text:
Wiktionary:American or British Spelling

Policy discussion moved to Spelling Variants in Entry Names - Draft Policy--Richardb 07:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This page is established to build a policy on when to use American or British spelling, how to treat words with alternate spellings etc. An initial Draft Policy is presented not as some fait-accompli, but as a means of provoking discussion.

Previous discussions around this topic can be found at Policy Think Tank on American or British Spelling/discussion archive.

See the discussion page for current discussions on this policy, and the approach to managing development of this policy.

Anyone should then feel free to improve on the Draft Policy on this page. Change the title and category when there is a consensus that it is ready to consititute a Draft Policy that has been reasonably discussed.

See Policies and Guidelines - Policy for information on the development of policies.

Draft Policy in Development

 * 1) There is no need for a consistent American or British approach for the Entry title. Whichever entry spelling is entered first shall stand (Based on date of first entry). It would be unrealistic to strive for a consistent American or British approach, since many members would not accept the choice of one or the other as the "dominant" or "accepted" form. Surely though we can agree on which entry was made first.
 * Yes, we can agree on which entry was made first, but many people won't like that approach.

 * 1) A Forwarding Entry will be made for the other/alternate spelling entry to point to the already existing page.
 * 2) If there is no known difference of meaning between the two differently spelt words (eg: Colour / Color), then the Forwarding Entry can be a simple REDIRECT page.
 * That's the way it's done on Wikipedia. But there is a very important difference, you didn't consider. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but Wiktionary is a dictionary, which means the words themselves are the focus of attention. For most people, it's a huge difference if color is spelt colour...

 * 1) If there is some difference of meaning for the two words (eg: Tire / Tyre), then explain that difference in the Forwarding Entry entries, and add a link to the Alternate Spelling page where ALL meanings are defined. Of course, the Forwarding Entry page may also be used for the same word, possibly different meaning, in other languages. Can anyone think of an example to put here
 * 2) Do NOT create a second page with duplicate definitions, as these inevitably will subsequently be maintained differently, and end up as different definitions for what is essentially the same word.
 * Why not? Only about 0.4% percent of all words have variant spellings. It's not that big of a deal. If there's someone willing to do the work, let them do it!
 * Because invariably someone will not be willing to do the work. Check out Favor/Favour (as of this writing) for an example: Favor is much more complete, because Favour was created and then abandoned. A simple redirect from the British to the American spelling (or vice versa, of course) would solve the problem, but leaving the two articles separate and unequal is definitely unacceptable. (I added the redirect today; User:24 reverted it.) --Quuxplusone 01:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * , if someone else doesn't do it, this is a wiki. 24 01:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with this policy since it does not affect just differences in spelling. See sickle cell anemia, sickle-cell anemia, sickle cell anaemia and sickle-cell anaemia. Jonathan Webley 11:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) The ALTERNATE SPELLING section of the main entry shall list both/all spellings as the ALTERNATES, with an indication of which spelling is used where. (Australia is particularly impacted here, as sometimes one spelling is the most accepted, sometimes the other, sometimes both are equally acceptable)
 * 2) *By the way, note that the word is alternative. A "dictionary" really ought to get that right! --Quuxplusone 01:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) **Stop the shouting. Alternate as a noun can mean alternative. 24 01:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Not withstanding the above, certain special/Wiktionary pages shall remain named in the now accepted ways:-

 * Nobody seems to care anyway: See colour and centre and lots of other entries.

Comments by TomBrown 06:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Different Proposal

 * All variants are treated equally. If there are editors who want to create an entry for a Commonwealth variant of an already existing entry, they may do so. If there are editors who want to create an entry for a U.S. variant of an already existing entry, they may do so.
 * Rationale: Variant spellings are only a tiny fraction of the number of English words. Having only one entry and a redirect will annoy many users, having two separate entries will not. If there are editors willing to do the extra editing work, let them do it. There is no need to make one entry the exact copy of the other. A Commonwealth English entry uses Commonwealth usage and spelling in its definition and examples sentences, a U.S. English entry uses U.S. English. Both entries should redirect/link to each other.
 * Maybe this is the more realistic policy, since that is what is happening on the ground. --Richardb 09:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not what's happening on Wikipedia, where editors have had longer to work nationalism out of their systems. On Wikipedia, redirects are the order of the day, and complaints and duplicated material are rarities. I think the first proposal (don't duplicate content unnecessarily) is the better one. (Also note that while an automatic redirect might annoy a Briton, a manual "redirect" to find the most useful content, as this system proposes, would undoubtedly annoy one more.) --Quuxplusone 01:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't Wikipedia, though; we're talking about the words themselves -- including how they are spelled, even if it's a few letters off. 24 01:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has very different issues to address. The titles of encyclopaedia articles are merely the topics discussed in the articles.  The names of dictionary articles, in contrast, are the actual words, and theatre is a very different word from theater.  Wikipedia solutions are inappropriate here.  In fact, for most words where there are alternative spellings in United States English and Commonwealth English, the two words are almost entirely separate words.  They have different etymologies, different pronunciations, different quotations, different histories, and (in several cases, such as the aforementioned theatre/theater) subtly different meanings.  The whole idea of redirecting one spelling to the other is predicated on an idea that they are the same word, which is, lexicographically, an idea that is utter tripe. In reality, the words are different, and the articles should be (if done properly) very different in content. Uncle G 03:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you give any examples of American/British differences in spelling due to "different etymologies, different pronunciations, different quotations, different histories, different meanings"? I'm certainly not advocating redirecting lift to elevator or boot to trunk — but I don't think honor and honour are "different words" with different meanings or etymologies; nor center and centre, theater and theatre, gemology and gemmology, nor any other word with 'u' dropped or 'er' switched. As has already been pointed out, it's trivially easy to add locality-specific remarks such as "gray (never grey) is an SI unit of absorbed radiation" or "Endeavour was Captain Cook's ship". (BTW, if this discussion should really be on the Talk page, feel free to move it there.) --Quuxplusone 00:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * One example, as requested: Tire (US): 1; rubber thing on car attached to wheels, 2; to exhaust.  Tyre (Brit): 1; rubber thing on car, 2; ancient city.  Please observe that a redirect will not work, these words have to be defined separately.  Traditional solution from dictionary publishers in the past is to have the entire dictionary formatted in one format (US or Commonwealth), then have exceptions.  Example:  A US dictionary would have an entry for 'Tyre' with the notation (brit. var. 'tire').  The problem with variant spellings is that everyone presumes the spelling in their nation is the only spelling that is the correct spelling, attempting to narrowly define their nationality as being 'right', while everyone else is wrong.  The idea that both might be right for two different nations never occurs to anyone.  For a good example of this idiocy, go to wikipedia and check out the various discussions regarding "Aluminum" and "Aluminium."  --User:67.0.196.235
 * An example I can think of right off the top of my head is the typical use of fiber for computer engineers. Often the British spelling varient, fibre, is used to denote fibre optic cables even among American engineers.  The history of this is a little obscure, and it isn't 100% used by professionals, but you will see it fairly often.  The difference is usually to give a more exacting meaning to the word (like byte instead of bite or nybble instead of nibble).  This is also done by computer professionals to piss off linguists, but that is another story altogether.  -Robert Horning 15:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I contest the validity of the asertion regarding fibre. I nor anyone I know has ever missued fibre in that way.  We've had fiber for years, and I've never seen it misspelt as fibre as you say is "often."  Furthermore, in computer programming in America, there are nibbles, not nybbles.  --Connel MacKenzie 14:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * English spelling can be grouped into three main varieties: U.S. English, Commonwealth English (excl. Canadian English) and Canadian English. Commonwealth English (UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand...) has a broader scope and should therefore be used instead of British English when describing variants. Canadian English is a special case, because it uses both British and American spellings (colour, centre, travelling, aluminum, tire, to analyze). U.S. English should be used instead of American English, because it's more precise. TomBrown 15:04, 26 May 2005
 * Australian English is also like Canadian English, often accepting either US or UK spelling. And I'm sure that is increasingly so for many countries that have use English and have both UK and American influences. So I can't see any value in using the terminology "Commonwealth English". Either a word follows the UK/British spelling or the US spelling, or it's own particular way.--Richardb 09:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's not sacrifice accuracy for the sake of typing convenience. An entry should be correct.  That simple classificiation scheme ("U.K./U.S./other") is downright wrong.  There are words that are general Commonwealth English because they are in the vocabulary of many Commonwealth countries (such as colour) and there are words that are more specifically as United Kingdom English (such as chav), Indian English (such as funda), and so forth, because they are mainly restricted to those countries. (Indeed, it's arguable that chav isn't even United Kingdom English, but specifically British English, since its use in Northern Ireland is largely only as the result of external sources, given that the local word is spide.)  The "British/American" distinction is what is taught in schools to children.  But it's one of the infamous lies to children.  The subdivisions and distinctions are a whole lot more complex in actual fact, and I for one would like Wiktionary to give the real story rather than a simplification.  (After all, Wikipedia attempts to describe the complexity, with articles on the many different Englishes, and Wiktionary is supposed to be its "lexical companion", and so should do nothing less.)  This policy think-tank, talking as it does about "American or British Spelling", is in fact entirely ill-founded. Uncle G 03:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Another proposal
I proposed this elsewhere, and I think it solves the problem of favo(u)ring one variant over another. Something like this was half-adopted and then seemed to be killed off.

Let's take the old chestnut colo(u)r as an example. Create a single page with both variants listed, possibly in alphabetical order to avoid claims of bias, perhaps as "color, colour". Put all details of both/all variants on this page. Make color and colour into redirect pages to this "dual page". All pages linking to "color" and "colour" will be redirected to the dual page.

Senses that have one spelling only in both languages but are not different words (such as "program", which is the spelling used on both sides of the Atlantic for "computer program") could be flagged as such, for example, as:

 * 1) (program) (computing) A computer program.

For pages such as "tire/tyre", put all common treatment on the dual page. Add a "see also tire" at the bottom of the page, which will treat the other senses of "tire" that are spelt this way in all forms of English. The page for "tire" will not be a redirect to "tire, tyre" in this case, but will have its own "see also" for the "tire/tyre" sense.

I think this would avoid transatlantic linguistic quarrel(l)ing, accusations of bias towards one particular flavo(u)r of English and unnecessary duplication of effort when a user sees that the spelling of a word in their form of English is missing and does not realise that the content is already at another spelling. — Paul G 11:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I was following you up until the "program" example. I think the problem we're facing, and it's one we will continue to face and which will continue to get worse, is that the international forms of the language are drifting further apart while simultaneously bastardising each other. The wiktionary is an opportunity to overcome those differences while also keeping a record of changes over time. A "dual page" will not allow for the possibilities that "color" and "colour", to use your example may at one time both be used to mean different things (or at least I don't think it does). jonny 16:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Jonny, can you give an example of where a word means different things at one time? I don't understand what this means or see how it can be possible.  Is it covered by my suggestion of how to treat "program"?  Note that my proposal still allows for definitions that are particular to just one variety of English, such as "queue", which, in UK English, means a line of people waiting for something (US equivalent: "line"), while the computing sense (a FIFO data structure) is used in all varieties of English.  This would look something like this, and is how we already treat this issue:

 * 1) (UK) A line of people waiting for something.
 * 2) A FIFO data structure.

What I dislike about the color, colour page concept, well a couple things actually. There are reasons this met fierce resistance when it was tried in the past. I do not like the way that it depends on the redirects not being messed with. I dislike the fact that the relevant data is no where near either spelling, but instead on some bastard page somewhere. I dislike the blaring headline that announces to the world that we can't figure out a decent way to agree that separate words (that are very closely related) are in fact separate words. I dislike the fact that not only does it not remove the which-comes-first issue but in fact exaggerates it, making it an even more prominent issue. I dislike this method's lack of flexibility (e.g. theater/theatre.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * But doesn't everything depend on stuff not being messed with? The "stuff" might vary, but the possibility of someone messing with something exists at all levels in Wiki. Personally, I think the "whichever was entered first" idea is not good. It might create an interesting race for those who are really concerned about a particular form of spelling being superior, but otherwise, it will lead to confusion (and increase the probability of flame wars). I say nix that proposal. -BrianD1 01:34, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

la:Victionarium:Normae_lemmatum_Anglicorum

A modification to this proposal

Surely the best approach would be to enhance the software so that a page could have an 'include' entry which would cause the included test to appear on the same page.

Thus you would have a page for the headword 'Colour' and a page for the headword 'Color' and each of these pages would simply contain some code for 'include color::detail' which would then be appended but without its own headword.

That way, you look up 'colour', and there it is. Look up 'color' and there it is. No extra access for the user and everyone should be happy.

Discussions
Discussions on American and British spellings:
 * Beer_parlour_archive/October-December_05, August 2005
 * Beer_parlour_archive/2006/March, Match 2006
 * Beer parlour, January 2011

title: Wiktionary:American or British Spelling


text:
celebrare

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to celebrate, observe, perform, commemorate
 * 2) to vaunt, glorify, worship

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) celebration

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: celebrare


text:
Wiktionary talk:American or British Spelling

Intro to Policy discussion page
Previous discussions around this topic can be found at Policy Think Tank on American or British Spelling/discussion archive.

This discussion page is intended for the freshest of discussions, and stale stuff should be archived every so often to Policy Think Tank on American or British Spelling/discussion archive--Richardb 09:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Please Explain Changes
I've put up my inital thoughts for a Draft Policy in Development in order to provoke discussion. I guess you can either discuss that here before finding a consensus to change it, or, this being a Wiki, you can just go ahead and change it. But, if you do just go ahead and change it, please expalin to the rest of us the reasoning for any substantive changes you make.--Richardb 09:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Conventions
There exists a convention already to label commonwealth alternatives as "UK" to save some friggin' typing. American English likewise is not AmEng but simply "US". Canadian alternative are much rarer, as well as much less controversial; the convention to date has been to label them "Canadian".

What are people's thoughts on moving towards 🇺🇸, and 🇨🇦 to tag these? --Connel MacKenzie 22:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure if this "convention" is the right approach... Some people might try to look up Australian usage/spelling and all they'll find is UK, US. That's not really helpful. TomBrown 06:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Australia is very non-prescriptive about spelling. Though mostly UK spelling is preferred, either UK or US spelling is generally acceptable. So I cannot see any/much use for an "Aus" label for spelling. Only for usage.--Richardb 03:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The convention exists as this is primarily (as someone wisely pointed out) as issue of American vs. everyone else. Therefore the tag UK encompasses all commonwealth variations.  The order-of-magnitude-smaller variations between Australia and UK can quite simply (and are) labelled as such.
 * Got any examples of where an Aus spelling tag exists ????--Richardb 03:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure. Wikisearch says 369, e.g.: TFN RACWA crow eater sandgroper dunny sprinkles boardies Sydneyite sunnies wheelie bin sundry donk etc.  --Connel MacKenzie 02:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * These are not Aus spelling variants. They are specific Australian "Words" or specific Australian Usages. Without actually checking them,not one of them shows a distinctly Australian spelling.--Richardb 14:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point: the US and UK words are different words. Not as obviously different, perhaps, but they are different.  Saying that they are not is not NPOV!  --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * The Wiktionary policies pages, I thought, were intended to reflect practices, not dictate them. If so, then representing the "US" and "UK" convention is the correct thing to do, as that is how articles are currently labelled.  In the very very few cases where this is not appropriate, that same convention is amended for whatever country the variation exists for.
 * My question is about using templates to reflect them (so that downstream the text "UK" could conceivably be replaced with "British Commonwealth varient form" or somesuch...(but that wording would be a separate flamewar.) --Connel MacKenzie 12:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Note: another reason why and  wouldn't suffice is that the UK itself is hardly unified (in the way the US is) when it comes to spelling. Indeed, many software developers are, in fact, arguing that there should be two British English spell-checkers, just as there are in Norwegian: 1) what most people use, and 2) what some recognized authority would use. In the case of British English, that authority would be Oxford, and they would find my spelling here perfect. But most Englishmen would peg me as an American (or Oxfordian because of the 'Z' in "recognize."  --BrianD1 01:23, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Do not use UK to denote spellings or words that are used all over the Commonwealth. This is like using Massachusetts to denote US English words. Do not use the term British Commonwealth because the Commonwealth is not British: it belongs equally to all member nations. And worst of all, do not use Chiefly British to denote spellings that are more common outside the island of Great Britain than they are inside. Try adding the English speaking populations of Canada, Australia, India, Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa together, for a start. 210.86.118.15 07:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wictionary should not be archaic. With the rapid rise of "tweeting" and the terrific volume of highly abbreviated texting going on, Wiktionary should also show the most common abbreviated spelling of longer words. In this vein, I would again direct attention to "capitl inglish". It Usis capitls N u difrnt wA. thus inglish wrdz R spLd az thA sownd. an avrAg pAg iz tIpt with 15% fUr cairictrs. for u mas uv rImz ritn N capitl inglish sE greensuit.org.


text:
-some

Etymology 1
From, , from , from , from , from. Akin to 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬,. Cognate with 🇨🇬. More at same.

Suffix

 * 1)  Characterized by some specific condition or quality, usually to a considerable degree.

Etymology 2
From, from a specialized use of coming after a genitive plural (e.g. hē wæs fēowertiga sum  --"he was one of forty", literally "he was forties' some[one]"; sixa sum --"one of six, sixsome").

Suffix

 * 1)  Denoting a group with a certain number of members.

Etymology 3
From.

Suffix

 * 1)   Body.

Etymology 4
From previous sense “body” (from ), by analogy with.

Suffix

 * 1)  Chromosome.

Etymology 5
From in its "approximately" sense; more at some § Etymology.

Suffix

 * 1) Plus some indeterminate fraction not amounting to the next higher round number or significant digit; and change; -odd.
 * twenty-some identifiable factors affecting the outcome
 * one-hundred-and-fifty-some spectators in the bleachers

Etymology 1
From, , from , from , from.

Suffix

 * 1)  With nouns and verbs in an active and passive sense, implying “inclined to, full of, causing or caused by”.

Etymology 2
From, from a specialized use of coming after a genitive plural.

Suffix

 * 1)  As a suffix after cardinal numbers to denote a group, company, team, etc. of that number together or thought of as a unit.

title: -some


text:
Wiktionary:Capitalization

Entries (or "articles") in Wiktionary are case sensitive, meaning that two entries that differ only in capitalization are different entries. For example:
 * Turner is the entry for the English surname.
 * turner is the entry for the English word.
 * Likewise Bible is different from bible (the Christian/Jewish scriptures versus any comprehensive or authoritative source)

Such entries should point to each other using the "also" template. For example, the Turner entry starts with the wiki markup:
 *

If you find an entry that you believe has the wrong capitalization, simply move it yourself, request that an administrator move the page (if your attempt to move it fails), or ask for opinions on whether it should be moved on the entry's talk page or in the Tea room.

For phrases and other multiple-word entries, the correct capitalization is that which would be used if the phrase appeared in the middle (or end) of a regular sentence (i.e., in "running text"):
 * 1) Correct: hit the bottle
 * 2) * Incorrect: Hit the bottle
 * 3) * Incorrect: Hit the Bottle
 * 4) Correct: Pythagorean theorem
 * 5) * Incorrect: Pythagorean Theorem
 * 6) * Incorrect: pythagorean theorem

As compared to Wikipedia
Wiktionary's capitalization policy is different from that of Wikipedia and most other Wikimedia projects. For those other projects, the page name is a title and always has its first letter capitalized. But that capitalization is confusing and inappropriate for Wiktionary, so it has been disabled. (As a technical note, this is achieved by having Wiktionary run with the MediaWiki parameter  parameter set to false.)

title: Wiktionary:Capitalization


text:
fired

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) dismissed, terminated from employment.
 * 2)  Heated in a furnace, kiln, etc., to become permanently hardened.

Translations

 * German:
 * Hungarian:

 * Greek:

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to split
 * 2) to separate

title: fired


text:
tourism

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) The act of travelling or sightseeing, particularly away from one's home.
 * Mass tourism damaged the beach.
 * 1) The industry in which such travels and sightseeing are organized.
 * Tourism brings a lot of tax revenue to the area.
 * 1)  The act of visiting another region or jurisdiction for a particular purpose.
 * libel tourism; suicide tourism; sex tourism

Translations

 * Afrikaans: toerisme
 * Albanian: turizm
 * Arabic: سِيَّاحَة
 * Egyptian Arabic: سياحة
 * Aragonese: torismo
 * Armenian: ,
 * Assamese: পৰ্যটন
 * Asturian: turismu
 * Azerbaijani: turizm
 * Basque:
 * Belarusian: туры́зм
 * Bengali:
 * Bulgarian:
 * Catalan:
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:, 游覽, ,
 * Czech:, turismus
 * Danish: turisme
 * Dutch:
 * Esperanto:
 * Estonian: turism
 * Finnish: ,
 * French:
 * Galician:
 * Georgian: ტურიზმი
 * German:
 * Greek:
 * Hebrew:
 * Hindi:, टूरिज़्म,
 * Hungarian:
 * Icelandic: ferðamennska
 * Ido:
 * Indonesian:
 * Irish: turasóireacht
 * Italian:
 * Japanese: ,
 * Kazakh: туризм
 * Khmer: ទេសចរណ៍
 * Korean:
 * Kurdish:
 * Northern Kurdish: ,
 * Kyrgyz:
 * Lao:
 * Latvian: tūrisms
 * Lithuanian: turizmas
 * Luxembourgish: Tourismus
 * Macedonian: тури́зам
 * Malay:
 * Malayalam: ,
 * Marathi: पर्यटन
 * Mongolian:
 * Cyrillic:
 * Norwegian: turisme
 * Bokmål: turisme
 * Nynorsk: turisme
 * Occitan:
 * Pashto:, ټوريزم
 * Persian:, ,
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese:
 * Romanian:
 * Russian:
 * Sanskrit: ,
 * Sardinian: turismu
 * Scots: tourism
 * Serbo-Croatian:
 * Cyrillic: турѝзам
 * Roman:
 * Sinhalese: සංචාරක
 * Slovak: turistika, turizmus
 * Slovene:
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish:
 * Tagalog: turismo
 * Tajik: ҷаҳонгардӣ, саёҳат,, сайёҳат
 * Thai:
 * Turkish:
 * Turkmen: syýahatçylyk, turizm
 * Ukrainian: тури́зм
 * Urdu: سیاحت, ٹورزم
 * Uyghur: ساياھەچىلىك
 * Uzbek:
 * Vietnamese:, ,
 * Yiddish: טוריזם

 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Danish:
 * Finnish:
 * German: ,
 * Icelandic:
 * Indonesian:
 * Irish: turasóireacht
 * Italian:
 * Malay:
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian:
 * Spanish:

 * Basque:
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Danish:
 * Finnish:, turistit
 * German:, Reiseverkehr
 * Italian:
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian:
 * Spanish:

 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:, 游覽, ,
 * Danish:
 * Finnish:
 * German:
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian:
 * Spanish:

title: tourism


text:
legislation

Etymology
From. Morphologically

Noun

 * 1) The act of legislating; preparation and enactment of laws.
 * 2) Law which has been enacted by legislature or other governing body
 * 1) Law which has been enacted by legislature or other governing body
 * 1) Law which has been enacted by legislature or other governing body
 * 1) Law which has been enacted by legislature or other governing body

Translations

 * Arabic:
 * Asturian: llexislación
 * Azerbaijani: qanunvericilik
 * Belarusian: заканада́ўства
 * Bulgarian: законода́телство
 * Catalan: legislació
 * Cebuano: lehislasyon
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Czech: zákonodárství
 * Dutch: ,
 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * Galician:
 * Georgian: კანონმდებლობა
 * German:
 * Greek:
 * Ancient: νομοθεσία
 * Hungarian:
 * Indonesian:, ,
 * Irish: reachtaíocht
 * Italian:
 * Japanese: 法制化, ,
 * Korean: ,
 * Latin: lēgislātiō
 * Macedonian: законодавство
 * Malay: penggubalan
 * Maltese: leġiżlazzjoni
 * Maori: whakaturetanga
 * Norman: législâtion
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: lovgivning
 * Persian:
 * Iranian Persian: قانون‌گُذاری
 * Polish: prawodawstwo, ,
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian:
 * Serbo-Croatian:
 * Cyrillic: законода́вство
 * Roman:
 * Slovak: zákonodarstvo
 * Slovene: zakonodaja
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish:
 * Turkish: ,
 * Ukrainian: законода́вство
 * Vietnamese:

 * Arabic: ,
 * Asturian: llexislación
 * Belarusian: зако́н
 * Cebuano: lehislasyon
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: ,
 * Czech:
 * Dutch:
 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * Galician:
 * Georgian: კანონი
 * German:
 * Greek:
 * Ancient: νομοθέτημα
 * Hungarian: becikkelyezett törvény
 * Indonesian:
 * Irish: reachtaíocht
 * Italian:
 * Japanese:
 * Korean:
 * Malay: akta
 * Maltese: leġiżlazzjoni
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: lovgivning
 * Persian:
 * Iranian Persian:
 * Polish:, prawodawstwo
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian:
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish:
 * Ukrainian:

title: legislation


text:
freely

Etymology 1
From, , from , equivalent to. Compare 🇨🇬,, 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) Free; frank.
 * 2) Generous; noble; excellent; beautiful; lovely.

Etymology 2
From, , from , equivalent to. Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Adverb

 * 1) In a free manner.
 * 2) Without interference or restriction.
 * 3) Of one's own free will.
 * 1) Of one's own free will.
 * 1) Of one's own free will.
 * 1) Of one's own free will.

Derived terms

 * breathe freely

Translations

 * Bulgarian:
 * Catalan:
 * Esperanto: laŭvole
 * French:
 * Galician:
 * German:
 * Italian:
 * Latin: spontē, līberē
 * Lithuanian: laisvai
 * Old English: frēoliċe
 * Polish: ,
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian: ,
 * Spanish: libremente
 * Telugu:

 * Greek:
 * Ancient: ἀνέδην
 * Latin: līberē

title: freely


text:
Wilhelm

Etymology
Borrowed from. .

Etymology
From.

Etymology
From from.

Etymology
, from.

Proper noun

 * , the spelling origin of

Interjection

 * 1) The letter "W" (double-u) in the Swedish spelling alphabet

title: Wilhelm


text:
Wiktionary talk:Capitalization

April 1 2005 d day
As there is no discussion going on about the technical way in which we will convert after the change of en:wiktionary of the first character capitalisation, I intent to ask the developers to turn first character capitalisation on the first of April. There is no point in prolonging the waiting period when there is no practical technical discussion going on. GerardM 21:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You speak for yourself, I think. I have serious reservations about the purported magnitude of the switch. Knowing now that all German nouns are capitalized is a very salient reason to reconsider this switch. Particularly when it is being discussed, and apparently will therefore break the current functionality of the "Go" button. --Connel MacKenzie 04:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Furthermore, the lack of discussion about how to convert after the change is due to the ambiguity of what the change will actually do.
 * The supposed lack of discussion is a reason to delay the switch, not a reason to rush it. --Connel MacKenzie 04:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * There is ample experience with not capitalised wiktionaries. There is also ample experience with the work generated by it. I have converted the nl:wiktionary have helped with many others convert. It is just a lot of WORK. With an overwhelming majority to change the move from capitalised articles, there is no reason no to. GerardM 07:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Gerard, can you please let things go their merry way. Change takes time. The fact that you, as an outsider to this Wiktionary, are going to talk to developers to make the switch for us, is NOT helping. We are perfectly able to talk to the developers ourselves, if and when the time comes to do so. It's probably going to be before the 1st of May, but it's certainly not going to be before the 1st of April.
 * If this switch is going to be made, it will be because the English Wiktionary community is convinced that it is a good idea. Making the switch in a rushed way and having contributors disgruntled is not an option. It is a pity that the entire Wiktionary community is not behind it. I deplore for instance that Hippietrail opposes it so much. I should probably try to find out why this is the case, but I don't seem to find the time to do so. Just like I don't find the time to do so many other things that would be useful. Polyglot 07:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not mind to wait. BUT there is no discussion on how this change is to be done. If there WAS discussion you would have a point. The community has voted several weeks ago decisevely. So your argument that the whole community needs to be convinced is irrelevant because the opposing people have been outvoted. That is the sorry way of voting. The other side of this coin is that it makes change possible. As to being an outsider, I have a sufficient number of edits on the en:wiktionary to make that a silly notion.

 * The fact that some people are opposed can be found in their voting against. We passed that stage. There is no technical discussion. So there is no point in waiting. GerardM 09:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Just out of interest - I don't remember seeing a fallback plan that we can take if things go pearshaped. For instance, if we split an entry into a capitalized and non-capitalized forms and then have to revert to the current system, will those two pages both be available? SemperBlotto 09:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * There is no fall back plan. The mess just needs to be cleaned up. That is all there is to it. GerardM 19:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't understand why one would want to stick to first letter capitalization. Capitalization is an integral part of the German language for instance, and hence should be respected. The earlier we switch, the better and the less work there is to do. GerardM, please ask the developers to turn off first letter capitalization. Ncik 31 Mar 2005

 * Ncik, that is a psychotic suggestion. As Polyglot pointed out earlier, this notion does not currently have full backing from the community. I'd like a reason to support this switch, but as of right now, I have enough information at my disposal to object strongly to this.

 * Please do not do any such thing, until you can accurately describe what happens when thousands of German nouns become the preferred lookup match for what would otherwise be lowercase English words...and 99.99% of the time the "user" is trying to find the English word. There are thousands of German nouns. Having a notion that Wiktionary lookups will work fine for all but a couple thousand words is NOT a good idea.

 * Do not just turn this on. It can't be turned off. It is likely to break tousands of normal lookups. And the "disambiguation page" work-around has not been accurately described. There are several variations I can think of off the top of my head - which one is going to be the recommended one?

 * Or is the intent to have Wikipedia style disambiguation pages, or just cross references at the top of each page? If the later, then lookups will certainly be broken.

 * When I voted Yes to this, it seemed clear there would be a hundred or so pages that would need immediate attention, and at most several hundred other pages that could be affected. It is clear now that the magnitude of the "trivial" change is many thousands of disambiguation pages (therefore at least twice as many other page modifications) with no one volunteering to help automate the task.

 * At least two four sysops would be REALLY pissed off by such an action.

 * --Connel MacKenzie 00:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I am a sysop in many projects. It does not make me special. It does not give me extra rights. It gives me a few extra options that are handy. I can change articles to undercase like in the Kanji stuff. Am happy to do those. I can get all articles changed in many ways if we decide to do it. What pisses me off is that this decision is being stonewalled. GerardM 21:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This change will mean that almost all pages will have to be moved and quite a few will have to be split. The only pages that will stay as they were will be the pages describing proper nouns. I'm sorry this wasn't clear when I relaunched the vote. I had taken it for granted and thought it was obvious. German nouns are always capitalized. The problem for German is with all the other parts of speech. Adjectives, adverbs etc are never capitalized. In French adjectives aren't capitalized either. So Français is a person and français is the adjective and (maybe oddly) the name for the language. Each language has its own rules, which is why I believe capitalization is important and should be represented in the titles. Polyglot 08:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Ployglot, I had that basic understanding yes. I think that we should be headed toward a more technically acurate Wiktionary. I had thought a one time MySQL conversion would convert all to start with lower case, and "we" would manually have to move pages to their capitalized meaning. Barring that, it could be done much slower by bots. BUT, I still do not see how having a separate entry for the German noun Kind would not break a "normal" lookup for the English word kind. If the "Go" button really does always search the upper-case varient first, it is a massive long-term problem. Would we then have Wikipedia style disambiguation pages at kind that link to Kind (German noun), kind (English noun) and kind (English adjective)? That quickly leads to madness. (Some of us don't need any help, there!) --Connel MacKenzie 17:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually I think German is a spurious example anyway--the German rules say nouns are _always_ capitalized, but titles are already capitalized here. There's no German rule that says all non-nouns are decapitalized in all contexts; in fact they do capitalize in titles, which is why the German Wikipedia lives with capitalized titles, and the only wikipedias that differ are artificial languages that do have such rules about decapitalization, e.g. tlh and tokipona. (Nevertheless, the communis opinio seems to be that decapitalization is somehow essential.) —Muke Tever 00:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * What? All words will have their initial letter Capitalised? I assumed that they would all be made lowercase, and we would only have to change Proper (and German) nouns and the like. I now formally change my mind and vote No. SemperBlotto 09:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * In relply to Muke: Entries in dictionaries are not titles. Dictionary entries always distinguish between upper and lower case. In reply to Connel MacKenzie: That's why it wont be necessary to have disambiguation pages. In reply to SemperBlotto: Whatever people assume or suggest here, it will be technically possible to change all entries and links to lower case so that one only has to capitalize proper nouns, German substantives, and a very few more. Ncik 08 Apr 2005

 * Yes, entries in dictionaries are not titles. But the part of a wiktionary article that corresponds to the "entry" or headword is that line that reads: "word (plural: words)" (or whatever). The title of a Wiktionary article is something that corresponds to no part of a conventional dictionary entry. (For an example, compare the title מאדים with its headword מַאַדִים—the headword is displayed as it would be in a print Hebrew-English dictionary, and the title is displayed as an ordinary title, which you likely wouldn't see in a print dictionary's format.) —Muke Tever 00:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Ncik, my point is that if Wiktionary turns the switch on and does not have (detestable) disambiguation pages, the Go button will cease to function, because it will select the German Noun instead of the desired main English article page. This "glitch" was not apparent (or perhaps downplayed) when the issue was brought up for re-vote. If the English Wiktionary was like print English Dictionaries, we could follow their rules, but a very important difference (right or wrong) is that it includes all words in all languages. --Connel MacKenzie 14:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * At this moment we are still not honoring the overwhelming decision to end first character capitalisation. I think it should be relatively easy to change all words to undercase. The idea of what turning off does could be easily discovered in other projects like the nl:wiktionary among many others. The idea of how the "go" button works is of marginal importance in this whole question because people do not enter "Word" when they search for something but they type in "word". So this is a non issue. GerardM 09:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * A delay is not a case of "not honoring" the (questionable) decision. Even more relevant is that in the initial vote, no timeline was given: that issue was specifically postponed to be discussed after implementation details were worked out.
 * I'm sorry Gerard, but your assertion about the "Go" button simply is not true. An automatic spell check that uses Wiktionary as its reference will submit capitalized first letters whenever they start a sentence, or appear in a title, or start a list (etc.)
 * Another example: For doing concordances, sometimes capitalization matters, other times it does not. Right now, making the assumption that all terms are lower case "works" - in that entering a term will get you to the page that has the information one desires somwhere on it (on the first hit, no less.) With the switch, that is no longer the case. Kind at the start of the sentence will not get you to the English word kind even if that was what was intended, and even if you do follow the link to the German word.
 * Thank you for the suggestion to (again) check a foriegn language Wiktionary. Searching the "All Pages" special page, I found nl:búlgaro and nl:Búlgaro. This looks like a good example of what is intended (by myself as well, by the way.) That is NOT the case I am saying is broken. There are thousands of German nouns. And for all of them, some of the time, no only will en.Wiktionary display the "wrong" (undesired) page, but there would be no cross link between the two titles! And worse still, there would be no outward indication that the lower case page even exists. --Connel MacKenzie 14:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * First of all, calling a decision questionable shows you to be a bad loser. I take it that you do not mean it like that. Deciding to not implement because there should be first endless discussions about how to do it gives an appearance that you want to wiggle out from under the decision to implement what has been decided upon. There is ample experience with implementation. There are several suggestions how it can be done with less effort. It has even been suggested that doing it all by hand would be best because it provides for an opportunity to do some much needed quality control.

 * That is a needless personal attack, particularly when (if you check the history) you'd see that I have been more of an advocate of the case change than an opponent! The vote was questionable; it was questioned and proven to be skewed, misleading and overall wildly misrepresentative. (Not by me!)
 * Why you are trying to rush the implementation is not apparent. The issue is still being debated and you wish to make it a fait accompli. That speaks very poorly of you, and your tactics, sir.
 * --Connel MacKenzie 13:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * We are a dictionary we are not usefull for automatic spell check. Given the lack of structure of the English wiktionary it will never be usefull for this purpose. With proper software you can allow for a word to be capitalised under certain conditions. German nouns are ALWAYS capitalised while English nouns only under specific conditions. By having words in undercase you allow for a rule to capitalise. By having them all in uppercase it is not evident that the word may need to be NOT capitalised.

 * Given the definition of concordance, I do not understand what you mean.
 * I was referring to Concordances. To give perhaps a better, more tangible example; ro vs. RO. One link is red. Entering "ro" then pressing "Go" you are directed to the "wrong" page. Given that the current proposal is to add thousands of "wrong" capitalization entries, this problem is likely to expand as a result of the proposed capitalization change. --Connel MacKenzie 13:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * NOTE: at 05:04, 15 Apr 2005 User:Mike added the lower case entry. This example now better exposes the concept of articles being related only by capitalization, not having any cross reference.  --Connel MacKenzie 01:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The words búlgaro and Búlgaro are two different occurences they are distinct words. They are not related. There is no cross link as there should not be. You either look for the one or for the other. When I look for the undercase word and press OK i get the word, with uppercase dito... (I do not understand what I am missing here) GerardM 21:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * What you missed is that I do not know the correct spelling of the word on nl:. If I am looking up a term, the two varients should be reachable. Right now, only one is (from the "Go" button.) And the one is not cross referenced from the other, so I have no indication that I found the completely wrong definition! --Connel MacKenzie 13:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * None of the points the Connel is trying to make is a point: Automated spellchecks (whatever he's in mind) wont work if the dictionary used contains misspelled words. As said before, the spellchecking program will have to make sure that words follwing full stops are looked up in upper and lower case, and that it is looked up in the right language (so German Kind and English kind doesn't constitute a problem). They are problematic of course if mathematical or other scientific texts are checked, or text in multiple languages. Abbrevations are another problem since they are normally followed by a dot, which a program generally can't distinguish from a full stop, etc. Implementing a case insensitive search function might be a good idea anyway: Not only the first letter is concerned but others as well: Suppose I'm looking up the word UNO in an Italian text which, for some reason (maybe because it's a warning), is capitalized throughout. One will assume it's "uno", maybe try "Uno" just in case it's a name, but completely forget that it might just be the UN Organisation (slightly bad example since everyone knows the UNO, but there will be better ones). "búlgaro" would actually have a crosslink to "Búlgaro" if anyone could be bothered to add the translations. But there are even better examples: Eg take the German pronoun "mein" and the noun "Mein". These words have nothing in common except their pronunciation (just realize that there will be a link in the "Homophones" section. Even better. If there really are words that have nothing in common except that one is written capitalized and the other isn't, why should there be a crosslink??). It is common sense that a dictionary distinguishes between upper and lower case. Hence it is the user's responsibility to enter words correctly. If the user doesn't know the correct spelling he should be able to use a powerful search function. This is not only about first letter capitalization, but also about diacritics, which are omitted in may texts, the German letter ß and the umlauts, which are often rendered (especially in the world of the computer) as "ss", "ae", "oe", and "ue" respectively, and probably many, many more examples. First letter decapitalisation must not be delayed any longer though. We better trouble users that don't know the exact spelling of a word till a better search is available than having to change many tenthousand words more later on. Ncik 11 Apr 2005
 * I am sorry you have the opinion that you do. The simple fact that a person looking up a word may or may not know the correct capitalization or spelling should be enough for you to realize that forcing the search to default to the wrong capitalization for thousands of terms is the wrong approach. --Connel MacKenzie 13:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I get the feeling you don't have a problem with first letter decapitalization but with the current search functionality. If that's the case, I agree with you. Ncik 13 Apr 2005

 * The current search functionality only works with all-capitalized first letters. In concept, I'd like to see separate entries for Catholic vs. catholic. You are proposing to a database design change that the current search capability clearly does not handle well. --Connel MacKenzie 01:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that more people are interested in making debating points about this than in trying to find a solution to the problems. The vote was about the principle of having the first letter case sensitive. I certainly made that point when the vote began. Keeping the operation of the search function, and transition issues out of the vote was intentional. The results of the vote were overwhelming clear. Any suggestion that the results were somehow "skewed", or "misrepresentative", or "misleading", or whatever else of the ilk is an insult to the intelligence of everybody that voted "yes". We voted for the principle of having case sensitive first letters, nothing more, nothing less.
 * It is misrepresentative to suggest, as you do now, that I am insulting myself! --Connel MacKenzie 01:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * When you make unfounded claims about improprieties in the voting process you can expect such reactions. Eclecticology 08:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Having read the historically relevant pages, I can't imagine how you say my claims were unfounded. --Connel MacKenzie 02:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most of the difficulties that have been raised are about problems to be solved, not about insurmountable roadblocks that would defeat the principal objective. I have been critical of Gerard's impatience, and he has at least recognized that it takes time to get things done right. I am far more critical of the whiners who keep finding excuses for why the change can't be made. This has nothing to do with other people's spell checkers; if they work or don't work it's their problem, not ours. This has nothing to do with concordances, or trying to define what we mean by "title". It has nothing to do with the "Go" button or trying to guess whether users search with an upper or lower case first letter. It probably will need some fixing, but that can come later when a developer has a chance to look at it. I don't hear any complaints from the other language Wiktionaries that the "Go" button is a big problem.
 * I revoked my "Yes" vote because this does seem to be an insurmountable problem. Comparing this Wiktionary to others is not fair; each language has its own capitalization requirements. Since we include all words in all languages, and we enter all our words decapitalized, the normal search mode after the change will be to find the wrong word. That has nothing to do with imaginary spell checkers. That has nothing to do with my example from the concordances. It is confounded by ambiguous terminology, where "title" can refer to a database entry key, an automated heading or a free text portion of an entry.
 * What truly irks me, is that no one has described how they think a "split" article should be split. Is your proposal to have no links between articles (that are only related by their coincidental different capitalization)? Or are you proposing that "split" articles be given a disambiguation page? --Connel MacKenzie 01:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cross references will be needed when articles need to be split, but it's pointless to complain about their failure to magically appear. In the present setup they serve no useful purposes. They will all need to be written manually when each article is split.
 * What Gerard pointed to as an example did not have any cross references between articles. Are you saying that the German noun Kind will have a "See also" link to the English word kind and vice-versa? Or by "Cross references" to you mean Kind will be a disambiguation page that points to Kind (German noun), kind (English noun) and kind (English adjective)? --Connel MacKenzie 01:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I favour cross references like "see kind" and "see Kind" with the actual wording and placement to be determined later. For most of these articles the split will be into only two pages and no more. The disambiguation pages, as you describe them, seem to produce unduly awkward page titles. Eclecticology 08:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sorry I missed this particular post for as long as I did. I agree that the disambiguation approach is unwieldy. If I get a chunk of time soon, I'll see what I can parse out of the sql dump to get an idea of the magnitude of all this. As you say, the wording and placement will come later - when we see it in practice. Unfortunately, I would think that "botting" the x-refs at the top and bottom of the page might be reasonable as a first pass (so the excess can be bot-removed later.) I guess we'll have to see how it turns out. (You all are still planning on edging forward with this idea eventually, despite mine and others objections?)
 * Also, is there any sort of consensus on whether to link articles (whose only relation is upper-case/lower-case) as a matter of informal policy? --Connel MacKenzie 02:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with the solution that the first letter of all article titles be changed to lower case. That would improve nothing in any meaningful way. The links that now begin with a lower case letter are probably mostly correct. Because of the general unwillingness to seek solutions I find myself getting closer to Gerard's view that the change should be sooner rather than later. When the switch is made active a bot should be started that will change the title for those articles where all links to it begin with a lower case letter. Where this single criterion is not met something like Category:Please check should be added to the page. After that we can visit each so categorized article, and either move the page manually, split the page, or simply remove the category tag if no change is needed. If someone wants to write the bot, the changeover can be made shortly after it is ready. Let's get past all this unseemly bickering. Eclecticology 07:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I volunteer for writing a bot. Haven't done this before but can't be that difficult, and I'm willing to put some work in. Someone will have to tell me where I can find information on how to write a Wiktionary bot. There should also be some people involved who know what kind of problems may arise. I think I roughly know what Wiktionary currently looks like with respect to European languages, but haven't got a clue when it comes to Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, etc. Ncik 17 Apr 2005
 * Thank you. I am clueless about writing bots, so I can't help there. I may be a bit more helpful with the second question. Arabic, Chinese and Japanese do not present any problems because capitalization does not exist in those languages. The idea of capitalization is limited to languages with Roman and Cyrillic scripts, plus Greek and Armenian. Thus far we only have a handful of Armenian words, so it's not a big worry. Keep the bot as simple as possible. If there is any doubt about whether an article should be changed, don't, and let it be tagged for manual checking. The bot can probably be written to ignore articles with a title other than in the target scripts. Eclecticology 08:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=after the change=

Links from Wikipedia
The folks over at Wikipedia are trying to figure out how best to link to us now that we have decapitalized. If you'd like to weigh in, head to w:Template_talk:Wiktionary and put in your two cents. --Dvortygirl 03:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, but I don't think that there's much that I could do to help there. Eclecticology 05:44, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * As of last night, the default search for the "Go" button was improved to handle the 1st character case problem better. That may relieve some of their angst.  --Connel MacKenzie 13:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization - double redirects
The server-side script has moved some Uppercase redirects to lowercase - creating double redirects a -> b -> c.

Thus Transwiki was moved to transwiki and Down's syndrome was moved to down's syndrome. If you come across this, the Uppercase version needs to be edited to become a copy of the lowercase version, instead of a redirect to the lowercase version. Keep on trucking. SemperBlotto 1 July 2005 13:54 (UTC)
 * Why would we make the uppercase version a copy? Why don't we just reaim the redirects? 24 2 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)
 * You may have misread it; that is what he is asking you to do (in the case of a double redirect, a -> b -> c becomes a -> c and b -> c.)  --Connel MacKenzie 3 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)
 * http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:DoubleRedirects&limit=500&offset=0 if you are feeling helpful for these 79 or so entries. --Connel MacKenzie 3 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)

Capitalization is here!
It appears that our developers have stopped waiting for us to come to our own consensus and request that automatic first-letter capitalization be turned off, and made an arbitrary decision. This means that article titles should now begin with a lower-case letter, unless they are proper nouns or otherwise require capitalization (e.g. Tuesday). Therefore, please commence moving articles to the appropriate pages, breaking up articles that require different capitalizations, e.g. polish (to shine), and Polish (from Poland). This is an excellent opportunity, as well, to recheck and improve articles for conformance to current standards of article quality and formatting.

There are bots that can help with the transition. They exploit interwikis and the sections in the articles, where they exist, that have the word in bold, e.g. word. Bots can also help with deleting all of the redirects that so many moves will leave behind.

I recommend that the remaining nominations in Administrators and Bureaucrats be considered for approval soon, since this is going to be an enormous task. I would also recommend that we reach some consensus or policy on this transition, and perhaps on some of the related formatting cleanup quickly. Comments, all? --Dvortygirl 29 June 2005 20:58 (UTC)

 * Of course, I also see that the thing which should have been updated first—the Go button— hasn't been updated yet. You can click on the link here to get to the lowercase candela, but we cannot get there from the Go button to read it, even if you create the article, or move an existing one.  Gene Nygaard 29 June 2005 21:03 (UTC)

 * Important note: If you're moving an article that is in a namespace (for example, Template:), do NOT select "Move "talk" page as well, if applicable." as this will move the talk page in the main namespace. For example, moving Template:Wikipedia to Template:wikipedia with that option selected would move Talk:Wikipedia not Template talk:Wikipedia. Thankyou. --Wytukaze 29 June 2005 21:08 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense. What have our "developers" been smoking? 24 29 June 2005 22:34 (UTC)

 * Developers' drug habits aside, this has happened and we'll all just have to live with it. Some of us like it, some of us don't, but either way, we better fix our little project here so all the links work again. And it's rather too late to complain, the process has already started, reverting it would be more difficult. --Wytukaze 29 June 2005 22:38 (UTC)

 * The thing is, there's no damn reason whatsoever for each individual editor to have to reinvent the wheel to figure out how to cope with this. Wake up, fools.
 * The idiots doing this should have had someone explaining various little things to look out for. They should have initiated the discussion here, or on a special page for that purpose, rather than having it called to our attention by some random user paying attention to what was going on, long before those little notices ever started to appear at the top of our screens.  For example, it seems to me that links to lowercase spelling contained on an article page will link to the uppercase spelling, up until the time that the page containing the link is edited and saved.  Then it will link to the lowercase spelling?  Is that right?  Has anybody else figured that out independently?  Or did I just figure it out wrong, in the absense of any guidance?  Will that always be the case, or are there other steps involved in the implementation process which will deal with that?  Gene Nygaard 29 June 2005 23:07 (UTC)

'''This change was never supposed to have been made here until an automated fixup script was ready. Someone made the change without that being ready, and has not yet confessed to the crime. I'm working on a quick fixup script now, which hopefully should be ready in a few hours. Note that this will run much, much faster than any manual or bot attempt to rename pages. --Brion June 29, 2005 23:57 (UTC)'''

 * I've run the script. There's still cleanup to do, but the majority of entry pages are most probably now at their correct titles (lowercase). --Brion June 30, 2005 01:49 (UTC)

 * So now what the hell happens when I enter Kind, in that example everybody was talking about every time this discussion came up, as near as I can tell from various archives I've looked at? It takes me to the lowercase kind article, of course.  So where are all those people who wanted this to "work right"?
 * When I enter "kind" on the Go button, it takes me to kind. And when I enter Kind on the Go button, it also takes me to the same kind entry.  Same thing happens when I click on either of these links here.  So let's suppose I'm a real newbie, and not just a newbie here on Wiktionary.  How the hell do I enter anything in the Kind article, when I can't even get there?  How can I take the German noun out of "kind" and put it into "Kind"?  Did anybody ever think that it might be a good idea to tell all the editors how they can accomplish this?  Was it ever done anywhere, in any of the instructions on Wiktionary?  It isn't so hard, once you know how to do it.  But it would be nice if somebody made some effort to help people deal with the problems still left lingering, even after the magic pill of this "script" has been administered.  Gene Nygaard 30 June 2005 02:17 (UTC)

 * Then, of course, the next problem after I figure out how to move part of the kind article to the Kind article is this.
 * Should I also be adding some kind of link from kind to Kind, and from Kind to kind?
 * What kind of link should it be?
 * Where should it appear on the page?
 * Is there any template to help me accomplish this?
 * If not, can I create my own template to help me out?
 * If I do, where do I let other people know that I have done so, so that they could use it as well?
 * I think you get the idea. Where the hell is all this missing information?  Gene Nygaard 30 June 2005 02:24 (UTC)

 * Help:Redirect Uncle G 30 June 2005 03:58 (UTC)
 * Good grief, Uncle G. That's totally useless for the issue I've raised.  We will now have an article with substance at kind and another article with different substance at Kind.  We don't want to redirect "kind" to "Kind", and we don't want to redirect "Kind" to "kind". However, your mention of redirects leads us to the next problem.  Now that the scripts have been run and all the uppercase initials have been changed to lowercase, how do we get rid of all the useless redirects after we move united States of America to United States of America and the like.  We don't really need a redirect from new York and from charlie Brown and all the others like them, do we?  Let's throw them out en masse, without having to nominate each and every one of them for deletion.  Gene Nygaard 30 June 2005 04:26 (UTC)
 * It's far from totally useless. It answers the very questions that you asked above.  Uncle G 30 June 2005 09:59 (UTC)
 * So show me!!
 * If you can't see the forest for the trees, and if the answer appears under a topic different from what people would expect to find it in any case, it really isn't a sufficient answer even if you can "show me", is it? Gene Nygaard 30 June 2005 13:16 (UTC)

 * Maybe I misunderstood you, and you misunderstood me as well. It does, of course, answer the first question I brought up, the question of how do I get to the redirect page to put the new content in what used to be a redirect, and will now be a new entry under Kind distinct from the entry under kind.  See Help:Redirect.
 * But what that Help:Redirect] page does not answer, and does not address in any way, are the questions I raised as the nest problem. It doesn't tell us how to go about interlinking two existing pages, and where those links should be placed, or even whether or not they should be interlinked, and questions along those lines. Gene Nygaard 30 June 2005 13:47 (UTC)

''And it's rather too late to complain, the process has already started, reverting it would be more difficult. --Wytukaze''

 * Why on earth did the devs secretly tell only this contributor that a revert process would be more difficult? Or is this just misinformation? — Hippietrail 30 June 2005 04:14 (UTC)

Now if we truly are considered too childish to make our own decisions, what other secret changes are the devs planning to bestow on us without consultation nor warning? Perhaps they'll flip a coin on each controversial topic in the Beer parlour archives and implement their decisions one by one.

Now if it is here to stay and we are going to be obedient little serfs or guineapigs then they better damn well start implementing features for Wiktionary that we want, like fixing their braindead search function.

Also it will be up to us to put See also links between words differing only in capitalisation. To enter articles optionally spelled with a capital letter such as Zeppelin, zeppelin, to decide whether those redirect from one to the other, and in which direction, or if we create duplicate articles for them. Capitalisation will have to be researched properly from now on - no more guessing. And don't forget that a couple of Germanic languages formerly capitalised all nouns just like German still does. So all Danish nouns used before the 1950s, all Norwegian nouns used before the mid 1800s, and all Swedish nouns used before the 19th century will have to exist in one way or another as both a capitalised and non-capitalised page title. What a mess the redirections, duplications, or "see non-capitalised page" entries are going to be... — Hippietrail 30 June 2005 04:14 (UTC)

My information was that it was uncontroversial:

 *  en.wiktionary voted to turn off first-letter capitalisation several months ago. Is anyone free to do this?

If I had known there was disagreement about this, I wouldn't have done it. -- Tim Starling 30 June 2005 06:16 (UTC)

 * Great, looks like lots of things are nicely f***ed up now. What has happened to , for example?  What has happened to the Recent changes earlier than today's?  (This is not an attack on Brion's excellent work on moving pages over, by the way - well done you.  Imagine if we'd had to do all that by hand.)  Who knows what else has been screwed up in the process?  Thanks (not!) to whoever decided to jump in and do this on our behalf and leaving us to sort out the mess it has caused. — Paul G June 30, 2005 08:59 (UTC)
 * Recent Changes has been swamped by approximately 65,000 page moves. Use Special:Newpages instead.  Templates such as  simply need moving back to lower case (as I have just done). I strongly suggest that this is a good time for editors to rid themselves of the bad Wiktionary habit of deleting redirects by reflex. The redirects for the templates are useful, for example, as editors have used both spellings of several templates. Uncle G 30 June 2005 09:59 (UTC)
 * Although I've consistently supported turning off capitalization, this is not the way I would have had it happen. The person who asked Tim to do this does not appear to be well informed.  That vote did take place, but I expected that some preliminary work would be needed before the change came into effect.  Some very important problems have already been raised, but at least we now have the attention of the developers.  I'll address these details in the next couple days after I've appointed 3 more admins when I come back on in the morning. Good night.  Eclecticology June 30, 2005 09:50 (UTC)
 * OK, I've calmed down now :) Thanks for the updated, Uncle G and Eclecticology.  I think the pseudo-namespaces definitely need to be reverted (for example, there are now two "Rhymes" namespaces - one capitalised and one not) as there is no reason for these to begin with lower-case letters.  Could this also be done automatically?  — Paul G June 30, 2005 11:02 (UTC)
 * Wikitionary:* and Transwiki:* also need to be recapitalized. SemperBlotto 30 June 2005 11:05 (UTC)
 * "Transwiki:" isn't, in fact, a namespace, and has in fact always been case sensitive because of this. Note that McBot won't be populating the incoming transwiki queue for a while.  The software update broke a lot of 'bots, including McBot (and several major daily maintenance 'bots at Wikipedia). Daniel McDevit is waiting for Kevin Rector. Uncle G 30 June 2005 11:36 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter for transwiki since these are only temporary pages that are eventually deleted when the work is done. Eclecticology July 5, 2005 02:02 (UTC)

For those with Mop and Bucket in hand ...
. Many of these need to be moved to the proper capitalization (e.g., BIOS redirects to bIOS), and probably need to be checked for categorization, as well (i.e., Ab/Ac/In). - dcljr 4 July 2005 08:17 (UTC)
 * Most templates need moving to lowercase (not copying and not deleting the redirects left behind because for many templates editors have employed both capitalizations)
 * The templates that add categories to articles need to be checked to ensure that they have spelled the category name correcty.
 * Many Category:Abbreviations, Acronyms and Initialisms need moving to uppercase.
 * Thanks, somebody, for finally getting around to providing some of the practical information which should have been presented here on the Beer parlour before the change ever took place. Gene Nygaard 30 June 2005 13:24 (UTC)
 * I've moved all the language templates to lowercase. 24 30 June 2005 14:19 (UTC)
 * Many 2-letter Category:Symbols need moving to uppercase. Some, such as ba, need a casewise split.
 * The case of Category:German nouns, Category:German months, Category:German cardinal number (which should be Category:German cardinal numbers), and Category:German proper nouns needs to be correctly determined, and any splits performed
 * Many articles in Category:English proper nouns either need moving to uppercase (Darlington) or a casewise split (Ben/ben).
 * There are very many proper nouns - mostly not in this category. You can find them by going to Google, selecting "advanced search", and searching for "proper noun" (no quote) within the "domain" en.wiktionary.org - the first few pages have all been fixed already. SemperBlotto 2 July 2005 07:46 (UTC)
 * http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:DoubleRedirects&limit=500&offset=0 --Connel MacKenzie 3 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)
 * Regarding abbreviations, etc., see also

 * I've done most of the proper nouns in Category:English proper nouns. I very much recommend putting the "See also" note at the TOP of pages that have both capitalised and uncapitalised forms, rather than in a "See also" section at the bottom.  I'm using the form: See also blah — Paul G 4 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)

 * According to Google, there are 3,990 articles containing the phrase "Proper noun" in en.Wiktionary. But I can't get it to show me more than 1,000. SemperBlotto 4 July 2005 10:12 (UTC)

Category tagging via templates

 * Here's what I think is the right long-term direction for cattag etc. I've tried this out with Category:Basketball, and it seems to work OK, except that the automatic listing in the category is stale.  This is actually a bug in Wikimedia.  There seems to be a work-around of making a trivial edit to the misfiled article.
 * Keep the actual entries the same. If it says , that's fine.
 * Move the templates to their lowercased versions. Template:Basketball becomes Template:basketball.  This fixes all the dangling references in pages that use  in one go.
 * Keep the template content the same. If it says , that's fine.
 * As it happens, the capitalized categories now contain only articles that included the category by hand. It would be a good idea to edit them to say, e.g.  instead of
 * After (optionally) fixing all manually categorized entries, move the frontmatter of the category to the uncapitalized version. There seems to be no way to move a category, so we have to create the new one and empty out the old.
 * At this point everything's hakuna, except that the lowercased category will most likely be empty except for terms you've edited manually. Either wait for the problem to fix itself (a patch to Wikimedia, or something forcing the category to refresh), or use "what links here" with the template to find the misfiled articles and make a trivial edit (e.g., insert a comment) to get them refiled.

 * Again, that last step should be unneccesary. If the page for foo include template  and this template contains , then the term foo should be in category spam.  I.e., it shouldn't matter whether the category link is included directly or indirectly.  This is in fact the case for pages that have been edited more recently than the template.  It should be true uniformly.  At the very least, there should be a "refresh category" function that one could invoke manually when updating a template that uses a category.  This will make life easier any time we want to re-categorize a bunch of terms, this being a particular case.  In fact, the ability to re-categorize in one go is one of the major advantages of the template approach (consistency and ease of editing being two of the others). -dmh June 30, 2005 16:49 (UTC)

 * Update: It looks like the bug may be with templates, not categories. The "what links here" link for a template doesn't seem to get updated when the template moves.  The list only contains articles edited more recently than the template.  Note that there are ways of handling this situation efficiently.  Tracking such changes does not inherently require exhaustively searching all articles when a template changes.  On the other hand, I have no way of knowing how MediaWiki does things. -dmh June 30, 2005 17:15 (UTC)

There has been no discussion or agreement about whether category names should be capitalized. I can live with doing it either way (except, of course, for proper nouns) but we can't assume that there has been agreement. There is certainly no agreement to embed all categories into templates. Using manual categorization must continue to be acceptable. Eclecticology June 30, 2005 18:41 (UTC)

 * Is anyone assuming there has been agreement? I'm cretainly not.  That's why I decided to do an experiment with the basketball category which, as far as I can tell, no one really does much with except for me anyway.
 * One of the side-effects of the capitalization change is a change in categorization. Previously, adding a link to "Category:foo" (whether directly or through a tempate) would place the term in category "Foo" (upper case).  Now it places the term in category "foo" (lower case).  It would have been nice to discuss the consequences of this before cutting over, but as you point out, we didn't.
 * This side effect happens to break the "cattag" mechanism, a convenience which has never been and never will be required, but which I and evidently others find highly useful. There are at several distinct ways to deal with this:

 * Throw up our hands and say "Oh well, cattag is broken because it no longer fits with categories." I would not be in favor of this.
 * Fix cat (and cattag, since cat has been inlined into it) to mimic the old behavior by capitalizing the category name. If there is a template/macro/whatever handy to do this, that might be the best solution.
 * Rename the categories, where necessary, to use the same case as their tags. This would be consistent, at least.  Terms relating to basketball are tagged basketball and categorized under Category:basketball, while terms relating to Siegfried and Roy are tagged Siegfried and Roy and categorized under Category:Siegfried and Roy.
 * Manually fix all the existing cattag instances to use the uppercase category name, and deprecate the direct use of cattag, cattag2 and cattag3.
 * Leave everything as is, and have two competing sets of categories, differing only by case.

 * Only options 2 and 3 are stable in the long term and retain the ability to use cattag and related macros. -dmh 5 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)

 * Not having heard any further discussion, I plan to continue moving to categories which match the tags. More precisely, I plan to move the categories pointed at by the various cattag templates.  In practice, this will only affect categories whose tags start with a lower case letter (e.g., US should be fine).  There are a couple of well-established categories, notably from the idiom template, that don't follow this and may never. -dmh 04:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, I notice that, instead of responding in discussion, people are just "fixing" the tag templates to write out the tag and the capitalized category. I can't see how this won't lead to slow but steady drumbeat of people adding new tags and forgetting to capitalize the category, but evidently the priority here is to keep the category names capitalized.
 * That being the case, I'd be much more comfortable if we booted cattag2 and cattag3 and changed the format of our articles slightly. The internal change would be from saying
 * to saying
 * This should be much easier to grasp for newcomers, and is also more robust since cattag2 tends to break in the presence of things like .  However, it also has a visible effect, namely that the article will no longer read
 * (foo, bar) Some definition.
 * but
 * (foo)(bar) Some definition.
 * If we're willing to live with that formatting, then things get a lot easier. Cattag2 and cattag3 go away (I never liked them much anyway), tagging always means just putting the tag in double curlies, and the only thing left to argue about is what the tag macros should expand to.  Since there doesn't seem to be a handy   template — please let me know if there is! — we're stuck with hand-writing each of them if we want capitalized categories.  But if we can stand the proposed change in appearance, at least that's sufficient.  You'll never get tripped up saying   and having your entry end up in Category:uncountable and Category:basketball when it should be in Category:Uncountable and Category:Basketball. -dmh 18:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * (foo)(bar) Some definition.
 * If we're willing to live with that formatting, then things get a lot easier. Cattag2 and cattag3 go away (I never liked them much anyway), tagging always means just putting the tag in double curlies, and the only thing left to argue about is what the tag macros should expand to.  Since there doesn't seem to be a handy   template — please let me know if there is! — we're stuck with hand-writing each of them if we want capitalized categories.  But if we can stand the proposed change in appearance, at least that's sufficient.  You'll never get tripped up saying   and having your entry end up in Category:uncountable and Category:basketball when it should be in Category:Uncountable and Category:Basketball. -dmh 18:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The thing that nagged at my subconcious about cattag, cattag2 and cattag3 was actually the parenthesis. If they lost the parenthesis, the rendered formatting would not be adversely affected.  Paul (and I imagine, all the other East pond folk) would be happy that I no longer try to italicize the parenthesis.  But perhaps there should be no parenthesis at all, only a single colon following however many of these there are?  So we would end up with:  #  Some definition.  that would come out as
 * foo, bar: Some definition.
 * Or perhaps it could be specified as  # : Some definition.  which would come out as
 * (foo, bar): Some definition.
 * Either way, it seems prudent that the templates not add the parenthesis. If we can get community agreement that the parenthesis are too problematic to retain at all, then I will volunteer to hunt down these couple hundred entries.  (I would've guessed these numbered in the thousands.)  --Connel MacKenzie 01:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Another problem
Another problem for new users is that one can't set up a new username with a lower case first letter. http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2629 and there are related ones probably. 131.251.0.8 30 June 2005 13:21 (UTC)

Capitalization of the letters of the alphabet
I suppose that we need two versions for each, or for most, of them. I am going to create H as the chemical symbol for hydrogen, but I'm not sure what else needs to move. SemperBlotto 30 June 2005 10:55 (UTC)

 * Well, chemically speaking, there's O, F, C, N (and a few others, I think) as well. — Paul G June 30, 2005 10:59 (UTC)

 * I've got my periodic table out, and the other elements are: B, P, S, K, V, Y, I, W, U. Jonathan Webley 30 June 2005 20:44 (UTC)

 * I've done all the chemical element symbols. But there is content in the lowercase versions thet needs moving some time. ALL letters need to be looked at and most probably need splitting. SemperBlotto 2 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)

Unifying entries
I think that words should be capitalized correctly in their entries. Thus for example Pythagorean theorem is handled well. The lowercase version of the page redirects to the capital version, and the page uses the correct capitalization in the text entry.

However, I also think it's a mistake to separate entries from one another based on capitalization. Take for example bible and Bible. These two entried would be better on the same page. A single page can contain more than one entry. The page for bible should have a proper noun section that has a captilized entry with the definition as seen on the current Bible page, and it should also have a noun section in with a lower case entry containing the defitions on the bible page.

The current layout emphasizes precision at the cost of recall. Specific word lookup is inherently a very high precision / low recall domain (there's only one right answer and you always get it), so it is more helful to users to allow the item to be found to be more comprehensive. The cost of a user finding a page with definitions he doesn't care about is that he has to ignore part of the page. The cost of a user finding the wrong information because he used the wrong capitalization is greater - he will not get what he came for at all. This is especially true given that one of the primary uses of a dictionary is for a person to learn about a word with which he is not familiar, in which case not understanding the proper capitalization is likely. 24.18.198.220 04:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

title: Wiktionary talk:Capitalization


text:
episodio

Etymology
From "parenthetic addition, episode", neuter of  "following upon the entrance".

Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) episode

Etymology
, neuter of.

Noun

 * 1) episode installment of a drama told in parts
 * 2)  attack
 * 1)  attack

title: episodio


text:
kitai

Etymology
From, from , from.

Pronoun

 * 1) we inclusive

title: kitai


text:
ama

Etymology 1
From, from , perhaps an alteration of , of origin, or from.

Etymology 2
From.

Noun

 * 1) A traditional Japanese pearl diver, typically female.

Etymology 3
From Polynesian.

Noun

 * 1)  The float on the outrigger of a proa or trimaran.

Translations

 * Maori: kōrewa

Etymology 4
From.

Noun

 * 1)  A toxic byproduct of improper or incomplete digestion.

Etymology 5
.

Noun

 * 1) Fabric made from the hair of a camel or goat.

Etymology 6
From.

Noun

 * 1)  paternal grandmother; paternal grandma

Etymology 7
Initialism.

Determiner

 * 1) this, that, these, those (masculine; near the spoken to)

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) father

Etymology
From.

Conjunction

 * 1) but, however

Noun

 * 1) village

Noun

 * 1) grandmother

Etymology
Compare 🇨🇬.

Pronoun

 * 1) we

Etymology
Nursery-word,.

Noun

 * 1) mother
 * 2) origin

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) father

Noun

 * 1) father

Etymology 1
From, q.v.

Noun

 * 1) wet nurse
 * 2) mistress
 * 1) mistress

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  a male parent; a father

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1)  when

Conjunction

 * 1) when

Etymology
Ultimately from (locative of ), from, from. Cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Pronoun

 * 1) I;

Noun

 * 1) father

Adverb

 * 1) now

Adjective

 * 1) loving, with love, relating to or characterized by love
 * , Heinrich August Luyken, Stranga Heredaĵo, Ĉapitro 3,
 * "eo"
 * "eo"

- Per amaj, kunsentaj vortoj Leonardo sukcesis plie firmigi la konfidon de la junulo [...]

Etymology 1
From, from Hispanic , ultimately from.

Noun

 * 1) mistress
 * 2) wet nurse
 * 3) housekeeper

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) father

Noun

 * 1) mother

Noun

 * 1) rain

Etymology
Cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) leaf

Etymology
From. Cognates include 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) outrigger float

Noun

 * 1) man

Determiner

 * : that (as in yon or yonder)

Usage notes
See at.

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to trouble

Derived terms

 * (to be the matter with)
 * (to express one's annoyance at somebody)
 * Hvað amar að þér?
 * What is the trouble with you?
 * What is the trouble with you?

Noun

 * 1) father

Noun

 * 1) yoke
 * 2)  hames

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) father

Noun

 * 1) mother

Noun

 * 1) father

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) father

Etymology
From, from , from.

Conjunction

 * 1) but

Etymology 1
See.

Etymology 2
A regularly conjugated form of.

Noun

 * 1) father

Noun

 * 1)  mother, mom

Noun

 * 1) father

Noun

 * 1) father

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to love, like

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) father

Etymology
From. Cognates include 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) outrigger (of a canoe)
 * 2) bargeboard support

Conjunction

 * 1) but

Noun

 * 1) father

Noun

 * 1) human beings, people
 * 2) members of the Nyimang people who speak the Ama dialect

Etymology
From. Ultimately from.

Verb

 * 1) to bother
 * 2) to wound

Noun

 * 1) a large amount, a ton

Noun

 * 1) paper

Etymology 1
From, from , q.v.

Noun

 * 1) female nurse
 * 2) female housekeeper
 * 3) governess

Adverb

 * 1)  do not, used with

Noun

 * 1) old ruin

Etymology
From, from , from.

Noun

 * a

Etymology
From. Cognates include 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) outrigger

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) father
 * 2) father's brother

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) father

Etymology
From, in turn from.

Conjunction

 * 1)  but

Interjection

 * 1)  ; ugh, blah

Etymology
From. Cognates include 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) mother

Conjunction

 * 1) or

Etymology 1
From, q.v.

Noun

 * 1) lady of the house
 * 2) proprietress
 * 3) landlady
 * 4) housekeeper, head maid
 * 5) nursemaid, nanny
 * 6) wetnurse
 * 7) mistress

Etymology
From.

Conjunction

 * 1) or

Etymology 1
From. Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1)  father
 * 2)  founder; organizer
 * 3) senior; older
 * 4) sire
 * 1) senior; older
 * 2) sire

Etymology 2
.

Noun

 * 1) mistress; housewife
 * 2) governess; caretaker of children

Etymology 3
From [Term?].

Adverb

 * 1) rarely; seldom

Etymology 4
.

Noun

 * 1) paternal grandmother; paternal grandma
 * °N, °W
 * °N, °W

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) father

Noun

 * 1) father
 * 2) paternal uncle

Noun

 * 1) mother
 * 2) maternal aunt; one's mother's sister
 * 3) mother-in-law; one's spouse's mother

Etymology 1
, from.

Conjunction

 * 1) but; however

Etymology 2
From.

Noun

 * 1) flute

Noun

 * 1) water

Noun

 * 1) horse

Noun

 * 1) dog

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) father

title: ama


text:
expedition

Etymology
From, and its source,.

Noun

 * 1)  The act of expediting something; prompt execution.
 * 2) A military journey; an enterprise against some enemy or into enemy territory.
 * 3)  The quality of being expedite; speed, quickness.
 * 4)  An important or long journey, for example a march or a voyage
 * 5) A trip, especially a long one, made by a person or a group of people for a specific purpose
 * 6)  The group of people making such excursion.
 * 7) The process or activities of performing expediter tasks.
 * 1)  An important or long journey, for example a march or a voyage
 * 2) A trip, especially a long one, made by a person or a group of people for a specific purpose
 * 3)  The group of people making such excursion.
 * 4) The process or activities of performing expediter tasks.
 * 1)  The group of people making such excursion.
 * 2) The process or activities of performing expediter tasks.
 * 1)  The group of people making such excursion.
 * 2) The process or activities of performing expediter tasks.

Translations

 * Armenian:
 * Bulgarian: експеди́ция
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Czech:
 * Danish: ekspedition
 * Dutch:
 * Egyptian:
 * Esperanto: ekspedicio
 * Finnish: tutkimusretki,
 * French:
 * German:
 * Hungarian: ,
 * Ido:
 * Indonesian:
 * Italian:
 * Japanese:
 * Latin: expedītiō
 * Macedonian: експеди́ција
 * Malay: ekspedisi, penerokaan
 * Maori: pahī
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål:
 * Nynorsk:
 * Polish: ,
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian:
 * Sanskrit:
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish:
 * Turkish:
 * Welsh: alldaith

 * Finnish:
 * Greek:
 * Ancient: στόλος
 * Hungarian: felfedezőcsapat
 * Maori: pahī
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: oppdagelsesreise
 * Swedish:

 * Old English: fyrd, faru

Verb

 * 1)  To take part in a trip or expedition; to travel.

Noun

 * 1) an, a journey, a mission
 * 2) an office

title: expedition


text:
affliggere

Etymology
. Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬, which were also all borrowed.

Verb

 * 1)  to trouble
 * 2)  to grieve
 * 3)  to pang

title: affliggere