜοῦσαι (talk)23:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I didn't see this until I was halfway finished with my message on your talk page. You have been trying to do things on the Ancient GreekΧριστός(Khristós) page that a Wiktionary entry doesn't do: we're a descriptive dictionary based on usage, presenting things about words and phrases in a specific format from a neutral point of view. Period. We don't explain about subject matter, nor about Why Everyone Else Is Wrong. It doesn't matter whether your additions are right, wrong, or meaningless, and it doesn't matter whether you have sources to back them up- they just don't belong here.Chuck Entz (talk)00:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you- any suggestions for where we can put this information?Μοῦσαι (talk)00:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Mr. Entz. I think that the name of this page should be changed to ὀμφύνω, in order that it should conform to the titles generally given to Wiktionary Ancient Greek and Latin pages, which do not use the infinitive form. Would you be so kind as to facilitate this, as I am unable to do so? Thanks much in advance.143.120.100.11821:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done.Chuck Entz (talk)02:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Muchisimas Gracias, sir!50.193.237.12900:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Mr. Entz, good afternoon (here, it is afternoon). I have attempted, with poor success, to add a citation (under "References") to the instant page (ὀμφύνω), which you have graciously helped me with above, but as I have indicated, I am out of my depth in dealing with citations and references on Wiktionary, which appear to be among the most obscure elements of writing a page here. I would rather have a citation here than a "References" listing alone (with a number in the body of the page hyperlinking to the citation itself), but have no knowledge of how to achieve that. Is there any tutorial which you might link me to, which would allow me to improve my facility with the writing of these? I would love to be able to provide better verification of my additions to Wiktionary, and any material that you might indicate would be of immense help in my so doing, I should think.— Thisunsigned comment was added by143.120.100.118 (talk) at22:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC).Reply

De nada. It's mostly selfish: the sooner you get up to speed, the sooner I get to stop cleaning up after you. I left our welcome template atUser talk:143.120.100.118, with links to a lot of information you should find useful. As for Ancient Greek, you should also readWiktionary:Ancient Greek entry guidelines. Your attempt at a reference didn't work because you were linking to a template that doesn't exist. Basically anything in the format{{template name is a reference toTemplate:template name, and if no one has created a template at that address it will display a redlink. SeeCategory:Ancient Greek reference templates for what we do have, as well as{{cite-book}} for an example of a general citation template.Chuck Entz (talk)03:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you.

Hi Chuck

Thanks for your help on the pageReconstruction:Proto-Semitic/ḥayb-, I made an error while figuring out the roots for this.

Kind RegardsGsedman (talk)14:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not exactly an expert on Proto-Semitic, but in my reading over the years I've seen a lot of references to triliteral (and biliteral) roots in reference to a number of Semitic languages, and the lack of a category for "Proto-Semitic roots" would suggest that you shouldn't be trying to link to them. It's always a good idea to look for an "entry guidelines" page likeWT:Proto-Semitic entry guidelines, and I notice there that it talks about the roots as something basic to the morphology of every POS, not a POS on its own.Chuck Entz (talk)14:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Adding roots gives more chances to add cruft which one does not comprehend as a real language. Soon one becomes liberal with the three-consonant matches and semantic associations become shaky, as even at the individual language level the root one memorizes only expresses a general idea of related (and sometimes not related, the more so across languages) words, so one shortcuts the actual genealogical facts of words derived from other words, possibly of other roots: this is all to say the likelihood of mistakes increases.

If you design to add anything Proto-Afroasiatic, I warn against that, @Gsedman. Stick with those languages you have a grasp of: there is more to squeeze out from them, and it helps reconstructionists later, who will have learned hard facts from your content.Fay Freak (talk)20:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Regarding Chuck Entz's point, the absence of a "Proto-Semitic roots" category in Wiktionary is a significant technical and editorial constraint. Wiktionary's structure relies on well-defined categories to manage entries, and without one for Proto-Semitic roots, linking to them is not feasible. This aligns with his observation that roots in Proto-Semitic aren't standalone parts of speech, but rather fundamental components of morphology that apply across various parts of speech. His suggestion to consult entry guidelines is a practical way to ensure contributions align with the project's standards.

Fay Freak's message raises a different, but equally important, concern about the integrity of linguistic data. The core of their argument is that creating separate entries for roots, especially for a reconstructed language like Proto-Afroasiatic, can lead to significant errors. They argue that a shallow understanding can lead to "cruft," or useless and incorrect data, particularly when users with limited knowledge try to link words to roots based on loose phonetic and semantic resemblances. The risk is that this process can obscure the actual, genealogically sound connections between words.

The admonition to stick to languages one has a firm grasp of is not just about avoiding errors, but also about building a robust and reliable linguistic resource. Focusing on individual languages allows for the contribution of accurate, detailed information—the "hard facts" that are invaluable to future researchers and reconstructionists. This perspective prioritizes depth and accuracy within one's area of expertise over a broad, but potentially flawed, approach to reconstruction.

Regards

Gsedman (talk)22:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

This was a result of the "given names" vandal several years back. See my comment onTalk:Cally for more information. Contrary to some of the deletion log entries saying that this word is a protologism, it is, indeed, a real name and a form of the nameCallie. According to SSA data, there are 1,670 individuals with this name, with usage in recent years as well. As this is a real name, we should have an entry for it. As the page has been fully protected from creation, I cannot create the page. Can you please lower its protection level and/or create the entry? Thanks.Inner Focus (talk)20:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Inner Focus: I lowered the protection. The "protologism" deletion comment seems to have been a fluke- mostly the reason has been "no usable content given". There's no good reason not to have an entry.

For context: there's an anonymous editor with some kind of mental problem who has insisted on making the same seriously incompetent edits to what they think are given name entries, including awkward definitions, wrong categories, and bad formatting. They have even tried to create a Thai given-name entry atPim. They have never learned, never changed, and it's impossible to predict when and where they will pop up again. We have blocked their IP addresses, which usually geolocate to a specific area in the US, but eventually they've ended up on a different IP range just by chance and we've had to block them again and revert all of their edits (I see @Polomo was fighting with them just a few days ago atBim- Florida isn't their usual venue, but it's definitely them).

I can see why Equinox lost patience and salted the page, but whover it is never edits long enough to gain autoconfirmed status before they get blocked, so admin-protecting the page was overkill. Once you create the page, I'll autoconfirmed-protect it to keep them out (it's already on my watchlist because I deleted it).Chuck Entz (talk)02:19, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

We do have an edit filter for that vandal, but apparently it wasn’t good enough that once. In [a three-day] retrospect, I dunno why I blocked for such a short length. Guess I figured it would be enough to get them to give up and not come back.—Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ ·03:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Today when i read Herodotus i encountered this word κάλους in 2.36.4, here κάλους is formed in acc.pl, it seems its prototype should be κάλως. Could u please check whether it is, if so, please update about ancient greek one in this linkκάλως, if not, could u please tell me back what its prototype should be, thank u172.236.141.25305:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck Entz! I am just wondering why an edit was rollbacked onthis,this andthis Wikitionary page.

The nounشلغوم and its pluralشلاغم also exist in Eastern Libyan Arabic (my native language), with the same pronunciation and the same definition, it has an additional definition meaning "a kiss". That's all that was added.

As for the nounفكرونة; it only exists in Libyan Arabic and Eastern Libyan Arabic (as far as I know), there are very similar cognates in various other Maghrebi Dialects (with the same definition), and of course many cognates in various Berber Languages. The Libyan Arabic and Eastern Libyan Arabic termفكرونة differ from the other cognates in that they are feminine (they have the feminine marker suffix), rather than masculine. They also differ strongly in their plural conjugation, which is not seen anywhere else (as far as I know);فكارين.

I just thought I'd give you some background on the claims that were rollbacked. :)CasualDudeeee (talk)15:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

@CasualDudeeee I just left a welcome template on your talk page so you can read up on our standards. Language codes are important, because they're used by our templates and modules to add categories, among other things. You can't just make up a language header and use language codes from another language in the modules.

With Arabic, especially, it's not always clear or agreeded on as to what's a separate language and what's a dialect of another language, so you have to get consensus atWT:LTR that it really is a separate language and get the code added to our modules before use a language header. SeeWT:LOL for all the languages we recognize.

Another possibility would be to get it added as a variety of one of the languages and have it added to the labels for that language so{{lb|ayl|Eastern Libyan}} (as a hypothetical example) would add a category for it.

I would also recommend talking to @Fenakhay, who's from approximately the same area and who knows a lot about Arabic languages in general.Chuck Entz (talk)16:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I understand, many thanks for your help and for the welcome template, I will certainly throroughly read up on Wikitionary's standards.

And thank you for the referral, I will contact him if I have any questions.

Regarding the language header and language codes, I see thatEastern Libyan Arabic is not included in the list, althoughLibyan Arabic is. Just to clarify,Eastern Libyan Arabic is a variety ofLibyan Arabic and therefore shares the same ISO 639-3 language code;ayl.

Although Glottolog has given Eastern Libyan Arabic a completely distinct code under Libyan Arabic;east2691. Libyan Arabic and Eastern Libyan Arabic are very similar (although neither descends from the other, as the language code classification might suggest, Libyan Arabic is just far more common), but they are still distinct enough to sometimes be mutually unintelligible. I might therefore, as you suggested, attempt to get a consensus atWT:LTR after getting more familiar with Wikitionsry's standards and conventions.

Just one more question, out of curiosity, would my edits not have been rollbacked if the language header was "Libyan Arabic"?

I truly appreciate your time to answer me and to guide me, many thanks.CasualDudeeee (talk)16:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

There was also the use of the code for Moroccan Arabic (ary) instead of (ayl) for Libyan Arabic, though I fixed that when I could, as atفكارين. In general, I get nervous when someone new copies everything from a neighboring language section- especially when their IP address geolocates to somewhere outside the region. I don't know the language, so I can't tell whether they have any clue about the content.

As for sublects vs. sister lects: it's quite normal for the language name/code to be based on one variation among equals. Even languages with a standard variety usually get that way by one variety being chosen over the others, not by the others splitting off from the standard. We have to choose a single name for a given language code, and sometimes the one in widest use or the one chosen by the ISO isn't the best choice for describing the language as a whole.Chuck Entz (talk)

@CasualDudeeee: If the language header was “Libyan Arabic” and the langcodes used corresponded to it, it would not have been rollbacked.

I suggest continuing to add all as Libyan Arabic and mark as Eastern Libyan Arabic via{{tlb}} /{{lb}} only when you specifically known that a thing is not used in the rest of Libyan Arabic. You will see whether a separate language header “Eastern Libyan Arabic” makes sense.

I don't think we will split off; we even merged Lower Egyptian and Upper Egyptian Arabic; the question is also whether the identification as a separate language appears niche to most speakers, or overall they—who might add entries—would be surprised to be informed that they can't add Eastern Libyan Arabic entries as Libyan Arabic.The map is not the territory and a language database likeGlottolog can be remote of extensive practicality in the field.Fay Freak (talk)18:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The block for range 2003:0:0:0:0:0:0:0/19 seems quite large. Is that intentional? Lasts until March 2026, which is a pretty long time.—Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ ·21:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Polomo: They're only blocked from the Talk namespace. They can edit entries, citation pages, user talk pages, all the discussion forums, etc. We have a note that displays when anyone edits in that namespace: "Talk pages of individual entries are not usually monitored by editors, and messages posted here may not be noticed or responded to. You may want to post your message to the Tea Room, Information desk or Etymology scriptorium instead." If I remember correctly, this was someone who kept adding totally off-topic nonsense to random talk pages. I found one example:Talk:ℇ, but it was far from the only one.Chuck Entz (talk)05:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I missed that part.—Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ ·12:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The verb замешать is never used in criminal sence. That's why замешанный is not only a participle but also an adjective. Sic dixiREX CAERULUS21:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nichérix: That may be (I wouldn't know), but you can't just add a part of speech header without aheadword template, and that generally requires knowing where it's accented- so I can't fix it myself. SeeWT:Russian entry guidelines for more about what's required for Russian entries.Chuck Entz (talk)21:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

why?2003:F6:971A:9600:F01D:A895:BEDB:813112:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some user insists that the Greek borrowing from Hebrew involves phono-semantic matching rather than a simple folk-etymological re-interpretation of the beginning of the Hebrew name, and keeps edit warring without bothering to discuss. But calling this adaptation phono-semantic matching would only work if the adapted name looked fully Greek, both the first and the second part, but the second part (ending in mu) still looks very obviously foreign. I already gave my rationale in an edit summary but the user keeps ignoring it and insists on their understanding of phono-semantic matching as correct. --Florian Blaschke (talk)23:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Florian Blaschke: "Some user"? Whether they're right or wrong, edit-warring and and accusations of vandalism aren't going to get you anywhere- especially when the other party is an admin and you're not. I would advise taking this to the Etymology scriptorium and making your case there. I find the whole affair rather unfortunate- both you and @Theknightwho are far better than this.Chuck Entz (talk)07:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Frankly, I've found @Florian Blaschke's behaviour here to be disgraceful and dishonest.Theknightwho (talk)07:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: This happens to mirror my own perception, funny enough. Your admin status does not give you a superior understanding of linguistic concepts. --Florian Blaschke (talk)14:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Florian Blaschke I didn't claim it did, but you never actually attempted to engage in discussion and gave no argument beyond a statement that it wasn't a phono-semantic matching.

Instead, you (knowingly) made false accusations of vandalism (the second even after I told you it was unacceptable the first time), and tried to put your finger on the scales by giving Chuck a totally misleading account (which he has called you out on). That wouldn't be acceptable on WP, and it's not acceptable here, so I don't know why you thought you'd get special treatment by runnng here.

Theknightwho (talk)15:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I did give an argument, you simply ignored it and tried to handwave it:"Phono-semantic matching" absolutely does not fit here. What about the second part?

You really need to look into a mirror. You think that just because you're an admin and I'm not only your opinion counts and you don't need any argument. --Florian Blaschke (talk)00:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

my contributuon was successfully published. However, I just got know it is reverted. Kindly help understanding. It is about 'Exceda "Prakash1807 (talk)12:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary is not for promoting terms you made up yourself. All entries must meet thecriteria for inclusion, i.e. they must actually be in use. —SURJECTION^{/ T/ C/ L/}12:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

... will go away shortly, when my bot run to clean them up finishes.Benwing2 (talk)04:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply