Beer parlour is for policy discussion, meaning discussion that concerns larger sets of entries. For discussions on individual words, see Wiktionary:Tea room. See also the scopes of other discussion rooms at Wiktionary:Discussion rooms.

Guidelines for posting:

• Remain civil; don't make personal attacks; don't call people names. Counter-example: "you stupid brain-damaged idiot".
• Don't change other people's posts.
• Sign your comments with four tildes, meaning ~~~~, which produces your name with timestamp.

Archiving: Beer parlour is archived into an archive, accessible from Wiktionary:Beer parlour/timeline. The page names of the archive look like "Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2009/August".

I make very little apology for starting to get tough on those people who want to carry on long detailed policy discussions in the Beer Parlour. The Beer Parlour is far too crowded. And it's about time you people discussing Policy ideas took your more serious stuff out of the Beer Parlour to some back room/talk page and got serious about developing Policy issues. Constant detail policy discussion in Beer Parlour is just tiresome and not in line with the stated intentions of the BeerParlour. --Richardb 02:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

.Policy (Development) discussion - Once discussion identifies an issue as a matter of discussing policy ideas, further discussion is to be taken out of Beer Parlour to the talk page / committee room of the relevant Policy page, be it a Policy Think-Tank page, DraftPolicy, Semi-Official Policy, Official Policy or Rejected Policy. SeeCategory:Policies - Wiktionary Top Level for a list of the sub-categories and identified Policy (Development) pages. All that will be left in the Beer Parlour will be pointers to the Policy (Development) pages, and a very brief statement of the topic and progress.--Richardb 02:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

• • This seems to be a good idea. Eclecticology 05:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

A good idea indeed. Ncik 23 May 2005

Agreed, it's a good idea. BP is very large now.--Dmol 08:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The word frequency in the English language Wikipedia meta:Fulltext index statistics for en Wikipedia may be of interest to some here. Note that stop words are not included - this list is generated from the fulltext search index. Any questions are best asked on the talk page on meta. Jamesday 04:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please note that the common link for Wiktionary discussions is Beer parlor, and that this page is rarely noticed. --Connel MacKenzie 19:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 23:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)> You mean "parlour"? </Jun-Dai> Of course not! I'm American, not British. --Connel MacKenzie 02:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) <Jun-Dai>Sure, but our beer parlour happens to be British.  :) </Jun-Dai> That's why I linked it wrong, but spelled it correctly, after the pipe.  ;-) --Connel MacKenzie 03:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It has only just today struck me as odd that this page isn't spelled "parlor", since I imagine Wiktionary was mostly set up by North Americans. Equinox ◑ 23:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone mind if I start a Quenya dictionary on here? 199.217.32.2 17:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)User:CaptainXel if not, where can i find it?Reply

eu·phen·ics noun (used with a sing. verb)

the study or practice of phenotypic improvement of humans after birth.

eu·phenic adjective

neologistic blend of eu(gen)ics, and phen(otype).

thank you for your time and patience.

Hi

The page you are looking for is linked from the toolbar in the left margin - the link is called "Requested entries". Hope that helps. \Mike 10:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Of course since you seem to have the entries all planned, you may not need the Requested entries page — this is a wiki and you can add the entries yourself: euphenics, euphenic. —Muke Tever 19:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

my thanks to mgspiller regarding protologisms and "euphenic". when you mention citations, are you referring to the usage one might find from http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=euphenic?

i think my paucitous computer skills will prevent me from creating any entries in the near future. i am have difficulty posting this.

i hope some one more skilled will post "euphenic". dictionary.com does list the word: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=euphenic.

i look forward to reading the wiktionary etymology - as dictionary.com lacks any.

thank you for your time and patience.

No problem. To be honest I have not heard of the word before so I suggested that it might be a protologism. 1700 Google hits is enough for me to say it deserves it's own page though I'm quite 'inclusionist'. Entries in other dictionaries are good evidence as well. There is a preference for google print hits as they imply someone has gone to the effort of actually paying to print a few copies of the word rather than standard google hits which are 'just' websites but I think you've provided enough evidence. Semper Blotto seems to agree as he has written up your suggestions. MGSpiller 01:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Phase 1. I've been thinking about it, and have come to the conclusion that there are at least two ways to go about this:

1. System of subpages, like done with the Primetime discussion.

   This involves that every discussion, when at considerable length, would be moved to a subpage in order to alleviate the main BP page. The original header will remain in place, so that the discussion remains within reach. In the process of archiving, everything gets mashed together again, in correct order, which can be achieved by observing the position of the headers. This option will leave us a relatively small Beer parlour, and readers can choose freely what to read and what not.

   • Additional note: one advantage here is that discussions can easily be moved and included elsewhere without touching their original state. — Vildricianus 12:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
   • Instead of mashing, what about categories, or similar lists by date? Davilla 07:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

2. Breaking up into seperate pages, as is done with the Village pump.

   This then entails the creation of three or more BP pages, in the style of Wiktionary:Beer parlour (topic). Which topics this will be should be thoroughly discussed. I'd say we need something like "news", "proposals" and "assistance". There will then be one "master" page: Wiktionary:Beer parlour (all), {{including}} all other sections. Preferably, there should be a unified archive.

I see both options as a feasible solution for our heavy page. Comments/thoughts/more options are appreciated. — Vildricianus 09:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. I like the idea. Could also accommodate including the Information Desk content so it gets seen in Beer Parlour, but people can go direct to Information Desk too.

2. Why not make a little project page for this project to revamp BP ? Pleease!--Richardb 12:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that's necessary now. This is the excellent place to discuss it. (That's what talk pages are for, right?) — Vildricianus 12:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I like option 2 as it allows seeing every topic more easily if you want to. Your three topics sound about right too for starters. - Taxman 12:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Considering the newly re-discovered technique demonstrated with color/colour (translation sections) perhaps we could just do Vild's phase one, and discuss phase two over a couple month's time. I suspect that having all conversations automatically sub-paging themselves will leave the beer parlour as a usable index. The only trick then is for someone (or several dozen people) to volunteer to (once-a-day) move new threads onto sub-pages with the goofy template/heading syntax. After one or two weeks, I think many will just "get it." --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Rewording Connel's idea:

• Option 3:
  • All discussions on subpages.
  • One page including the most recent discussions (couple of weeks of sections)
  • One page being an index to all (about a year of subject headers)

— Vildricianus 10:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, if we're talking every discussion be on a subpage, that's fine too. I do think it's even more work and edits, but it's still an improvement I think. - Taxman 15:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

A revamp would be good. Which method is better I don't know, but I'd like to frame it this way: Given ideas of equal potential, what makes the difference is how the discussions are archived. Archiving by date doesn't do a lot of good. If someone wants to comment on the "r" used in pronunciations they're not going to think, "Oh wait. Maybe that was already discussed in February of 2004." The discussions need to be archived by topic. This is what I mean by indexing. So in terms of which method is preferrable, I would like to know how easy it would be to index a discussion under possibly multiple topics and how the results might look after a couple of years' time. I'm probably assuming that dead topics, if rediscussed, would be in new threads, but that's also something to consider. Davilla 07:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Your aim could be achieved by keeping discussions on separate (sub)pages and categorizing them. This then in addition to an improved index to the archives, which I was considering for phase 2. — Vildricianus 10:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Misread the first proposal. I agree with Connel to go ahead with it. There's not much difference from the current method, so it's total okay to do it now IMO. But I like the second a little better. I just think it could be refined more, or alternatives like Connel's considered, especially in light of my comment immediately above. Davilla 07:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

At the top of the BP page and archive pages, the template box lists archives. This year, the BP volume has increased dramatically. Starting with the year 2006, can we break the archives apart by month, instead of by quarter? Jan-Feb-Mar would occupy about the same visible space as January-March currently does (on that template.) With the month abbreviations, things should mostly fit the same, right? Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Already among my ideas for the revamp. Perhaps a bit of rework for the template was as well (float:right sidebar-ish). —Vildricianus | t | 18:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't know that I'd like it sidebar-ish here. The visual impact might provoke negative responses, I'd guess. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

What about working with categories and such? I've devised an inputbox at User:Vildricianus/Test parlour. Put in a topic, and User:Vildricianus/Test template gets loaded into a new page, which is included in a category, in which the pages are sorted by the date of their creation. So the idea is to have separate subpages for each topic, all included in a category. Additionally, all these pages can be transcluded into one page for easy viewing. Can someone give a second opinion? —Vildricianus 19:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure the Beer Parlour usage is so heavy that any drastic changes are warranted yet. The page is big, to be sure, but I've been following a number of active threads recently and some have gone for several days with only 0-1 new posts per day. (Look at May 17 -- two edits total!)

I'd definitely vote against a subcategorization scheme. Users never know where to post questions, interested regulars want to read all of them anyway and it's even more of a nuisance when there's N places to check instead of 1, and the really interesting questions have a way of transcending any categorization scheme.

What if we just archived more often, so there wouldn't be such a huge bulk of no-longer-active topics to scroll past? When there are long-running topics (lasting longer than the archiving interval), those are probably exactly the ones that ought to be moved to their own policy workshop or "think tank" pages.

—Scs 02:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

That last option you mentioned doesn't seem to work very well here. There are quite a number of such think tank pages that have remained untouched for ages and are completely forgotten about; instead, people raise the same old topics again in the BP. I'm all for such practice, but that'll need organizing as well then. —Vildricianus 09:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of an archiving bot I use on talk pages that may work nicely here, I'll investigate and get back in a bit -- Tawker 06:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

You mean like Wikipedia's w:User:Crypticbot? Nice idea to have here as well. —Vildricianus 09:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I just don't have time to read all this quite yet but I do have some ideas which may or may not have already come up.

• Why not make the Beer parlour and possibly also the Tea room and RFD mainly a page of links but with added dates, outcomes, results, etc; and move all the acutal discussions to talk pages or separate discussion pages. For RFD and Tea room we could have specific headings on the talk page of the affected articles. For Beer parlour we could do several things: a) a Beer parlour namespace, b) subpages of the Beer parlour, c) talk pages that have no article - we could even remove the article tab and redirect direct access from the default namespace to the talk namespace.
• This would keep everything centralized. We wouldn't lose so easily previous discussions of similar topics. We could move discussions around and always leave the redirects. We could link between them without those links breaking due to archiving or such. We could use extensive categories that are just for these discussion topics to make it easy for users to find a topic when they don't know its exact name, and find similar and related topics in any case.
• Have these kinds of things come up before and how do people feel about them? — Hippietrail 22:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I expect that some people won't like this, but personally I see that as a good solution. Actually, this was #1 of my proposal, so I reckon I still support that, yes. Extending it to TR and RFD/RFV and perhaps also RFC seems more than plausible. For the BP I would use subpages, which seems the simplest option. —Vildricianus 22:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think we can safely close this topic for the time being. Due to the success of the new rooms, revamping of the Beer parlour will be restricted to more frequent archiving, perhaps by Tawker's bot. Any more ideas are still welcome, though, preferably in the Grease pit. —Vildricianus 18:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm new here, so please forgive my naivete, but what's with the pronunciation format? It may be perfect for world-wide language-nonspecific linguistics, but it's no help at all to the amateur dictionary user. If I have to go research the symbols every time, forget it. Any chance of including an intuitive pronunciation guide along with your arcane version?— This unsigned comment was added by 216.75.80.162 (talk).

The w: IPA is used in nearly all current English dictionaries outside the USA, and the portion of it needed for English is not that hard to learn. If you don't like it, we also use a familiar-looking w: pronunciation respelling, usable only in English entries. But you'll be doing more research to actually use this, because every dictionary publisher has their unique, incompatible version. If you find pronunciations are missing from entries, we'd appreciate it if you would chip in and add them.

See the wt: English pronunciation key. —Michael Z. 2010-04-22 16:22 z

If there is a particular entry you wish to know the pronunciation of, then you can request it using {{rfp}}. Unfortunately these don't get filled that quickly, so if you want to add any that have been requested by others just take a look at Category:Requests for pronunciation. We also have many entries with audio pronunciations, and any help you can give in recording these would be much appreciated, user:Dvortygirl is probably the biggest current contributor of these and I'm sure she'd be able to answer any questions about how to do it if we don't have a page about it (and if we do have one, if that doesn't answer your questions). Audio pronunciations can be requested using {{rfap}} and existing requests are in ]. Thryduulf 18:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Problems with Unicode discussion moved to Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/December_02#Combining_diacritical_marks:_Unicode_range_x0300-x036F
• Discussion on Dutch/Flemish distinction moved to Talk:Flemish
• Tamil display discussion moved to Talk:Tamil
• What can I contribute when my knowledge is limited moved to Wiktionary:FAQ
• A question about linking has been moved to Wiktionary:FAQ
• Discussion of protologisms has moved to Wiktionary:Beer parlour/Protologisms
• Wiktionary:Thesaurus considerations
• Wiktionary:Wiktionary Logo
• Wiktionary:Cyrillic entries
• Wiktionary:Capitals again
• Wiktionary:I want to transfer non-English definitions from noneng.wikipedia.org
• Wiktionary:Word forms (genders, plurals etc)
• Wiktionary:Phrase book
• Wiktionary:Multiple etymologies
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/Chinese language issues
• Wiktionary:International & national trademarks
• Wiktionary:Capitalization in definitions
• Wiktionary:Representing pronunciation
• Wiktionary:Merging consequent changes
• Wiktionary:Big implementation problems with Wiktionary
• Wiktionary:Using UK/US spellings and vocabulary
• Wiktionary:Empty translations
• Wiktionary:Special pages
• Template talk:punctuation
• Wiktionary:IPA Characters
• Wiktionary:Downloading Entire Dictionary
• Wiktionary:Abbreviations in Webster
• Wiktionary:Rhymes
• Wiktionary:Geographical names
• Wiktionary:Inter-wiktionary links
• Wiktionary:Hyphenation?
• Wiktionary:Concordances

I may have mentioned this several years ago, but I really would like to suggest renaming the "beer parlour" entirely. Over a billion of the world's population (and probably more) practice faiths which abhor alcohol, and, if this site, like Wikipedia, aims to be friendly to a global population, I don't think it is a good idea to continue this (I am one of these people). This is not to mention those who detest alcohol for purely practical reasons; this is not mere political correctness as alcohol, beer included, is an indisputable contributor to everything from spousal abuse, date rape, and other violence; brain and liver damage; transportation accidents, and other social and economic costs for society as a whole. I don't mean to lecture here, but just as Mediawiki demonstrated linguistic sensitivity in making the main page a linguistically neutral gateway, I would hope that this very prominent discussion section here for Wiktionary could also be given a more inviting name. Thanks, Brettz9 19:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I always thought the title referred to root beer... - TheDaveRoss 20:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you were just joking, but "beer" usually refers to the alcoholic drink when it is not preceded by "root" (including for "parlours" and I don't see anything here indicating otherwise). Brettz9 08:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You can now buy non-alcoholic beer. (Does this mean we have to rename grease pit because vegetarians can't eat there?)Anyways, there was no proposal of what to replace it with.RJFJR 13:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

How about just Parlour? Parlours are a social place. I'm with Brettz9 and while I don't think people should bend over backwards being PC just for the sake of PC, when it's easy to avoid offending and something is offensive, it's worth the change. - Taxman 19:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

How about "Speakeasy"? —scs 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how this isn't PC for PC's sake. This is cyberspace, beer parlour is just a word/phrase. No one will get intoxicated by visiting the Wiktionary Beer parlour. (unless perhaps they get intoxicated on written discourse, but that would happen regardless of the page name). --Versageek 20:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don’t drink alcohol, and I have never made a mental connection of the Beer Parlour with alcohol in any form. Seems rather silly to me. It reminds me of the super-PC movements in the past that wanted to change words such as female to feperson, and hymnal to thymnal. —Stephen 12:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Here are some of my brainstorms (in no particular order):

1. boxing ring
2. locker room
3. moshpit
4. water cooler
5. watering hole
6. DMZ
7. wrestling ring
8. foodfight
9. gladiator arena

I seem to be picking names that describe what this discussion board is, not necessarily what it should be ;-)

A-cai 14:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think we should remember that this is not a forum for all of the wikies, this is only the English wiki. It’s only reasonable that it reflect the culture of the English peoples, and I think Beer Parlour is a culturally rich name. For the Arabic wiki and Persian wiki, then certainly they will want to select something that reflects those cultures, perhaps Template:ARchar or whatever else they like. Each language has its own discussion forum. —Stephen 15:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

With a global audience, virtually any name stands a good chance of offending someone. To take A-cai's examples:

1. boxing ring - Offends those who are against blood sports.
2. locker room - Offends those who are against public nudity and the unfit.
3. moshpit - Offends those who are against dancing.
4. water cooler - Offends the unemployed.
5. watering hole - This is only another name for a beer parlour.
6. DMZ - Offends pacifists.
7. wrestling ring - Offends those who espouse non-violence.
8. foodfight - Offends those in regions where starvation is endemic.
9. gladiator arena - Also offends those who are against blood sports.

See, we're doomed! :-) --Jeffqyzt 14:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maybe w:Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies to naming schemes as well as formal systems :) - DaveRoss 15:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

To turn this logic on its head (as well as the other cultural relativism arguments here), any title would then be acceptable (and clearly they are not): the White Man's Club, the Strip Joint, or wherever.

Unlike the examples given by A-cai, "beer parlour" adds a wholly irrelevant metaphor to the mix. If intoxication were relevant here, we'd be encouraging people to do things like adding in off-kilter definitions. If it is only through alcohol that people here can envisage the bonding or what not implied in this metaphor, I think they are capable of adding it with their own imagination to the more generic "Parlour".

As far as Stephen Brown's latter comments, while I can see the relevance of cultural localization, I don't think English speakers--or non-Muslim Arabic speakers--would be pleased to hear that the Arabic version of Wiktionary had something like a "Hajj corner", even while many Arabic speakers are Muslims.

Also, the above examples added by Jeffqyzt, while clever, are not all equivalent. For example, "Water cooler" would be a perfectly acceptable yet culturally-rich metaphor, and the unemployed would not take offense at this metaphor, unless they were opposed to working; "boxing ring" is clearly intended tongue-in-cheek, and so on.

Just because it is not possible or desirable to bend over backwards for every extreme case of sensitivity someone might come up with, I really don't think that this is asking that much. Brettz9 11:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Water cooler then? It's not really the name of a room though, but whatever, I can live with it. I never come here intoxicated anyways, and I certainly prefer other spirits. Incidentally what would you recommend for Wiktionary:Tea room for those of us who don't drink tea, or at least who wouldn't drink tea if we had the choice? After a half year or so I gave up on the idea of no caffeine in a country of Chinese culture, and I'm not looking forward to another withdrawal when I return to the U.S. By the way, I'm not voting for Wiktionary:Water cooler unless you can think of a good alternative to Wiktionary:Tea room, but that's just my one vote. DAVilla 12:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Moving back left again... Jeffqyzt 14:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

First of all, I'd like to point out that my comments on A-cai's suggestions were all tongue-in-cheek, and not meant to be taken seriously, other than the point that nothing is ever entirely neutral. FWIW, I personally abstain from alcohol for both personal and religious reasons. Nonetheless, I don't find "beer parlour"'s use objectionable as a title for a venue of conversation for several reasons.

• The term "beer parlor" lends a certain imagery that is unique. It evokes informality, joviality interspersed with flashes of misdirected agression, relaxation, coziness, comradery, etc.; in short, all of those things that make up the atmosphere of beer parlours and their habitués. That imagery is distinct that that conjured up by, say, the term "water cooler." In fact, you could cease serving alcohol, and the place would still evoke "beer parlour"-ness.
• Beer parlours are a historically important and long established part of the culture that gave rise to the English language. One can hardly imagine Shakespeare, for instance, without the context of many a beer parlour in the background.
• There are a number of activities that go on in beer parlours other than the consumption of alcohol, and, from my own example, a number of people who don't necessarily consume alcohol on the premises.
• Probably for as long as they've existed, there have been those who despise them for their association with drunkeness and vice, but that is, in fact, part of their mystique: they are a retreat from the world, a safe haven from "fuddy-duddy-ness", if you will.
• There's no way to prove this, but I'd wager that globally, at this point in history, the number of people who enjoy and appreciate, or at least are neutral toward, beer parlours (or the local equivalent thereof) far outweighs the number of people who are opposed to them.

If we change the name, the character and context of the discussion will change to some degree. This should not be undertaken without due consideration. --Jeffqyzt 14:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the point in renaming everything in Wikitionary just because it may offend someone, I'm all for not upsetting folk but this suggestion of renaming the Beer Parlour would be the first beach head of politcal correctness eating away at our project. How long would it be after this proposed change that we remove all pejorative articles becaue someone got upset at them? Beer Parlour is massively tame and we should not cowtow to the extreme views of other just beacuse they don't like something. And before I get a slap on the wrist for getting on my soapbox, let me remind you that this request for a change is politically motivated. I feel we are as politcally correct as we can be while at the same time ensuring that we don't sell our rites to free speech in the process! --Williamsayers79 10:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

While I strongly opposed to renaming the beer parlour, it did occur to me that the "Grease pit" has started a new theme. Grease pit/Mosh pit/Orchestra pit/Open pit/Pit and the pendulum etc. Hmmm. Maybe it would be better to rename "grease pit" to "Garage." For that matter, our archive pages should probably be called "Basements" or "Cellars".  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 20:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mosh pit gets my vote ;-> --Williamsayers79 20:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I like watering hole. A lion at a watering hole usually does not get drunk ^_^. Waterring has never been added to Wiktionary , so I feel watering hole is neutral to the spelling of all dialects of English unlike beer parlour/beer parlor. Watering hole carries the appropriate connotation that beer parlour has, too. Water is a potable/drinkable/edible liquid like grease and tea. Beer is illegal in some places and beer parlours often refuse entry to minors who might be valuable contributors here. Unless I hear an actual minor complain for that reason or an actual tee-totaller complain about the alcoholic association though, changing the appellation to remove beer does seem PC for PC's sake. On the contrary, it seems all teetotallers here agree with or enjoy this personal sort of moniker so the drinkers against it aren't voicing the concerns of the people they claim to be protecting. The parlour part on the other hand, I find divisive and I straddle the parlo(u)r border. Thecurran 02:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

watering exists, waterring (two Rs) is an uncommon misspelling (814 googles, while watering has >17,000,000). RJFJR 03:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it's hilarious that people have been thinking of "Grease Pit" like a place to eat. (reference to vegans taking offense, and grease as a consumable liquid. bleah!) Isn't it like a mechanic's workplace, where you get your fingernails dirty with the mechanical details of the project? -- Thisis0 16:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Pretty much, yes; see grease pit. (Also, the term grease is very often applied to vegan fats; greasy potato chips, for example, are usually greasy with vegetable oil.) —Ruakh_TALK 16:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I thought it was like a grease trap in a professional stove (like a restaurant or fast food place had) that had to be scraped out peridoically, a dirty job that has to be done. RJFJR 23:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

How about icebox? Nah, kidding. I like "watering hole" the best of all options above. bd2412 T 23:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Icebox? Cool! ^_^ Anyhow, LOL, m8. Thecurran 06:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Seriously though, I think giving such an important discussion room a colloquial spelling is a legitimate cause for change and I am tempted to move this to WT:TR. Before doing so, I would like to gauge your opinions. Thecurran 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Opinion: No. --Connel MacKenzie 06:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Furthermore, please read Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/October-December 05#Name change? --Connel MacKenzie 06:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, really, please, no. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, no stress. Apparently, the spelling point has also been raised and has fallen. I think Connel MacKenzie is solely a US citizen and wonder why one would back up the '-our' spelling as in the 2005 discussion. -? I've checked dozens of texts containing 'Beer Parlour' in Google Books; none preceded US independence & all were Canadian, Nigerian, or translated from another language. I was hoping at least one reference would pop up between Chaucer and Shakespeare, so I could agree that it belonged to a shared English language history, but no. There were even examples of 'beer parlor' going back to 1858 further than the first 'beer parlour' one in 1895, but most were about Canada. Anyhow, I think neither the grounds that 'beer parlour' preceded 'beer parlor' nor that 'beer parlour' has a rich history in all English are firm. The best reason I see to keep the current spelling is that nobody else here cared enough to speak about it when it was raised in 2005, & this time the contributors that agreed may have only done so as a joke. Oh well; I tried. ;) Thecurran 01:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, don't know if it's too late to contribute to this, but I wanted to say that I am a Muslim, and personally, I don't care about the name Beer parlour. I think it's kinda funny. :) I don't see any offense. --Girdi 12:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

On the Internet, nobody knows whether you are blotto or abstemious, even if you say so. DCDuring TALK 12:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

There's no reason everything has to be part of our imaginary playland. Let's change the title to BP, Bee Pee, or Beep, and then get back to work. —Michael Z. 2010-04-22 14:59 z

And editors have repeatedly told us that they find the name offensive. Are we hoping these people will disappear? We can show a bit of sensitivity even if we don't hold the same views. This is a freaking global, open project, so let's not be stubborn dicks about it forever. —Michael Z. 2010-04-22 16:16 z

No strong feelings about "Beer parlour", but "coffeehouse" or "café" might be a suitable alternative, since it is an institution that dates back to the 16th century (according to Wikipedia anyway), and there are many cultures that drink coffee. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

They might be an improvement, but enough to make it worthwhile to resurrect this? DCDuring TALK 18:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to thank you very belatedly for informing me of the surprising nature of the name of user SemperBlotto. Korn (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I totally did not realize the last post in this thread was in 2010. — SMUconlaw (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

moved to WT:BP. --Connel MacKenzie 02:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

moved to WT:BP#Korean romaja entries

Please add is:Wikiorðabók:Potturinn to the language links. Takk --81.15.55.227 02:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

done --EncycloPetey 03:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can no longer access the discussion at the bottom of WT:BP. DAVilla 17:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Likewise from my phone. Rod (A. Smith) 17:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've now moved to Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2007/May all discussions that haven't been touched since May — about 37% of the page. (I'm actually not sure if that's exactly how the archive pages are supposed to work, but I figured it was better to archive a bit wrongly than to have new discussions inaccessible.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Great, thanks! Moving big blocks of text can be difficult on such a long page, can't it? DAVilla 23:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can someone please archive this page, it really takes a lot of time to load. --Ivan Štambuk 02:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Now back down to a mere quarter-megabyte. Dang, we talk a lot. -- Visviva 05:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

You should try WT:RfV, it is twice as big as was BP at the moment when you requæsted archving. Enjoy! Bogorm 14:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Am I the only one who finds this Image really pointless and dumb? At least from a dictionary point of view. --Jackofclubs 00:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll bet the idea was to have something sophisticated and gender-neutral reminiscent (however vaguely) of a "Beer Parlour", but not looking like we're a chatroom (or worse). I'm sure that a substitute would be considered, but it may not be so easy to find a good one at Commons. DCDuring TALK 01:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Second sentence of project page reads: This is the place where many a historic decision has been made .... Shouldn't it read This is the place where many historic decisions have been made ... ? My English isn't good enough to decide. If I'm wrong, could someone explain that sentence, please ? -- Juergen 91.52.153.21 12:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

See many a. --Rising Sun talk? 12:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. -- Juergen 91.52.153.21 13:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, is there a free(dom) software available that parses the wiktionary contents and dumps the result in a program friendly way (such as XML or json for example) ?

Wikimedia provides xml dumps of all its projects. The most recent English Wiktionary dump can be found here. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

And all the definitions are here. Conrad.Irwin 11:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see from the README that you are the author of these definitions. But I don't see which tool you have used to produce it. Have you made your tool available?

Not very publicly, though you can get it from svn at https://svn.toolserver.org/svnroot/p_enwikt/listdefns (My stuff is all public domain, though xmlreader.py comes from the pywikipedia project - with an undocumented tweak or two), I'll add that to the README. I have various other tools in varying states of disrepair/never-finishedness/awk mainly for peculiarly specific tasks, but if there's something you're particularly interested in, I'll see if I can dig it up. Conrad.Irwin 00:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I downloaded the definition file and put it on my blackberry. It's such a big file that I can't just look up words in it using the regular browser app. Blackberries use mobile java apps. Can you point me in the right direction for some kind of app that will look up words in my new dictionary? ~ heyzeuss 12:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Such a tool has not yet been written, in the interim, I'd advise you to use http://ninjawords.com (when you have internet access), they use our definitions (and other free sources). If you know an interested Java developper, feel free to send her here - it wouldn't be a hard project if users don't mind storing the file on their devices (I'd estimate a day of major coding, perhaps a week to get a shareable result). Conrad.Irwin 13:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I managed to get something out of the definitions file. I took the Finnish definitions and made them into an ebook dictionary. I just had to put some html around the entries and use the publishing software for Mobipocket Reader to convert the html into an ebook with an index. It still has all of the wiki markup though.

It's very helpful because I've been living in Finland for a year and a half and I've been chained to my computer, just to have access to the good Finnish definitions on Wiktionary. I've been going to Finnish classes full-time. My paper dictionary is too slow and I'm too cheap to buy an electronic dictionary or a mobile internet plan.

If I have more time I'll pick through your pyWikipedia tools and make an English-Finnish ebook dictionary from fi.wiktionary.org. ~ heyzeuss 07:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/October#Code for Westrobothnian.

Hello,

Currently, loading this page is extremely slow, due to the transclusion of the last three months of the Beer parlour, which is not very useful - two months seems sufficient (threads generally treat of current topics). (I have no problem to load other pages, my network connection and my machine are powerful enough.)

Would not it be more appropriate to transclude the last two months, to reduce the loading time?

Regards, — Automatik (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just view the month-specific pages, like this one: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2016/January. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Support transcluding only the last two months. A discussion older than that is most often an inactive discussion. Today is 26 January 2016. Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/November was only edited 3 times in January 2016. Last edit: January 5. Not counting a 4th time which was an automatic template change. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Also, AFAICT, to arrive at a month-specific page, like Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2016/January, the quickest way currently available is passing through the main page (Wiktionary:Beer parlour). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I didn't realize that--I always access it from my Watchlist. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

(Just in case anyone is following this page, which was last edited 29 April 2019‎ (five edits, all in about 2¼ hours), before that in 2018 (two edits), and nothing in 2017.)

Um, folks, notice that the first sentence on this page directs the reader to a redlink:

Beer parlour is documented at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/header.

Don'tcha think this ought to be fixed? Not by me: I spend too much time on en:Wikipedia and am only occasionally on en:Wiktionary. --Thnidu (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The page cannot be edited by mere mortal admins, though admins can change protection. So we need to see whether those who perpetrated the deletion that caused the redlink pay attention to this page and care to clean up after themselves. I'm not optimistic. DCDuring (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Easy fix: I've removed the out-of-date sentence. — Eru·tuon 23:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

So, where is the documentation? Was it never necessary? Was it rendered obsolete by vast strides in improved interface design? Deleting the redlink is like fixing a flat tire on a car by removing the tires. DCDuring (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

True. I should have explained more. I looked at the last revision of Wiktionary:Beer parlour/header before it was deleted, and as far as I can tell it's identical to the content above the table of contents in Wiktionary:Beer parlour, except for some style differences. So evidently Rua decided to paste Wiktionary:Beer parlour/header at the top of Wiktionary:Beer parlour and delete Wiktionary:Beer parlour/header. — Eru·tuon 01:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I suspected something like that, but I couldn't tell for sure and got cranky when I thought I wanted to edit the page, couldn't find the edit tab and found it looked like I would have change protection etc. Thanks for the simple explanation. The amount of detritus left behind after every 'improvement' is discouraging. And the architects of the 'improvements' are often nowhere to be found. Some simple templates I put together get improved so I can't edit them to meet new needs. Arrgh. DCDuring (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

(moved to Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2023/November)