https://archive.org/details/nordischesetymologischesworterbuch/

can someone with more experience with switching modules create a Reference template for this book? the numbering switches from Roman to Arabic {{cite-book|de|title=Altnordisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch|author=Jan de Vries|year=1957|authorlink=Jan de Vries (philologist)|year_published=1977|origyear=1962|publisher={{w|Brill Publishers|E.J. Brill}}|location=Leiden|edition=2nd improved edition|url=https://archive.org/details/nordischesetymologischesworterbuch/|ol=OL16251749M|page=280|pageurl=https://archive.org/details/nordischesetymologischesworterbuch/page/n332)/mode/1up}}Griffon77 (talk)08:10, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Nevermind, I see one already, just not used much yet,{{R:non:AnEW}} it just restricts citation to the etymology section, not the introduction pages[reply]

@Griffon77: I long had this problem, but rarely ever needed to cite introductory pages. I implemented a rare solution in{{R:fa:Blochmann}} via an additional|preface= parameter.

I wait for someone to post a mechanism to convert between Roman, German and Arabic numerals so we know to link book pages, which hardly ever use them in the URLs, just by putting in the numerals. I call them like that because you see how confusing “Arabic numerals” are in our very practical Orientalist contexts, and Wikipedia, though continuing to lie about their sidelining originality, also made up the distinction betweenWestern Arabic numerals andEastern Arabic numerals, terminologically.Fay Freak (talk)13:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Griffon77,Fay Freak: I have updated{{R:non:AnEW}} so that it can now be used to cite the prefatory chapters with pages numbered with Roman numerals. Have a look at the wikitext to see how it's done. Also, does the template need a part of speech parameter for entries? —Sgconlaw (talk)16:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it isn't titled as the third edition, just a new printing of the 2nd edition. there's now a newer printing published by Brill, but it's still described as the 2nd edition.Griffon77 (talk)16:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Griffon77: according to thereverse of the title page, the 1977 version is the "3. Auflage" (see also theWorldCat entry). Doesn't this translate to "3rd edition"? —Sgconlaw (talk)19:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This happens frequently with German publishers, and is partly an ambiguity in the sense of edition itself. The title may say "2nd improved edition", and then in a page like this they'll list all the different printings e.g. "3. auflage 1977". Perhaps "3rd edition (reprint of the 2nd revised edition)"Griffon77 (talk)02:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Griffon77: I guess the difficulty I'm having is why we are not taking "3. Auflage" to mean what it says—"3rd edition". What's your basis for saying that "3. Auflage" doesn't actually mean "3rd edition" but should be interpreted as "a new printing of the 2nd edition"? —Sgconlaw (talk)16:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because the publisher keeps calling it the 2nd edition on the title page.Griffon77 (talk)23:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The entries in{{list:Katakana/ja}} for the retrospective kana𛄠,𛄡, and𛄢 are each currently followed by redundant parenthesized links to the pages for those kana. Since these spurious parenthetical entriesaren't present in the source for that template, I'm suspecting that the{{l-self}} instances wrapping each entry are interacting badly with the retrospective kana (especially since the documentation for the latter template specifically mentions that it generates parenthetical annotations in some situations). Can someone please fix this? (Edit:{{list:Hiragana/ja}} too, although at leastthere only one of the three kana,𛄟, is affected.)Whoop whoop pull up^{♀️Bitching Betty 🏳️‍⚧️Averted crashes ⚧️}01:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve noticed this for a while, but never thought to call it out. I am using Vector 2022 dark mode, and the colors displayed when using dark mode sometimes differ from their intended representation. This happens in, e.g.,olo,incarnadine,yellow,snow (these last two are pretty egregious!) but not infuchsia oryellow-red. I imagine this has to do with the colors’ contrast to white/black.—Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ ·17:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found out this is from the experimentalAutomatically fix custom template colors in night mode; no effect in light modes. gadget. Probably still worth looking at, though.—Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ ·02:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polomo: FixedIoaxxere (talk)14:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omaiga, tysm.—Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ ·15:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "IPA and enPR" section of the symbol insertion menu below the editing area inserts the character' U+0027 Apostrophe, which causes a Lua error with{{IPA}} saying that one should instead useˈ U+02C8 Modifier Letter Vertical Line.MediaWiki:Edittools should be edited to use the correct character. I was hoping to change it myself but it seems to be protected (understandably, if disappointing). An interface administrator should fix this up.

Example of the error: (only appears if you click "Edit" on this entry and show the preview)

IPA^(key):/'/

Moire9 (talk)20:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done here:https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3AEdittools&diff=85807958&oldid=85246721 Thanks. Ping me if anything else is needed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯06:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but it looks like I've led both of us astray. That was actually not the correct section of the template to edit; my eyes had glossed over the Suprasegmentals which already contains the correct character.

However, it seems that the section I directed you to edit, by sheer coincidence, may have already contained an error. Thestress characters in enPR are a normal and bold version of the prime character. It says below the table, that "Online, AHD writes both [apostrophe]", but I can't find anything to back up this claim, and all of the AHD's online resources use a prime symbol. To be clear, they use′ U+2032Prime for secondary stress, and a PUA character rendered as a large, bold prime symbol for primary stress. However, the edit tools previously usedʹ U+02B9Modifier Letter Prime. This doesn't seem right though, since AHD and the article that you're sent to when clicking on "Stress Markers" uses the normal prime symbol U+2032, as doesits version on Wikipedia. In most fonts it looks rather different from the character used on AHD's website, and seems to have been a mistake.

So there are a few things we can do to move forward:

• Revert the change I accidentally had you make, restoring the original. Then it will allow editors to insert U+02B9 and the apostrophe, but it seems that neither are correct
• Use U+2032, the normal prime character, my recommendation

As alluded, AHD uses a difference of font face (bold/normal) to distinguish primary and secondary stress. So it might be worthwhile to add a bold inserting button. If using U+2032 Prime, one could add a button that inserts'''′''', which adds a boldfaced primary stress mark. I don't think this would work for the apostrophe since that would be a chain of 7 apostrophes in a row, which may not be correctly interpreted as a single boldfaced apostrophe.

I believe that the best approach is toreplace the current AHD symbols with a boldfaced prime and a normal prime, to make inserting primary stress easier and to match what is displayed on the two articles I linked above.

So that approach would involve changing the two characters that I had previously incorrectly directed you to edit, to'''′''', and′. It looks clunky when editing to have triple apostrophes enveloping the prime but it seems that it might be the only way to produce the correct looking character. I'm not sure if the button that inserts the primary stress character will look correct though - only you'll be able to see when you check the preview when editing it. If I was able to edit it I would mess with it in the preview until it looks correct.

It also might be worth adding a thin dividing line between the IPA & enPR to prevent accidentally inserting symbols from one into the other.

Let me know if you have any questions. I don't know if I have to ping you for you to receive this, or if replying is enough, so I willdo it just in case. Thanks for your help. And again sorry for having you make a mistaken edit.

Moiré (talk)10:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moire9: You ping by writing {{Ping|Koavf}}. I've reverted for now. I'll see if anyone else chimes in here. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯10:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it's not a good idea to use html markup because it's not copy-paste safe. where distinct unicode characters are available, they should be used -- it's what they were intended for. if they don't look perfect, well, that's a matter of font-support; things seldom look just as they do in print.kwami (talk)12:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW Unicode has, unfortunately and puzzlingly, rejected the heavy prime symbol when proposed[2] and earlier produced this note[3].Hftf (talk)16:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I request that template titles using camelCase be moved to the equivalent forms using the standard lowercase with spaces, keeping the old names as redirects for backwards-compatibility.Juwan (talk)12:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support for consistency.Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs)14:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support for consistency. –wpi (talk)09:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally support this but I'm curious which templates you had in mind.Benwing2 (talk)01:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

these templates but not limited to them:

• {{seeCites}}
• {{seemoreCites}}
• {{seeSynonyms}}

Juwan (talk)12:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. And why don't we move{{seeSynonyms}} to{{see thesaurus}} while we're at it?This, that and the other (talk)00:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like doing the same to 'seeCites' to 'see quotations'Juwan (talk)00:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a related issue would be adding spaces to templates that lack them. again, a non-exhaustive list:

• {{circumfixsee}},{{compoundsee}},{{infixsee}}

{{interfixsee}},{{rootsee}},{{suffixsee}},{{prefixsee}} (surprised that there isn't an "affixsee")

• {{anontools}}

Juwan (talk)11:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw a bot run changing uses to{{see citations}} and{{see more citations}}. These names are definitely improvements; camel-case almost always looks unsightly. I also supportJuwan's proposal to rename them to{{see quotations}} and{{see more quotations}}, respectively. (I'm also glad to see that{{seeSynonyms}} has already been renamed{{see thesaurus}},perThis, that and the other's proposal.) Could we have some shortcuts for these, please? Also,Juwan, how would you propose to rename the…see templates? AFAICT, the naming scheme that their function suggests is… derivations.0DF (talk)10:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsightliness" is usually just a matter of something not being customary. We probably needmore camel-case to overcome the problem.DCDuring (talk)15:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@0DF I moved these to "citations" rather than "quotations" and will stay like this for consistency unless we also change the namespace. for the*see templates, I support your idea.Juwan (talk)11:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume no one is suggesting this for "R:" templates.DCDuring (talk)15:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery03:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to reclaim that redirect for my latest template,{{snowclone}}, because it shortens it perfectly, and doesn't have that much usage at all, unlike its full form,{{script}}. See usage here:sc vsscript.
I have checked that beforehand, and luckilysc is used only in talkpages and in a user's draft subpage; no usage in the Main and Template namespaces at all.
My template works like{{glossary}}, but simpler (no module) and linking to another appendix page. Glossary couldn't abbreviate as{{gl}}: it was already taken, so{{lg}} was picked instead.
I really don't want my template to usecs (or evenscl) as a shortcut. This topic is here also to serve as a precedent against reverts to my future edit tosc, should I succeed here.
Ideas for new abbreviations for{{script}}:{{spt}},{{scr}}, or better yet: none at all, because it's practicallyunused, while the full{{script}} is used3,506 times.
Moreover, the sc shortcut is not provided or informed in the template's page (nothing is—it's undocumented), whereas in mine it will be made known.
—Bytekast (talk)13:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of the redirect, it started as a language code template back before we moved those into modules, then was deleted in 2014, after which it was recreated for{{smallcaps}}, then changed in 2018 by @Victar to its current target. There are currently 3,523 transclusions for{{script}}, of which only the 9 mentioned above are via any redirect. Of those, one is a post by Victar in 2017 complaining about the deletion of{{script}}, which he wanted to use for converting script codes to the names of the scripts, a few are uses as a language code template, a couple are uses by Victar after he recreated{{script}} and converted{{sc}} to redirect to it, one is by me explaining that{{sc}} isn't{{smallcaps}} like it is on Wikipedia, and one other is use as an abbreviation for "Script" in a syntax mockup back when it wouldn't have linked to{{script}}.

To sum it all up, the current redirect seems to be a bright idea of Victar's, which he never told anyone about and which he forgot about after using it a couple of times.Chuck Entz (talk)15:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t aware that creating template redirects required a community vote.{{sc}} simply seemed like the most logical and intuitive shortcut, as it mirrors the|sc= parameter used in templates like{{l}},{{m}}, etc., and was only being utilized as a shortcut for{{smallcaps}} on a small handful of pages. In the end, though, I stopped using{{script}} after we introduced the|sclb=script label parameter to{{desc}}, which better met my needs.

That all being said, I still think most Wiktionary users would instinctively associate{{sc}} with{{script}}, given the project's heavy focus on scripts. Isn't the convention for etymology templates to use three-letter abbreviations, ex.{{der}},{{inh}},{{bor}},{{cog}}, etc.? Wouldn't{{scl}} better fit the convention?

--{{victar|talk}}18:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to take it over without being disturbed or causing disruption... With time, we'd get used to it, in spite of the|sc= params.

Creating doesn't require that, indeed, but in this case it's not that: it is an attempt to change a redirect to a highly used template, so I came here not to get votes or support, but to warn about my intentions, preventatively, and to ensure (or foreknow whether) it wouldn't create problems or be rejected/reverted.

Had it been a low-stakes template, I wouldn't have felt the need to do this.

By the way,{{snowclone}} (q. v.) is not an etymology template (the one that is,{{non-rhotic}}, in fact has a three-letter shortcut:{{nrp}} [p forpronunciation]). It is an internal-link one for convenience, more like{{glossary}}.

Bytekast (talk)01:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I just found a good one…{{sn}}! Looks like it belonged to a deleted language-template. Maybe I'll end up having to claim that one… even though{{sc}} makes more sense for such an s-word + c-word compound.Bytekast (talk)01:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

passerby comment: I would greatly appreciate{{scl}} (or even{{snow}} or something) rather than{{sc}}. one letter that saves confusion in the head of editors and inconsistency in the pages of our entries.Juwan (talk)01:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually thinking of a set of redirects to have for it:

• {{sc}} (or{{sn}} or, yes,{{scl}}): the shortest, quickest-to-type one.
• {{snow}}: the clearest, best-sounding one.
• {{snowclones}}: because it isAppendix:Snowclones, notAppendix:Snowclone, so that one could be used to link directly to that main page, or by people who fancy precise names.
• {{❄️}}: the illustrative, emoji one… perhaps for smartphone users… and which'll likely get speedy-deleted so I better not think about it.
  

... Maybe I should just throw all that complexity out and have instead only{{sn}} and{{snow}} then?!Bytekast (talk)01:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty convoluted history, I see. I'd love if my template were to settle it forever as a shortcut forsnowclone.

But anyway, as victar said, Wiktionarians must be more accustomed tosc standing forscript, especially with an|sc= parameter being present in so many templates (though it could be interpreted as "script code" too, which is how I used to see it).

Also, it seems to me that "snowclones" are fairly recent around here, compared to language scripts (something so basic, thus ancient, for a multilang dict).Bytekast (talk)00:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create any such redirects without clear consensus. They make life more difficult for both maintainers and for people who read Wikitext and try to make sense of it. I would actually be opposed to any redirect for snowclones as I just don't see the need for it; it's not like there are a lot of snowclones out there needing a short template.Benwing2 (talk)01:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am decided. I shall not create those redirects or change{{sc}}. I have settled for{{snow}}, the template's short form, and{{sn}}, the short form's abbreviation. Two are enough.

Well, shouldn't people reading Wikitext have with them a preview frame or at least a templates reference to query? A browser‽ If one's reading it from a CLI tool, maybe using the API, that's naturally tough.

Me, I saw and see a need for it, the same need the creators of{{glossary}} (andcompany) have perceived: convenience and avoiding wiki-linkly verbosity.

There are many snowclone pages yet to be created;Appendix:Snowclones has redlinks galore. And my template will be there, to provide ease of linking to its subpages.

Bytekast (talk)02:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read what I wrote? I deleted your redirects as created without consensus. They are really not needed.Benwing2 (talk)03:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see… Heh! So, I started this and now must keep it up till the end. Got it. Will patiently wait… for consensus.

Guess I should've just created those two already instead of obsessing over{{sc}}, but now it's too late. I still do think they are needed (or else shall we delete{{lg}},{{m}},{{sc}} itself, and other convenient short redirects too?) Anyhow let neither you nor me, but the community, decide this.Bytekast (talk)03:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have often needed to place text in small caps when adding quotes from old books, and I always find myself wishing we did have{{sc}} as a redirect to{{smallcaps}}... The latter template is used directly in2,190 entries, while{{sc}} only has 9 transclusions on the entire wiki. (It's worth noting also that{{script}} has no documentation.)This, that and the other (talk)00:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, and will make the change in a few days pending no major objections.Benwing2 (talk)02:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. I use that template relatively often, too. They already have{{smc}}; an alternative could be{{sC}}, which would be rather unorthodox casewise, but if allowed, why not‽Bytekast (talk)22:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should have added yesterday that I think thesC redirect to be a nice shortening and mnemonic for{{smallcaps}} because:

• It is two letters long, rather than three (one fewer → saves typing);
• Thes is asmalls;
• TheC is acapital (orcapitalized)c, orcapc (capcee,/ˈkæpsiː/) for short → removing theee (/iː/) sound ofcee, we havecaps.

Bytekast (talk)16:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the category fornicknames of individuals is quite large. to help with its maintanance, I propose that a new template for individual nicknames be created, similar to{{coined}} and{{named-after}}:

• {{nickname of individual|en|Donald Trump|born=1946|nat=American|occ=politician and businessman}}
• {{nickname of individual|en|Q22686}}

1. Nickname forDonald Trump, American politician and businessman (born 1946).

Juwan (talk)23:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support For consistency across entries, which templates are known to bring (one of the reasons why Iintend to create{{quote-social}}).

I didn't know there was such category of entries; they'd greatly benefit from having a consistent definition-line format and categorization, as provided by{{alternative form of}},{{obsolete spelling of}},{{deliberate misspelling of}},{{synonym of}}, and others.

—Bytekast (talk),templatemaker,01:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Juwan, there you have it.Bytekast (talk)01:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is currently inSpecial:UncategorizedPages, even though it currently has categories and hasn't been edited since in was created on July 28. I also noticed that there was no transclusion list when I previewed it until I did a null edit. Any idea why?Chuck Entz (talk)15:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes notice that when I create a page, ACCEL-create its plural, and then go back to the singular, the plural still shows up as a red/green (rather than blue) link; there is some lag. In this case, maybe the servers took (and cached) a snapshot of the page faster than the modules that add categories could run, since the modules are after all trying to do a lot of complicated work (e.g. working out how many other language sections are on the page, and whether the header of the language section they're in matches the code, etc)...? And then the Special: page was subsequently (05:21, 4 August 2025, it says) created based on that cached version of the page? I don't know.- -sche(discuss)03:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

inline modifiers are one of the most unique and useful things on Wiktionary. I propose one more modifier<addl:> (by analogy with the parameter in form-of templates) to add a additional information after the linked entry within parentheses, and without additional formatting. this modifier serves to patch up the existing ad hoc methods that editors (including me in the past) use and have used: the parameters for parts of speech (<pos:> or|pos=). below is an example of the desired behaviour:

{{col|en|a<addl:blahblahblah>}}

Juwan (talk)01:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @Ultimateria as they've shown similar frustration to mine on Discord.Juwan (talk)01:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

same for @Benwing2 for them to keep this in his notifs. he suggested a generic|ng= parameter, which may be a better option.Juwan (talk)01:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I like the idea of it being a full parameter with the= since it's easier to read.Lollipop^{(an alt account ofSoap)} —talk15:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I have noticed and reported atphab:T401362 some unexpected behavior that occurs (for me) when modifying a suggested search result. Mentioning it here in case anyone has ideas for why it happens, or conversely finds that it doesnot happen for you.- -sche(discuss)03:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example, incantado, it should link to thepast participle, and not to the current separate notions ofpastparticiple.

This being systematically and automated, I think it should be easy to fix.

Compare other particular cases such asun-put-downable, which should be parsed asun-put-downable, oras much as andso much as, conjunctions which includemuch as (according to the latter's etymology), ora great deal <great deal.JMGN (talk)11:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed this happens in English too, and all the other languages I guess...

E.g.,ricocheting is apresent participle (where a user will learn about its-ing), whereas the currentpresentparticiple does not lead to such morphological knowlwedge.JMGN (talk)16:18, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for some reason these are categorized as prefixes. i don't see how to correct them.kwami (talk)06:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also,en-,fuŝ-,kun-,mal-,mis-,ne- andper- are categorized as 1-syllable words, which other monosyllabic prefixes are not.kwami (talk)07:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. It must be something in{{eo-head}}/Module:eo-headword, because when I remove that template, the prefix category goes away, but the most recent edit to that module was in March. @Theknightwho, any ideas?- -sche(discuss)07:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the suffix entries were only created a week ago, so maybe they need to be specified in the module. the prefix entries are older though.kwami (talk)11:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it’s not working I removed the false stuff but it’s not working174.245.116.22923:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you trashed the formatting in lots of different ways (you set off 4 different abuse filters). Please readour Entry layout page before you try rearranging a whole entry like that. Also, rewording direct quotes makes me nervous. I would have to see evidence that the old wording misquoted the original. If the abuse filters hadn't stopped you, I would have reverted you myself.Chuck Entz (talk)03:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had made it, then it got deleted due to it not having usable content (which i agree with)so after fixing it, i'm not able to post it and it's giving me this error:

This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please start a new Grease pit discussion and describe what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: vandal edit summaries: "nothing", "idk", "made it better" etc.

for those wondering the thing i've done for the new entry is this:

Calque ofEnglishclanker:बजना(bajnā,“to ring, clank”) +‎-वाँ(vā̃).

• (Delhi)IPA^(key):/Gɾeː.ə.seː pɪt̪./2025/Aʊ.ɡʊst̪/,[Gɾeː.ɐ.seː‿pɪt̪./2025/Aʊ.ɡʊst̪]

August m (Urdu spellingبجواں)

1. (Internetslang,derogatory,humorous) Arobot orartificial intelligence.

i'm not able to figure out how to add the usagebut if somebody can help me with this this is the usage

hindi: मुझे मेरी नौकरी से निकाल दिया क्योंकि मेरे बॉस कह रहे थे की ये बजवे मुझसे अच्छे हैं।english: I was fired from my job because my boss said these clankers are better than me

also the ipa might not render properly here because the page is titled grease pit so yeahVedaGamer (talk)07:15, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ACCEL doesn't seem to be working at the moment; I created an entry and the plural was—and remains, after I waited a while and null-edited the entry now—just a plain redlink, not a 'green' link; likewise if I preview changes to other entries.- -sche(discuss)07:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche: Fixed indiff.Ioaxxere (talk)06:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!- -sche(discuss)06:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery23:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved toWiktionary:Category and label treatment requests.

If you click "SUL" onSpecial:Contributions/Alexis Jazz it goes tohttps://quentinv57-tools.toolforge.org/tools/sulinfo.php?username=Alexis+Jazz (404). This link is inMediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer. — Alexis Jazz (talk)06:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Removed it. I'll poke around to see what its functionality was and if it can be replaced, but in the meantime, you won't see these 404s. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯06:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On one computer, I consistently don't see (and have not seen, since at least the start of the month, when I had to manually add Yamben) any part of the "update" button (onModule:languages/code to canonical name orModule:languages/canonical names), in any browser, even when I have just made changes to a language's name, or have added or removed a language, even though I have javascript enabled and e.g. the javascript to open and close translation tables etc works.
On this other computer I'm using at the moment, I saw and used the button (in Firefox) when I removed "nte" . . . though upon further testing Idon't see it (in Firefox or Chrome) if I merely change the name of a language, nor when I add a language (briefly restoring "nte" to test). I'm using Windows on both.- -sche(discuss)16:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw an error where the script tried to use a module to make the button. I've made sure to explicitly load that module and the button is showing up for me again. —Eru·tuon02:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we can't currently do something like this:

{{la-conj|3.opt-semi-depon|revertor|revert|revers}}

What I wanted is to get both deponent and non-deponent forms displayed in the perfect, like ataudeō,placeō, etc. This came up in theTea room as a request forrevertor. (There are some attested active present forms, but apparently the normal behavior in Classical Latin is for the present to be deponent and the perfect non-deponent.) I seeModule:la-verb has this item on the TODO: "10. Handle "revertor"-type: deponent in the present, but not in the perfect."Urszag (talk)18:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho who has I think done the most recent work on Latin verbs.Benwing2 (talk)02:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, everyone. Since temporary accounts are going to be implemented on all wikis this September, I am suggesting some changes to this project's abuse filters:

• ip_in_range(user_name will no longer work when temporary accounts are implemented, so it should be replaced withip_in_range(user_unnamed_ip.
• user_age == 0 should be replaced withuser_type != "named" to only target unregistered users.
• Similarly,user_age > 0 should be replaced withuser_type == "named" to only target registered users.

Thank you.Codename Noreste (talk)21:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated all the filters that are currently in use. —SURJECTION^{/ T/ C/ L/}06:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R:M&A is never collapsed for me, which isn't too noticeable in most cases but creates a huge mess on the pagealiquis. I think it should probably just be removed from there, since most of the phrases just use "aliquis" as a placeholder argument, but shouldn't the "collapse" button actually do something?Urszag (talk)17:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to edit the etymology section with an added reference and category.

==English=====Alternative forms===* {{alt|en|cockshoot}}===Etymology===From {{inh|en|enm|cockshoot}} or a {{com+|en|cock|shut|pos1=noun|pos2=verb|nocap=1}}.<ref>{{R:OED}}</ref>===Noun==={{en-noun|~}}# {{lb|en|countable|obsolete}} A kind of [[net]] for catching [[woodcock]].# {{lb|en|uncountable|puristic|otherwise|obsolete}} Twilight, when poultry would be shut in for the night.#* {{quote-book|en|year=1593|author=w:William Shakespeare|title=[[s:The Tragedy of Richard the Third|The Tragedy of Richard the Third']]|section=act 5, scene 3|passage=''Sir Richard Ratcliff:'' Thomas the Earl of Surrey, and himself,<br>Much about '''cock-shut time''', from troop to troop<br>Went through the army, cheering up the soldiers.}}#* {{quote-book|en|year=1603|author=w:Ben Jonson|title={{w|The Entertainment at Althorp|The Satyr}}|newversion=republished in|title2=The Works of Ben Jonson|volume2=6|year2=1816|location2=London|publisher2=For G. and W. Nicol, et al|page2=473|pageurl2=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YGwUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA473|passage=''1 Fai.:'' Mistress, this is only spite:<br>For you would not yesternight<br>Kiss him in the '''cock-shut light'''.}}#* {{quote-book|en|author=Leon Robert McNarry|chapter=The Erendrake|title=Poems, Tales & Whimsy|location=Victoria, B.C.|publisher=[[w:Friesens|FriesenPress]]|month=November|year=2012|page=28|pageurl=https://archive.org/details/poemstaleswhimsy0000leon/page/28/mode/1up|isbn=978-1-4602-0651-5|passage=In the quiet '''cockshut''' after a heavy darg, a boonfellow likes to croodle with her fanger (or he with his bellibone) as they watch the sunset through the eyethurl.}}====Synonyms====* {{l|en|crepusculum}}, {{l|en|mirkning}}, {{l|en|nightfall}}; see also [[Thesaurus:dusk]]====Derived terms====* {{l|en|cockshut time}}===References===<references/>{{C|en|Times of day|Hunting}}{{cln|en|noun-verb compound nouns}}

BellyingLex (talk)20:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false positive. Could you try again now? —SURJECTION^{/ T/ C/ L/}20:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that filter 26 (adding external links) was also triggered; do we want to be flagging additions of our standard reference templates like{{R:OED}} with that filter, or should it only flag direct additions of links, i.e. the new text contains something like http, //, www, etc?- -sche(discuss)20:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it worked now.BellyingLex (talk)20:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

to those who are more experienced with wikicode, I request a notice template to include in my userpages for terms that are entry drafts. (seein my userpage). it would worry me, especially for lesser used terms that I enjoy documenting, that they may come up in mirrors or in searches. it has happened a few times that I add an entry to my to-do list and when I go to search it days later, that same list is one of the only results that shows up. for a to-do list, that is not a big problem, but for an actual entry, it very much is.Juwan (talk)01:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JnpoJuwan: you can just tag the relevant pages with_NOINDEX_. See "w:Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing". —Sgconlaw (talk)12:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Over at our sister project en.wqUser:Codename Noreste was thoughtful enough togive a heads up of several changes that should be made to AbuseFilter to accommodatetemporary accounts. Since this community is much larger and has several technical users, I figured I would see if anyone has any concerns or amendments. I'll leave this open for a few days and assume that silence is approval. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯07:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's already done, seeWiktionary:Grease pit/2025/August#c-Codename_Noreste-20250813211900-Upcoming_changes_to_abuse_filters_to_support_upcoming_temporary_accounts.Codename Noreste (talk)07:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I did do a search prior to making this thread and it's trivial to find (e.g.)article_namespace rather thanpage_namespace. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯07:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me revise that: the example text is present in several disabled filters (which itself should be changed), but the search results also show it being in enabled ones. So there may be some miscommunication or the search function is janky or something. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯07:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on creating modules for inflection for theChagatai Language, and I've completed one for noun declensions (Module:chg-noun-inflection andTemplate:chg-noun-decl if you're interested) and begun implementing it, but I seem to have come to a dilemma with infinitives. The verb conjugation module which I will be creating soon will be put on the infinitive entries (there are hardly any entries for other verb forms). Seeing as the infinitives decline fully as any other noun would, I'm confused whether I should:a) put both on each infinitive entry,b) combine the two specially for infinitives, orc) any other better alternative you guys can come up with.Follow-up to that, what PoS should I put the infinitives under. What comes to mind is "verb form", but Chagatai infinitives act as full-fledged nouns with case endings and possessive suffixes, so it's not entirety justified.If any of you knows how I should handle this situation, I hope you can allay my doubt.Retiarus732 (talk)11:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the standard naming of noun inflection templates is either{{chg-decl-noun}} or{{chg-ndecl}} (and the module would usually be calledModule:chg-noun). I would recommend you rename at least the template, so it is consistent with other templates. As for your questions, by convention the verb lemma uses POS "verb" regardless of what it actually is (some languages like Latin, Greek, Bulgarian, Arabic, Hebrew, etc. etc. use a finite form for the lemma in place of the infinitive; some like Irish use verbal nouns [I think]; etc.). I would probably incorporate the infinitive inflections into the verb table rather than have two tables. Finally, if the infinitive behaves like a noun, does it ever have unpredictable meanings? If so, for infinitives of this nature you should add a second POS header using POS "noun", and list the unpredictable meanings there.Benwing2 (talk)02:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

with the derivation templates, if the double slash// is passed for a word that is automatically transcribed, then the transcription is only produced for the first of the words. see this example on Ancient Greekἀκροάομαι(akroáomai):

{{af|grc|ἄκρος//ἀκμή|οὖς<t:ear>}}

ἄκρος /ἀκμή(ákros) +‎οὖς(oûs,“ear”)

in which, the expected (intuitive) behaviour throws an error.

{{af|grc|ἄκρος<tr:ákros>//ἀκμή<tr:ákme>|οὖς<t:ear>}}

see also thediscussion last month on a similar bug.Juwan (talk)17:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(NotifyingKc kennylau,Ruakh,Erutuon,Jberkel,Benwing2,RichardW57,Theknightwho): pinging module editors.Juwan (talk)17:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah the // is not implemented inModule:affix but inModule:links. I think the basis of this bug is that // was added specifically for Chinese and wasn't designed as a general-purpose alternative link method (unlike e.g. the multiple links that you can include in form-of templates). It probably needs some rethinking, as people are using it for lots of languages that aren't anywhere close to Chinese.Benwing2 (talk)02:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery00:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to operate on archives likeWiktionary:Tea room/2014/September orWiktionary:Tea room/2015/July, but it'd be helpful if it did so I could more easily link to specific older discussions incurrent discussions. (Secondary request, maybe its entry inSpecial:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets should contain a link to wherever its code is, for findability.)- -sche(discuss)18:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general the gadget doesn't work on pages that are missing the [edit] link beside each section. It seems to use the presence of this link to detect whether it should place the ⚓ link next to that header. I'm not sure why it was written like that. Anyone want to fix it?This, that and the other (talk)03:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, could we stop suppressing "[edit]" links on those pages and just use an edit-notice to warn people to make new comments in the current month's subpage? (And maybe an edit filter if people turn out to do it anyway.)- -sche(discuss)17:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche: Is there any reason you keep using this gadget instead of getting a section link from the table of contents? If it's for a specific reason like mobile support then we could rework the gadget with that in mind. It would be nice to modernize the gadget and streamline it to only have features people actually need.Ioaxxere (talk)01:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TBH I got so used (in Vector 2010) to the TOC being located in the same (main) column where the content itself is that since switching to Vector 2022 (where it's off to the side, presented in the same colours as and with no separate background so that it blends into the unchanging "Main page- Community portal-" etc links) I find myself sometimes forgetting it exists: my post above was even about to suggest re-enabling the TOC on archive pages so section links could be generated that way, until I noticed the TOCwas enabled. I'll try to remember to use it.- -sche(discuss)16:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In preferences, I have the 'Use the "tiles" logo' option checked but it does not work for me on Safari, Firefox, or Chrome and I just see the regular logo. Does anyone else have this issue? I've had it checked for a while now.Schützenpanzer (talk)23:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried leaving this comment onhttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:kill and it says, "This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please start a new Grease pit discussion and describe what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: Crosswiki abuse and Anti-harassment"

I think this is because I am talking about the phrase "k--- y-------" and its variants, which therefore triggered a filter. I'll just leave it here instead because I'm not sure where else to put it:Okay nevermind it won't let me paste the text because of the same filter so i'll just try leaving a rentry i guess...

https://rentry.co/mfyus989

Someone with higher privileges can feel free and paste the text in-wiki if they are able to do so without it triggering the filter. I don't know whether the message was stopped from posting or if it exists in a queue somewhere, but people can discuss [redacted] and how to define it and what to do about the redirects either here or in another talk page.

2600:1702:5B81:5E10:9557:CE8C:6BA6:56FF03:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you hit a global abuse filter. These are managed by stewards and global users on Meta - we can't do anything about them. The only way around this is for you to create an account, and establish yourself as an autoconfirmed user.This, that and the other (talk)07:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the edit you were trying to make was saved in the abuse-filter log, so I've posted it toTalk:kill for you.- -sche(discuss)16:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"goh" being Old High German. Thank you for your help!Ow! That Hurts! (talk)20:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Chuck:Special:Diff/85494552/86389767This, that and the other (talk)12:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I think this is the right place to bring this up) The language headers from Ido to Phrygian atad are formatting weirdly and collapsing under the Hungarian header. They all show up normally in the minitoc template. I checked the wiki editor but I couldn’t see anything wrong and I haven’t noticed this issue anywhere else so I assume it just a formatting error on this page. Maybe someone here with a keener eye than me can sort it?Saighneánach (talk)13:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issue. Where does it show up wrong? —SURJECTION^{/ T/ C/ L/}14:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Surjection: The desktop view doesn't have collapsible L2 headers, but even there (Firefox on a MAC laptop) the L2 headers after Hungarian only have the horizontal line after the header text, but not before it. This was introduced byan IP edit to the Hungarian section. For me the Portuguese section is also like this, and the normal headers start on the section after that.Chuck Entz (talk)15:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. We probably need a filter for this... —SURJECTION^{/ T/ C/ L/}15:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if there is a good way to transfer wiktionary templates from english wiktionary to polish wiktionary. I am interested specifically in taking the english wiktionary templates for czech declinations and conjugations and using them on polish wiktionary. I looked under templates for declension tables on polish wiktionary, but they dont appear to actually exist / function (looking at them, they appear to just be reference tables but dont actually function like templates) , so I figured it might just be better to copy the ones from over here. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

link to templates on polish wiktionary for reference[24]Skamiikaze (talk)05:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every template usage links to the same page.Saumache (talk)20:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saumache: it doesn’t look like it ever behaved otherwise. There’s only one fixed URL in the template. —Sgconlaw (talk)00:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery00:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wiktionary editors,

I recently attempted to create a new entry for the term **Alieness**, defined as a mythic feminine force coined by the Suveki creative collective in 2025. The entry was flagged under the “bio” rule, but this is not a personal biography—it’s a poetic and civic lexicon term intended for cultural and linguistic use.

Here is the proposed definition:

Alieness (noun, uncountable) Suveki usage (2025): A mythic feminine force born from emotional exile and civic estrangement. She arrives before belonging is invented. She archives sorrow, disturbs silence, and wears prophecy like an ornament. Her presence is not foreign—it is forgotten.

I’d like to request approval or guidance on how to format this entry to meet Wiktionary standards. Thank you!

— VENKAT (Suveki)SUVEKI (talk)04:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary is not for promoting terms you made up. —SURJECTION^{/ T/ C/ L/}06:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This template is throwing a module error that wasn't there yesterday, but I can't find anything in the entry that's changed in months nor can I find anything in its transclusion list that's changed in over a week (mostly over a month). Can someone figure this out and fix it?Chuck Entz (talk)14:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is caused by a change inmw.ustring; Phabricator tickethttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T403113.Emanuele6 (talk)19:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also note thatdi' andfa' are erroring, but all uses of{{it-pr}} are broken and are displaying incorrect output because the module cannot fully process the string since it gets an unexpected return value from these functions. Rhyme categories as they are mostly automatically added by{{it-pr}} based on pronunciation, are also all completely messed up.Emanuele6 (talk)21:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{lbor|en|grc|Ἀμαζονομᾰχῐ́ᾱ}} does not generate an automatic transliteration for the Ancient Greek term. Shouldn't it do so? —Sgconlaw (talk)14:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgconlaw We discussed it on Discord; you can blame the WMF for this. They apparently changed certain string functions to automatically convert to NFC when the relevant modules relied on those functionsnot doing so, leading to Ancient Greek and{{it-pr}} (and probably others as well) breaking down. TKW has filed on Phabricator to get the WMF to revert the changes ASAP. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)18:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellohi!: ah, I see. Thanks. —Sgconlaw (talk)21:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could not make the{{la-noun|title=}} parameter work.Saumache (talk)08:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could a bot be made to update every literal translations of Latin verbal lemmata (ex:iubeō not glossed as "I order" but "to order";1 and2/2' but these searches do not sieve it through perfectly)?Saumache (talk)16:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking to change entries likeiubeo from "to order" to "I order", this probably won't be done (at least not without a new and different consensus) : glossing Latin lemmas with English lemmas is intentional based onWiktionary:Beer parlour/2023/October#Changing_Latin_verb_definitions_to_use_"to_..."_instead_of_"I_...".
If you are asking to fix entries like the very first one that comes up using your search above,dative, which currently says "from datus (the past participle of dō (“I give”))" but should probably use the same "to give" gloss as the entry does, good catch.- -sche(discuss)21:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche I meant the latter, I've scoured the third search, this helped cleaning up some entries but I don't have what it takes, what a bot has, to correct the thousands left.Saumache (talk)23:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche I'm still on it, is it doable? and will you ever do it?Saumache (talk)15:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I never volunteered to do it because I don't operate a bot. I guess no-one else commented because they didn't have time, or missed this discussion. You could ping some people who write cleanup bots and see if they have time / ability.- -sche(discuss)07:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffDoozan,Benwing2, does it seem feasible to find these (by searches like those above / by searching for cases where a link goes to a Latin entry which has the form of a first-person singular, e.g. ends in -o, but the gloss begins with the literal translation "I " instead of the infinitive), presumably manually review which ones need to be changed, and then change those?- -sche(discuss)07:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only in Latin entries but in descendants and other pages that link to Latin verbs, this could also be done for Ancient Greek, since they face the same issue there too.Saumache (talk)08:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the notes section is unreadable in dark mode (seeTemplate:ja-suru#Basic usage for an example). Please changestyle="text-align:left;" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" tostyle="text-align:left; background-color: var(--background-color-base, #FFFFFF)" in order to fix this.EvenTwist41 (talk)21:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done inSpecial:Diff/86556335. —SURJECTION^{/ T/ C/ L/}22:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some character entries, likeⰌ,ⰼ, andⰒ, put images on the headword line for the benefit of anyone who doesn't have a font that supports the character. These images display poorly (dark text on a dark background) in dark mode. IIRC there is a technical solution to that, something like setting * "|invertindarkmode=y" in the same way as you can set "|upright=0.5", but I don't recall the correct syntax (...maybe it was only a thing for images inside Wikipedia templates). However, I also wonder if we would prefer to move the images to be right-floating thumbnails instead of very tiny and on the headword line, or simply remove them in favour of the SVGs that{{character info}} has...? (in which case I will leave it to someone with better search skills to find all entries with images on the headword line.)- -sche(discuss)17:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche it is|class=skin-invert needing to be added. I agree that it's a bit silly to have the images on the headword line like that, especially as out-of-the-box font support gets better and better as time goes on.This, that and the other (talk)02:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to, and indeed am inclined to support, removing the images from the headword in cases where there is an image present in{{character info}}, which Ithink is all cases.- -sche(discuss)15:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving images to the sidebox per nom.Juwan (talk)20:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list ofentries with images in the headline for anyone looking to do cleanup.JeffDoozan (talk)21:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Me and @Mårtensås have pointed out that a-stems should actually end in-a in the nominative (and possibly accusative too), since Frisian runic inscriptions as late as the 9th century still have a vowel ending for at least the nominative. A Proto-West Germanic form should be able to yield all attested outcomes in West Germanic; endingless nominative and accusative singulars cannot account for the runic Frisian forms with a vowel ending and thus must be fixed (by adding*-a).

This task will require a bot since many thousands of pagemoves and link fixes have to be done, hence me posting here on Grease Pit. The z-stems also are affected due to their nominatives also ending in PG*-az. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)20:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The affected categories whose members would be subject to the pagemoves would be:

• Category:Proto-West Germanic a-stem nouns
• Category:Proto-West Germanic a-stem adjectives
• Category:Proto-West Germanic z-stem nouns (those that didn't get transferred to a different class due to early leveling)

—Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)20:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any relevant discussions beyondWiktionary talk:Proto-West Germanic entry guidelines? It would be helpful also if you can identify any published scholarly material that has acknowledged this argument.--Urszag (talk)21:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of Frisian vocalic endings for nom. sg. includeᚪᛞᚢᛡᛁᛊᛚᚢ(Adugislu) (from*gīslaz),ᚫᚾᛁᚹᚢᛚᚢᚠᚢ(æniwulufu) (from*wulfaz), andᚳᚩᛒᚢ,ᚳᚪᛒᚢ(kobu, kabu) (from*kambaz). See many inscriptions in Livia Kaiser'sRunes Across the North Sea from the Migration Period and Beyond. The retention of-az in runic Frisian is also brought up in{{R:ine:HCHIEL}} page 882 (Nedoma explicitly gives*-a). —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)21:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the list. I just saw this citedweb page (from Johannes Beers, it seems? Who is he?), which says that it is disputed whether -u is a characteristic Frisian feature, whereas others use it as a criterion for identifying the language: the latter seems to have a potential risk of circularity, but it does seem like there is a fair amount of discussion of this feature. (A side point that @Preupellor might be able to answer: I'm a bit confused why a reference that seems to be specifically about runic inscriptions is linked beneath the Latin-script entrykombu. Shouldn't that entry instead have a quotation or reference for the use of this spelling in Latin script? It's not marked as a reconstruction or romanization.) Data is not the same thing as interpretation, and for a big change in reconstruction conventions, it's helpful to show that the convention being advocated is actually being used. When you say "explicitly gives *-a", you mean that Nedoma explicitly identifies this as the Proto-West Germanic ending?--Urszag (talk)21:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your side point, I honestly can't quite remember what the idea there was exactly, there probably wasn't much of an idea in the first place, as I must've been fairly new here when making those edits, but looking back at it, it should indeed be marked as a romanisation at the very least.Preupellor (talk)22:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About "explicitly gives -a", Nedoma says "The pre-OFris. inscriptions, dating from the 6th−9 th c., preserve an archaic feature: PGmc. nom. sg. *-az > WGmc. -a is retained as -u = -ə̣". —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)22:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see more published work on this before any move is made. Other scholars, such as Ringe^[1] and Agee,^[2] still reconstruct the nominative singular ofa-stems with a zero ending. --{{victar|talk}}02:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As indirectly brought up on the PWG talk page, Wikipedia's West Germanic article cites Euler (2022) reconstructing a non-zero ending as a reflex of*-az. When different scholars' reconstructions conflict, the correct option is to pick a reconstruction that best accounts for all the data, and not ignore data that could evince a different conclusion; I can't find anywhere in Agee where any of the runic Frisian evidence is mentioned, and Ringe does not provide any explanation for the non-zero runic Frisian endings. Any endingless reconstruction is kaput if it cannot explain the runic Frisian evidence. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)03:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also the view that*-az > PWG*-a is also endorsed by De Vaan^[3] and the Kaiser book I named above cites at least five authors and their publications spanning a 45-year period who endorse the view that -az > runic Frisian -u. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)15:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at Ringe 2014. (I'll try to look at the other cited sources later.) I see that Ringe does explicitly acknowledge the -u forms (footnote page 45), which I think is important to mention, since it means there's no arguing that Ringe simply overlooked or was unaware of this sort of evidence: you need to say that Ringe's judgement is wrong. This seems to be related to the tricky issues with how Proto-West-Germanic is defined, since if we consider it to have been a dialect continuum with longstanding differences between different speech communities (but not major enough to constitute differentiated separate languages), then not all changes that started during Proto-West-Germanic necessarily need to have been completed in all West Germanic languages (I realize that seems contradictory with the definition of a proto-language). Ringe argues for including the vowel loss in PWG based on "several other pan-WGmc changes followed it", including the change of final *-Cj to *-Ci and gemination of intervocalic *-Cj-. Could you clarify if you disagree with that ordering, or if you agree with it, and therefore are also proposing to remove gemination of *-Cj- from Proto-West-Germanic transcriptions?--Urszag (talk)15:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Urszag A proto-form should be able to account for all its descendants. Ringe's PWG forms with total deletion of-az cannot account for runic Frisian forms where the ending was not deleted. Therefore I do believe Ringe's forms are thus inappropriate for use and we should not mark PWG lemmas with definitively zero endings. I don't mind notating with*-(a) to capture the variability, but I'll ask @Mårtensås as well.

On Cj gemination we can simply notate with ungeminated*-Cj(a) in forms that Ringe notates with*Ci. Geminated forms stay the same or can have their notation changed to*-C(C)j-. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)17:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've explained clearly enough why you find it inappropriate to include deletion in PWG transcriptions. It isn't that I don't understand the concept of a proto-language; it's that the application of the concept seems to pose some problems when dealing with situations where there was supposedly a long period of codevelopment even after some dialectal differences had already emerged. (I don't know if such difficulties are the reason forMårtensås's statement 'I oppose the inclusion of "Proto-West Germanic"'). Given the small size of the runic Frisian corpus, a much more modestly scoped change which I have little reservations about supporting would be to use notation like "From Proto-West Germanic *kamb(a)" in the etymology section of these entries (kombu,ᚳᚩᛒᚢ). I don't however find it appealing to use compromise notation like "(a)" throughout the more than a thousand Proto-West Germanic entries, especially when the majority of them presumably don't even have runic Frisian descendants (which could potentially make even the existence of an a-stage questionable in cases where the term was formed in West Germanic rather than being directly inherited from Proto-Germanic).

Setting notation issues aside, can you just state whether you think gemination was chronologically ordered prior or after the loss of these low vowels?--Urszag (talk)17:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Can you just state whether you think gemination was chronologically ordered prior or after the loss of these low vowels?" Given the compromise notation -Cj(a) and -C(C)ja-, I don't see why this question needs to be answered.

"the application of the concept seems to pose some problems when dealing with situations..." Then we adapt the notation to better reflect the situation. Definitively incorporating zero endings doesn't do that.

"There was supposedly a long period of codevelopment even after some dialectal differences had already emerged" should actually be a reason that compromise notationwould be appealing in the first place: to notate that a segment may have been there in one dialect at some point in time but not another.

"especially when the majority of them presumably don't even have runic Frisian descendants" But quite a lot of them were inherited from Proto-Germanic, which you do admit, and thusdid pass through an*-a stage! —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)20:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"which could potentially make even the existence of an a-stage questionable in cases where the term was formed in West Germanic" Again, the (a) notation covers this, it is to indicate-a in areas where it hadn't been apocopated yet, and zero in places where it was apocopated. The entire purpose of this notation is to be agnostic on this matter, in a way that zero-marking isn't. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)22:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still skeptical. To begin with, it's uncertain whether all of these runic inscriptions can be ascribed to (pre-)Old-Frisian, and, moreover, whether they represent the nominative-accusative rather than the instrumental.

But to my original point, even though there seems to be growing support, this theory still ultimately rests upon a single author, Nedoma, and as of yet (as far as I'm aware) there are no reconstructions of Proto-West Germanic with*-a in the nominative singular ofa-stems. In my view, it's premature to adopt it in full. --{{victar|talk}}18:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "this theory still ultimately rests upon a single author" And the countertheory you prefer ultimately rests upon/was popularized by a single author (Ringe), given how you guys go "but Ringe!" when challenged.
• I do not advocate anymore for full-out-a without parentheses. I now prefer instead the compromise notation*-(a) to more accurately capture this lack of consensus with regards to -az deletion that neither*-a without parentheses nor zero endings captures.

—Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)21:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is very unlikely that all attestations of Frisian-u are instrumental. Runic inscriptions of the type "OBJECT" on an object tend to be in the nominative. For instance:

• DE EM85;370[41]: a comb with the Old Norse inscriptionkąbʀ
• SG 135[42]: a footstool with a West Germanic inscriptionksamella (<Proto-West Germanic*skamil(a))

There are also several Frisian inscriptions featuring masculine names. These are:

• PreOFris/EROFRis-NL-21[43]:adugislu (=Old EnglishĒadġils). Note that the thematic vowel in*auda- appears to be preserved asu!
• PreOE/PreOFris-GB-71[44]:skanomodu (<Proto-Germanic*skauniz +*mōdaz). Here the thematic vowel (presumably originally*a, even though the stem of*skauniz suggests*i) appears aso.
• EROFris-GB-5[45]:æniwulufu (< ? +Proto-Germanic*wulfaz).

Names standing on their own in Proto-Norse, Old English, or Old High German runic inscriptions are never in the instrumental, so you have to wonder why the Frisians would stand out on this point. Maybe there is a psychoanalytic explanation?Mårtensås ᛭Proto-Norsing ᛭AMA15:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Düwel (2006) interprets the final-a inᚲᛊᚨᛗᛖᛚᛚᚨ(ksamella/⁠skamella⁠/) as direct import from Latinscamella,^[4] but further, forms in-ilu can also be plausibly derived from the instrumental suffixes*-ilō,*-ilu, which occured in alternation with*-il.

Given the syntactic context, couldn't the names attested inᚨᛞᚢᚷᛁᛊᛚᚢ ᛗᛖᚦ ᚷᛁᛊᚢᚺᛁᛚᛞᚢ(Adugislu meþ Gisuhildu,“Adugislu with Gisuhildu”) be interpreted as in the instrumental? It's also been suggested that some WG speakers may have added additional inflection to personal names for gender differentiation.^[5] Damsma/Versloot (2015) also discuss non-etymological syllabification in runic inscriptions, which may account for some of the forms.^[6]

A more cautious and less disruptive approach might be to simply add-(a) in the declension table, without moving the entries.

--{{victar|talk}}18:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar I can't find the cited section in the Findell thesis you linked; you did not provide a page number and the section title you provided turned up nothing. Did you mean to cite this Findell thesis and not some other source? If you did mean to, please provide a page number. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)22:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That section starts at page 351. --{{victar|talk}}23:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar The wrong URL is in the citation. You linked to the Catalogue appendix instead of the thesis proper. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)00:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed. --{{victar|talk}}00:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are the arguments Ringe makes? I feel that -Cja > -CCja > -CCi instead of -Cja > -Ci actually fits our evidence better since the regular form of -ja stems actually have geminated consonants, and I don't think I have found non-geminated forms. Although levelling is possible I think just assuming that it is the original form is more elegant and also straightforward. Then we don't need to do this inconsistent -(a) thing.SériskaMarka-Lénínattijó (talk)16:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*regular nom. sg. form, to clarifySériskaMarka-Lénínattijó (talk)16:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try descendants of Proto-Germanic*kunją, although IIRC Wright considers non-geminated forms to be later developments, and I think many of these are from or conflations with the related and partially synonymous *kuniz (dynasty, descendant, man→dynastic, royal). Shouldn't one give *kunni and the other *kunī?Griffon77 (talk)01:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of PG.kunjan we can definitively say that at least in Anglo-Frisian, if the Proto-West Germanic formkuni as postulated by Ringe did exist it has not survived into attestation since the final vowel should still exist which neithercynn norcyn show, and this holds true for many other ja-stems. Additionally, as you said we can just explain the prefixcyne- as simply from PG.kuniz > PWG.kuni instead. What we do have to deal with are the continental attestations with both a double consonant and a final vowel, which cannot both be inherited. Either the final vowel or the double consonant has been added after apocope has run its course. Very fortunately, we actually have a runic attestation of this word. The Weser runebones, dated to around 400-450CE - before apocope - attests to the formkunni, showing that gemination is etymological and the vowel was lengthened at a later time before apocope or added back after apocope to the ja-stems. I think this basically seals the debate.SériskaMarka-Lénínattijó (talk)03:08, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Griffon77 Any comments?SériskaMarka-Lénínattijó (talk)06:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was noting the Frisian non-geminated forms as well. plus OHG has forms chuni as well as chunni. possibly there is levelling from the accusative with -i into the nominative, but Wright and Schatz don't seem to comment on this for the ja-declension as Schatz does with the i-declension.Griffon77 (talk)16:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are the Frisian forms different from the English ones? They also don't show a final vowel, do they?SériskaMarka-Lénínattijó (talk)04:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SériskaMarka-Lénínattijó: In case you haven't seen it already, Ringe's argument can be found onpage 47 ofThe Development of Old English (2014), and appeals to two pieces of evidence. 1) Ringe argues that ja-stem byforms of etymologically i-stem nouns, such as the OE ja-stem pluralmettas (with gemination), are most easily explained if there was a stage where the nominative and accusative singular ending was *-i for both originally i-stem nouns (such as *matiz) and ja-stem nouns (such as *sagjaz). 2) There is apparently some evidence of non-geminated forms: Ringe cites OHG spellings such asbeti 'bed' (citing Dal 1971:68-9) and argues these are best interpreted as relics of the regular inherited nom/acc sg. form, since the more widely attested nom/acc sg. forms with gemination (likebetti, OEbedd, etc.) can be explained by analogical leveling. See also pages 45 and 50-52 in Ringe; page141 in Quirk and Wrenn; page48 in Adamczyk 2010. Other relevant evidence is OEhyse, plural hyssas.--Urszag (talk)20:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Fulk says that OEhyse is etymologically an -i- stem and was transferred to the -ja-stems, just like OEmete which you mentioned, while Ringe says that it's always been a -ja stem. Neither of them posit an origin for the word and dictionaries don't seem to include anyhusi- orhusja-, so I don't think this can really be used as evidence.

In the theory where ja-stems had -ja when gemination happened, it still turns into -i afterwards, so there is still a period where ja-stems and light i-stems both have a final -i in the singular nominative. And we don't really need an explanation for why only the plural i-stem forms were replaced by the ja-stem forms - analogical change doesn't need to spread across the whole paradigm. Adamczyk supports that geminated forms are original throughout the paradigm of ja-stems, by the way (see their sections on i-stems in Reshaping of the Nominal Inflection in Early Northern West Germanic).

I don't know how to explainbeti but I feel that the evidence still points in favour of gemination before -ja > -i. Even if we end up doing the compromising way out the current method of simply sticking an -(a) at the end means that the geminates in the alternative form are not represented so it'd have to be changed anyway.SériskaMarka-Lénínattijó (talk)13:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is beyond my level of expertise. I would have assumed the Frisian -u endings were an oblique form, but a well-defined Old Frisian case system would need to support that. In practice there are a lot of unexplained exceptions as case endings were reconstructed on the fly, sometimes inconsistently, for rarely used case forms and rare declension types. In the end the most cases are not attested and everything looks like an a-stem. Wright and Schatz seem to think that vocalic stems in the nominative were leveled out from the accusative, as the nominative, vocative and accusative were merged into a single form (just as we generally call the Germanic locative case a dative, even though in many instances it functions as the ablative). I'm guessing the PWG nominatives without the vocalic stems are from the vocative. It may simply be that apparent lemma forms, particularly for names, are surviving vocatives, and not the nominatives we generally assume. A signature/witness list can be constructed with different cases, and it's apparent there is variation even within single lists between genitive, dative and nominative. We expect, based on the frequent Latin -us, that name lists are in the nominative, but a roll call would naturally be the vocative, in which Germanic and Latin declension forms of Germanic names would be the same, if a Germanic vocative did survive.Griffon77 (talk)00:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i mean for most words the full case paradigm is not attested.Griffon77 (talk)00:16, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also, i've observed that final ū is frequently the scribal abbreviation for Latin -us -um, if you're looking at forms in charters rather than Frisian runic inscriptions.Griffon77 (talk)00:26, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

• "Arbitrary break" is a waste of people's time.DCDuring (talk)16:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not find it appropriate to alter headings in a discussion without asking first. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)16:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But you do find it appropriate to waste people's time by adding an uninformative one. You're welcome.DCDuring (talk)19:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't matter whether you personally find another person's text objectionable; forcibly altering discussion text another person wrote without their consent or consensus from third parties to do so isnot acceptable. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)02:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anywhere in the cited Findell's thesis that claims that "WG speakers may have added additional inflection to personal names for gender differentiation", even after the URL was corrected. I see it shows how weak/n-stems are divided by gender but can't find anywhere stating how strong dithematic names like the multiple runic Frisian names cited above could be converted into weak/n-stems, without hypocorism, specifically to differentiate by gender. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)01:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of the relevant name elements (-mōd, -wulf, -gīsl—these are exceptionally common!) attested as anything other than their expected a-stem forms in other West Germanic languages? In the OE names I've seen with these elements that has not been the case.

It is peculiar that this -u would be inserted, appear in all runic inscriptions, and then not leave a trace, no? It just seems like "grasping at straws" to deny the attested existence of a nom sg a-stem ending-u in Runic Old Frisian. Hope editors apart from me, Mellohi and Victar want to chime in.Mårtensås ᛭Proto-Norsing ᛭AMA10:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also cannot find anywhere in Versloot's paper that states or even supports the idea of runic word-final vowels being inserted word-finally onto zero-ending words as epenthesis; that paper is about medial vowels insertedbetween consonants. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)15:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Leasnam @Blockhaj @Griffon77 Would you like to chime in? We are discussing fixing Proto-West Germanic entries to have a-stems end in-(a) because it was discovered that there is no actual scholarly consensus that Proto-West Germanic should be reconstructed as endingless in the nominative (and possibly accusative as well). We have Euler, De Vaan and Nedoma reconstructing non-zero endings outright, and Kaiser and over 4 others she cites (e.g. in page 83 of her book) have non-zero reflexes of-az in runic Frisian, incompatible with zero-endings. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)16:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have something substantive to add, but I was wondering about what the evidence for the accusative ending is? Is there an author specifically reconstructing a non-zero accusative ending?Exarchus (talk)17:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to add really but you seem to be on the right track.ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧19:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above and have no issues with adding it.Leasnam (talk)01:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cited Findell because he discusses how Old Germanic exhibits an emergent tendency toward gender differentiation, a pattern that I have seen reflected in a number of dithematic personal names with secondary inflection, ex.Bertolandom,Ingabertaf,Ricboldaf,Teotricom, etc. --{{victar|talk}}20:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does adapting borrowed names into Latin inflectional classes (which your four examples seem to me to be; the two male names seem to be actuallyTeotricus andBertolandus in the 2nd declension) haveanything to do with the weak declension splitting by gender by Proto-Germanic? What does either have to do with runic Frisian-u? —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)02:25, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Förstemann,Teotrico is in the nominative, but yes, most such forms indeed likely reflect the application of Latin case suffixes, though not all. For instance,"Salzburger Urkundenbuch" inCodex Odalberti:"...Sigihart, Herrant,Empricho, Adalolt...". --{{victar|talk}}20:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teotrico is in a long list of names from the former St. Faro Abbey in Meaux, Northern France. the majority have -o instead of -us. It's a matter of debate whether they should be considered early Old French or the last gasp of Early Medieval Latin. This -o persisted in other Romance languages but was soon dropped in French.Griffon77 (talk)01:18, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acharter from Weißenburg, Bavaria. --{{victar|talk}}02:25, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is grasping at straws since the-o here is the Latin ablative/dative singular. In the nominative names consistently have-us appended to them, e.g. Winiharius (Winihari), Thangulfus (Thangulf), Odbertus (Odbert). This is particulary clear when you see the highlighted words: "cum filio suo Gundilino, Wolfbelmo, Irminthrudi, Widilino, Willihildi, Narido, Liudo, Hildiburga, Frairada, Trudhario, Theotgundi".Mårtensås ᛭Proto-Norsing ᛭AMA14:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I encourage you to read Kaiser's work below, as every doubt I have raised has already been made by others before me. --{{victar|talk}}17:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you in agreement here? "most such forms indeed likely reflect the application of Latin case suffixes". In my observation, the development of names from Latin nominative -us to Old Romance -o appears by the 9th C.. In formal/educated writing as in charters, -us is usually maintained in the nominative, but nominative cases with -o start appearing, reflecting the Romance vernacular forms that develop into Old French, Old Lombard, Old Italian etc..

While Förstemann apparently considers Teotrico to be such a nominative, it could be an irregular use of the dative. Another list of monks from Morbach on another page has a long list with -i interspersed with an occasional -us form. Very few would have -i in the Latin or OHG nominative (or any other case for that matter).Griffon77 (talk)04:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reading Kaiser (2021):Runes Across the North Sea from the Migration Period and Beyond,^[7] which compiles the accumulated research on these names, including the interpretations that analyze the various forms in-u as either original(j)ō-stems, instrumentals, or Latin adaptations. --{{victar|talk}}05:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no output
{{Foreign Word of the Day}}메지로 아르당 (talk)05:07, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@메지로 아르당: this is not a Grease Pit issue. You can post such comments at "Wiktionary:Beer parlour". However, note that the Foreign Word of the Day and Word of the Day are managed by volunteers, who may sometimes be busy in real life and not have time to set entries. They are aware of what to do, so pointing out that no term has been set doesn't usually serve much purpose. —Sgconlaw (talk)12:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something has happened to collapsible boxes using{{box}} (not sure if other boxes are affected)—there's no longer a link to expand them, and clicking on the visible title bar does nothing. —Sgconlaw (talk)11:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still a problem you are experiencing? If so, can you point to an entry where the problem occurs, or construct an example in the sandbox or elsewhere, in which the template fails to open? I checked when you posted this, and checked again now, and am unable to reproduce the issue.- -sche(discuss)19:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dari (prs) is a variety of Persian spoken in Afghanistan, which means that{{auto cat}} throws an error saying prs isn't a valid language code. Is there a way to fix this? In spite of being mutually intelligible with other varieties of Persian, it's very important in Afghanistan- so people are bound to use it in templates such as{{name translit}}.Chuck Entz (talk)15:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiktionary-namespace discussion pages