Talk:List of English words containing Q not followed by U/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Can you help?

The following words have been claimed as genuine by any of various sources but have never been located in a major 20th Century dictionary. It is possible that some of them are non-existant, but it's very likely that at least some of them are legitimate words. If you manage to locate any of them in a dictionary, we can restore them to the main page and generally celebrate. Some of them are definitely in at least one dictionary, we just don't know which one - e.g. qaid, sheqalim and umiaq. We really can't have words on the article page that are unsourced, because that was one of the chief objections raised during the AfD debate. Thank you!

• bathqol - a divine revelation in Hebrew tradition. Plural bathqols.
  • That would be: bat-kol - two words, literally daughter of the voice. It means a voice heard from the heavens (from God or an Angel). And it has no plural (at least none are actually used in practice). I have never seen the odd spelling used here, but maybe someone has. 67.165.96.26 20:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • We decided that, as most dictionaries do not specify whether a noun can be pluralised, we'd just assume they could be unless explicitly advised otherwise. The alternative brings in an element of POV which is better avoided. Perhaps the article should note this more explicitly. Soo 02:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• cinqasept - a brief rendezvous with a lover.
• manqala - alternative spelling of mancala.
• guqin - a Chinese musical instrument.
  • This is now a Featured Article, incidentally.
• muqarna - Islamic architectural feature.
• niqab - Muslim veil. Has an article so probably in a dictionary somewhere.
• paq - a kind of South American rodent. Plural paqs.
• qabbalah - yet another variant of kabbalah
• qadar – (Islam) divine destiny.
• Qadiriyyah, Qadiri - variants of "Qadiriyah" used in Wikipedia article but not yet sourced to a dictionary.
• qalif - alternative spelling of calif? Soo 00:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• qaneh - an ancient Hebrew measure of length. Plural qanehs.
  • This is correct but, again, it can be spelled with a k. 67.165.96.26 20:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Most of them can. The absence of a consistent system of romanization from Hebrew (at least until recently) is what makes me think that many words like this can be found in some dictionary somewhere. Soo 02:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• qantar - appeared on the list without a source (someone probably forgot to include it). Oh well, back here now.
• qanún - variant of "qanun". Used in the WIkipedia article, but not so far sourced in a dictionary.
• qasab - an ancient unit of length. Plural qasabs.
• qasaba - an ancient Arabian area unit. Plural qasabas.
• qasidah - variant of "qasida".
• Qazaq - variant of Kazak (if we're allowing capitalised words)

  In M-W unabridged, I think

  We've mentioned a few in the intro but we're not particularly looking for them. There's lots of them and they are mostly unremarkable. Soo 18:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• qazak - type of rug? possibly another variant of Kazak.
• qcepo - a kind of parasitic infection.
  • Reportedly in Dorland's Medical Dictionary.
  • Very few English Google results. Soo 22:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• qin - another name for the guqin.
• qinot - plural of qinah.
• qinoth - alternate spelling of qinot.
• qobar - a type of dry fog of the upper Nile. Plural qobars.
  • Likely to be obscure. Possibly could be found in a specialist metereological or Egyptologist's dictionary (if such things exist).

Word	Meaning	Sources	Other forms	Etymology
qoppa	An obsolete letter of the Greek alphabet, surviving as a numeral (90).		Also written koppa.	Greek ϙ (letter form), ϟ (numeral form).

• qri - alternative spelling of qere. Plural qris.
• qvint - a Danish weight. Plural qvints or qvintin.
• qvintin - plural of qvint.
• qwa - ?
• qwy - ?
• riq - alternative spelling of riqq.
• riqq - an Egyptian tambourine.

  Occurs in Mrs. Byrne's Dictionary of Unusual, Obscure, and Preposterous Words — but needs to be in a "major dictionary" to be included on the page.

• shoq - an East Indian tree. Plural shoqs.
• shurqee - in the Persian gulf, a south-easterly wind. Plural shurqees.
• souq - fairly obvious alternative to suq. Surely this can be found in some dictionary.
• taqiyya(h) - variant of taqiya.
  • "Taqiyya" is the spelling used in the Wikipedia article, and Google gives a lot of hits with the "h" too...
• tariqah - alternative spelling of tariqa. Plural tariqahs.
• trinq - a statement in Rabelais' Pantagruel.
  • I suspect this is only capitalised but either way I can't find it anywhere.
• umiaq - an Eskimo boat. Plural umiaqs.
  • Definitely in a dictionary somewhere.
    • It's a modern variation on Umiak. There has been work on the writing of Inuvialuktun and this has resulted in certain words being changed in their spelling. The idea being that this will aid in the correct pronunciation of the words. It's proved to be very divisive. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• zaqqum - a tree with bitter fruit, as mentioned in the Qur'an in the 44th sura. Plural zaqqums.
• zendiq - presumably a variant of zindiq.
  • See http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/glossary/term.ZENDIQ.html
    • This source is clearly trustworthy but, being more a glossary than a dictionary, it can't be argued for certain that this word is now naturalised in English. Soo 21:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• zindiq - a heretic unfaithful to Islam. Plural zindiqs.

Here is a "hit list" of dictionaries that we would like to look through but haven't yet:

• Chambers' 20th Century Dictionary (1983)
• Webster's New International Dictionary (Second edition)
• Webster's Third New International Dictionary
• Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary
• There is a list here which sources a lot of the above words, mostly to Merriam-Websters unabridged, though one or two to Funk and Wagnall's. Someone would obviously need to check though. Matt 23:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC).

Additions to this list are of course welcome.

• I have added "see" references linking to online dictionary definitions for a number of the "problem" words above. I see there has been a history of dispute about what is legitimate in this article, which I presume might include disagreement about what is a legitimate source. Therefore I will leave it to someone more familiar with the history to decide if these references are adequate for inclusion. There are also a number of online glossaries of Islamic terms (e.g. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/glossary.html) which might help to authenticate if deemed suitable. Matt 21:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC).
  • Thanks, excellent work. All of the sources refer to printed dictionaries or are clearly trustworthy per se (e.g. Encarta, Mirriam-Webster), with the exception of zendiq, for which I've added a note. This page has improved significantly today, thank you. Soo 21:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving to Wiktionary

I don't think this belongs on Wiktionary. If this is moved then surely almost everything else in Category:Lists_of_English_words ought to be moved too? It's also encyclopaedic in that it gives justification for the existence of Q-no-U words, and their origins. Admittedly this section needs expanding, but it is fundamentally encyclopaedic. Your thoughts please. Agentsoo 23:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD discussion

This article was recently nominated for deletion but kept by default of no consensus being reached. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of English words containing a Q not followed by a U for the archived discussion. -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Puzzled

Recently a user has added many words to the list, but in the process it has become much less user-friendly. Can we return to the lowercase format with an explanation of the meaning of each word, please? -- Visviva 06:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts on the matter:

• It was good when the words were links. That so many of them have articles disproves the argument that these are "not real words".
• I liked the definitions. Most of them are so brief or generic that we are unlikely to infringe any copyright.
• Writing them in upper case is a Scrabble convention, but this is not a Scrabble word list, it's a list of words. Same for ordering them by length.
• We should have some kind of system for indicating which dictionaries include which words. My original list was drawn from Chambers. I'd be willing to look through the ODE too.

I'm sure we can reach a concensus on this :) Soo 11:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved from article page

DISPUTED: These are not valid words in English. These are not naturalized words, nor are they accepted loanwords. In the cases where it is only a transcription into the roman alphabet, the representation of these words in English uses "k" not "q". Nothing in this list is considered a "word" in the English language. (comment from User:Connel MacKenzie).

They are valid words in English. Please consult a dictionary. Soo 11:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

While most of these may appear in a dictionary with a "k", many do not appear with a "q". Here's a few links from dictionary.com: Tariqat, Tsaddiq, Talaq, Mbaqangas. Now, there may be more comprehensive dictionaries, but I think this is valid concern. Carbonite | Talk 11:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Dictionary.com is quite poor for recent loanwords I find. All these words can be found in at least one major dictionary published from 1900- onwards. We are working on the problem of referencing which one(s); see the discussion above. Soo 13:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I've quoted my source. If anyone wants to check the source, they're free to do so. If anyone wants to revert to a previous version, that's fine. I will however, state that I'm going to incorporate the definitions very soon. If anyone wants to prune the list down, that's fine, but I've still got work to do on it. I apologise for making this page awkward all of a sudden. Bobo. 09:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitions complete

I've done the definitions. I may go and see if I can root out any of these dictionaries, particularly Funk and Wagnalls, which I'm absolutely positive is one of the more obscure dictionaries I just have lying around someplace. Bobo. 09:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Scrabble stuff

I'm sure that for the purposes of playing Scrabble there is a point in giving words in ALL-CAPS and including the plural form of each word under a separate heading. On this page, however, it is completely useless. I VfD'd this page, as I found it rather pointless as a stand-alone list. It survived but has since deteriorated with the introduction of the Scrabble word list, compared to the list compiled by the original author from real dictionaries. Uppland 05:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Things that need doing on this page

• Return to alphabetical order, with lower-case words, and plurals mentioned under the singular (not individual entries). This list is useful for Scrabble no doubt but it is not a Scrabble list. Done.
• Link words to their articles where possible, or at least to Wiktionary. Done.
• Cite which dictionaries contain which word, to avoid disputes.
• A couple of the short definitions probably need rewording, but this is minor.

I'll get to work on this in the next few days, so comment now to avoid disappointment. Soo 18:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on most. I think the only plurals that we should perhaps note are those which are irregular, such as faqir>fuqaha. I reworded the definitions from a single source, so these are more-or-less consistent, please edit these up as you see fit. Dictionary citations would also be useful, if we can work out which ones are in which. Some good ideas. Bobo. 09:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on the irregular plurals, of which there are a decent number since so many of these are loanwords. By the way, talaq appears in Chambers '98 and '03, so I've restored it. Soo 18:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring some much needed order to this, Soo. This is the best I've seen this page since before I messed with it. Bobo. 09:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Now for step 3! Soo 00:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing

I have begun the task of locating the specific dictionaries that each of these words are located in. I suggest that we search as many dictionaries as we can get our hands on. Any words that remain unsourced after that should be moved to this talk page, under a "source wanted" banner or similar. Hopefully the use of numbered references will avoid cluttering the page, although if anyone can think of a better way of doing it then I'd love to hear it.

Checking whether a dictionary supports a particular word is sometimes tricky. For example, the ODE 2nd Ed gives qwerty as an adjective, so it does not support the words qwerties or qwertys - see the page for the way I've handled this (which may not be ideal). As stated on the page itself, the word must be naturalised (many dictionaries print unnaturalised words in italics, but check each individually) and occuring on its own, not as part of a phrase; for example, the ODE gives coq au vin but not coq per se, so we cannot say that the ODE supports the word coq. For the sake of argument, we will assume that all mass nouns can be pluralised, unless your dictionary specifically states otherwise. Soo 12:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, mass nouns, all pluralized. I know that can be awkward.. but OSWs handle this nicely by making sure they specify that words sometimes have alternative meanings. Bobo. 09:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I must admit, I didn't understand that comment. In Scrabble, all nouns are considered to have plurals. I think we should adopt a similar standard here, because it avoids arguments over which mass nouns can be pluralised. Soo 18:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

One page in OSW states about the word music that the word has another meaning within the dictionary meaning "a band of musicians". If a certain number of other words work in the same way, then this is cool. Bobo. 09:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be making good progress. I got my hands on a copy of the full 20-volume OED, which provided a suitable source for many of the words (and added quite a few more to the list). Nevertheless, there are still a decent number that don't have a source, and the period of grace for those words can only be so long. As Bobo and I are both Britain-based, it would be useful if someone from the US or elsewhere could have a leaf through their dictionaries - even if only searching for those that have no source already - that would be really useful, because other dictionaries tend to be noticeably different to British ones. Soo 13:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Qvintins

I have removed qvintins, as it was given as the plural of qvintin, which is itself the plural of qvint. If this is just a definition error then it can be restored later. Soo 13:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

My fault, Soo. Reprimanded myself already over it. Thank you. Bobo. 09:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Archaic spellings incorporating QH instead of WH

I do not believe these should be included, for example, qhere. My source states "A number of archaic words from the Oxford have been excluded as they involve the substitution of W for U or the substitution of QW for WH." Thoughts? Soo? Bobo192 21:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a sticky issue. Even the unabridged OED does not specify exactly which words could be spelt with QH; it just gives a few examples and then "etc". If we were to include all the words this could potentially refer to then the list would be swamped by them, and they are mostly dull and unremarkable, not to mention obselete. Perhaps the best solution would be to mention the general rule somewhere on the page, and include in the main list only those words which are unrecognisable in comparison to their modern spelling, e.g. qhythsontyd. Sadly I don't have a great deal of time to expend on Wikipedia at the moment but I'd be quite happy for anyone to make appropriate changes. Soo 23:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

They were originally northern English or Scottish spellings... AnonMoos 02:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Qs" and "Qt"

I removed the following:

• "Qs", plural of "Q". This is wrong; the plural of "q" is "q's".
• "Qt" is an abbreviation, not a word.

Rt66lt 16:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

How can you remove words without checking the source that they come from? Here's the ODE on Q:

Q (also q) noun (pl. Qs or Qs) the seventeenth letter of the alphabet.

So the plural can be qs or q's, and it is included in the article on the basis of the former.

Here's Longman on qt:

qt /kyooh 'tee/ n often cap Q&T, slang [quiet] - on the qt secretly; on the quiet.

Note the absence of a dot or any other indication that this is an abbreviation. Indeed Longman lists abbreviations in a separate section, where it says "qt: quart", so this is clearly a different use, and not an abbreviation. It's a short form, just like vet or phone or many other uncontroversial words. Thanks for finding a source for riqq by the way. I'm not sure how authoratitive that dictionary is but I'll trust it for now. Soo 17:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Qs" is borderline (every English class I've had said that the plural of letters and numbers are "-'s", not "-s"), but as stated in my objection on the candidate page, variations should be part of the original definition and are not a seperate word. I can't say the same about "qt". Merriam-Webster states specifically it is an abbreviation: "q.t., often cap Q&T [abbr.] (ca.1887):QUIET – usu. used in the phrase on the q.t.." If it's not an abbreviation, where is the vowel? Sorry, I don't buy "qt" as a word in its own right, anymore than "NY" is a word meaning "New York".

I can't find your objection, did you forget to sign in? Anyway, I don't understand this: "variations should be part of the original definition and are not a seperate word". Do you mean that we shouldn't include variant spellings? Also, whatever M-W states about "qt" doesn't matter, because Longman indicates unambiguously that it does not consider it to be an abbreviation. The requirement for a word to get on this page is that one dictionary includes it, not that they all do. Soo 18:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If nothing else (I've never seen Longman's dictionary, is it British?), I haven't checked the OED (I'm not home), but the pronunciation of the "word" should suggest an abbreviation: "/kyooh 'tee/" is nothing more than the sounds of the letters "q" and "t". BTW, my objection is signed, it concerns the variations of words. Rt66lt 18:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It was your comment above that was unsigned and came from an anonymous IP. Returning to the important points: Longman's is British, yes. The pronunctiation does suggest that the word was originally an abbreviation, just like "deejay", but the dictionary very clearly does not consider it to be one, as it appears in the main body of the text and not in the separate section for abbreviations. I don't know why they chose to organise the dictionary in this way but in this case it's actually quite helpful. Soo 18:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

qs - no capital letter, no apostrophe (name me any other plurals that merit apostrophes. No exceptions.) appear in

• the Random House Dictionary
• the Eighth edition of Websters Collegiate Dictionary
• Websters New International Dictionary Second Edition, and
• Websters Third New International Dictionary

qt - no capital letter, and as stipulates in the rules of Scrabble, not "starting with a capital letter, designated as a foreign word, [an] abbreviation, [or] requiring apostrophes or hyphens", from JW Spear and Sons plc., appears in:

• Websters New Collegiate Dictionary
• Webster's Third New International Dictionary

I don't want to accept any words in Websters as much as any other Great British scrabble player this side of the Atlantic, but, you can't have everything.. Bobo192. 19:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Bobo. The Scrabble rules seem quite appropriate here. Hopefully this concludes the discussion! Soo 20:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• "qs" is dubious. You may as well list "q" too. I was going to take "qt" and "qs" out too. Matt 00:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

  If you want to call a word that now known to be listed in five different dictionaries "dubious" then yes, qs is dubious. I took your point about listing q though. Soo 02:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  Collins English Dictionary also lists, without any dots or other punctuation, "ql", "qm", "qn", "qqv", "qto", "qty", "qv", "qy" etc. I wouldn't include any of those, and to me "qs" and "qt" are in the same category: they are non-words or abbreviations that just happen to have no attached punctuation. Matt 13:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

  Apart from your own personal taste, how can you tell the difference between these "non-words" and any other word? Soo 17:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  I'm not sure there is any completely objective method of determining what is and what is not a "word". For borderline cases I think it comes down to what is the consensus opinion. My guess is that the majority of people would not consider "q", "qs" and "qt" to be "words". Matt 23:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

  I disagree. Just because we don't want to believe that (insert word here) is a word, if it appears in a dictionary, it is a word according to that dictionary. And I believe the concensus opinion would be that qt does indeed appear in Longmans. Bobo192. 06:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, I don't think there's any need to introduce an element of consensus here. Presumably the people who write dictionaries are more qualified to judge what is and is not a word than any of us. To go by anything other than what does or does not appear in a dictionary is just original research. Soo 09:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  This does not work because dictionaries do not just list "words". As I pointed out, Collins lists "ql", "qm", "qn", "qqv", "qto", "qty", "qv", "qy". It also lists "eg", "A4", "V6" and numerous other "non-words". Other dictionaries are similar. Matt 11:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC).

Proposed change of title

Propose that the title is changed to "List of English words containing Q not followed by U" (in other words, lose the "a"s). Matt 01:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

I'm not sure. It might be confusing, as it's not necessarily obvious that it's the letter Q being discussed. I know the current title is a bit long but that's better than not long enough, in my opinion. Soo 02:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't imagine what "List of English words containing Q not followed by U" could be referring to except the letter Q and the letter U. "a Q" and "a U" reads oddly to me (but maybe it is just me). Anyone else have an opinion? Matt 12:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

Yes, I see your point. Perhaps if we're in the process of changing the title then we could drop "English", too, since it's obvious what language we're talking about, this being the English Wikipedia and everything. On a bit of a tangent I wonder if any other Wikipedias have equivalent articles? I realise the topic would be variously unremarkable or inapplicable, depending on the language, but in some languages it might be interesting. Just wondering. Soo 18:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the fewer words in the title the better, but I would be marginally inclined to retain the word "English", just to reinforce the idea that all these words must be at least naturalised into English. However, I don't feel massively strongly about it so get rid of it if you want as far as I'm concerned. Matt 00:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC).

Just thought I'd bring it up now because if we're going to change the title, we should change it all at once. But it doesn't look like there's any great consensus for change, so let's leave as is for now. Perhaps some useful redirects could be created though, as I have enough trouble remembering the title myself. Soo 12:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I wondered later if maybe, by virtue of there being a bit of blurb at the beginning, we could even also lose the "List of", making the title "English words containing Q not followed by U", or even just "Words containing Q not followed by U". It's self-evident that an article called "Words containing Q not followed by U" will include a list of such words, and it is kind of snappier, don't you think? Matt 01:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

I think redirects are the best solution here. We should create as many variations as we can think of. Soo 12:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly agree about the redirects. However, I think that irresepective of redirects the actual article title should be as clean and tight as possible. Matt 22:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

Personally I'd prefer a verbose title with shorter versions redirecting here. That gives the best of both worlds, as anyone can find the article, and anyone who does find it can be in no doubt as to the topic. Either way it's no big deal to me, so if you feel more strongly than I do then go ahead and move. Otherwise we might as well leave it where it is. Soo 23:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The only part I feel strongly about is removing the "a"s. I have tried to do this but unfortunately I am not able to do so without an account. I created one once but have now forgotten the password, and Wikipedia will not let me do name changes with a new account. Therefore I seem to be stuffed at the moment. If you are in agreement perhaps you would like to change the title to "List of English words containing Q not followed by U" (my original proposal)? Matt 23:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

Now done! Matt 17:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

I've just come across this article (after it was linked from the Signpost), but it seems to me that very few (if any) of the words listed here are "English words" (the majority being Chinese or Arabic, with the odd French word). I'm not looking to start a discussion on what qualifies as an English word, but perhaps another revision of the title would be worthwhile. If we're not worried about having a verbose title, how about changing it to: "List of words in the English language containing Q not followed by U", which qualifies those words in the list as being memebers of the english language, and yet not "English words". Well, that's my two cents worth. AuldReekie 18:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No. These words are no different from any other English word lifted from another language, which is just about all of them. They are English words from English dictionaries. The end. Soo 23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why, thank you, for that reasoned and rational response. At least I know now, not to stick my nose out around these parts. Good day. AuldReekie 23:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Marking scrabble-valid words?

Maybe it'd be interesting to mark those words that are present in Scrabble official wordlists? Circeus 05:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to distance this list from its Scrabble connection. Also it would be a bit of a mess since there are two major Scrabble wordlists in circulation. Perhaps a separate article on the subject would be the best solution? Soo 15:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking something like an icon orwhatever, but then itmight notbe really encyclopedicto note.

I agree. It's not something you'd likely see in Britannica or similar. Soo 16:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't make it a major feature of the page, since this article is about the English language, not scrabble; an icon or note within the list itself would be overdoing it. However, including a sentence or two somewhere in the article on Scrabble words is certainly appropriate, as Scrabble is a major, noteworthy game, and it is indeed true that many Scrabble fans will come to this page looking for assistance. Such information certainly isn't worthy of its own page, not being noteworthy or detailed enough, and if there are only two major Scrabble wordlists, that hardly seems like an overwhelming number. Including at some point at least a mention of which words are Scrabble-appropriate (as there are probably very few from this list) wouldn't hurt. -Silence 07:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the easiest way to do this is just to have the "Official Scrabble Words" publications listed as references, and then mark which words are included in the same way as we already have for the dictionaries. The references could be even be "S1" and "S2" or something, to make the distinction from the dictionaries clearer. Matt 17:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

I think we'll have to keep them separate in the references section at the bottom (since a Scrabble wordlist is not really a "major dictionary"), but using the same style in the References column seems smart. Soo 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, yeah, that is remarkably clever. Nice consolidation of elements! -Silence 20:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Table

So. Whaddaya think? -Silence 07:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Smart idea, but a bit of work needed. The main thing is that the pictures are now shunted all over the place. If we forced the definition and alt. forms columns to be a little narrower (not minding if they spanned several lines) then we'd still have room for some pictures. Also I suppose a separate column would make Scrabble information easier to ignore (see discussion above) if you didn't care about it. Soo 14:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't feel the table was necessary, but I don't strongly object to it for its own sake. The main problem is that it has ruined the page layout in terms of the pictures. The centred graphics before and after the list look awful, whereas previously the page looked attractive and well-balanced. Narrowing the table and putting the pictures alongside it won't help; it will still look nasty. For this reason I would put the page back to how it was, with the list format. Matt 17:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

No, table is good! I moved pics a little. Not the best thing, but better than that ugly list that was before. Renata3 18:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The pictures are better now. Ultimately we are stuck between pretty pictures or efficient layout and, in those terms, the latter is clearly better. The sources were getting distinctly messy before. Soo 19:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Much better...! Matt 20:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

Mrs Byrne

Is Mrs. Byrne's Dictionary of Unusual, Obscure, and Preposterous Words really a "major dictionary"? I suggest removing this reference, and the word which cites it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I mentioned somewhere above that I wasn't really convinced about it, but decided to let it be for now. If you want to remove it then I'll support you on that. Soo 18:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Unlinking

A lot of red links have been removed from the list. I know that its considered preferable for a list article to contain mainly blue links, but in a topic like this, it's clear that a lot of the words are going to be obscure and the articles equally sparse. Unlinking red links makes the page much harder to maintain. I realise some of the words (such as cinqfoil) are linked from their definition but some, such as inqilab, could easily have an article written about them, even though they haven't yet. Soo 19:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

So they should remain unlinked until there's an article, and then a link should be provided as soon as there is one. If you're worried that we'll miss the creation of some of these obscure articles (assuming they're ever going to be created), I promise to revisit this article occasionally to make sure that the links are all still working. Also, I kept the initial word linked when the actual Wikipedia article is idential in all ways except that it uses a different spelling variant, but I didn't keep it linked when there's no actual article for any spelling variant of the word, but rather for a related concept (like a more overarching term), in which case I'll link to that in the description. It's best whenever possible to not bury too many links; simply telling people where the pages are is best. -Silence 20:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization

Why is there such opposition to any of the words on the list being capitalized, even when common usage dictates that they be so and Wikipedia and Wiktionary unanimously agree? The purpose of this list of words is to inform people on this unusual class of words and how they should be used; if we avoid using the capitalization that's overwhelmingly the most common for these words, we do a disservice to our readers by hiding valuable information from them.

"Qabalah" should be capitalized, as all forms of it always are on Kabbalah; "Qhythsontyd" should be capitalized for the same reason "Whitsuntide" is still capitalized on the very same line, because they're the name of a holiday; "Qibla" should be capitalized because it's always capitalized on the Qibla page, and consistency is a good thing; the same for Taqiyya. However, I am fine with keeping tsaddiq and tariqa uncapitalized, as, looking in more detail through their articles, it seems that in normal usage they aren't capitalized. The others, though, I definitely think should be capitalized; consistency here means being consistent with popular usage in the English language and with Wikipedia's own preferred forms, not being arbitrarily consistent with the other entries that aren't typically uncapitalized. -Silence 20:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• I also thought that "Qabalah", at least, should be capitalised. I recall intending to change it but for some reason I obviously forgot, or maybe I did it and someone changed it back. As a general point, I do not think that Wikipedia or Wiktionary articles can be relied upon as an authority. Capitalisation in a Wikipedia article may just reflect the preference of the person who wrote it, which may be non-standard or just plain wrong. For example, plenty of people have a strange view of capitalisation, believing for some reason that Important or Unusual Words should be Capitalised. Matt 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

• • I have just remembered why I didn't do it... it's because it's not capitalised in my Collins dictionary. That has to be the way to go. If the word is capitalised in the referenced dictionaries then it should be capitalised in the list, otherwise not. If the dictionaries disagree then don't know. Maybe list either/or, or choose the form listed in most of them? Matt 20:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

• I agree that Wikipedia and Wiktionary can't be relied on for reliable information. The reason I brought the spelling conventions of those pages up is because if they're wrong, they can and should be changed! So I sought to kill two birds with one stone: both seeing whether those articles are accurate or not in their capitalization conventions, and seeing if we are. -Silence 22:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • Proper nouns of this form are totally unremarkable, there are hundreds of them. That's why we only mention them in passing in the intro. In order for words to be worth mentioning, they need to be common nouns (in the technical sense), which means small letters. If they don't have an uncapitalised form in the original dictionary then I didn't include them. Whether we're consistent with the main article seems like a secondary concern to me. Soo 21:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• If it's listed as both a proper noun and a non-proper noun, then including it is fine, but if the proper noun form is more common, why not list it as such? Noone ever confuses "Compaq" for a non-proper noun, but if "Kaballah" is sometimes, but only very rarely, left uncapitalized, why not list it since it's not necessarily proper (like the country names), but in its more common form? -Silence 22:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Probably I should have been clearer. There are, as you say, hundreds of proper names, mostly personal names and placenames, that we clearly do not want to include. However, the fact that a word is capitalised does not automatically mean it should be excluded. For example, if "Christianity" and "Marxism" were eligible words then we would, I assume, definitely want to include them. It is this latter category of words that I am referring to. Matt 22:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

• This is correct. "Christianity", like "Kaballah", is capitalized because it's the name of a movement, not because it's the name of a specific person, place, or organization. And, in fact, if "Compaq" someday became a word commonly featured in dictionaries (like "xerox") but maintained its capitalized form, we'd be justified in including it in the list, and leaving it capitalized if that was the more common way it was rendered. Blindly restricting words to being uncapitalized is a terribly counterproductive, arbitrary, and trivial way to enforce this arbitrary the "no place and people names" rule. -Silence 22:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You clearly feel more strongly about this than me, so I won't object too much to whatever edits you want to make - I just want to make sure the list doesn't get overrun with uninteresting proper nouns. That said, the exact rule I used is the one used by Scrabble and every word game ever so I think calling it "arbitrary and trivial" might be a little harsh! Anyway it doesn't matter now, I'm happy with the article as it is. Soo 00:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Separate listing of significant variants

I feel that significant variants in spelling should be listed separately, else it is easy to mistakenly conclude that the word is missing from the list. "Qre" for "qere" is an obvious example which I have cross-referenced, but I would like to see this done more extensively (e.g. for qazi, taliq, fuqaha). I know that this isn't a dictionary in the sense that people will actally be looking up the meaning of an unknown word, but, for example, someone might think "aha, I know there's a word taliq", look under "t", and then wonder why it isn't listed, whether it should be listed, etc. If no-one has any good reasons why it shouldn't be done I will add some more cross-references where they seem necessary. Matt 21:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

I agree, I think the list has been overly compressed in that respect. Which entry counts as the head entry seems arbitrary and confusing, and its not clear whether the subwords mentioned in the definition are just etymologically interesting or genuinely naturalised in English. Also, not all dictionaries agree on the different subwords, so it's confusing in terms of the sources cited. I'd prefer those versions were expanded out into proper entries, like they used to be. Soo 22:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, since we have gone down the path of being rigorous as far as references are concerned, it makes sense to be equally rigorous and clear about which references allow which spellings. Matt 22:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

I disagree on the point of including separate entries for each spelling or variant of a word, and agree on the point of making it clear which dictionaries favor which spellings. Including separate entries on the list for mere spelling variants will lead to bloat. The best way to make it easy to find is to keep the list short and compact, and this also has the benefit of not forcing people who just want to read through the whole list and get as much information as possible to have to endure dozens of blank "spelling variant of.." rows that could simply have been included as "alternate forms" of the original word. -Silence 22:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I favour a compromise solution where, as I originally said, significant spelling variants should be listed separately. For example, I would not include "qabala" and "qabalah" as separate headwords, but I would include "qazi" and "qadi" separately because, for example, it is not at all obvious when scanning the headwords for "qazi" that it will appear under "qadi". What is a "significant" variant is to some extent a matter of opinion, but hopefully we can reach some sensible consensus on this. More thought also needs to be given to how to indicate sources for variant spellings, because the way it is at the moment is ambiguous. For example, the entry for "nasta'liq" gives a single reference which one assumes applies to all variants, until one looks at another entry like "qabalah" where the variants are separately sourced, and then one gets confused. Matt 23:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

Alright, that seems acceptable, as long as it doesn't get out of hand (no more than one or two spelling variants per word) and we don't repeat the same information in the variants too (just have them point to the version where all the information is, the more common spelling). -Silence 23:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Fixing this probably needs to be deferred until the "sourcing of variants" issue is resolved. I notice also that some originally unsourced variants, such as "souq" and "taqiyya", have crept back into the list, even though they were originally taken out BECAUSE they were unsourced (and are also still listed in the "words remaining to be sourced" section above). Where did these come from? Have they now been sourced? Matt 23:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

They haven't been sourced, I assume they were lifted from the Wikipedia article on the topic, which as we've established is not an adequate source. I suggest removing them. To clarify my comment above, it's not the alternate spellings so much as the alternate words. For example, qawwal and qawwali have now been merged into a single entry, even though they have different (though related) meanings. I'm not sure this is a good idea. Soo 23:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a problem, because how do we now know what was the last "good" list? I entirely agree about qawwal and qawwali by the way. These are different words, not variant spellings of the same word. (But again there seems to be the problem that the separate sourcing of these words, if it was ever recorded, has been lost. As I mentioned, because some entries have derivatives separately sourced and some don't, it is unclear whether derivatives that are not separately marked are intended to come under the main reference in the final column, or whether they have just not been sourced at all. Ho-hum.) Matt 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

I have reinstated qawwal; an old version of the page which listed them separately attributed both to [1] and [5], and I have assumed that info was correct. There are some more of these too, like taluq, taluqdar and taluqdari. Matt 02:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Proposal

To try to consolidate this disussion, let me draft a working proposal for the way that I think the list should be laid out:

1. The columns should be reordered Word, Meaning, Etymology, Sources, Other forms. The reason for this is that it is currently unclear whether the sources are supposed to relate to the headword or the headword and the variant spellings. When separate dictionary references are given for the variants it is unclear whether these override the main "source" column, supplement it, or what.
2. The preferred (or only) q-no-u spelling of the headword should be listed along with its definition, plural, and etymology. Dictionary references should then be given for this spelling.
3. Any variant spellings should then be listed under "other forms". Variant spellings that are q-no-u words should have their plurals listed, with separate dictionary references to support these variants mandatory and appearing after the words. Other variants (e.g. "korma") do not need plurals or dictionary references. q-no-u words should possibly be in bold. The plural of the main headword should not appear in this column.
4. Variant spellings that are "obvious" if someone is looking up a word (e.g. "qabala" for "qabalah") should not be given separate entries.
5. "Non-obvious" variants (e.g. "qre" for "qere") should be given a separate entry, with a simple "see" reference. No other information is necessary as it will be included at the main entry.
6. Words with a different meaning (rather than variant spellings) should always have a separate entry and definition, even if they are derivatives of another word listed (e.g. qawwal, qawwali). Dictionary references should also be given for these words. If necessary the etymology section could say "see <main word>", or if obvious enough it could be left blank... not sure about this

This is just a starter that I have slapped down quickly, because I feel that the existing format doesn't totally work for me. Comments welcome. Matt 02:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

I agree with all this except that I think other forms should be the second column, not the last. The reason for this is that what we have called a headword and what an "other form" is totally arbitrary, especially in cases where both forms are q-no-u words (like qere). Therefore it seems a bit unfair to shunt the "other forms" all the way to the other side of the table, and it implies that they are in some way secondary to the headwords. Also I agree that the words should be in bold, simply because it makes it easier to pick out all the actual words if that's all you're interested in. Soo 03:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm. One reason I don't like having the "other forms" be the second column is because I don't think that the plural forms of each word are very important, and thus I'm perfectly fine with shunting them off to the side; I'd almost prefer to just remove them from the list altogether since they clutter things up so much, and only mention plurals when they're nonstandard (i.e. don't follow the "add an s to pluralize" rule, or don't follow it exactly) to conserve space. This also has the advantage of not looking silly when it's a word that pluralizes normally and one would almost never see pluralized (i.e. "Qabalahs"). Another reason is that I feel that the word's meaning is vastly more important than its various forms in most cases (though there may be exceptions), since that's what actually tells people how to use those words. However, since this article is about how the words are spelled, not about what the words mean, I suppose that it would be acceptable to place "other forms" before "meaning". Though another reason not to include the "other forms" so far to the left is because there are apparently plans to include actual distinct entries for many of these forms where they're significantly common or different from the main form, and saying "See X" in them, where X is the main form. That would mean that many of these forms will already be featured prominently on the page, and going that extra step would be unnecessary. But I dunno. The whole alternate-forms thing is sadly complicated, and there doesn't seem to be any efficient way to handle it; I considered including the most common words that have-a-Q-not-followed-by-U in the very first box, in a format like this

Word	Meaning	Other forms	Etymology	Sources
qere or qeri or qre	A marginal reading in the Hebrew Bible.	Plural qeres, qres or qeris.	From Hebrew, "read".

and then have the non-q-without-u forms mentioned solely in "other forms", and only include the citations in the first box ("Word") when there's a dispute over different spellings of the form that all use q-without-u. We could even use my above idea of eliminating plurals and only use "other forms" for non-q-without-u forms (like "Kaballah" and "Katir"). But the above format brings up its own problems, too... so I dunno. -Silence 03:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I also considered putting all forms in the first column but rejected it because it disrupts (sometimes dramatically) the alphabetical order, as well as looking messy. A key point for me is that I feel it must be clear which variant forms are allowed in which dictionaries, and at the moment the format does not allow this to be done unambiguously. One way to do this is to move "Other forms" to after the main "Source" reference. Another way would be to eliminate the source column altogether, and reference the main headword directly after the word. I also tend to agree about removing plurals where they are standard -s. For example:

Word	Meaning	Variant spellings	Etymology
qere [6][9]	A marginal reading in the Hebrew Bible.	qeri [9], qre [6]	From Hebrew, "what is read".
faqih [10]	An Islamic lawyer. Plural faqihs or fuqaha.		Arabic فقيه.

Matt 12:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

The start of a solution would probably be to purge the non-standard plurals, with a note somewhere indicating that the plural is -s unless otherwise stated. We'll also need to mention that handful of words that aren't nouns at all. Then we can safely move the Other Forms column to just after the headword column. Soo 13:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

(You mean purge the standard plurals, right?) I would marginally prefer the definition to come before the other forms, but do not feel massively strongly. Are you in agreement with removing the source column and referencing the headwords individually (as above)? Matt 13:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC). [Apropos of the "Inline References" issue, I am now having second thoughts about removing "source". See my comment below. Matt 14:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC).]

---

• To summarise, here are some possibilities for addressing the problem with individually sourcing variants. I am focussing on the relative positions and content of the "Word", "Variants" and "Source" columns. The definition and etymology can be permuted amongst these in various ways TBD.

1. Lose the "source" column and reference each word individually, something like this:

Word	Meaning	Etymology	Variants
qere [6][9]	A marginal reading in the Hebrew Bible.	From Hebrew, "what is read".	qeri [9], qre [6]

2. Retain the "source" column but move to somewhere before the variants, and reference the variants separately, something like this:

Word	Meaning	Etymology	Source	Variants
qere	A marginal reading in the Hebrew Bible.	From Hebrew, "what is read"	[6][9]	qeri [9], qre [6]

The advantage being that very long lists of references (such as would probably arise if referencing were comprehensive, and arises to some extent now with some words) don't clutter the headword so much.

3. Always list every variant separately, something like this:

Word	Meaning	Etymology	Source
qere	A marginal reading in the Hebrew Bible.	From Hebrew, "what is read"	[6][9]
qeri	Variant of qere		[9]
qre	Variant of qere		[6]

(Note that in this example we would want to list "qre" separately anyway.)

Any thoughts? Matt 14:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

I think Option 2 is the neatest. Although sources are important, I suspect that a lot of people really don't care exactly which word is in which dictionary most of them time, so I'd be in favour of putting them in a fairly inobtrusive position so they can be easily ignored if required. Soo 15:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote on inclusion of "q" and "qt"

This has already been discussed at some length, but I have not seen a vote, and possibly there is enough activity on this page now to make this feasible. Please vote Keep if you feel that "q" and "qt" should be kept in the list, or Remove if you feel they should be removed. If you want to vote on differently about each entry then vote as, for example, Remove q or Keep qt (or both). I will start the ball rolling with my vote. Matt 23:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

• Remove. Both may be listed in dictionaries, but neither is a "word" in the sense usually understood, any more than "qty" (no punctuation, abbreviation of "quantity") is. Matt 23:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC).
• Keep both. I think q is pretty uncontroversial at the moment, so I'll leave that aside. As for qt, I don't think a vote on this is even appropriate. You can't just vote a word out of existence because it's ugly (and hey I agree that it's ugly). Unless we can actually find some way in which the dictionary distinguishes qt from any other word then it opens the floodgates to totally arbitrary rulings on which words are "allowed" and which aren't. Matt, I have a lot of respect for your editing and you've done a lot of great work on this article, but I think you're wrong on this point. Honest men can disagree :) Soo 23:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm really just repeating myself here, but the fact is that allowing any sequence of letters without punctuation, simply because it is listed in a dictionary, will let in "qty" and a host of similar abbreviations and non-words which surely no-one wants? I think that your basic premise that something is a "word" just because it is in a dictionary is wrong. Matt 01:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

But what else do we have? Our gut feelings about whether a particular sequence of letters feels like a proper word? For most people that would instantly rule out all the words on this list! I think this is a worthwhile discussion but I'm not sure a vote is really the best way to do it; I sometimes worry that Wikipedia focuses too much on consensus and not enough on expertise. People who write dictionaries are experts and I don't see how a vote among a handful of Wikipedians can overrule them. At least if we leave qt in the article, with some suitable disclaimer, then readers can make up their own mind as to whether its a proper word, with sources to refer to if they are really bothered. If we remove it then we eliminate that possibility. Soo 02:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Q, remove qt. "Q" is a valid word just as much as the other two "letter-of-an-alphabet" words currently listed are, but "qt" is actually an abbreviation: dictionary.com has it listed as "q.t." (probably because it's pronounced "kyu tee"). As such, it no more belongs on this list than "qt." (an abbreviation for "quart") does. A list of abbreviations where Q is not followed by U, while potentially interesting, rather misses the point of this page, which is to find complete English words that have Q-not-followed-by-U: quiet does not qualify, so an abbreviated form shouldn't, for the same reason that "Q" as an abbreviation for "question", "quarter", "queen", etc. isn't listed. You can say "Hold on, let me ask you a Q" or "There will be a brief Q & A session after the seminar", but that's not using a word that has a Q-not-followed-by-U, it's using an abbreviation of a word that does has a Q-followed-by-U. -Silence 00:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  We discussed this above (although the discussion is spread all over the place so I don't exactly blame you for not having read it). Longman's has separate sections for words and abbreviations; qt is listed amongst the words. Bobo gave a whole list of dictionaries which use qt without any indication of it being an abbreviation. So let's be clear on this: this word is nasty, I don't like it, but we are bound by the dictionary since presumably they know this subject better than us. I don't see what else we can do. Soo 00:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• K, sounds fine to me, then. Though probably the only reason it wasn't listed as an abbreviation is because it's slang, and slang words tend to blur the line between different types of words and phrases. -Silence 03:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, it's a horrid abuse of the language, but our role is only to document the mistakes of others... Now, lets talk about q! Soo 03:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• I Disagree that "q" is allowable for the same reasons as, say, "qoph". It is the same as the difference between, say "h" and "aitch". IMO "q" and "h" are not "words", while "qoph" and "aitch" are. Matt 01:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

  "Q" and "H" are both letters that can be used as words (nouns, specifically). In other words, sometimes they're words, and sometimes they're not.

  For example, here is Q being used as a letter: you're a quitter! And here's Q being used as a word: here's Q being used as a word. Both uses are perfectly good English. See Wiktionary's entry on "q", for example (though most professional dictionaries will back me up here): Q is listed as both a letter and as a noun (and as a symbol, for when it represents some other concept). "h" and "aitch" are both valid nouns, one representing the letter through a phoneticization of its pronunciation, and the other representing it through its shape; it makes little difference which you use. -Silence 03:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  Incidentally, if "Q" isn't an English word (and a noun, for that matter), we'll need to rename this article, because "List of English words containing Q not followed by U" is only remotely correct English if both "Q" and "U" are nouns in the English language. If they're letters that can't be used as nouns (and as words), the page name needs to be changed, since letters can only function in sentences as parts of other words; they must have noun forms to be used like this page repeatedly uses them. (Luckily, they do have such forms, and the above protestations that "Q isn't a word" are the result of a misunderstanding of what the word "word" means and to a confusion over the word Q not happening to be spelled differently than the actual letter "Q", and the word Q directly referring to the letter. The confusion's perfectly understandable, but it's grammatically baseless.) -Silence 03:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  This argument is, to me, entirely unconvincing. The title might just as well be "List of numbers containing 1 not followed by 2" Or "List of cars with a V6 engine". Does mean that "1", "2" and "V6" are "words"? I think not. Matt 12:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

  They're certainly being used as words, and if they're used as words enough, they go from being colloquial to being officially-approved words appearing in dictionaries. (And indeed, V-6 is a word according to dictionary.com, specifically a noun, and 1 and 2 are also words (they can either function as adjectives, "there is 1 cow", or as nouns, "they had lunch at 1"), though they're much more commonly spelled "one" and "two", at least in formal context.) That's how language works, my friend. There's no law in the English language that a word can't be one letter long (I and A, hello?), and there's just as much no law that words can't refer directly to letters. -Silence 18:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  If there were a so-called word "Q6", which was listed in dictionaries, as a noun or anything else, then surely we wouldn't want to include it in a list of "words containing Q not followed by U". This is essentially the point I am making: that inclusion in a dictionary does not necessarily make a "word" eligible for inclusion in this list. Matt 14:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)~.

  I think we could resolve the current dispute over the etymology of q by replacing it with something about the actual origin of the symbol, which is probably much more interesting. I don't know it though, so if anyone can find it out, I suggest they insert it. Soo 20:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  I have information on the historical appearances of each letter of the alphabet around somewhere within my collection of encyclopedias. I will keep looking, as I can't find the information I need at the moment, but I know it's there. Bobo192. 03:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep "q" As mentioned before 'q' can be used in a sentece perfectly well. We consider one, to be a word, there for the number 1 could almost be considered a homonym of the word 'one'. Therefore, just becuase 'q' does not have a direct alternate spelling, meaning the sevententh letter of the alphabet, it doesn't mean it should be excluded as a word. Dale 11:58 June 12, 2006

Conclusion of vote

Not enough votes have been cast for any sort of feeling of people's general opinions on this to be ascertained. However, the conclusion is:

• qt has now been removed for the separate reason that it only ever occurs as part of the phrase "on the qt".
• q is retained because it is felt there is a distinction between the letter "q" and the word "q" that is the name of the letter.

Matt 14:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

Hold on a second... me and Soo decided we should include qt. The only person who wanted to exclude qt was you. What concensus are you referring to? I propose that on concensus (2-1 in favour of keeping it) we transfer it back into the article. Bobo. 21:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

qt's status is in jeopardy because I reread the Longman entry and it's clearly inadmissable under our current rules (see discussion elsewhere on this page). If it also appears in other dictionaries then I'll be happy to see it restored. Soo 22:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Having reread my source, qt is permissable under Scrabble rules in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (Eighth Edition) and Websters' Third New International Dictionary. Bobo. 22:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Back in it goes then. God I'm bored of this article. Soo 22:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Everything's settled. Let's leave this point alone now. In fact, let's leave this entire list alone for as long as humanly possible. Bobo. 03:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Just to make it clear, I didn't actually remove "qt" myself, and I wasn't referring to any "consensus" arrived at in this vote. Soo removed it for different reasons, and I was more than happy to see it go. Matt 21:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC).

Inline references

The new reference system is good in the table, that must've been quite a bit of work. However the references section at the bottom now looks quite untidy. Since we aren't giving page numbers or anything, and the clicking-to-go-back thing is redundant (the Back button works just fine!), wouldn't it be easier to combine them all into one anchor? Citing a dictionary is different to most other books because it's obvious where in the dictionary you should be looking once you're told what to look for, so I don't think the "one citation per anchor" thing is really necessary or useful here. I'd be happy to make the edits myself, provided everyone's happy about them. Soo 03:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The clicking to go back is not just redundant: it's not helpful because you don't know which one to press! I agree with removing the long list of links in each reference.

I said this in the FLC discussion, but I would still like to see the references use meaningful abbreviations, such as [OED] and [M-W] instead of numbers. They would be a tiny bit bigger, but it would substantially reduce the amount of clicking and/or scrolling to the bottom needed. What do other people think about this?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is my opinion FWIW. To me, the "reverse" links at the end look very peculiar, kind of like something has gone horribly wrong with the formatting. At first it's unclear what they are supposed to do, and even when you figure it out I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to use them. Also there is a spurious "^" at the start of each line, and the M-W online reference has got its number out of sync and looks like there's a mistake. I still cannot fgure out what the "x.y" numbers mean. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to them. The "reverse" links also reinforce the impression that all references have been checked for all words, and that the list of reverse links is therefore a complete list of q-no-u words in that work - which is definitely not the case. At minimum the links should be moved after the dictionary name, but since they add a lot of clutter for little apparent value I would on balance vote to remove them completely. If this means losing the forward links too then that's fine since they also add little value IMO (it's obvious that the references will be at the end, clicking a link does nothing more specific than take you to the end of the page, which can be achieved just as easily, or even more easily, by pressing the "End" button or scrolling down.) I also entirely agree with ST that references would be better as meaningful abbreviations, rather than numbers. Matt 11:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

  The clumsy x.y system is a consequence of MediaWiki's in-built "ref" tag, so if we want to get rid of that then we'll have to roll our own reference system. All those cross-references would be hugely ugly to write out in full, so we'd probably be better to get rid of the clicky references all together. Looks like short names are the way forward. Soo 13:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  The only potential problem with short names is that if, as dicussed above, each headword and variant is individually referenced (rather than being consolidated into a "source" column) then the lists of references could become rather long. For example, something like "The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Fourth Edition, 2003" would presumably have to be something like "LDCE '03", and half a dozen of these strung together, even as superscripts, could become very unwieldy. In fact, if the referencing were exhaustive then even as numbers some of them would become pretty unwieldy. This is a good reason for retaining the "source" column, but then we would be back to needing a separate row for each variant, so as to make the referencing unambiguous (which I feel is essential). Perhaps that is, after all, the best option. (We'll end up just putting this back to exactly as it was before it was table-ified!!) Matt 14:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

I think they could be much more compact than that; for example, "The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Fourth Edition, 2003" could become L or if there are other Longman dictionaries, LC or L4. Either way that's no longer than the current numbering. Soo 14:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I was bit overblown with my example. I think you are right. Matt 14:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Hm. I do not believe that the current system is at all a feasible one. I understand the allure, and I was for it at first too when I first heard it suggested that we simply use abbreviations for each dictionary. But in the end, it's simply not a good idea, because it will consume far too much space on each individual row of the table. Can you imagine how horribly space-consuming and confused it will get when we continue to add major dictionaries so the list can become truly comprehensive? How will it look when we have twenty or thirty huge, bulky, boxed abbreviations next to "burqa", when we could instead simply have some small, attractive, linked footnote numbers consuming about a tenth as much space.

And people will still have to constantly scroll up and down to page to figure out what connects to what, because they're only human and won't be able to remember what's an abbreviation for what! I know that the has its problems, but this version has even more problems, by far. It should be reverted so we can get back to work on finding an effective way to simplify the presentation of the references section using back-and-forth links (we could do something instead like use the Hugo Chavez-style referencing, with abcd instead of 1.1 1.2 1.3 etc., though that doesn't have the new ref-style's advantage of being automated...)—though I don't think the issue of there being too many 1.1, 1.2, etc. numbers on the references is that big of a deal, and it certainly does have its share of very good advantages, like showing how many uses of "q-without-u" each dictionary has relative to each other; it's just a little aesthetically dense, at worst. -Silence 18:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• I was concerned about space too, but I think it's turned out OK. If space becomes a problem in the future then the new-style references can be put in a much smaller font and still remain quite legible. We could even lose the brackets and separate with commas if that will gain more space. In fact, it might be an idea to do that anyway as it's rather a forest of "[" and "]" symbols... Matt 19:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC). Though that would only work in the "source" column... it would be a bit confusing elsewhere, so maybe not such a good idea...

  Yeah, if it becomes an issue in the future then we'll change style. Meanwhile there's no problem - we can always use "small" tags if they get big. There aren't 20 or 30 major dictionaries worth looking through, and if one word has more than a certain number of sources then we don't need to list any more - our aim is only to provide citations for every word, not every possible source for each word. I personally find "ODE" much easier to remember than, say, "17" - it's not necessary to memorise the whole lot. Soo 19:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Here's an example of a real cinquefoil: Potentilla alchemilloides. -Silence

I know I picked the pictures without asking for consensus, but I was a bit disappointed to see the colourful cinqfoil picture get replaced with a rather bland diagram of a keyboard. Could we perhaps move the diagram to underneath the table or elsewhere, and restore the nice touch of green? If people want to discuss the pictures in more detail then that'd be fine too. Soo 19:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't worry about consensus for things like that ... nothing would ever get done. IMO the qwerty picture should stay because, as mentioned, it is pretty much the only native English word, and as such is more notable than an obscure variant spelling. I had exactly the same thought about the splash of colour though. I was just about to see what it looked like swapping the "suq" and "nestaliq" pictures to get some colour back at the start, but I'll leave you to do that if you want. I'm not sure that there is room for three pictures, but I suppose it's worth a try to squeeze cinqfoil back in there too. Matt 20:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

The reason I removed the cinquefoil image is explained in the edit history. But if you want, I'll elaborate:

1. cinqfoil is one of the worst examples of "q-not-followed-by-u" in the entire page, because it's an extremely uncommon (Google hits for "cinqfoil": 435) variant of a more popular (Google hits for "cinquefoil": 283,000) spelling that does have a u after the q (cinquefoil). Starting off an article about q-without-u with such a poor, obscure example is definitely misleading and will give a false impression to our readers (in addition to the fact that some first-time readers will be confused by the cinqfoil's relevance before they read more into the page, due to its description not explicitly stating its relevance to the page, unlike the description of the QWERTY and suq images). While this wouldn't be a big ideal if this was just any mediocre, run-of-the-mill list, since this is a candidate for Featured List, it will certainly need to serve as an excellent example for lists everywhere, which means...
2. no purely decorative images. All images on Wikipedia articles, lists, etc. should serve to help inform readers on some directly relevant, significant bit of info. Although this is a much bigger deal with images that aren't free use than with ones like the cinquefoil image (since then it's a legal issue in addition to an enyclopedic one), we still shouldn't be including images unless they and their captions serve to help further our knowledge of the article's central topic: q-without-u words in English. I'm not saying that there's no connection between the two things, but it's a flimsy, stretching one, whereas the relevance of the QWERTY image is immediately obvious (and very well-conveyed by its caption), and even the relevance of the suq image is very clear thanks to its caption. Of course, you could try to write up a more in-depth discussion of the cinqfoil's name for its caption if you were really desperate to have it appear on the page, thus making it more relevant and less decorative, but I really don't think it's worth the effort for an page with so little room for images already; the page is perfectly nice-looking with only two images. I understand your desire to have more vibrant opening images than a black-and-white diagram and a relatively mundane-looking marketplace photograph, but this should be a secondary or tertiary concern at best, not a primary one. It certainly won't influence whether this list gets Featured, for example. I encourage you, if you still think we should get a better image for the opening (e.g. another, prettier image of one of the words of Arabic origin to replace the "suq" one—that would probably be easiest), to seek out other free-use images that we can someday insert into the article. But the cinquefoil image is not the one to go with.
3. there's really not all that much room on the page to include so many images on such a short, compact page. it's not necessary or helpful, particularly when those images don't much improve our understanding of the subject matter we're dealing with. Those two reasons (plus the fact that a horizontal image doesn't really work on the bottom of the page because it's either too small to easily see or interferes with the quality of the references section by knocking some of the words over a few lines) are why I removed not only the cinqfoil image, but also the nasta'liq image, which also isn't directly relevant now that it's made redundant by suq's description (in addition to the fact that it could very easily confuse a lot of people who wonder why it's relevant to the article, perhaps thinking that the nasta'liq text we've reproduced is an example of where "q-without-u" comes from or something like that). And if you're that worried about these beautiful images never being seen by our readers, you really shouldn't be; anyone who simply clicks on the words themselves out of curiosity will be directed to an article featuring the pics prominently!
4. the final nail in the coffin: it's not an image of a cinq(ue)foil! It's a potentilla sterilis, which, if you read the potentilla page, shows you that it's actually a Barren Strawberry. Calling it a "cinqfoil" blurs the line between the different common names for various species in the potentilla genus, and thus serves to misinform our readers more than to inform them. -Silence 20:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, point taken on the cinqfoil; nevertheless those images at the top are just a bit dull. I don't see anything wrong with wanting the page to look at least a tad vibrant; given how intensely we've debated every other aspect of the page, it's hardly coming at the expense of quality of content. If I can find a pretty picture, I'll displace the fairly dull suq one, but I won't go out of my way to find it. Soo 23:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

QH/QW words

Regarding these, the text says:

"Only ones which are recognized as still being valid English words by a major dictionary are included."

To me this implies that "qhat", "qheche" etc. are in current usage - i.e. not marked as obsolete forms in the referenced dictionary. I find this surprising ... is it really true?

Matt 21:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

I would assume it to be true because those words were included here despite the disclaimer near the start of the article that most such words wouldn't be included, though perhaps they were just marked as "archaic" or similar and the people constructing this article aren't distinguishing between the different types of words the dictionaries include; I don't know, you'll have to consult the OED or ask whoever added them. -Silence 21:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me as it stands (especially as the main entry clearly says "obsolete"). So, as a possibly temporary measure, I have changed this sentence to read "A small number of such words are included for illustrative purposes." Hopefully that will cover all bases in the absence of definitive information about the intention from the original author. Matt 21:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

I agree it doesn't make a lot of sense and eagerly await an explanation (presumably it's simply a matter of the dictionary choosing some words as still being in use and others as not being in use based on frequency, and us having to blindly follow that dictionary for the same reason we have to include "q.t."), but I'll have to remove that sentence if you add it, because:

1. if it is true, we'll have to remove those words (randomly choosing words for "illustrative purposes" runs TOTALLY contrary to the entire purpose of this article, and, indeed, the entire point of the examples given in the early paragraphs of the articles are to illustrate examples of these sorts of words since we aren't listing them.
2. if it's not true, it's a misleading and false disclaimer; you're merely assuming it's true because you're confused by why some words are chosen for inclusion here and others aren't, not because you actually understand why and can explain it to people. You'll only cause more confusion by fabricating an untrue explanation.

So either way, it's unacceptable. -Silence 22:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• The original discussion says: "It's a sticky issue. Even the unabridged OED does not specify exactly which words could be spelt with QH; it just gives a few examples and then "etc"." The reference is still to the OED for these words, so I think it likely that my form of words is reasonably near to the truth - and better than something that we agree makes no sense. The other option would be to delete the sentence comletely. However, I will leave it for the moment and let's see if the original author pops up, as you suggest. Matt 23:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

• I've just noticed also that you say the new wording "...if true, would necessitate removing the entries, not giving a disclaimer about them." I don't understand what you mean. If we say that a large number have been excluded, but a small selection is retained for illustration, then they can stay, can't they? Am I missing something? Matt 23:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Basically, the QH- words that I included are headwords in the ODE, so they have legitimacy in their own right. The ODE also says that many words which are now spelt QU- could have been spelt QH- at some point, and gives a handful of examples in brackets. I didn't note what the examples were, I just added a note to the article saying that they exist. Soo 23:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you probably know more about the history of this than anyone else, while we're blitzing it do you fancy adjusting the wording? To recap, the basic problem is that it says "Only ones which are recognized as still being valid English words by a major dictionary are included.", which implies that the spellings are in current use. This seems unlikely, and also is in contradiction with the labelling of the spellings as "obsolete" in the main table. If you could fix this to make sense that would be great! Matt 23:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

English words?

Has no-one else noticed that all but around six of these words are not "English words", merely "words in use in English"? In any event, is this not simply an extract from a good dictionary? Am I missing something? Sbz5809 21:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Words in use in English are English words when they're in common enough use to appear in English dictionaries. Thus, while an English-speaker might use a word in another language, if English-speakers in general don't use that word often enough, it won't be absorbed into the English language and appear in dictionaries. Considering that almost every word in the English language comes from some other language at some point or another, saying that a word isn't English just because it has its origin in another language is rather ridiculous; there is no English language without word-borrowing and assimilation, save for a few very rare words like "dude" which may be unique inventions of English-speakers. The same is true for all languages: new words are made by borrowing and synthesizing much more often than by wholesale fabrication.

And this list is no more an extract from a good dictionary than any other linguistic article or list on Wikipedia; like all Wikipedia articles, sourcing is necessary for information that may reasonably be contested, but since we use sources from many different dictionaries, not merely from one, and consolidate, organize, and provide it in a format that no major dictionary currently does, the information this list provides is valuable and unique and cannot be provided by any of the dictionaries we currently use as sources in the same depth, scale, or format. Though even if it could, that wouldn't necessarily negate the value of the article, anymore than an anatomical article is negated by the fact that books on anatomy also cover the same topic. -Silence 21:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Only about 150 pages of discussion.

Haha. I'm getting really bored of these "but these aren't proper English words" debates now, especially since we address the topic in the very brief article intro. Thanks for handling this one, Silence. Soo 23:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

These are not English words. The simplest and most accurate way of handling the issue is to simply title the article "List of words containing Q not followed by U" since this eliminates the problem. You could keep the title the same, but to do so is to practice stupidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.186.19 (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Layout of QH entries

[Discussion about whether "Obsolete version of..." text for "qhat" etc. should go in column 2, or whether column 2 should be left blank and this explanation should go under "etymology".]

Silence: We can argue about whether "obsolete version of..." is strictly speaking a "meaning", but this is largely irrelevant. The point is that 99% of people will expect to see some sort of definition or explanation in the second column. To leave that blank and put the only explanation under "etymology" is, I think, taking pedantry way too far. And to duplicate the explanation is just as bad. We obviously aren't going to agree on this, so if anyone else has an opinion then please chip in, and I propose that the majority view shall prevail. Matt 22:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

text moved from above:

• To 86.133.211.164: please stop putting word origins in the "meaning" column for random words. This is confusing, inconsistent, and unnecessary. If you believe that the origin, source, or etymology of words is more important than their meaning for the purposes of this article, then switch the "etymology" and "meaning" columns for every word, not just for four of them that you happen to object to for no demonstrable reason.

It's not random words, it's words which are obsolete spellings of other words, and that is all that needs to be said about them. Matt 23:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

new text:

• "We can argue about whether "obsolete version of..." is strictly speaking a "meaning", but this is largely irrelevant." - No, we can't argue about that, because the notion that the meaning of those words is "obscure form of..." is beyond absurd. It's ababsurd. It's Absurd with a capital "A". Not only is it not "strictly speaking" a meaning, but it's not incredibly loosely speaking a meaning. It's just not a meaning. So, feel free to move the etymology section to the left more so it's more immediately obvious, since you felt the need to delete the valid and relevant information I provided on these words, directly causing the very problem which you now complain about (i.e. that there's no information in the first few boxes) and this whole mess about where to put the info for archaic words—but don't arbitrarily violate the entire meaning of the table's columns just because you happen to not like a few of the words that are listed. You've already scourged them of valuable info, which I haven't and won't try to revert because I don't want to have a revert war about something so trivial; don't also screw with the rest of the table by introducing pointless inconsistency into random entries.

As I said, it's not random entries. Also, I thought, and still do, that giving a definition of "whom" etc. in this context is unnecessary. I am happy with the etymology column where it is. Matt 23:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

• "The point is that 99% of people will expect" - Obvious untruth, to the point of just about being an impossibility. Utilizing the rhetorical tactic of hyperbole to try to make your case by pulling fictional statistics out of your ass to support your own personal convictions about how many people would agree with you, without anyone actually coming out and agreeing with you, will prove ineffective against me; I'm a master of hyperbole. :)

This is obviously just a figure of speech. Matt 23:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

• "To leave that blank and put the only explanation under "etymology" is, I think, taking pedantry way too far." - I find your repeated claims that simply being consistent and giving information that may prove valuable on some obscure and relevant words in this list is "overkill", "making a meal" of the entries, and now "pedantry", rather insulting. I'll assume that that's not your intent...

Correct. Matt 23:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

... and just say that if you think the meanings are irrelevant, move the meanings to the far right of the table for all the words and put the etymologies to the left. If this isn't how you feel, then arbitrarily changing the standards for random words will do nothing but confuse our readers, who will go through an entire list where the first entry is always the word's meaning, and then suddenly come to an especially obscure word and be even more confused by the fact that, wondering momentarily if "qhat" is an obscure meaning of "what" or if it means "an obscure meaning of what". The problem with this inconsistency isn't only that it's arbitrary and annoying, but also that it's unnecessary; why go to such great lengths to violate the structure of the rest of the template when it's so easy to simply provide a little data in each of those boxes for people to go on, avoiding any potential confusion? I thought we had come to the conclusion that clarity is more important for this table than conciseness; what may seem obvious to you won't be so obvious to all of our readers, and you shouldn't assume that just because you find providing more than the barest information on an archaic word to be overdoing it, that everyone else will feel exactly as you do. Not to mention that underdoing it certainly has more potential to cause harm and confusion than overdoing it does.

"Obsolete spelling of what." in column 2 will IMO confuse no-one. I simply think that readers will be better pleased with a simple explanation of the word in column 2. Matt 23:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

• "And to duplicate the explanation is just as bad." - Which is why I haven't restored the duplication in any of my reverts of your edits. Bringing it up again comes close to being purposefully misleading, conflating all of my subsequent edits with the original version of the article that you trimmed down. I hate redundancy as much as you, but unlike you, that isn't my only concern in dealing with these words; consistency and clarity are also necessary.

I didn't mean to imply that you were advocating duplicating the info. Matt 23:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

• "We obviously aren't going to agree on this, so if anyone else has an opinion then please chip in, and I propose that the majority view shall prevail." - I agree. Let's hear some more opinions on the matter. Except, of course, that Wikipedia is run by consensus, not majority; this is a discussion, not a mere vote. That's why providing reasoning for your version of the words is more important than citing a fictitious "99%" of people who agree with you; even were it true, 99% of people can be (and have been) wrong. -Silence

That was obviously just a figure of speech. Matt 23:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Although I'm pleased that everyone cares so much about this article being as good as it can be, this is a pretty minor point and I really don't feel there's a need to dispute it that greatly. If we're being hypertechnical then "obselete spelling of ..." is not an etymology anyway; it's the reverse of that. The fact is that the meaning column is supposed to help the reader work out what the word means, and in these cases, the easiest way to explain that is surely to use the modern spelling. Perhaps something like "Meaning: what (obselete spelling)" would be appropriate, and then the genuine etymology of the word (if its known) should appear in the appropriate column. No problem. Soo 23:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's being disputed so hotly simply because there were a couple of reverts, which I am beginning to realise gets people hot under the collar. I just found another example actually, which is rencq. Currently this is defined as "A system of hierarchy used to classify things.", which reads as if it is a very unusual word for some obscure system of classification. Only then do you get to the etymology and realise it's just obsolete for the very well known "rank". All I am saying is that these entries should just say "obsolete spelling of whatever", or words to that effect, in column 2, and leave it at that. Agreed? Matt 23:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I should add that if the word is unusual and may not be understood by some readers, or if clarification is needed for some other reason, then the meaning should also be explained. I felt this to be the case with "Whitsuntide", for example - hence I worded the text in column 2 as "Obsolete spelling of Whitsuntide (the day of Pentecost)", preserving the existing explanation intact. By contrast if readers don't know the meaning of "what", for example, then I feel they aren't going to be able to understand any of it anyway so what's the point... Matt 01:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

Yeah, I'm with you on this. Every dictionary blurs the boundary between what a word is and what it means, with the ultimate intent of explaining a word's meaning to the reader in the most readily understandable terms. If that means just giving the modern spelling of an obselete word then so be it. We don't need to exceptionally rigid here. The Etymology columns for rencq etc should contain, well, the etymology, which "obselete spelling of X" is not. Soo 04:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Common sense prevails!!! Silence: you have been outvoted, so please do not change this back again. Matt 12:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

Etymology of "q"

[created separate heading for this topic]

• [Addressed to Matt] Also please stop removing the information on the etymology of the word "Q", as this is very necessary to explain to readers why the word "Q" in the English language is spelled the same as the letter "Q", unlike the words for letters in most languages (e.g. Greek alpha, Hebrew gimel, etc.). You seem to not understand that the letter is also a word, but that it is not just a letter when used in this form, because it is impossible to use letters except as abbreviations for words or to spell out words. Thus, the word "q" is spelled with the letter "q", in the same way as the word "I" is spelled with the letter "I" without being the letter "I"; I know it's confusing, but removing all mentioning of this and trying to blind everyone to the matter does not eliminate the confusion, it furthers it by misleading people into thinking that we're listing the letter Q (as if this was a list of English letters and symbols, not English words) rather than a word which looks like, sounds like, and means "the letter Q", but is not that letter itself (or at the very least not just that letter). The only big difference between the pronoun "I" and the noun "Q" is that while they're both spelled and pronounced like an English letter, the pronoun I doesn't mean that letter (though the noun "I", meaning the letter I, does), whereas Q does mean the letter it represents. Other than they, they're both perfectly valid words, and neither is merely a letter: it's a word that's one letter long. Got it? -Silence 22:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• No-one will understand any of this from the information in the table. If you can find a way of explaining your theory concisely in the table then that would be good. Matt 23:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

  I think Silence's point is technically correct but indeed difficult to explain succinctly. I think my original suggestion to replace it with the etymology of the actual symbol, which is probably more interesting and relevant anyway, solves the debate neatly. Soo 23:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  I do not feel that an explanation of the origin of the symbol will be beneficial. It will just reinforce the idea that we are listing the symbol "q" as a word, rather than the word "q" that is the name of the symbol. As I understand it (which is not too clearly), this is specifically what we want to avoid. I concede that Silence's point may be technically correct, but it is so abstruse that it will go way over most people's heads without a great deal more explanation. I am a reasonably well-educated and literate person, and I didn't have a clue what the entry was supposed to mean. I'm still not entirely sure I understand it. My guess is that most people's reaction to reading "etymology of q: Derived from the letter Q itself." will be "huh???", and after some head-scratching, their best guess might be that some point is being made about the shape of the letter "q" being derived from that of the letter "Q", which, as I understand it, is not what is meant. Matt 01:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

  We probably have enough material for an "origin of Q" article here! Soo 04:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  I am in favour of removing the existing etymology "Derived from the letter Q itself." (pending a better explanation), on the grounds that it is incomprehensible. Silence is in favour of retaining it (as explained above), so there is an impasse. We can't continue with revert ping-pong, so if you have a view one way or the other then I propose that we abide by your decision. I don't like this "majority voting" much but I can't think of any other way. Matt 12:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

  It's not so much of an impasse. I think we basically all agree that

  • There is a distinction between the symbol Q and the word q, which refers to the symbol.
  • The above is difficult to explain, especially in the limited space afforded by the table.

  My opinion is that we should try to find a succinct way to explain it, which has so far eluded us, and if that fails then we should probably have a note in the article, probably linking to articles on the use-mention distinction or something. Silence would seem like the man to turn to to provide one of these solutions. Soo 15:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree. Given that the prevailing view is that "q" should be included, it should ideally have an etymology. However, IMO what is there at the moment is so confusing that it would be better to remove it altogether until such time as a better explanation is provided - rather than leave it in place until that time. I would attempt to provide a better explanation myself, but I am not confident enough that I understand the various technicalities. Matt 19:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

• Since this discussion has not reached a definite conclusion, I have asked two acquaintances, independently, to tell me what they think the sentence "Derived from the letter Q itself" means in this context. Both are highly literate, and knowledgable about and interested in words. I gave them no background about this debate, no information beyond what is actually on the page, and the question was asked in a neutral tone. One said that the sentence "makes no sense", and the other that it "doesn't mean anything at all". This exactly supports my opinion, and if no further support is forthcoming in favour of retaining the sentence I will in due course remove it. Matt 22:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
  • I think a simple explanation like "the name of the 17th letter of the English alphabet" is perfectly adequate for non-technical purposes. This is a general usage encyclopaedia after all. Soo 23:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, that is rather a good idea. I think saying that it is the name of the 17th letter rather than is the 17th letter goes some small way to giving a flavour of why it has been considered a "word". Matt 00:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

BBQ

Is is a word already? Should it be included? And what a work in progress here... Renata3 01:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"BBQ" is certainly listed in standard dictionaries, and I am not aware of any existing "official rule" that would exclude it. (The obvious one would be "no abbreviations", but then that would also exclude "tranq" and "qt", both of which appear in the list.)

My personal view, which some others do not agree with, is that there is an element of subjectivity about what is and is not a "word" for the purposes of this list, and that inclusion in a dictionary does not automatically make a word eligible. I would no more list "BBQ" than I would list "FAQ", "PDQ" or "qty" (or "qt", but I think I have lost that one), because to me none of these are "words". Hope that helps to muddy the waters! Matt 03:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

The ODE says BBQ is an abbreviation, as you would expect. Longman doesn't mention it at all. They're the only dictionaries I have access to at the moment, but it looks like it's just an abbreviation, i.e. not a word in the sense that we use that term in this article (clearly abbreviations using Q are totally unremarkable). Matt, I feel you have a valid argument about qt even though I disagree with your conclusion. On the other hand your claim that tranq is an abbreviation is just plain wrong, because it's an apocopation as explained on the article page. Unless you object to vet, phone, and bus (and many others) then you can't possibly object to tranq. Soo 04:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that I object to "tranq"? To me this falls on the right side - just - of being a "proper word" and is therefore OK. I am very surprised to hear that there is, after all, a rule saying "no abbreviations". Doesn't this mean that "qt" does have to go? I am confused.

To me, a "no abbreviations" rule would also exclude "tranq". The usual dictionary definition of "abbreviation" is "a shortened or contracted form of a word or phrase" (or similar), and "tranq" is clearly a "shortened form" of "tranquiliser". The Wikipedia article on abbreviation, incidentally, calls apocopation a type of abbreviation. However, I am not an expert and if there is some technical distinction that makes "tranq" (and similar shortened forms that we do want to include) not abbreviations, then fair enough, it would work.

Words like "vet", "bus" and "phone" are entirely uncontentious because, although they might have originally been abbreviations (in my usage of the word), they have now attained the status of words in their own right. Matt 12:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

I think I probably slightly confused the terms in my own head too, sorry. Basically, "tranq" is considered by Collins (I think it was) to be on the same level as "vet" etc; it's now a word in its own right. When I said no abbreviations, what I really meant was no initialisms; they really are unremarkable. The article should probably mention this distinction. Soo 15:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, I do not understand how "no initialisms" would exclude "BBQ" or, say, "qty" (for "quantity"). I'm not deliberately trying to be pedantic (honest!), but I have in mind, possibly as you are suggesting, that we should draw up a list of guidelines for how this page should work, including how to decide which "words" are eligible and which are not. Then when this flurry of activity is over it would be available for future editors to consult. (If the full version is too heavy-going for the main page then we could archive all this discussion and leave the guidelines in "clean form" on the talk page, along with the list of unsourced words.) At the moment I'm not sure what would be the appropriate rule to ensure "BBQ" and "qty" are excluded but "qt" is allowed... Hmmm. Matt 17:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

I'm withholding judgement on qty until I see a copy of the relevant for myself, which should be in about a week. The obvious distinction to me between BBQ and qt is that one is capitalised while the other is not, but apparently this is "arbitrary and trivial", so I'll try to rephrase it. Some of the confusion here is that different dictionaries classify things in different ways, and do not always use the most technically correct terms (understandable since they are intended for general use). For example, under IRA, the ODE says "abbreviation for Individual Retirement Account; Irish Republican Army". Clearly this is really an initialism, and no one would claim that IRA is a word in the sense that we are using that term here. The same applies to BBQ, which is described as "informal abbreviation for barbecue". The ODE doesn't mention "qt", but Longman does and clearly includes it outside the separate list of abbreviations. I suppose its used so widely in phrases like "on the qt" that it's been elevated to the state of a word in its own right... or something. I can't claim to understand the decision making process at Longman's, but as I've said before, the role of an encyclopaedia is merely to record the judgements of others. Soo 18:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not the whole story though. The compilers of an encyclopedia are required to make many editorial judgements, which are critical to its success. This is essentially what we are trying to do here I believe. Matt 19:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

I should also clarify, in case there is any confusion, that I am not suggesting that "qty" should be included. In fact, I would strongly oppose its inclusion. It is just one of a large number of "non-word" abbreviations that are listed in more modern dictionaries without a full stop. I am just pointing out the difficulty I have in formulating a precise non-subjective definition of which words are allowed – one that allows the words that we "think are proper words" and disallows those that we "think aren't proper words". Maybe someone smarter than me can come up with something! Matt 13:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC).

Reconciliation

Since there has been some major restructuring of this page just recently, and copy/paste/transcription errors can easily creep in, I've done a quick cross-check of the words in the current version against the version here immediately before the conversion to table, re-referencing etc. began. Three new variants have been introduced into the list at some point:

• nasta'liq (for nastaliq)
• qanún (for qanun)
• taqiyya (for taqiya)

No new dictionary sources have been added to support these spellings, and I'm flagging them up because I suspect they may have been added just on the strength of the spelling in the Wikipedia article. We have agreed (I believe) that Wikipedia cannot be a source for these purposes, so unless these variants are actually listed in the referenced dictionaries I guess we should remove them. On the other hand this could be totally wrong and they may be fully legitimate dictionary spellings that were just overlooked first time round. Anyone know anything about these?

Matt 15:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

I'm pretty sure those words were changed to bring them into line with the Wikipedia article. We should probably change them back. Soo 15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. I have also added "nasta'liq" and "qanún" to the "Can you help?" list. ("taqiyya" was already there). Matt 18:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

Citing the "infoplease" website as a source

Soo: Do you remember a while ago you added a bunch of words that I had sourced from the "infoplease" website (http://www.infoplease.com/ipd)? There are a handful more now sitting in the "pending" list above, which I was about to include, but now I am a little confused about how to cite the source for these. The actual site credits the source to "Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease." (at least for the examples I have looked at), but I don't see exactly this name anywhere in the list of references (the nearest being "Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 2005"). Do you remember now what you did with the earlier words you added? Did you check them by hand against another (printed) dictionary or something? If you don't remember I will just add a new reference, but just in case there was some good reason for not using exactly the form given on the website I thought I would check first. Matt 20:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

I probably cited them to the most recent version because that's the one I could find an ISBN for. In reality unabridged dictionaries tend not to remove words once they've been added (the ODE has a strict policy against it), especially recent additions like most of these words. If you can find the ISBN for the 1997 version then feel free to switch to that. Soo 20:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I take your point, and think you are probably right. I am little nervous about crediting a word to a source when I haven't actually verified that it is in that source, so I will create a new reference RHU or something. However, if you decide you want to remove this and consolidate everything under RHW then I won't object. Matt 20:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

I'll consolidate them if and when I can get my hands on the most recent version that includes all the words we want. No point having any more sources than we need, it just clutters the page, but for now keep them separate is probably smart. Soo 21:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Query explanation of QH and QW words.

After some relatively small formatting changes (by me) this text now reads:

"Also, some dictionaries note that many words which are now spelt with a qu (such as square) could once have been spelt with a qh or qw, but these many variants are not included here."

However, in an earlier version, before this text was rewritten (not by me), QH was given as an alternative to WH, not QU, and I'm wondering if mention of QH has been retained in error when the wording was changed. Is it really true, for example, that "square" was once spelt "sqhare"? Or maybe the intention was to keep mention of QH as alternative to WH? (In which case the wording needs tweaking because some such variants are included.)

It could be right as it stands, and I have obviously not changed it without knowing, but on the other hand could be a typo. Matt 14:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC).

I will have the definitive answer to this tomorrow. Other than that, today has been a quiet day for editing this article. Am I to infer that it's finally reaching a stage where everyone is happy? I'm happy now, although a few more etymologies would be beneficial. Soo 02:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I still have a significant concern over the ambiguity of the referencing of variants, as the table is currently laid out. I have not implemented any of my earlier suggestions because I am not happy with any of them. I will start another section about this below. Matt 11:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

I'll bash it through semi-verbatim from page 28 of The Scrabble Book (the same book I used for the list of two-letter words).

"..obsolete words from the Oxford have been excluded as they involve the substitution of W for U (for example SQWARE for SQUARE) or the substitution of QW for WH (as in QWERE for WHERE)."

If this is contradictary to anything that I have said before, I apologize. There it is in its exact words. Bobo192. 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, well this is different again. This text has been through several revisions and I think we've got ourselves into a bit of a muddle. In my view this is what needs to be done:

• Establish exactly which obsolete variants we are talking about that have been omitted. All of the following have been mentioned at some point, in various permutations: qw for qu; qh for wh; qh for qu; qw for wh.
• Ensure that the wording does not contradict the inclusion of various qh-for-wh words (assuming we want to leave them in). For example, we can't simply say that obsolete qh-for-wh words "have been excluded" because this is not true. We need to explain why the ones that are included have been included.

Matt 11:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

For consistency, we could just exclude qhat etc. They aren't particular interesting anyway. Maybe they could just be used as examples in the explanation of what's been excluded. Rencq, on the other hand, is quite interesting (to me at least), so we want to retain that, and be careful to say that we aren't omitting all obselete words. Soo 14:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing the qh- words from the main table and just giving an example in the introduction of the sort of words that have been excluded. Maybe one of each type could be mentioned without it becoming too verbose - e.g. "sqware" and "qhat" (+ one for whichever other variants actually have been omitted). Matt 18:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

Referencing of variants (revisited)

I have two concerns about this. The first one is relatively picky (but still important I think), and the second is more structural.

Point 1

Firstly, the exact attribution of variants seems to depend in some cases on some very subtle punctuation differences that I do not feel are robust enough to survive in the wild. Some are perfectly clear, such as:

"Plural qindarka [L] or qindars [C]. Also written qintar [L][C] or quintal."

(Note that quintal doesn't need a reference as it is not a q-no-u word).

Others are less clear. For example:

"Also written qadhi or qazi. [OED]"

Does the fact that the [OED] appears after the full stop mean that it applies to both variants?

And then

"Plural waqf [ODE] or waqfs. [C][OED]"

Do C and OED apply to waqf and waqfs, or just to waqf?

And then what about:

"Also written qeri [WI] or qre. [WI]"

I propose that each variant should be individually referenced. "Group" referencing based on tiny punctuation differences is IMO just too confusing. I did actually change a few that I thought were just punctuation errors, but then got cold feet because I thought I might be losing information that was very subtly coded in the punctuation.

Matt 12:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

You're right, it's not a particular robust system, but the system you guessed at was indeed the system I employed. If you can think of a better way to do it without the references becoming intrusive then by all means migrate to that. As for qeri and qre, I'm not sure what was intended by that, so I'll have to check that out again. Soo 14:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the main priority is to get to a stage where all the referencing is unambiguous and is robust against future editing. Obviously the best solution is to have the referencing unambiguous and unobtrusive, but if it's a choice between the two then I would personally go for unambguous - otherwise what's the point. See also "Point 2" below. Matt 18:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

Point taken (haha!). Okay, implement whatever changes you think necessary. I have only a few more days to work on this article before real-life commitments return, so I really would like it to be stable by then. Soo 02:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have done the ones I known about. See under "Souq" below for further comment on this. Matt 14:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

Point 2

(I mentioned this a while ago but it's still annoying me, and I can't really think of an entirely satisfactory solution.)

Let's take the entry for "nastaliq" as an example. The intention of the referencing is, I assume [?] that the OED reference applies to "nastaliq" and the two variants "nestaliq" and "taliq". However, let's say I was coming to this page as a new contributor. I have a new variant that I've come across - say "nasteliq" - that I read on some website, or Wikipedia, or whatever, but that I haven't found in a "major dictionary" (I just made this one up for illustration). I look at the entry for "nastaliq", and then I see, for example, the entry for "qindar", where variants are individually referenced. I conclude that references for variants are optional - sometimes they're included, sometimes they're not - so I slap "nasteliq" into the variants column. The next person comes along and just assumes that "nasteliq" is in the OED. There's no way they can tell the intention of the contributor.

The obvious solution is to enforce individual referencing of the variants, even if they are all the same as the main source. Then any variant that is added without a reference can be taken out with an instruction to the contributor to cite the source.

However, this brings us to the second problem. Let's suppose that all variants are individually referenced. What, then, is the "main" reference (or references) in the last column supposed to mean? Since the variants are individually referenced, it presumably applies to the headword. And yet the headword is a long way to the left, and, intervening are the variants and their own references, so there is a lot of doubt left in the reader's mind.

The layout is also confusing when you are adding a new reference. Let's go back to the "nasteliq" example - a new variant which I have now sourced to some dictionary XXX. I add "nasteliq [XXX]" as a variant. Now I'm confused. Do I also add [XXX] to the "source" column? Yes, I suppose I should, because this is obviously, being at the end, some sort of "consolidated" set of sources. So I put [XXX] in the last column, and the next person that comes along thinks that dictionary [XXX] contains at least the headword "nastaliq" which may not be the intention of the contributor, and may not be true.

Regardless of what I do, the existing entries [OED] reference is still at the end, apparently referring to the whole row - including the variants - and it's easy for the reader to guess that "nasteliq" is also in the OED.

All of this was discussed before (above, under "Separate listing of significant variants"). Various possibilities were suggested there, but I have not implemented any of them. I find none entirely satisfactory. The clearest layout, though not the prettiest, seems to me to be what was described earlier as "option 1", which is to lose the source column altogether and reference the headword directly, but this would need to be agreed.

To my mind the existing layout just does not stand up to scrutiny, and I feel something should be done. Any further thoughts?

Matt 18:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

Additional comment

I haven't mentioned this before because it does seem a bit too anal, but hey, if we're going to get it right we may as well get it right, right?

Strictly speaking, the source of non-standard plurals (not just -s or -es) should also be clear. Currently some are and some aren't. My original idea was this:

• We pick a "preferred" variant to be the headword (either based on the dictionaries' headwords, Google frequency, or if everything else fails, arbitrarily). We already do this, so nothing new here.
• We list any non-standard plurals somehow along with the headword/definition.
• We make it clear that the "main" source(s) (currently ambiguously sitting in the "Source" column) apply to both the headword AND the non-standard plural.
• Any further variants, including any further non-standard plurals not covered by the main source are then listed separately under "variants".

I have in any case never been happy with non-standard plurals routinely being listed under "other forms". Let's take the simple example of "man". If "man" were a word in the list then would "men" be "another form"? No, it's just the plural, whether it's non-standard or not. I moved them once, having the above scheme in mind, but someone then changed them back.

Just thought I'd share that one with you.

Matt 15:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC).