hello, sorry to bother you; i have looked everywhere and i couldn’t find documentation on appendix inclusion criterias. would me creating appendix entries for wubi (similar to the cangjie ones) be allowed? or would it also require discussion in the beer parlour?i would like to createAppendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing (mirror ofAppendix:Chinese_Cangjie), which requires the creation ofTemplate:zh-Wubi_Xing_TOC (mirror ofTemplate:zh-Cangjie_TOC), and, in turn, the modification oftemplate:CJK_characters_index_TOC to add wubi to it. then an appendix page for each 25 key “radical” (Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/工,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/子,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/又,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/大,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/月,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/土,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/王,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/目,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/水,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/日,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/口,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/田,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/山,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/已,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/火,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/之,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/金,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/白,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/木,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/禾,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/立,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/女,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/人,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/纟,Appendix:Chinese_Wubi_Xing/言), each in a similar format than their cangjie counterpart.if such a thing isn’t allowed without prior discussion, should i expand on it in myoriginal post in the beer parlour, or should i make another?thank you, and happy new year!~2025-44160-09 (talk)08:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Happy new year, and thanks for posting to the Beer parlour. Keep in mind I don’t edit Chinese, so I’m telling you about general procedure. I don’t think anyone would be very mad at you for creating Appendix entries (precisely because it’s an Appendix), but it’d definitely be better if you brought it up in that discussion first, since it’s a related change, if only to see if you’re not missing anything in what you plan to do.—Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ ·17:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

done! thanks a lot for all the input~2025-44160-09 (talk)20:51, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

i’m incredibly sorry about that but i posted to the wrong beer parlour (december), and it won’t let me remove my post (“WTNoD”), so uh could you please deletemy post. i hope it is not too much trouble~2025-44160-09 (talk)21:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

It really doesn’t matter that you posted to December rather than January. No one looks at the per-month pages.—Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ ·21:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Howdy! First of all, I must apologize for my confusing and potentially misleading post. I come to you with an open mind and not with ill-intent. I am a confused editor seeking guidance. To clarify, my intention with the post wasn't to document how we describe likelihood, but that onecan add likelihoods to etymologies. I realize that the post does not adequately convey that.

I desperately request for your help! Up until today, I was not aware etymologies involving borrowed/derived words can be generated solely by a Wiktionarian. That is, the etymology can be unsourceable and still be described here (with varying degrees of certainty). I'm receiving conflicting advice on how one can/should annotate these etymologies. In your case (and please let me know if I am misinterpreting), one can use{{unc}} with an adverb describing its likelihood. I was informed by 2 others that one can state likelihoods w/o sources (especially when one does not exist) and shouldnot use{{unc}}. Regardless of using{{unc}}, my current conflict is how can one certainly say what an etymology is without evidence, as proposedhere. Do you see the conflict?TranqyPoo [💬 |✏️]03:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

What does evidence even look like? We cite the etymologies given by other dictionaries, who may in turn take them from older dictionaries... but who first documented them? What evidence did they use? I actually don’t know much about lexicography, but mostly just from reading old dictionaries, I suspect... not much. At least not for the simpler etymologies that are just the addition of an affix. I genuinely think most old lexicographers just called the word’s transparent morphology as they saw it for these cases.

For borrowings and such, I imagine (so, grain of salt, I am REALLY not an expert) they are supported with quotations and cultural connections. A word attested in a particular region, or used by a particular group, may have a particular origin. And if a particular language has a similar word, it’s not unrasonable to propose a connection. If there’s an ancient attestation with an earlier form of the word that looks even more alike, then that’s even more indicative.

I think we have just as much the right to propose etymologies. Wiktionary is a secondary source that bases itself on the primary source that is linguistic material. If there is a very fitting connection to a word in another language, backed by a suggestive quotation, I don’t see a reason to hold off on it. I would likely precede that hypothesis with a “possibly”, though.

In your case, the etymology for that word seems very transparent, with a clear suffix involved. And there appears to be a reasonable reason to believe the word is not directly formed with that suffix. I don’t think it’s even remotely controversial to write exactly what Mx. Granger proposed, especially because it effectively covers all grounds.

For more controversial cases, I have recently added etymologies topão, pão, queijo, queijo (which I based on an early quote) andtesourar (which I based on the term being Internet slang, which is mostly English-based) without having a source. Is that problematic? Eh, from the reasonably few academic discussions about lexicography I have read, alongside looking at some (more than a few) dictionaries, it doesn’t seem like lexicographers tend to be much more rigorous than that.

If it is not a bother (and I apologize to everyone for writing a lot), I myself would like to hear if @Fay Freak has any thoughts on this matter, as I understand he often does original research for Wiktionary etymologies and is familiar with etymological dictionaries. Am I mistaken in saying this is not any less rigorous than an actual etymologists’ work?—Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ ·04:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

You are not mistaken. The etymologists are not a uniform mass though. There are those sloppier or dumber than us, and generally those that in the dead-tree past are less informed than our quick search, and then there are those dedicating their lives to amass documentation and readings we can only dream about.

The problem with the reference-based approach is that Wiki editors playing dumb

1. do not distinguish and rely on argument-from-authority, that is publication places and academic tenures, which can be gained and maintained without argumentatively balanced approach, parroting low onBloom's taxonomy, never checking back where authority is taken from in general or in the individual case. I haveoccasionally trusted in general reliable scholars when I assess they are better informed or have better feeling and instinct: we rarely have hard science beyond it, but pretend to; for exampleTheodor Nöldeke is justly cherished (of course sometimes with the restriction that only by the knowledge of his time) whileGreppin issloppy, andBeekes is basically a conspiracy theorist (Pre-Greek, woo) editors fall prey to because they don't see the system and have his workavailable.

2. no references might exist; or if some exist they might be obviously wrong/outdated. Or why would I even try to harvest them too hard when I know there will be low-threshold argumentation I can do myself.

3. you still need to have an own understanding of the matter to transcribe and formulate in your own words what the learned men wrote.Fay Freak (talk)10:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you both for your knowledge and perspectives! I will summarize to check my understanding (and be challenged if incorrect). While references are nice to have, they are not authoritative and should be approached as a suggestion. It is okay to determine etymology as original research as long as there is some credible reasoning behind it. If the etymology is disputable, one should use terms of certainty and/or propose a discussion inWT:ES.@Polomo FYI, I value verbosity in discussions over being concise. It allows no reasoning to be overlooked or under-addressed :)TranqyPoo [💬 |✏️]17:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

That’s pretty much my understanding.—Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ ·17:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I added some missing etyms to Esperanto articles, after noticing TranqyPoo's edits, and saw that the resources we have in our biblio, while convenient, sometimes aren't any better informed than we would be, and may miss obvious sources (e.g.punto, which one of our sources said was from the French when it actually matches the Italian). Since etymologies involve a degree of guesswork, we do need to evaluate how knowledgeable a particular author is.kwami (talk)01:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm no longer going to update etymologies of root words, given that it requires more cross-lingual knowledge than I care to learn. I will, however, add etymological references underFurther reading to show what others concluded.TranqyPoo [💬 |✏️]17:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

qq 'cê acha da minha edit aqui, parece imparcial ou dá pra dar uma polida nela?Stríðsdrengur (talk)22:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Não vejo nada de mau.—Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ ·00:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki message delivery19:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply