| | |
| Line 1,634: | Line 1,634: |
| | | |
| :::@msh210: Having thought about this further, I don't think I agree with your rationale in arguing against "alternative spelling of ____". In general, I doubt that most people ever think of any spelling that they use as an "alternative spelling" of some other spelling for the same word. If we took the view that a spelling is only an "alternative spelling" if its users see it as such, then we could probably just dispense with {{temp|alternative spelling of}} altogether. It would get so little use. I suppose you're distinguishing between users of {{term||'til|lang=en}}, who see it as a shortening of {{term||until|lang=en}}, and users of {{term||till|lang=en}}, who see it as a word in its own right; but this is a rather tenuous distinction. I'd bet that most users of {{term||till|lang=en}} do see it as an informal variant of {{term||until|lang=en}}, but spell it {{term||till|lang=en}} for the same reason that most people spell {{term|perk||perquisite|lang=en}} and {{term|tummy||stomach|lang=en}} and {{term|Nick||Nicholas|lang=en}} and {{term|Mike||Michael|lang=en}} and {{term|Shelly||Michelle|lang=en}} in ways that don't match their associated more-formal variants. —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 21:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | | :::@msh210: Having thought about this further, I don't think I agree with your rationale in arguing against "alternative spelling of ____". In general, I doubt that most people ever think of any spelling that they use as an "alternative spelling" of some other spelling for the same word. If we took the view that a spelling is only an "alternative spelling" if its users see it as such, then we could probably just dispense with {{temp|alternative spelling of}} altogether. It would get so little use. I suppose you're distinguishing between users of {{term||'til|lang=en}}, who see it as a shortening of {{term||until|lang=en}}, and users of {{term||till|lang=en}}, who see it as a word in its own right; but this is a rather tenuous distinction. I'd bet that most users of {{term||till|lang=en}} do see it as an informal variant of {{term||until|lang=en}}, but spell it {{term||till|lang=en}} for the same reason that most people spell {{term|perk||perquisite|lang=en}} and {{term|tummy||stomach|lang=en}} and {{term|Nick||Nicholas|lang=en}} and {{term|Mike||Michael|lang=en}} and {{term|Shelly||Michelle|lang=en}} in ways that don't match their associated more-formal variants. —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 21:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC) |
| − | | |
| − | ==<s> [[:virtue]]</s> == | |
| − | | |
| − | A total mess. The definitions are a catastrophe. -- [[User:Prince Kassad|Prince Kassad]] 19:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |
| − | :I agree. --[[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 20:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |
| − | ::Even Webster 1913 definitions would have been better as a starting point. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small > 22:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |
| − | *I just rewrote it all from scratch. <{{#switch:|term|ital=i|head|bold=b|span}} class="latinx" {{#if:|lang="{{{lang}}}"}}>[[User:Widsith|Ƿidsiþ]]</{{#switch:|term|ital=i|head|bold=b|span}}> 10:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC) | |
| | | |
| == [[sex life]] == | | == [[sex life]] == |
Latest revision as of 01:49, 10 November 2011
Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for cleanup
This is a manually created and maintained list of pages that require cleanup.
Adding a request: To add a request, place the template {{rfc}} to the messy entry, and then make a new nomination here. Include an explanation of your reasons for nominating the page for cleanup, but please put any extensive discussion in the discussion page of the article itself.
Closing a request: A conversation should remain here at least for one week after the {{rfc}} tag is removed, then moved to that page's talk page from here. When the entry has been cleaned, please strike the word here, and put any discussion on the talk page of the cleaned entry.
Pages tagged with the template {{rfc}} are automatically placed in Category:Requests for cleanup. They are automatically removed from the category when the template is removed, or, if the template has not been used, when Category:Requests for cleanup has been removed from the page.
If an entry needs attention from experienced editors in a specific language, consider using {{attention}} instead of {{rfc}}.
See also Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion process, Help:Nominating an article for cleanup or deletion, and Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion elements.
There seem to be multiple senses here, even if we're just taking into account the three quotations provided. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
An anon (varied IP) has been adding numerous translations for numerous languages, many of which are suspect. Could experts in various languages please look over and correct/remove translations? --EncycloPetey 04:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
This is probably an easy one for someone who knows anything about the topic — which I don't. —RuakhTALK 16:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is one of many articles by the same user. They all need looking at - but I haven't got any enthusiasm for the job. SemperBlotto 16:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Of the ones I know something about, the content isn't bad, though a little wordy. I'll put his new pages on my tasks. DCDuring TALK 18:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
They are the same, but the etymologies are quite different, as are the regional remarks. H. (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- These look like sum-of-parts expressions with attributive use of ballpark (2).
- I'm starting to perceive a problem with definitions like this being distributed over four or more various entries. I think we need a form-of template like {{common expression including}} to link them all to the lemma. —Michael Z. 2009-04-09 14:25 z
-
-
- We can already do that for any idiom. Just set up one main entry containing the defn, with ancillary {{alternative form of}} entries. I completely agree that redundant full entries for the same thing are bad news (since they always get out of sync). -- WikiPedant 22:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
-
- I don't think ballpark figure is sum-of-parts, because both portions have multiple senses, but only one combination of them applies. I agree with you about ballpark estimate. --EncycloPetey 22:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- This doesn't interfere with our usual application of "sum of parts." It may feel obscure because ballpark is not used in its literal sense, but this is a reasonably common expression. It would be useful to mention or define this set phrase for the sake of English learners, however, but we don't currently have any guideline which recommends or allows it. —Michael Z. 2009-05-14 14:00 z
Derived terms need to be split. Modernise, check senses seemingly from MW1913. Etystub, rfp. DCDuring TALK 01:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Needs cleanup; Mandarin word. --EncycloPetey 22:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Also English. It's the English name of one of the Chinese languages, like Hakka, Wu, and Cantonese. Gan (赣语) is named after the Gan River, which flows through central China. —Stephen 07:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Format of references, combine philosophy senses, more ordinary sense needed. DCDuring TALK 16:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've cleaned up what's there, and drafted a definition. The philosophy references should at best be regarded as nonce definitions, so they're now there as citations. Better citations (not mentions) would be desirable. — Pingkudimmi 14:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not certain that especially the first two definitions under determiner and adverb belong to each, and there seems to be the pronoun POS missing altogether. Can anyone have a look? (I'd rather not meddle with it myself as in my native language "determiner" is only considered a function, not a POS in its own right, so I'm afraid I might make more damage than good.) --Duncan 10:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- A determiner can serve in a pronomial capactiry (in English and Spanish), so the pronoun sense isn't missing. It looks as thoought the pronomial sense has been listed as a "Noun", and I'm not sure that's correct. I'll have a look at the entry. --EncycloPetey 17:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've combined the apparently synonymous defintions, which reduces the number of definitions to 2, 2, and 1. Does that look better? I do think, however, that we might want to call the "noun" sense a "pronoun" instead, but that would affect a number of entries if we do. --EncycloPetey 17:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, it's much better now. Yes, I think that the "noun" sense is in fact either a pronoun or an adverb, but certainly not noun - at least not in the examples given. --Duncan 20:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- In the definitions, "more many/more much" - this sounds horrible --Volants 15:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comparative form of many: more many., in greater number. (for a discrete quantity)
- Comparative form of much: more much., in greater quantity, amount, or proportion. (for a continuous quantity)
-
- Well, I've made it stop saying "more many". - -sche (discuss) 06:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Synonyms (and derived terms?) should be split up in senses.
- Verb sense should be merged with weird out, and 'weird out' should be derived term. H. (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Done. - -sche (discuss) 06:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Most of the content needs to be moved to Oriental. —RuakhTALK 14:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also, an anon at RFV objected to the interlinear usage notes, on the grounds that oriental can only be considered objectionable when used as a racial term, not when used otherwise. (Use as a racial term doesn't have distinct sense lines.) —RuakhTALK 16:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Most quotes not of headword or are mentions, move to Citations page under appropriate headings, at least. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Some quotes not of headword. DCDuring TALK 14:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- They should be kept together to demonstrate the history of its usage, capitalization. The first English usage of this word happens to use an obsolete spelling. I'll move them to the citations page. —Michael Z. 2009-06-12 02:26 z
Is it the filing system? The card? The file of cards? More than one of these?—msh210℠ 20:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please inspect. Also, see -ex. DCDuring TALK 21:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Now there are two senses, both meaning "a system...". (Actually, I'm not sure how whether the first is not a special case of the second and removable.) But google:"on the kardex" seems to show that the card is also called "Kardex", and google:"in the kardex" seems to show that the file of cards (or some sort of file) is. But I'm not sure.—msh210℠ 22:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- At the very least the medical system should get an "especially" because it is discussed in many 21st century nursing/medical-office-administration books. The cards do have that usage, but so also do a rotary card holder, desktop card drawer cabinet, etc. I wouldn't mind if someone who knew something about this would finish this or let us know about usage in medical offices, hospitals, libraries, other offices. This is not a term other OneLook dictionaries have (except one medical dictionary), nor Wikipedia. DCDuring TALK 23:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also Kardex AG (possibly the current owner of the paper-system trade name) is making various space-saving physical-storage devices, which may also be referred to as "Kardexes" by users. DCDuring TALK 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Shift some quotes to citations page. Usage notes are etymological (Move to ety section, under show/hide?) DCDuring TALK 11:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Adjective definitions in adverb PoS; No Adjective PoS section. Usexes only for "back on your feet". DCDuring TALK 01:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
today, we are all X
I moved what I found at today, we are all X to today we are all. I looked at the redirects and found many. They look useless to me for search, but someone else might see something in them. I can't imagine someone ever typing in "X" for this kind of formula, nor commas. DCDuring TALK 02:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Somer derived terms don't meet CFI --Volants 14:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Clean up, unless it doesn't meet CFI anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The category contains many words that are formed as prefix + stem, which is not compounding. These should be marked using {{prefix}} instead of {{compound}}. Example: bemerken, opbouwen. --Dan Polansky 09:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Mglovesfun (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Renamed to Gråen (but still rubbish). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Has passed rfd, but needs a much better definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Very verbose etymology. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
criketsens:pl insert plain engl4/so laymen getit2..--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- My translation of the above: "Cricket sense: please insert plain English so laymen get it too."
- The cricket sense given in the entry is this: "(adjective) (cricket, of a shot) Played with a horizontal bat to hit the ball backward of point."
- The sense has no example sentence. No idea what to do with it; I do not understand the sense either, but I do not know how cricket is played, what "horizontal bat" means ("bat" is presumably something like a baseball bat), and what is the "point", backward of which the ball should be hit. --Dan Polansky 13:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Noun sense: "One who favors involving multiple parties when approaching foreign relations". This is pretty hard to comprehend. Also, are we sure this doesn't just mean "one who supports multilateralism"? Korodzik 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Etym., pron., and Mason & Dixon quot. all need clean-up; Introducing Foucault may need a separate sense, since the one we have is pretty vague, and the sense used seems more specific. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- The Introducing Foucault citation looks like it may be referring to mathesis universalis. Something similar to the citation is at Foucault – José Guilherme Merquior. Also note the italics in both. — Pingkudimmi 17:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
A draft of the evolution of the meaning of the term, without context tags and dates, and insufficient support for the senses. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- OED could provide legitimacy for some historical senses. DCDuring TALK 04:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Messy transwikied entry. 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The problems seem to be that the first two examples don't use echarse al plato, they just use echarse. Other than that the idiomaticness seems doubtful as this just means to serve to oneself on a plate. However if the idiomatic meanings are correct it must be kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I've done what I can, without knowing the language. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This needs splitting into its subcategories [[Category:French expressions]] and [[Category:French similes]]. But I'm not entirely sure how. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The verb section seems to be the original Websters entry. Nothing very clear, and overlapping definitions. -- ALGRIF talk 14:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Usage notes are too long. Maybe worthwhile in the etymology, but shorter. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
This topical category that is a subcategory of Category:Capital cities needs a rename, but there are several logical possibilities, so I wanted to get some input.
- Category:US state capitals
- The simplest rename, but still somewhat clunky and not well suited to be paralleled for similar topical categories covering other countries. Plus I'd prefer to avoid using US in category names.
- Category:American state capitals
- Better suited to paralleling, say for example in Category:Canadian provincial capitals, but unlike Category:American English, I don't think the ambiguity of American can be justified on the grounds of euphony.
- Category:State capitals of the United States
- Form that I'd happen to prefer. However...
- Category:State capitals in the United States
- ... is the form used on Wikipedia, but the equivalent categories for other countries are a mixture of in and of so I don't see a compelling reason to blindly follow Wikipedia here.
In short unless consensus calls for another choice, I'll see about moving these over to Category:State capitals of the United States in about a week or so. — Carolina wren discussió 03:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I think I prefer an option not listed: Category:Capital cities of US states. --EncycloPetey 01:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Related terms need organising. Maybe some sense could be merged, maybe not. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Take a look. Heyzeuss 14:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
As I work to replace the deprecated {{nav}} with {{topic cat}}, I have come to this category which causes problems. In and of itself it isn't a problem, but the per language subcategories aren't all in agreement with it. The codes eo, hu, ja, nl, and pt use United States of America, but el, zh, zh-cn, and zh-tw use the plain United States. It will be some work to convert it either way. I have a preference for the shorter United States, but since {{topic cat}} is inflexible concerning parents, uniformity is essential one way or the other. Leaving a note on the Beer Parlor, since this should affect other categories that use the country name. — Carolina wren discussió 22:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- The term "United states" as a calque is ambiguous, since there are other countries whose official names begin (in their languages) with "United States of...". the full name is thus preferred for clarity, even if it is a bit longer. --EncycloPetey 01:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Who is talking about a calque? Category names are in English and this is the English Wiktionary. Provide some actual examples of United States by itself being used in English to refer to the United States of Mexico or any other country besides the United States of America, and then I might see some merit in such hyperclarification. At least those who object to using American as the related demonym can point to actual usage of it as something other than pertaining to the United States. As a point of comparison, neither Wikipedia nor Commons has a problem with using a plain Category:United States. — Carolina wren discussió 23:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the longer form seems to be the one that has virtually chance of causing some kind of difficulty whereas one could imagine difficulty with the short form, especially over a long time horizon. But I suppose we could opt for the short form on the grounds that eventually there will be enough technical resources available to make whatever renamings might be required less troublesome than they seem to be now. DCDuring TALK 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- If it were a straightforward category rename, bots should be able to handle if needed. However it could easily be argued that the long form would be the likelier to be a problem over the long term. Imagine that Wiktionary were now three centuries old and we'd had to rename Category:United Kingdom of Great Britain to Category:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to Category:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland instead of just having Category:United Kingdom. Let us also not forget Category:United Kingdom of Denmark-Norway, Category:United Kingdom of Sweden-Norway, Category:United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves, Category:United Kingdom of the Netherlands or Category:United Kingdom of Libya. With all these other United Kingdoms if one is going to argue that United States is too vague, then by that same standard Category:United Kingdom is in need of a rename. — Carolina wren discussió 00:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Less ambiguous is good, no need to revise decisions is good; shorter is good: 1 and 2 conflict with 3. The ambiguity is very low now and the likelihood that will change much seems low. The likelihood that there would be a need to revise the categories is thus low. If that revision could be accomplished at reasonable cost than the shorter label seems fine.
- I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that we have tolerated the sloppy use of UK. DCDuring TALK 01:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Sense #2 definition & example needs work, as well the translations. Tooironic 01:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Reason explained in the rfc-box in the entry. --Hekaheka 02:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Intensifier isn't a part of speech. Some intensifiers are adjectives, some adverbs, some both. The class of adverbial intensifiers include some for which the term "intensifier" is a misnomer, eg. "quite", "rather", "barely". The term "degree adverb" includes intensifying adverbs and those other grammatically similar non-intensifying adverbs.
- Although I would greatly like to remove items from Interjections, "damn" seems to be used as an interjection. It is also sometimes used as a noun: "a tinker's damn", "Not that I care three damns what figure I may cut" (Goldsmith). DCDuring TALK 03:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
All of the definitions are worded as adjectives. DCDuring TALK 16:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Its peculiarity may be that it modifies a statement about the truth or untruth of a proposition. Thus we need some formula other than "in a manner that".
- All the examples and synonyms are focused on the future. How about "Sarah possibly has my keys." or "John was possibly asleep at the wheel."? Pingku 17:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. Also, consider: "What you said is true, possibly." and "What you said is possibly true." It does not have to modify a sentence (or clause).
- CGEL classes it as a modal adverb among perhaps 30 others. Modal, domain ("linguistically", "professionally") and evaluative ("fortunately", "ironically", "ominously") are their other adverb-containing subclasses of adjuncts of clauses. Reviewing the adverbs one subclass at a time is enormously revealing of defective entries. DCDuring TALK 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've come across modality before in the context of logic. I note that "possibly" has an obvious link to the epistemic (aka alethic) modal pairing possibility/necessity. (And from modal logic, "not possibly not" = "necessarily", and vice-versa.) It occurs to me that "possibly" could, just by itself, be expressive of a range of modal concepts in the epistemic domain. Maybe it can encroach on the deontic (may/must) as well?
- Modal adverbs sound interesting from the point of view of attaching themselves to a variety of verbs, particularly non-modal verbs, thereby attaching an aspect of modality. Pingku 16:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I am addicted to the weasel words semantically weak modal adverbs (possibly, seemingly, evidently, etc), especially in written communication, because they seemingly (!) soften what might be too direct a statement. They seem slightly less ambiguous than the weak modal verbs.
- I have created and partially populated Category:English modal adverbs. Most of them are based on CGEL. I have added a couple of synonyms. Any phrasal ones are not CGEL. It might (!) be useful to break them into syntactic/synonym subgroups (possibly overlapping) to support quality improvement by sense comparisons and to facilitate translations, especially using trans-see where appropriate. Perhaps (!) an Appendix or a couple of Wikisaurus pages would do the job. DCDuring TALK 19:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Getting back to the case in point, how about, for a start:
- 1. (modifying a sentence or clause) {{non-gloss definition|Indicates that the proposition may be true (is not certainly false) regardless of any facts or circumstances known to, stated by or implied by the speaker}}
- 2. (modifying a verb) {{non-gloss definition|Indicates that the action may successfully be performed (is not impossible) regardless of any facts or circumstances known to, stated by or implied by the speaker that might limit the performance}}
- It doesn't fix the problem of wording it like an adverb, but at least it will be flagged. Pingku 16:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good finessing of the problem. I've been using {{non-gloss definition}} quite a bit for hard cases. It is easy to justify for all kinds of sentence adverbs. Modals, too, even when not being used as sentence adverbs. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've added the above, plus one for adjectives, but couldn't remove the old defs - they link to the glosses in the Translations section. From a brief look, the Dutch seems to be an adjective, the Russian may be OK for a general translation, but the Finnish and Swedish have different translations for different glosses. Pingku 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think we have to give due process (RfV?) to the bad senses anyway. I don't see how we can avoid ttbc'ing the translations if the senses are wrong. I had optimistically hoped that translators look at the PoS in addition to the gloss, but my optimism seems unwarranted. There is no reason to keep erroneous definitions, just because there are translations. We can keep the existing trans tables with the bad glosses, insert a check-trans notice above them to discourage more translations from being added to the bad glosses, ttbc the translations of bad glosses, and trreq translations of senses we have confidence in. Argh. I hope some of those who translate are watching this. DCDuring TALK 17:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I checked fi translations. The second definition is a real brain-twister. It reads "Indicates that the action may successfully be performed...", but all examples are of actions that are impossible to perform. After some pondering one may realize that the trick is in negation, i.e. the examples are of "not possibly". Could someone native write an example of positive use of the word? --Hekaheka 05:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Split by etymology; structure; missing inflection templates; PoS? DCDuring TALK 23:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Latin section also needs cleanup. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- is the English OK now? -- Liliana • 20:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
An editor has noted that the word "may refer to any of the senses of the adjective". As such, this adverb has multiple senses requiring multiple definitions and a Translations table cleanup. --EncycloPetey 05:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't trust the senses at spiritual enough to take that approach. For now, could we settle for usage examples or citations illustrating use modifying at least verbs and adjectives (if not adverbs) and clauses/sentences? That would satisfy one kind of need. Adverbs are a bit like inflected forms, but more reminiscent of English verb -ing forms and past participles. It seems like a bridge too far to give such entries a full set of senses and translations. Working on adverbs has reminded me of the importance of stem-word entry quality (especially definitions) for the entry quality of morphologically derived terms. DCDuring TALK 12:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Here's a quote from Churchill:
- The first step in the re-creation of the European Family must be a partnership between France and Germany. In this way only can France recover the moral and cultural leadership of Europe. There can be no revival of Europe without a spiritually great France and a spiritually great Germany.
- I don't think he wished to imply that a country might literally have a soul, or that these countries must necessarily closely align themselves with a (the same?) church or look to God to guide their policies. Perhaps instead he implies a lesser meaning of "spiritual" that applies (in this case) to countries. Presumably, providing leadership in moral and cultural matters suffices.
- Thus two possibilities present themselves: (1) Churchill intended a different meaning of "spiritual" that applies to countries or other collective entities; (2) in this case, "spiritually" is only an approximate (not literal) reference to the adjective. Pingku 15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
An oenophile's delight. The "see also" items need to be sorted:
- Types of wine should be hyponyms under wine#Noun
- Cognate terms might go under related terms, though the cognate relationship is more remote (vini- and oeno-prefixed words?)
- There seem to be many low-value terms (butler, cantina)
- -- DCDuring TALK 11:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The second definition isn't a definition, and seems to be redundant to the first one. But it's hard to tell, as I can't work out what it means, if anything. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to show that as far as NATO is concerned, munitions refer strictly to fireworks and not guns. But I don't know if that's actually the case. —verily nest no settingsuns [ mai tok paeij ] 16:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The quotations don't all seem to correspond to the senses they're attached to. Note that I just closed an RFV discussion for this entry; depending on how the cleanup plays out, we may need to return this to RFV. (That is, the RFV-passed sense may turn out not to have three cites.) —RuakhTALK 19:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, I think the key question to focus on, in distinguishing these senses and assigning quotations accordingly, is what the patient (~direct object) is. Information or text can be wikified by putting it in a wiki; content that's already on a wiki, or an entire wiki page, can be wikified by formatting it so it's consistent with the rest of the wiki; and so on. Sense 3 seems to be patientless. —RuakhTALK 19:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Mglovesfun (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Before a rewrite, we should remove any sentences (not headings) that actually contradict any policy, practice, or consensus, documented or not. See WT:RFDO#Wiktionary:Tutorial. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 15:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Several nautical related terms with definitions should be separate terms if they meet CFI as seems likely. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 12:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Dated wording of senses. Usage note does not discuss applicability by sense. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 15:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Handled in part. I have marked the entry with "webster 1913", so that should track the dated wording of senses. The only usage note (from among the three ones) that seems specific to a sense is this: "This is a catenative verb that takes the to infinitive. See Appendix:English catenative verbs".
I have marked the entry with a RFC on the outstanding issue: "Does the usage note on catenative verb apply to all senses? If not, to which senses does it apply?". --Dan Polansky 11:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much needs to be entirely renamed with all the content replaced. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Format looks like it might be a copyvio - but I do not have access to the reference given. SemperBlotto 08:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
[edit] US pronunciations of non-US words
Please see the list at User:Msh210/US pronunciations: it has 33 entries on it, and I thank CI for generating it. These words are listed as non-US but have pronunciations labeled as US. Are the words in fact used in the US (so the context tags are wrong), or are the pronunciations actually non-US? If neither — that is, all current labels are correct — then pronunciations should be removed (as they are foreign pronunciations, like a US pronunciation of an Estonian word, which we surely shouldn't have). Please feel free to remove items from the list as they're fixed.—msh210℠ 22:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really see what the big deal is - they are, after all, the same language! (And thus cannot be compared to English and Estonian!) But if it encourages more non-US people to add pronunciations, then more power to you. Although the dominance of US English pronunciations on Wiktionary can be annoying (I should know - I added the Australian pronunciation of Australia quite some time ago), it is a reality we have to live with, and sometimes having both US and non-US pronunciations can be very interesting and helpful for users IMO. Tooironic 06:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- But a word like millilitre, which is simply not used in the US, is therefore not pronounced in the US except by someone deliberately saying a Briticism. So it is like an American's speaking Estonian. (Anyone else, feel free to chime in.) The words remaining on the list are listed above now.—msh210℠ 15:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've now commented out all the US pronunciations of these words. (And removed the space-taking list of entries from this section; it remains, for now, at User:Msh210/US pronunciations.) Striking.—msh210℠ 16:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Unstriking, I completely object to the removal of these pronunciations. People who share a language have cause to use each other's words, and there is no contradiction in having a US pronunciation for a word associated with Scotland or England or Canada. A word like trifecta may not be used much in the UK but we are still likely to come across it in books or elsewhere and have a pronunciation associated with it, whether internally or used in speech. Ƿidsiþ 17:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course millilitre is used in the states (although it's spelled differently there). And what would an American call a bonspiel, for example w:The Bonspiel, except bonspiel?
Even real regionalisms get used outside their home region. Canadian English is not Estonian. Ideally, we'd base our "foreign" regional pronunciations on attested usage, but most of us know how our varieties of English are pronounced. —Michael Z. 2010-03-18 03:09 z
- Note concurrent conversation on this topic at [[User talk:Msh210#Removing_.22foreign.22_pronunciations]].—msh210℠ 15:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The etymology and definition seem mixed up with each other. Equinox ◑ 04:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Tidied up. — Pingkudimmi 15:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
A long list of definitions with no structure. Perhaps it should split by etymology? Chambers lists five. Pingku 19:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
An awful mess, sadly. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Mg, if you are referring to the bulk of 'introductory text' in the beginning (, middle and part of the end :-)), then I think I agree with you. This is simply a (temporary) category for nouns that don't currently have a gender assigned to them; ergo, there is no need to introduce people, especially editors like me, to a lesson in the Dutch gender system, before getting to the relevant content.
- I think, however, that this whole essay is in fact invaluble information for learners of Dutch. Maybe we could consider moving it to wikibooks while removing it from the category? Jamesjiao → T◊C 05:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
French section, seems to be a feminine only adjective. Is that right? It also needs the sense missing at fr:lette. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The Latin is sum of parts, but giving the citations it could be considered translingual. Plus of course, impendere is an infinitive. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I created this for the sake of this policy discussion. Please do not edit the entry without commenting in the Beer Parlour. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The definition is only occurring in set phrases, which of course, isn't a definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Esperanto. It gives the header honte al and the translation shame on. Should this be moved, or just cleaned up? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I changed rfv to rfc, as this seems to exist, but there's a debate over the part of speech. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Tagged 2007. In Wikipedia the city is known as Horki. --Hekaheka 10:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is an alternative spelling/synonym like with many Belarusian or Ukrainian names. In Belarusian Горкі, in Russian Горки. Gomel and Homel (Гомель), Kharkov and Kharkiv (Харьков, Харків), Gorlovka and Horlivka (Горловка - Горлівка) are based on Russian and Belarusian/Ukrainian pronunciation or spelling. Historically names were transliterated from Russian but many are now being renamed. --Anatoli 00:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Definitions need to be correctly assigned to etymologies and reviewed. DCDuring TALK 02:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Separate rfc-sense tag (separate from page rfc tag) on complex analysis definition has been cleaned up, please verify the new definition. 134.134.139.70 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
(As far as the page rfc goes, it looks a lot different from a year ago, it probably just needs a good review at this point.) 134.134.139.70 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Can't really be a phrase can it? Maybe a contraction? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Adding ninakupenda. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
-
- These are verbs with attached subject and object pronouns. Definitely not contractions. —Stephen 01:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
At the very least needs two categories. I'm unsure if this is a bad entry title, should it be esprit de l'escalier or not? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I've formatted the English, but it might be a hoax (or just wrong) plus the Scots was previously at RFC under Lippen, which is now only German. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- The Scots is right. I'm not sure if the archaic tag should be there, actually, but neither am I sure that I'm qualified to remove it; as a non-native speaker, it's easy for me to conflate literary usage (which is especially out of date when it comes to Scots) with everyday usage. Is it possible that the English should be tagged as Scottish English? embryomystic 01:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- The English is correct as well. It's used in NE dialect, and Scottish English. Added to it. Leasnam 20:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I've done what I can, I'm unsure if the definition is accurate and/or if this should be Action Man, from the trademark sense (which I removed, as that's definitely capitalized). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this a common noun, if so is it redundant to the lowercase spelling? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The part of speech given is "valediction", among other formatting problems. --EncycloPetey 04:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Mglovesfun (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Rfc-sense: To make grotesque? Sole known use is in Antony and Cleopatra. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
My, what an ugly, space-consuming image. The old version was way better than this monstrosity. Does anyone have any better ideas? DCDuring TALK 01:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- It looks fine to me. It's a play button, what else would it look like? ---> Tooironic 21:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- It could look like a button that actually fits on one line, rather than a massive multi-line mess. Oh, and did anyone notice that clicking "more" after the audio starts makes the whole thing look ridiculous since the button (and thus the player) is inside a cell? And the fact that the (file) link is unnecessary because one could easily go to the same page by clicking "more" and then clicking "about this file"? But the real problem is that it takes up two lines. --Yair rand 00:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- The cell is opaque too, which causes some problems, and the thing itself somehow makes table cells extremely wide, and tall, and somewhat silly-looking. --Yair rand 22:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- On my screen at least, it pushes everything onto two lines instead of the previous one. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've got Firefox, and see the same as Gloves. Still think it's an improvement, tho--Rising Sun talk? contributions 01:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't understand the current definition. By any chance, is this a rare synonym for compactness? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know, it seems pretty clear to me. If you picture a jar of sand, the grains aren't all nice perfect cubes, so a significant portion of the jar is filled with air. The compacity is the volume of the grains of sand divided by the total volume of the space they take up. —RuakhTALK 14:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Your definition (well, explanation) is clear, the entry is not. But now I know what it is, I should be able to do it myself. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Arctic front or arctic front? Head words do not match page name. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The entry needs basic Wiktionary format. --EncycloPetey 23:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The entire article. Is Transformation a valid header? Is that an etymology in the definition? -- 124.171.169.189 05:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
RFV discussion:
Rfv-sense: The front of a queue. Is this ever used without words like "of the queue" or "of the line". Ie, "You can come to the front", unambiguously meaning "of the queue" without saying so. DCDuring TALK 12:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Lisp uses head and tail to refer to the endmost items of a list or queue (data structure). I'm probably clutching at straws! Equinox ◑ 13:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- It's possible that there is a specialized sense needed for that even if the RfV's sense is arguably unnecessary. If so, we should keep this sense with its current wording to include both senses, if that does the computing sense justice. DCDuring TALK 14:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- So what if it isn't? You can't possibly be suggesting that head of the line, head of the queue, head of the waiting line, head of the sequence, etc. are all idioms that warrant their own entries? Or are you just saying that this sense should be merged into sense #4? —RuakhTALK 13:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- No, they don't seem idiomatic to me. I'd argue for merging senses. Perhaps substituting usage examples or having multiple usage examples that were not full sentences on the same line in an appropriate sense. A long entry like this could use all the help it can get to shorten it without omitting anything truly useful. If we had something like a "quick definitions" show/hide, I wouldn't be so persistent.
- Maybe I should just try to come up with some more general approach to enhancing usabilty for long entries that doesn't violate too many of our prevailing norms. DCDuring TALK 14:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it is used without "of the line" or "of the queue". I'm reminded of a TMBG song "Mrs. Train", which includes the line: "the line has a missing head" (because no one wants to be first in line). The word line is still present, but not in an adjectival prepositional phrase modifying head. --EncycloPetey 18:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Moved to RFC. —RuakhTALK 14:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
So, does anyone want to tackle either (1) cleaning up this sense to remove the problematic implication, or (2) merging this sense with another one? (And if someone wants to track down the cite that EP mentions and add it to the entry and/or citations page, that would also be nice.)
—RuakhTALK 14:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- The usage example continues to seem wrong, which suggests some limitations of the distribution. I have slightly reworded the sense to "The front, as of a queue." Does the usage example not bother anyone else, say, from the US. DCDuring TALK 11:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
-
- It does bother me. —RuakhTALK 12:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
RFC-sense: (slang, hip-hop) An attractive young female, especially: a girl who is "down", who is counted among close male friends and sometimes loose sexually; or, one's "girl", one's "boo"; or, a girl that a male does not know but wishes to meet.--Rising Sun talk? contributions 20:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
In two regards this template is gracelessly executed:
- The greenish color departs from the usual, drawing attention in the style of advertising to Esperanto vs. other languages. Surprisingly, an anon even complained on the talk page about it.
- The show-hide bar does not play well with others, greedily appropriating the full width of the screen, thereby not working well with right-hand elements such as the optional rhs ToC, sister project boxes, images, and rhs example boxes. DCDuring TALK 14:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
-
- Making it more like {{fr-conj}} or {{es-conj}} (these two are just about identical) would be good. Having said that, I like the green color, but I suppose that's not the point. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Definition might need attention. Also marked it for WT:RFV. I removed some of its definition which seemed encyclopedic, could someone more experienced check? -- 124.171.169.189 07:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wha...? In normal words, what problems do you see here? Dzied Bulbash
- Fair question. Thanks for not removing the rfc tag. Personal noun is not a valid header, should be proper noun. It's not in any categories (English proper nouns) and the etymology goes under the header ===Etymology===. That bit I can do myself, but I'm also unsure about the definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
No consensus at RFD for more than a year now. I think if someone had a go at this it would be ok. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
We have four verb senses for this. Some of them seem redundant or at the very least unclear. I wasn't sure whether to RFD or RFV, or even which senses to RFD and RFV, so I brought it here. How many definitions are dictionaries Oxford and Websters giving this? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Only the 1st and 4th have any real connection, with the difference being whether or not an object is used. The second definition refers to metabolic (chemical) respiration, not mechanical respiration. I'm not familiar with the 3rd sense currently listed, and so can't address it without seeing citations that use that meaning. My Collegiate Webster's has four deifinitions, but they don't match up with ours. They're missing the chemical process sense, and list (in summary) v.i. "breathe in and out", "breathe freely", v.t. "breathe", "breathe out", which seems far more redundant than what we have. --EncycloPetey 18:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Says: "By extension, a profound or transformative religious thinker", but no context for the extension is provided. There is a definition in the previous section about the philosopher, but it is under a different POS header and is marked for deletion. --EncycloPetey 19:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- The three citations seem to support this sense. If the first sense fails RFD, this should be kept with the three definitions, and that second definition moved to the etymology. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Etymology has turned into an essay. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Long since handled & tag removed. — Pingkudimmi 15:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently an abbrvn for history. Needs context --Rising Sun talk? contributions 11:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
needs 2b wikified, updated to current layout. thx --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Portuguese entry. Inflection template doesn't exist, and is nominally for an adjective. Is this lowercase? Is it a noun?—msh210℠ 18:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Needs citations to determine the meaning, there is no pt:tuga so we're left with Google Books and other such resources. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
From hits, looks like it should be İpek. (Cf. ipek.) Not sure though, especially as I know no Turkish.—msh210℠ 18:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Striking, as it hasbeen deleted (moved?). - -sche (discuss) 00:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
English section. Noun sense means "a person of Serb descent", referring to the adj sense, which is "pertaining to the culture of the Serbs" which (should be "pertaining to the Serbs", but which in any event) begs the question.—msh210℠ 18:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
A recent addition to the etymology section is written in an informal tone and seems to contradict the pre-existing etymology, may need verification/referencing and editing. -- OlEnglish 08:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I find the given etymology rather suspect, as the earliest publications on the topic were in Latin. see e.g.. Please don't tell me that the Dutch republic did not have enough scientists able to read Latin in the later 17th century.... Jcwf 23:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Those publication use "phosphorus". According to http://etymologie.nl/ (subscription site; probably also in ISBN 978 90 5356 746 3) Dutch "phosphor-" is only attested in 1814, "fosfor" in 1846, to quote "De vernederlandste vorm zonder -us is pas jong, en wellicht ontstaan onder invloed van Duits Phosphor.". 19th century Dutch scientists could read German. --Erik Warmelink 00:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
headings / POS / templates / categories Mutante 06:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
===Adverb=== sense: therefore: He ate too much cake, so he got sick; He wanted a book, so he went to the library.
Isn't this a conjunction? I mean, therefore is an adverb, but this is not used the same way: therefore is used only to modify a sentence ("He ate too much cake; therefore, he got sick"), whereas so is used only to connect sentences. If I'm right that this belongs under ===Conjunction===, then its definition and translation table need fixing also.—msh210℠ 17:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This can't make its mind up what it is. Is it erroneous, archaic, or both? If it is a misspelling, how common is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
According to the documentation, Yoruba uses Greek and Cyrillic script, which is wrong. --EncycloPetey 18:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
According to the documentation, Welsh uses Greek and Cyrillic script, which is wrong. --EncycloPetey 18:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The examples aren't examples. --EncycloPetey 18:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Etymology 1 seems to say that the Old English source word comes from proto-Germanic, which in turn comes from Latin, which in turn is a form of an Old English word... what?!? --EncycloPetey 05:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is User:Leasnam, who is well-meaning, and clearly has a stack of reference books, but is not very good at writing succinct summaries of what he's read. I've cleaned it up and drastically simplified it. Ƿidsiþ 06:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- His etymologies really go on a bit. I mean they're good, or seem to be, but not what you'd call easy on the eye. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Rfc-sense: French "fundament, human bottom". Huh? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Apparently these (14, so far) are just copied from Wikia, which in turn are copied from somewhere else. What should we do? Delete them? Clean them up, or just leave them to rot? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ok he's the author. Still. I fancy just deleting them, they're an awful mess and a lot of the terms wouldn't meet our CFI, they're more like sentences than idioms. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Perhaps the could be moved to Appendix:Interlingua. Conrad.Irwin 14:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Or WT:Requested entries (Interlingua). We already have a similar list of (mainly) red links for French. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Isn't this an adverb? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Format. Definitions unintelligible to me. I think this means something like "country boy". Two adjective definitions seem to be of positive- and negative-valence attributive use, AFAICT. Is attributive use of nouns not as universal in Spanish as in English? I would not expect that mere valence differences warrant separate definitions. DCDuring TALK 18:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a Translingual pronunciation section for an IPA symbol.
- Is the name of an IPA symbol its pronunciation?
- Did the contributor intend to provide an example rather than a pronunciation?
- I thought that the pronunciation of an IPA symbol differed a bit according to the language being represented.
- How do symbol and letter entries don't seem to fit into WT:ELE? Should they be deleted?
- If they are to be kept, are such entries to be opportunities for formatting experimentation?
Help! DCDuring TALK 18:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a very random mix of place names placed directly in this category. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
A type of weave. Not a very helpful def. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's sort out if "quasi adjective" (or quasi-adjective ?) is a valid heading now and if the category should be created etc, how to treat them in general. Mutante 16:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would prefer these to just be adjectives - that is certainly what the definition reads as in English - but I have no knowledge of Japanese grammar. For reference, all the words with this header are Japanese:
- hen, hen, ヘンテコ, 不愉快, 不測, 冷静, 変な, 変な, 愚か, 早計, 活発, 深刻, 無力, 無力, 至急, 過酷, 野蛮 —This comment was unsigned.
-
- We have an English defintion for this term that fits this use. I say keep 'em all. Maybe the header should link to the common noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
-
-
- A bit late, but by way of further reference, Wiktionary:About Japanese does include quasi-adjective as a POS. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 02:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it also says "Use L3 or L4 header Adjective". -- Prince Kassad 17:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like Haplology reclassified this as a noun in a bid at cleaning up the entry; problem is, 活発 is never classified as a noun in Japanese, nor used as such -- it only ever has a な or に afterwards (unless used in compounds), making it that dreaded quasi adjective in English (a category I quite dislike, but that's a different matter; and shouldn't that be hyphenated?), or a 形容動詞 in Japanese.
I've therefore re-added the RFC tag, and am starting a related discussion over at Wiktionary_talk:About_Japanese. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Not much traffic over there of late, and after talking with Haplology, I restated that post over at WT:BEER#Preferred forms for Japanese lemmata. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Conrad's edit summary says it all really. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- It looks to me to be about as cleaned up as it's going to get. Strike? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
needs a bit more information about the provinces --Rising Sun talk? contributions 11:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- I thought the deal was to keep the focus on linguistic content. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Right. OTOH, if "smells like a Limburger" were a common phrase, then it might be noted in the definition line that people from Limburg are known for being malodorous.—msh210℠ 15:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Striking. The defs are short and okay for ones of a place name. If anyone feels like adding a note about malodor, let them do so, but there is nothing to clean up AFAICS. --Dan Polansky 11:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Mglovesfun (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Get rid of the cause subdivision. Can't we remove the webster tag by now? Split up derived terms and translation sections. H. (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- All Webster tags should be considered tantamount to rfc tags, IMHO. When I am ambitious, I tackle one. (I tried at accident. Does the new version seem better?) It is quite time-consuming. The wording is usually stilted and using words and wording likely to communicate effectively to few users. Modernizing the formatting only or removing {{Webster}} only serves to make such problematic entries harder to find and correct and perpetuates the illusion that we have a satisfactory monolingual dictionary.
- If I were translating, I would avoid such entries as a matter of course and add them to this list if they are important to you. Correcting them may take time. I would be happy to make any entries that appear here as having {{Webster}} a matter of priority for my efforts. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, all webster entries need modernising. Exactly the reason why I don't want a great batch of similar entries generated from the old medical dictionaries (see Grease Pit). SemperBlotto 15:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- And some of the Webster tags have been removed prematurely. The medical dictionary entries would probably languish unless we recruit and train (!) some medical types. Perhaps other templates and a process for updating would give us some hope of eventually getting such entries right. DCDuring TALK 16:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
- If anyone is simply dumping definitions from the medical dictionaries, I'll be happy to join in the collective administration of a cluestick. So far, with just us regulars working through the list, I haven't seen any evidence of that. -- Visviva 17:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
A well-meaning user has merged several definitions and translations, one of which was a legal definition. This can't be easily undone because he's also added a lot of other content. --EncycloPetey 03:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
the alternative spellings are only for certain senses. How to handle this? the first two senses are actually nouns and should be under a noun header, I think. But the games sense is more difficult. H. (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'd use {{sense}} on the alternative forms. We have player versus player listed as a noun, fwiw.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
citations here and at clue stick, make one secondary on the other. H. (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
rfc-sense: (plural) The area of law dealing with such wrongful acts.
Does it mean torts or that tort is treated as a plural noun? Clearly, the definition for torts should be at torts. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- It means torts. The definition should be s.v. torts only, but with a prominent link from [[tort]]. Arguably, though, this is not distinct from the plural torts.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Adverb sense "On or towards the outside" and preposition sense "On the outside of" both make use of the noun outside without specifying which noun sense is meant, and should be reworded (or use {{gloss}}) and possibly split.—msh210℠ (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Determiner section. The usexes "I haven't got any money. It won't do you any good." don't match the definition "A guaranteed selection from (a set). At least one, sometimes more (of a set)" and might belong under a (currently nonexistent) adjective section instead (though I don't know, as I honestly don't know what a determiner is exactly).—msh210℠ (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Equinox ◑ 12:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
needs templates. Uncountable or countable? --Volants 12:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
needs templates, also maybe is lowercas, One adjective definition looks like a noun definition. --Volants 12:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
This needs more information than "(idiomatic) bad luck" --Volants 17:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Needs various formatting and dates for quotations. --EncycloPetey 03:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good now?—msh210℠ (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the calques are descendants, but they might be translations, if they exist. The derived terms might be descendants, if they exist. The article also has a long etymology. DCDuring TALK 20:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like Tooironic [already cleaned it]. Striking. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
There's some weird history for this entry. I don't know exactly what's going on. But the translation tables don't match the senses, at least not for the adverb.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
maybe adjective and noun are the wrong headers. --Volants 19:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Etymology section needs to be checked, templated --Volants 19:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
weak definitions --Volants 19:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The definition isn;t clear about what the word means. Is it a person, an abstraction, a form of government? --EncycloPetey 04:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- A status of a person and a person with such status. DCDuring TALK 19:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Encarta has 11 senses; we have three. Also, is the adjective sense separate from the verb senses we should have? Is it a true adjective? DCDuring TALK 19:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Major surgery required - looks like it could have been lifted from Wikipedia or somewhere else so check for copyvio or transwiki. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Need rewording, synonyms. DCDuring TALK 10:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- See also beer and skittles. Pingku 11:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently working on converting the redirects in this list into full entries, or deleting them. Almost the entire contents of Wiktionary:Todo/Redirects with macrons were created by Drago. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Also, many of his definitions and translations are just plain wrong - they all need to be checked! SemperBlotto 10:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Etymology should have its own section, not mixed in with the definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Five definitions, one of which is for an adjective, and three of which seems to be the same (faithfulness to X, where X varies a bit). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just as we have full entries for adverbs, where many dictionaries just have run-ins, so also this contributor has expanded "the quality or state or an instance of being loyal" to show the senses and subsenses, based on the senses/subsenses of loyal. I think we would find different synonyms were appropriate for the senses/subsenses. DCDuring TALK 11:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Are synonyms reason enough to keep these senses? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- They suggest distinctions in meaning, don't they? DCDuring TALK 11:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- I get it now, a normal dictionary will just says 'the property of being loyal' no matter how many entries there are for loyal. So, the real question is how many distinct meanings loyal has, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Senses "An upwelling of molten material from the Earth's mantle." and "An arc of glowing material erupting from the surface of a star." Aren't these actually two different uses of the same sense? If not, how do they differ? When it's not in an arc shape, is there a different word for it, or is the fact it's an arc just incidental? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Sense: "A space occupied by the animals, wagons, pontoons, and materials of all kinds, as ammunition, ordnance stores, hospital stores, provisions, etc., when brought together; also, the objects themselves; as, a park of wagons, a park of artillery; by extension, an inventory of such materiél, such as a country's tank park or artillery park (rare in US)." I'm guessing this is something to do with military or war? Is it current? historical? Does it need a context label? It certainly needs adjusting as it doesn't quite make sense as it stands. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Includes bits of commentary suited to talk page. Equinox ◑ 15:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
It can't make its mind of if it's English or German. The Wikipedia link suggests this is valid in English, but it uses the header ==English== but {{de-noun}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oops, I fixed it. - Theornamentalist 15:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- If it's capitalized it needs to be at Voorleser. Also is it really from German? It looks more like Dutch. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I thought the word was originally german, but was used by the dutch as well, I may be wrong though. - Theornamentalist 16:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the usage notes need work; for example, they include the word "racist", but the syntax is so poor that it's not clear who's being accused of racism. (I imagine the intent is something like, "This Wiktionarian thinks some of the attitude toward ain't is due to racist attitudes toward AAVE", but it's really not clear.) There are no references, so I'm half-tempted to just remove them, but I think there's something useful to be said here, and the current notes may be a start in that direction. —RuakhTALK 19:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Rfc-sense. This is probably tosh (or redundant to the first sense), but I can't tell, as I can't understand what it's talking about.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's the noun for playable: "of a game, able to be played and enjoyed"; therefore it's covered by sense 1 and I have removed it. Equinox ◑ 08:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Definition needs rewording: seems encyclopedic (especially its second sentence) and is hard to understand (links and {{gloss}} might help). Also, definition says it's a method — but it has a plural. While that's possible, it seems unlikely.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The following block-quoted text has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification. —RuakhTALK 23:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know this is an impersonal verb, i.e. it only occurs as het spijt me just like "it rain" with an indefinite pronoun. Can the template be altered not to produce non-existant we rain and they rained forms? Also the translation is rather imprecise. "It causes me regret" is closer. Jcwf 23:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- So it's a cleanup rather than a verification job. Maybe ask AugPi (talk • contribs). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- Few if any impersonal verbs in Dutch are strictly impersonal. A construct such as zijn daden speten hem (he regretted his deeds), with an explicit subject, is possible. I've made some changes now, to clarify. —CodeCat 14:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
rfc-sense: To stop or restrain a horse. Also used figuratively
Should this be at rein in. Also can you rein/rein in a horse without reins? Because if so, that sense should me merged into the sense above (which says just that). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Tone is too informal and aggressive. Equinox ◑ 13:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Where do I start? The entry's a bloody mess. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Better? —RuakhTALK 19:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
-
- It appears to be good now. - -sche 02:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this mostly or entirely uncountable in main etymology. The senses and glosses are mostly not so worded. DCDuring TALK 11:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also Derived terms and Synonyms don't seem properly matched to etymologies and properly located. DCDuring TALK 11:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Nonstandard Middle English verbs
Should end in -en, right, should be accounten, not "to account". Mglovesfun (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Adding swyfe, there may be more. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- There seem to be quite a few of these, I won't list them all here but withing looks hard to fix, unless it's easily citable as a verb, it'd want to delete it as unattestable and/or wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Definition needs trimming. I suspect that we can just cut off the last few sentences, but I figure some of y'all are probably familiar with the topic and can do a better job? —RuakhTALK 15:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I did some work cleaning this one up and found another sense, but my research suggests that the original sense should just be deleted. I added an rfd-sense. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 17:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Some of the defs are for adjectives; and several of the cites have various forms of "have got it going on". I'm not sure how best this should be handled. —RuakhTALK 18:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
German. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Lower Case Main Entry for "Anti-Story"
The main entry for "anti-story" was created with incorrect capitalization (Anti-Story). This simply needs made lower case. I'd do it myself, but can't figure out how even after searching help pages. --MikePaulC
- It needed a page move. Done. Equinox ◑ 09:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- IPs can't move pages (I've tried). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing it Equinox. As far as I am concerned that completes the action I originated. -- MikePaulC
The ety is mixed with the definition, which itself is too vague. Citations would be lovely. Equinox ◑ 21:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Two separate issues; the English "adjective" is defined as (music) Slowly, which is an adverb, while the Finnish noun is defined as lento, but there's no noun section for the English. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've addressed the English section by splitting adjective and adverb into separate sections. —RuakhTALK 14:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
A good old fashioned mess. I deleted jam jar and jam-jar which redirected here. Under what basis is jamjar a misspelling? Shouldn't it be a (not very common) alternative spelling, and of which one? Are all three readily attestable? Also should the car sense use {{trans-see}}? IMO no because car is standard English, and jamjar isn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the last thing we want are translations of the car sense of jamjar. How would you propose to discourage them? DCDuring TALK 16:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- As long as they were colloquial they'd be fine, like French bagnole. Perhaps trans-see, but to another synonym of car that's more colloquial. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Gotcha. DCDuring TALK 16:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
English: "A self-descriptive adjective, or a singular emotive response to a pleasing situation or event." What in the world? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Verification seems essential. How could this be rendered fit for use by someone not from NZ without it? DCDuring TALK 11:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Overstuffed ety section. Needs proto appendices to offload cognate lists to. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I sometimes remove cognates. FWIW the RFC tag now takes up more place than the cognates. Codecat might be able to help with the Proto-Germanic link. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure it will be promptly removed by our crack squad of etymologists, once the entry is clean up. If not, then deletion of the cognates seems appropriate. DCDuring TALK 16:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Created Appendix:Proto-Germanic *swerdan, and added all the descendants I could find to that (anyone happen to know the West Frisian and Afrikaans words?). Do with the original what you wish. :) —CodeCat 16:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now all we need is PIE. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
rfc-sense: "Sad feeling when leaving something or someone loved". The citation doesn't really back this up. Perhaps it just means 'a sad feeling', though I'd go for something more like 'a trying, difficult experience'. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. A few physical-movement words have this kind of figurative use relative to emotion (eg, pull, tug, rend, jerk, twist). gut-wrenching makes this metaphor explicit. DCDuring TALK 11:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Many of the items in the list of "synonyms" are at least misleading, if not outright wrong. Some need to link to specific Etymology sections at the target suffix entries to avoid wasting users' time and confirm the claimed synonymy. DCDuring TALK 11:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I did a cleanup on the whom page, whose template was RFCed in 2009 but didn't seem to get added here, so I'm not sure whether to use that date or the current one. In any case, for the moment I changed the whom page to not use the template and cleaned it all up, more on Talk:whom. Sabretoof 11:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
PoS, capitalization. Alt spellings seem incomplete, usage notes needed. DCDuring TALK 00:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed. I notice among other problems, we don't have a definition relating to being vocal about something. "Being vocal on the issue of abortion" for example. Looks a lot like a bot import that's never been checked. Also, when we sort out which definitions this entry needs, we need translation tables, which I deliberately avoided adding because the definitions don't look right to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Needs multiple etymologies, etc. Probably not only such instance among given names. DCDuring TALK 13:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- This one really needs needed multiple etymologies, but many given names have several possible derivations, and if the names are used the same way, it would look stupid to have a separate etymology and definition for each possibility. Better list them all in the etymology. --Makaokalani 12:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Striking, since this discussion page needs a clean-up.--Makaokalani 16:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the definitions all mean. Sense #2 in particular ("Any of several aboriginal peoples of India and Sri Lanka thought to have spread in India before and after [Aryan] migration") seems unlikely, at least as a proper noun. I suspect that the entry needs to be split into three POS sections: ===Adjective===, ===Noun===, and ===Proper noun===. Some senses may be missing. Representative citations or decent example sentences would help clarify the issues. —RuakhTALK 14:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Etymology. Needs templates, economy, research, judgment. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This template discriminates against any with impaired vision or fine-motor skills. For the rest of us it is just hard to use. In addition, in many applications, the capital letters are simply unnecessary. If it cannot be repaired, it should be replaced in most applications with an all upper- or all lower-case TOC. See Category:English prefixes to compare. The second ToC is even "compact". Imagine what a well-designed TOC would be like.
If this isn't the right forum, what is? DCDuring TALK 18:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Not sure about caps on sense 1, or inclusion of sense 2 at all. Equinox ◑ 23:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Hundreds of Esperanto adjective forms mislabeled as verbs
If you've been using subst:new eo form to generate adjectival participles [-inta(j)(n)/-anta(j)(n)/-onta(j)(n)], bad news: the script was generating Verb part-of-speech headers for those endings instead of Adjective. (The good news is, I've fixed the bug.)
What's worse, it seems that some time ago, Darkicebot mass produced a metric boatload of these pages, all marked with the wrong part of speech.
To fix this mess, we're gonna need a bigger bot. — Robin 01:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- What exactly makes Esperanto participles count as adjectives but participles from other language count as verbs? --Yair rand (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's what I was gonna say. Convince us you're right. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- In Esperanto the final letter(s) of the word unambiguously determine the part of speech. Adjectives always end in -a, and a word ending in -a is always an adjective. So there can be no confusion. —CodeCat 15:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, for non-Esperantists, the participle markers in Esperanto are -int- (past), -ant- (present), and -ont- (future), which are then followed by a part of speech ending, -a (adjective), -o (noun), -e (adverb). An example of each sort of participle, with suffixes indicated:
- vojaĝ·i = to travel
- vojaĝ·ant·a famili·o = a family that is traveling
- vojaĝ·ant·o = one who is traveling
- vojaĝ·ant·e mi serĉ·as bov·in·o·j·n = travelingly (while traveling), I look for cows.
- They are formed from verbs, but their part of speech is explicit; they are not verbs. - Robin 15:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- This seems to be the same case as English. "traveling" (like "vojaĝanta") is a participle that functions like an adjective, yet it is labeled as a verb. How are Esperanto participles different? (I actually don't understand at all why all participles are labeled as verbs, but if we're going to have them labeled like that we might as well be consistent about it...) --Yair rand (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Verbs functioning as adjectives", that's an English mindset where verbs can't lose their verbness even when they turn into adjectives.
- Esperanto is like a world of roots which only gain a part of speech from an ending:
- vid·o (noun: sight) vid·a (adjective: visual) vid·e (adverb: visually, by sight) vid·i (verb: to see)
- reĝ·o (noun: king) reĝ·a (adjective: royal) reĝ·e (adverb: in the manner of a king) reĝ·i (verb: to be king, reign)
- Unlike English, if you know the word for "sight", you also know the word for "visual" and "see"; the root "vid" can become any part of speech. It's entirely determined by that last letter.
- So vojaĝ·ant·o isn't a verb acting like a noun, it is a noun, -o turns whatever you attach it to into a fully-fledged noun. — Robin 07:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Still a problem. There are tons of adjective forms with a "Noun" L3 header. -- Prince Kassad 18:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The phrase "Temper the acrimony of the humo(u)rs" is used in a lot of books, and seems to have been first said by Hippocrates. There used to be a usex that was from here. And does anyone know if this is an adjective or a noun? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 17:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The noun sense would need a lower case entry, but I'm not sure if the word really exists.--Makaokalani 12:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Never mind, I made the entry anyway. Makaokalani 16:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Definition 4 & 5 looks the same to me. In general, 21st Century wording would be a fine thing. The entry looks like it was written 200 years ago in some respects. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Total mess. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, the OED records several valid spellings for this including makaph, makuph, maccaph, maqqeph and makaf – but not maqaf. So possibly RFV? Ƿidsiþ 13:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
This and the entries that use it are absolutely awful. I doubt I can sort all (any?) the entries out without knowing any Malayalam at all. I can probably fix up the template, though. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see what you mean. What is wrong with the template and the entries? —Stephen (Talk) 18:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Non-encyclopedic rephrasing of the defs needed. H. (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Either the senses need to all be at one entry, or all duplicated at both. Right now it's kinda messy. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 01:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
rfc-sense: "That part of an object furthest away in the opposite direction from that in which an unsupported object would fall. " tagged by someone, seemingly two different users, with the following invisible comment: <!-- This is gibberish. What does it mean? Answer: this definiton works for any celstial body, be it the earth, moon or mars, etc. because of the direction of gravity! Excellent definition.-->. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Right, I tagged this years ago with <!-- This is gibberish. What does it mean?--> It is still gibberish to me. If I stand a pencil on one end and watch it fall, the opposite direction from the way it falls is not the top. In orbit around a celestial body, a water bottle has a top and a bottom in spite of the fact that there is no gravity to cause it to fall in any direction. —Stephen (Talk) 04:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- On earth, if you lay a cereal box on its side, you can talk about "the side of which is currently its top", as well as of "the top of the box, which is now on the side facing you". These are two senses of top: one, the side currently facing away from the pull of gravity, and the other, the side which is usually facing away from the pull of gravity (or some better definition than that, most likely). The first corresponds to our tagged sense.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps it does, but wording could be better. In fact I've read this about ten times, I still don't get it. "Furthest away in the opposite direction" looks bad to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that it's worded opaquely; I was commenting only on SGB's implication that the definition is wrong. As to the opacity, perhaps "That part or end of an object which is farthest from the source of gravity"? (But physicists will cringe.) By the way, we're missing the other sense I used in my cereal-box example: the usually-farthest-from-the-'source'-of-gravity sense. And I think our currently second sense (The part viewed, or intended to be viewed, nearest the edge of the visual field normally occupied by the uppermost visible objects: Headings appear at the tops of pages; Further weather information can be found at the top of your television screen) is nonexistent, or redundant to our first.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Let's not forget that the top of a box is still the top if you turn it upside down. Certain things just naturally have a top side, which is the easiest-to-open side, the side where the writing is the right side up, etc. —CodeCat 00:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're right that there are two senses of top, it's got nothing to do with gravity though. Whoever wrote this just meant "uppermost" or "highest". Ƿidsiþ 10:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Though it may not look like it, I've cleaned this up a bit. If anyone knows the term, it would help, as I'm basically making guesses whilst trying to wikify the definition(s). Mglovesfun (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm more concerned that the quotation doesn't seem to support this as anything but sum of parts. A b.g.c search turns up only three citations, none of which look as though they are more than sum of parts either. Two of them have "a coward's gambit", just like the currently included quotation. --EncycloPetey 00:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
rfc-sense: parlour. Which sense thereof, we have five senses. Included the commented out comment <!--really?--> which is what led to me tagging this. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
This list was imported from Wikipedia. The links still need to be fixed. -- Prince Kassad 23:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is there an original source online? I'm thinking it would be easier just to start over. Nadando 23:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Bien sûr, voyez dans le Library of Congress. -- Prince Kassad 23:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC) This is the first time I've spoken French for two years...
rfc-sense: "(medicine) A work shift which requires one to be available when requested (see on call)." Includes the now-customary invisible comment <!--Any service profession, right? Should be at [[on-call]]?-->. Per the entry itself, is this actually called a 'call'? You can be on-call, no doubt, but the call doesn't refer to shift but being contacted (called). I'd post this at RFV but perhaps I just don't know the sense and other people too. Oh and it's certainly not restricted to medicine, again, per the entry itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Definition number 2:
- sympathetic pregnancy: the involuntary sympathetic experience of the husband of symptoms of his wife's pregnancy, such as weight gain or morning sickness.
should either be on it's own page or be listed at Couvade syndrome I think, not at couvade. - TheDaveRoss 00:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The etymology, and the entry structure in general — lexicógrafa | háblame — 16:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
"See uitmaken" isn't a definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've fixed this now. —CodeCat 22:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Tagged by Equinox. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
According to a recent edit to this page, there is no such French verb as accouter. If this is correct, then the conjugated forms of the verb (visible from older edits) need to be deleted. --EncycloPetey 02:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
tagged but not listed. Not only does it need proper formatting, but it needs its vowel marks stripped. -- Prince Kassad 11:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sindhi spells some words with the vowel marks included, unlike Arabic. Only someone who know the language can decide if the vowel marks are needed or not. —Stephen (Talk) 18:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've formatted the page and reworded the rfc tag's comment to match this discussion.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
rfc-sense: Latin "war, battle". Listed in the proper noun section. I suspect that it's a common noun derived from the proper noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- You are correct. The common noun is also capitalized according to Lewis & Strong. Fixed. SemperBlotto 16:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Esperanto proper noun ending in -a, not -o. Worst part is the Wikipedia entry seems to back this up, which it shouldn't of course. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Atena?diff=11059247 —RuakhTALK 03:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
-
- Some Female proper names in Esperanto do end in -a. Atena for the Greek goddess is in the PIV. — Robin 03:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Proper noun that just needs a definition or does not meet CFI? Mutante 01:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Who knows about CFI for proper nouns? The only sure thing is: if it might make money we don't want it. (See WT:BRAND.) DCDuring TALK 01:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Amen, brother. Equinox ◑ 23:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
needs a better definition line Mutante 01:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know this one; is it really usually capitalized? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This may have been discussed before, but I don't see it on this page or the talk pages of those entries: we are inconsistent in our treatment of the digits 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9:
- In the translingual section, we give 0 the header "symbol" and define it as (1) a cardinal number, (2) a digit, and mathematical things; in the English section, we give it the header "noun" (and adjective), and the senses "cardinal number" and "numeral".
- In the translingual section, we give 1 the header "symbol" and define it as (1) a cardinal number, (2) a digit, and mathematical things; in the English section, we give it the header "symbol" (and adjective), and the senses "cardinal number" and "numeral".
- In the translingual section, we give 2 the header "symbol" and English example sentences, and define it as (1) a cardinal number, (3) a digit, (2) a numeral, and mathematical things; in the English section, we do not treat it except as a representation of to or too.
- In the translingual section, we give 3 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number, and we have no English section.
- In the translingual section, we give 4 the header "symbol" and an English example sentence, and define it as a number (but not a cardinal number); in the English section, we do not treat it except as a representation of for. There is also a note on the talk page about a Russian sense we should consider.
- In the translingual section, we give 5 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; in the English section, we do not treat it except as a (doubted) representation of MI5.
- In the translingual section, we give 6 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; in the English section, we do not treat it except as a (not-doubted) representation of MI6. We also have an Italian sense that should be checked.
- In the translingual section, we give 7 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; we have no English section.
- In the translingual section, we give 8 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; and we have no English section, although we could note that it is sometimes a representation of ate.
- In the translingual section, we give 9 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; we have no English section.
- (NB, we give 10 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number, but also give it the sense "perfect, on a scale of 1-10", although we don't have corresponding senses at the other numbers.)
So... what should we standardise on? What senses should the translingual sections have (numeral, cardinal number, both, etc)? Should we have English sections for the numbers? If so, what headers (symbol vs noun, vs eg numeral) and senses (numeral, cardinal number, etc) should they have? Should the translingual sections have English example sentences? Note that 0 and 1 have translingual example sentences. — Beobach 21:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- NB also Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2010#Entries_for_cardinal_numbers. I will standardise all of these soon. — Beobach 06:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
-
- I have for the most part standardised 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. I now turn to zero, one, etc. — Beobach 01:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have now for the most part also standardised zero, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten. I have yet to look at higher numbers. — Beobach 02:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit] 2007 entries which still need attention
I am archiving the 2007 discussions. Most are resolved. The few that are not resolved are unlikely to get attention unless they are re-listed here, at the bottom of the page, as new requests. Therefore: — Beobach 02:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
— Beobach 02:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
— Beobach 02:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
It was said that "The noun and verb senses need standardising" and sorting, "particularly the noun sense which is almost exclusively used in plural". — Beobach 22:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The comments were "These words can be used for 'the X people collectively'. However, most of the translations for these definitions mention singular persons." and "Practically all our entries that are language names need to be redone thoroughly." — Beobach 06:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
— Beobach 06:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I believe, that this entry has been sufficiently improved. - -sche 18:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
— Beobach 08:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
— Beobach 08:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
It was noted that "Someone with easier access to OED" should check whether "the 'references' simply repeat verbatim". — Beobach 08:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Some or all translations are for August (month), not for august (adj.). DCDuring 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking about concepts, not words. It looks like the real problem is that for some languages for which the 8th month on the Gregorian calendar is written "august", there is no entry under "august", though there is a translation shown under "August" (Interlingue and Sundanese). I don't trust myself to get it right, so I'd rather someone with a firmer hold of this make the remaining changes. Someone should just look to make sure that the translations and entries are consistent. I suspect that there other kinds of inconsistencies as well as the one I mentioned above. DCDuring 15:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Almost everything in Category:Cuneiform needs substantial cleanup. — Beobach 18:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- ... or deletion on the grounds that there is "no usable content given". — Beobach 18:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
We have attracted users with strange etymological and other theories before, like KYPark (most of his entries have been corrected or verified, but NB these few remain to be checked by someone knowledgeable: 갭, bal, 불라, bakke, 헤이그, hof, 울). User:Nemzag[1] is not new — Stephen commented above in 2008 — but I am now making a unified list (as was made for KYPark) of those of Nemzag's entries which need the attention of someone knowledgeable, due to nonstandard formatting or questionable content: coerator, hipje, hypje, hipi, خواجه, truni, נחש, lirë, njeri, ملكائيل(!). I am double-checking to see that I have not missed anything, but I believe that the remainder of his main-namespace contributions from 12:28, 3 November 2008 or later (up to 3 December 2010) have either been corrected or verified. (I have not yet checked his pre-3-November-2008 contributions.) — Beobach 03:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- The following entries from before 3 November 2008 also need to be checked: پری, njer, זונה, أن, and الكون الاعلى(!), and شیطانه. The rest, as far as I can tell, have been verified or corrected. (I repeat that I have checked only main-namespace contributions.) — Beobach 03:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
-
- I have dealt with the following things which were previously listed above: hypi (I restored the last good version of the page, by Jyril), Перун (I restored the last good version of the page, by Ivan Štambuk), אלהים, kuti (I restored the last good version of the page, by Conrad.Bot and Hekaheka), ملائكة (restored last good version by Interwicket and Hakeem.gadi), pret (restored the last good version by Conrad.Bot and Opiaterein); (mpret, mret); חשמן; الارفع (I have restored the last good version by Stephen). — Beobach 23:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have removed the Pulaar section of ملاك (the Pulaar section: is it displaying improperly for me, or do we really have an Arabic-script singular and a Latin-script plural as the headword line?). — Beobach 03:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Vahag and I have cleaned mbret. — Beobach 03:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Stephen has cleaned curator. — Beobach 23:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- NB this discussion. — Beobach 03:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Neapolitan, the head word is vàso so I'd imagine that's the correct page name. Since I don't speak any Neapolitan, I don't know if I'm right. Who added this? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
-
- User:E. abu Filumena, apparently. Pingku 02:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ditto cucino. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
"Usage notes" are terrible. Tidy or remove? Equinox ◑ 12:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup
The page is almost 300 000 bytes long (at its worst, it was some 450 000), with unresolved issues from as far back as 2008. It's going to need a lot of cleanup... — Beobach 22:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please add Wiktionary:Requests for verification and Wiktionary:Requests for deletion as well. -- Prince Kassad 22:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's not this page that needs cleanup; in all honest I could list way more stuff here than I actually do, but it doesn't often get dealt with. What needs clean up is the entries listed on this page... Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Dunno what to make of this. "Almost never used in French", "chiefly used in English". Should we change the header? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
-
- Is it an idiom in French?
- Do you want to RfV it as English? DCDuring TALK 22:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- I couldn't decide, which is precisely why I listed it here. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Latin section. I don't know how this fits as a Latin entry. I have added an English L2 section. DCDuring TALK 19:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Volunteers? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- They look to be encyclopedic if accurate, SoP if defined at dictionary length. But I look forward to being surprised. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be a mix of English and French, obviously General American is not a valid pronunciation for a French word. Some suggestion of SoP in French, so I think the English and French should be split providing both are attested. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
People have started adding their protologisms to these pages. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Never mind, I'm satisfied of most of them, and some of them would be quite hard to search for. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 19:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Better there than in principal namespace. I'd be surprised if they didn't have some usage somewhere, at least at one time. DCDuring TALK 00:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Pronunciation is nonstandard and defintions are well, weird. Mglovesfun (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Weird?
Done. DCDuring TALK 12:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Needs actual definition. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Definition "to spontaneously release pressure or tension" needs improvement --Downunder 20:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The table of derived terms needs merging into the category Category:English words suffixed with -istic. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 21:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Marked by SB. Originally not defined as a verb. I am not very happy with my definitional efforts. Maybe this needs a non-gloss definition., DCDuring TALK 03:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Could someone familiar with the term match quotes to senses, if indeed two distinct senses are warranted, remove one or both rare tags? DCDuring TALK 22:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's definitely one sense. I've heard it before in casual conversation, though not in writing. Also, there's friendship with benefits. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't doubt that there was a good entry just a few edits away, just not mine. DCDuring TALK 23:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
On both pages a number of definitions are given that are actually all synonyms of one another. Cathode comes from κατα and ὄδος: the path down and anode from ἀνα and ὁδος the path up. This refers to the conductive path that leads electrons down into or up out of the electrolyte (or vacuum). The 'definitions' are simply different examples of these processes. Jcwf 02:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have done some work on these articles. Apologies for not coming here first, I started on anode and only noticed the cleanup notice at cathode when nearly complete. I have merged defs 2 and 3 ("the positive terminal... etc) which I agree are both aspects of the same concept. In fact, these definitions were incorrect as stated: anode and cathode are not defined in terms of negative and positive poles but in terms of direction of current flow. Def 1 (oxidation/reduction electrode) I have left as is; although this might be scientifically demonstrable to be equivalent to (the new) def 2 it is not linguistically equivalent and remains an alternative meaning. At the risk of causing further confusion, I have added a new definition at def 3, this is often said to be incorrect usage, but is widely used with respect to semiconductor devices and definitely amounts to a different definition. The definition (def 4) at cathode concerning vacuum tubes could conceivably be merged with def 2 but that would make it an even more clunky definition than it already is so I have left it as it is and created a corresponding entry at anode. A further difficulty with trying to merge the vacuum tube usage in with the electrochemical cell usage is that vacuum tubes often have more than two electrodes, which can all be carrying a current, not all of which are referred to as anodes and cathodes. SpinningSpark 14:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
No idea where a competent user would put this comment, but as someone who understand electronics to a reasonable degree and valves to a better degree than most who're under 60 years of age, I should point out that under valve technology the ideal (which was very nearly acheived in most instances) would have been for no valve electrodes to carry current *except* the cathode and the anode. Valves worked by the attractive/repulsive effect of the /static/(stationary) charges on the grid(s) upon the transmission of electrons from cathode to anode. With correct biasing almost no electrons would impinge upon the grid and therefore /no/ current would flow. Remember the interior of a valve is a vaccuum except for the emitted electrons and that electrons will not be attracted to a positively charged grid. Where /my/ theory falls down is I don't understand how the electrons 'know' that the (relatively) charged grid is thusly charged. I assume that this is connected to the infinitesimal, as in ~1e-6A, 'leakage'(for want of better word) current.
- The answer to where this comment should be put is nowhere on Wiktionary since it is an encyclopaedic comment and Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia. By the way, you are in error about the grid being "positively charged" - the grid is biased negatively or to zero volts.
- Having looked at this again, I think we can merge definitions 4 and 2 and hopefully this item can now be closed. SpinningSpark 16:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
2 senses: 1. "A concept ...." 3 sentences, encyclopedic. 2. "A Tarot card" not specific. DCDuring TALK 22:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by "not specific". It is indeed a Tarot card; it is card number ten of the Major Arcana of the Tarot of Marseilles. Also, the capitalisation is not right for this meaning, should it not be under Wheel of Fortune instead? SpinningSpark 14:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC) added 14:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I believe he means that the definition isn't specific. It makes it sound like "wheel of Fortune" can refer to any Tarot card. (By comparison: if we define "youth" as "A young person", that doesn't mean there's a specific young person named "youth".) —RuakhTALK 15:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The overlong, attribute-laden definition is not supported in most regards by attestation, which does not even fully support an attribute like "dumbed down" or "exhibiting typical behavior of average human beings". DCDuring TALK 10:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The two subsenses of the main sense are almost completely unintelligible IMO. DCDuring TALK 15:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- See also #top, here for the same reasons. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Alleged adjective sense. As currently defined and exemplified, it doesn't look like an adjective.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Second sense is worded poorly, someone who knows the topic should reword to ensure accuracy. - TheDaveRoss 14:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Is out-of-date, lacking format, and needs a copy-edit --Mat200 13:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
No part of speech header, bad categories. Delete? -- Prince Kassad 20:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The quotes are no good, second etymology has no definition, needs a lot of work. - TheDaveRoss 23:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please take a look. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Most of the entries in this category need {{ja-noun}}, infl or a written category. I could do it myself but I have four projects I'm currently working on. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
This should be a noun too, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure about where to add {{ja-noun}}, but the meaning was wrong, so I fixed that. Also, should this be its own entry here on this page? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- There isn't anywhere to put {{ja-noun}}, since this kanji is so rarely used and since the modern Japanese word for helium is ヘリウム. I cannot find any instance of this kanji used in running Japanese text; it only appears in dictionary listings, or in Chinese. And, oddly, a number of online dictionaries list this kanji as meaning fluorine, but the proper kanji for that is 弗. Anyway, I've cleaned the entry, and accordingly removed the {{rfc}} tag. Please let me know if that was a faux pas on my part. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
These need {{de-noun}} and also {{elements}} instead of written text. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Now redundant to User:Yair rand/uncategorized language sections/G. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
What does slate blue have to do with anything?—msh210℠ (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- What does it do? Why is it in slate blue? Why don't we just delete it? SemperBlotto 19:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- It provides a list of semantically related terms for listing under "Coordiate terms" or "Hyponyms" or whatever. All the terms seem related, except slate blue, which is listed as the hypernym.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The order of the senses and those of the translation tables do not match, which makes the page very confusing. -- Prince Kassad 09:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
RFC-sense for the "A malicious hacker who commits illegal acts" sense. See the entry's talk-page. Was previously tagged, everyone seemed to agree that the definition was problematic . . . and somehow it got de-tagged without any changes being made to the def. (It did get reshuffled etymologically, but actually that just added more problems, in that our entry now implies, on top of everything else, that malicious lawbreaking hackers are "villains" who have traditionally worn black Stetsons.) —RuakhTALK 21:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Completely illegible definition. -- Prince Kassad 21:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think that's a literal translation of the proverb into English - which as you say, means nothing. Perhaps a Chinese speaker could enlighten us. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
-
- Or a Vietnamese speaker. Or, for that matter, a Japanese speaker: we have the exact same definition for 切磋琢磨. —RuakhTALK 21:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Google finds "Sessa-takuma [...] consists of four Chinese characters: 切磋琢磨 The first means to cut (a bone or elephant tusk), the second to rub, the third to crush (a stone or gem), the fourth to polish. As a whole, it describes how various hard materials grind each others and during this process are all refined. Interestingly, using online translation services yealds a variety of results. Babelfish has two different versions. The rather simple Japanese-English translation is "Hardwork". When I tried the Chinese-English option, I got "Learn from each other by an exchange of views" as a result. Google translation has "Friendly competition". Websaru has "gradual improvement by slow polishing (idiom); fig. education as a gradual process" for the Chinese term, "apply yourself diligently with everyone" for the Japanese." - -sche 22:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I don't think it's anything like "friendly competition". It seems to say something like: (studying is) like forging and casting, grinding and filing. —Stephen (Talk) 04:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- 切 磋 琢 磨 are processes in the manufacture of bones, horns, jades and stones. 切磋 and 琢磨 both mean "to refine, to improve", especially "to improve through discussions with others". 如切如磋如琢如磨 means "Something is like the refining processes of the ornaments. The more you discuss and exchange your ideas with others, the more you improve."
- The current etymology "From Middle Chinese .." doesn't make sense. Middle Chinese is spoken. It should be "From Classical Chinese" instead. Wjcd 04:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- "Classical Chinese" could be confusing because the term can also refer to the Chinese used from Zhou to Han. Maybe "literary Chinese," but the implication of "Middle Chinese" is that it came into Vietnamese during the time Middle Chinese was spoken. So there should be a very easy way to fix the entry (and others like it), just making clear when it came from Chinese to Vietnamese. 71.66.97.228 06:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- In Mandarin 切磋琢磨 (qiēcuōzhuómó) - "learn from each other by exchanging views", from ABC dictionary (integrated into Wenlin software). --Anatoli 12:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
-
- The Japanese Edict dictionary gives: 切磋琢磨 (せっさたくま, Sessatakuma) "cultivate one's character by studying hard"; diligent application". In Japanese described: 互いに鍛え合い高め合う. --Anatoli 12:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Slovak section need its inflections inside a template. Etymology can be copied from dub#Serbo-Croatian. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Done though I haven't copied the "primary among" definition (as in arch-nemesis) as I'm unsure about it. Is it a prefix? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Some of this is probably etymology rather than definition. —RuakhTALK 03:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Better? Maybe use nodot=1 and then {{gloss|an absence due to disconnection}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed. Is this the proper lemma? Surely there should be at the very least one in Japanese characters. -- Prince Kassad 18:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- The entry isn't wrong 'per se', it would just benefit from having Japanese scripts as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- But does Japanaese romaji really capitalize proper nouns? I thought it didn't. -- Prince Kassad 22:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Proper nouns in English are capitalized, and romaji renderings in Japan follow suit -- sometimes excessively so, like Sony's insistence on spelling the name SONY all the time. But names in Japan, when rendered in romaji, definitely use initial caps. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 02:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The current definition looks like a compound of maybe three, German speaker want to sort it out? - TheDaveRoss 20:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd just remove the added definitions (see version history). They look nonsense to me. -- Prince Kassad 20:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Even Mutante's original definition included "frogman, scuba diver, combat diver, combat swimmer", and while the first is a synonym for the third and closely related to the fourth, the second is troublesome. Does this mean any kind of scuba diver or only a combat scuba diver? Is it restricted to combat divers who use SCUBA? Are combat snorklers OK? Seems like it is the German version of SEAL but I can't make that assumption. - TheDaveRoss 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- They're soldiers trained for combat in and under water, today counted among special forces. - -sche 02:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Many of the related terms listed here are blatantly SoP. Someone needs to check all of them and look for idiomaticity. -- Prince Kassad 17:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed. No proper definition. -- Prince Kassad 21:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed. The definitions are totally wrong and imply the only Creoles are the Louisiana ones, while in fact there are many more in the world. -- Prince Kassad 21:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed. Danish only, AFAICT definition are actually written in Danish, if they even are definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Done, though I'm not sure about the best way to list set phrases.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 19:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The forcing of undesired sexual activity by one person on another.
Definition does not approach adequacy for a topic that warrants w:Sexual abuse, especially with regard to seduction of minors or those not deemed competent. Obviously, too, at least one party desires the activity. The inadequacy of the definition reflects the absence of citations. There would seem to be a need for legal definitions in addition to the general-use definitions. Some questions include whether the term is used both as a hypernym and a coordinate term of rape and other specific bad behavior of a sexual nature and whether it can be purely verbal or conducted via telecommunications (eg, Child Abuse on the Internet [2001]). DCDuring TALK 13:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I copy-pasted the def from Wikipedia but actually I think it serves pretty well. You object that one party does desire the activity, but that doesn't stop it being undesired by someone, and that's precisely the point of the definition. I think your point about minors and so forth is interesting but encyclopaedic -- it really has to do with various groups or lawmakers deciding how they are going to classify "forcing" and "undesired" and indeed "sexual activity", but I reckon it's better to leave those distinctions to them rather than us. But you're definitely right that citations would help all this. Ƿidsiþ 15:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
-
- Same, I'm not convinced that we need 'legal' definitions. That would vary by country, so we'd need (or at least want) a different definition for each country that has its law written in English. Perhaps DCDuring if you referred to specific definitions that we don't have, rather than what would be the nature of the definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The RfD called for improvement of the definition. I took that as not mere rhetoric. I'd be happy if it were deleted if it could not be brought up to standard. As it stands other dictionaries do a better, though not adequate, job. Legal definitions are per se includable based on one of the Pawley idiomaticity criteria, if attestable. In the US and its territories, applicable law is at the state level for the most part so, in principle, more than 51 definitions might apply. DCDuring TALK 18:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I have attempted to fix the mess, but there's still a lot. The context templates are probably going to require some esoteric syntax. -- Prince Kassad 22:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's a bit wordy, sure, but it's not too bad. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Besides the definitions, the Pronunciation and especially the Synonyms section (that is a total atrocity) needs serious cleanup. -- Prince Kassad 18:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The definition doesn't help anyone, IMHO --Plowman 17:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Sense: (US Army slang) To smoke : to order a recruit to exercise until he "gags" (usually spoken in exaggeration).
- I don't get whether this is one or two senses. Of course we don't have any citations. DCDuring TALK 15:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think the intent is "To order a recruit to exercise excessively" with etymology "to order a recruit to exercise until he gags (chokes)" and synonym "smoke". Not sure, though.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
All these seem to be very badly formatted entries on proper names of kings. My thought is we don't include such stuff (可毒夫 already failed RFD). The second point is that it's questionable whether these are actually attestable as Old Korean terms. -- Prince Kassad 14:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Warship translation for Romanian (+ some more)
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I'll give it a shot.
I've been monitoring translations made by a Romanian contributor and noticed a couple of translations looking like this:
E.g. (Warship =) Romanian: navă militară f.
This just doens't look good to me, taking into consideration that in French, Italian, Portuguese etc. the entire term is linked.
I've tried fixing contributions that look like this, but he keeps undoing my edits.
I just want to know what conventions are to be followed and if this contributor should receive guidelines if his style of editing isn't up-to-date.
Best Regards,
--Robbie SWE 12:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The sample sentence for this article is ableist and hostile to people with bipolar disorder. Request the sample sentence be removed and replaced with something that does not further harmful stereotypes about the mentally ill.
- I agree it's potentially offensive. I've replaced it with a real citation from a book. Equinox ◑ 01:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Etymology for the most part, isn't one. It's just general discussion about the word. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Done, almost. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Now, see #blond. DCDuring TALK 11:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
rfc-sense for sole adjective sense: "Involving a large quantity, or a large number". I am fairly confident that this merits and adjective PoS section, partially based on OneLook coverage, partially on semantic differences. MWOnline has 3 senses. Can any good senses appear in predicate position? DCDuring TALK 19:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Style is too informal. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The English surname Alek? Does it mean the given name Alec(k)? Category:zh-cn:English surnames seems to have several given names categorized as surnames, beginning from the letter 亚.--Makaokalani 12:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed (like 400 others). Mglovesfun (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed. I think I only partially agree with the nomination. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Should use {{he-noun}} and IPA shouldn't be on the definition line. I'll leave it to one of our Hebraists to clean up. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The inflection line looks wrong, since it does not correspond with definition two. Caladon 09:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Move the so-called noun to rfd using {{rfd-sense}}. Needy is already at rfd for this same reason. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed. Synonyms section seemingly lists synonyms of definitons that do not even exist. -- Prince Kassad 15:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- The small Korean dictionaries I have only have that glyph in words or phrases (it is hard to tell if they are words or phrases), but the general meaning is "side" or "by". The entry was created by a creator of problematic Korean entries, KYPark. - -sche 18:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed. Encyclopedic definition. Ought to be Translingual. -- Prince Kassad 16:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's ok now, but could be better. What does the phalaenopsis refer to? Also we have no entry for Moon Orchid - or is it Moon orchid? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Why not move it to moon orchid or Moon orchid? I didn't think that we wanted species binomials. EP certainly didn't. Vernacular names seem fine and the component names seem fine, but, even more than with legal and medical Latin, binomials per se/per se are grammatically Latin phrases, formatted as such. Interestingly, species names do not correspond at all well to natural categories; genus names do. Thus, "oak" ("Quercus") is apparently more 'natural' than "red oak" (Quercus rubra) or "white oak" (Quercus alba). DCDuring TALK 22:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed. Webster 1913 entry, needs a proper definition. -- Prince Kassad 19:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have improved the definition and removed the name and tag. Re-add the tag if the entry remains problematic. - -sche 19:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Improved. - -sche (discuss) 04:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyone got the faintest idea what this means? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- See en flute#English, which seems to be defined as an adjective/adverb. DCDuring TALK 22:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Just doesn't make enough sense. Noun definitions seem to be proper nouns. Adjective definitions refer to nouns. Etymology is listed as a definition. If I cleaned it up myself I would be 'guessing' as I'd either have to move the noun definitions into the noun section, or reword them to be adjectives. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Dutch section: are the proper nouns also lowercase? Is the interjection an interjection or a verb form? Ditto for the Finnish, looks like a verb form. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- The proper nouns are never lowercase, as far as I know. If "mars!" would be a verb form it would be a very defective verb (only an imperative). --Erik Warmelink 13:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Finnish mars is certainly an interjection. No Finnish verb form ends in two consonants. I moved the Dutch god+planet to Mars.--Makaokalani 17:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Finnish word is an interjection. The regular imperative of marssia ("to march") is marssi (singular) or marssikaa (plural). Is the translation right? I mean, is "march" used as a military parading command in English? The command for a unit to march forward is Eteenpäin, mars!. Is it simply "Forward, march!" in English? The word has civilian usage as well when demanding prompt action. For instance, one might command a child with: Ja nyt nukkumaan, mars!, meaning: "And now to the bed, [?]!" --Hekaheka 05:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Forward, march!" is the exact English command, as far as I know. In civilian usage, perhaps the child is commanded "go!" or verbosely "get going!"? "Get to bed, right now!" "Now get to bed(,) pronto!" - -sche (discuss) 05:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed. A total mess. -- Prince Kassad 19:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
One of the senses is the initialism for Graduate Record Examination. That's almost always capitalized as "GRE", but I don't know how to split the entry into an uncapitalized and a capitalized sense. Rspeer 06:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Msh210 (talk • contribs) has done it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
English: masculine singular is "Rom" and the plurals are "Roma" and "Roms". English doesn't have masculine nouns. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Current French entry is useless but I'm not sure what to do with it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Even if the French and Dutch are includable, shouldn't it be Touring? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Index format
What has happened to the index function? Words beginning with capital letters are mixed with articles beginning with little letters. I noticed this in the Romanian Wiktionary, but it seems to be the same here. How come? Is it temporary? --Robbie SWE 18:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Which index function are you referring to? Special:PrefixIndex and Special:AllPages both still distinguish them, and Index:Romanian never distinguished them to begin with. —RuakhTALK 20:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
-
- I was referring to this. The index is composed of majuscules and minuscules, but they appear to be jumbled since the change was made. --Robbie SWE 12:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't a request for cleanup, see WT:GP#Alphabetizing in categories. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Second definition for each language seems to be in Devanagari script. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed -- Prince Kassad 21:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
It's all a bit messed up. Should be reformatted to match the other PIE numbers. -- Prince Kassad 21:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Torres Strait Creole - headword and etymology seem to be for ol#Torres Strait Creole. Perhaps just delete as a mistake? I don't know. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Tatar. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Header is 'Chinese' (invalid) but it seems to be English. In other words, a normal Goldenrowley sort of entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done. ---> Tooironic 08:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Striking. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems that all the uncategorized Scottish Gaelic entries are by this user. Some of them seem to include the definite articles, and some of the capitalized ones are listed as common nouns. Also many of these could do with {{gd-noun}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Head is 'Scottish Gaelic' and category is 'Welsh nouns'. Since I speak neither, and they're of the same language family, I can't fix it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Needs context and other templates and removal of tendentious material in usage notes. DCDuring TALK 11:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please take a look. —RuakhTALK 13:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
-
- By the way, a tag such as {{context|perhaps|_|nonstandard}} (perhaps nonstandard) may be warranted. I don't consider it nonstandard, but obviously some editors do. —RuakhTALK 13:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- It looks good to me. I just didn't have the courage or acuity today. Should it be "informal" and "poetic"? DCDuring TALK 14:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- The funny thing is, that if you ask its users what they mean by it, they (I strongly suspect) won't say that they mean "Alternative spelling of till: until" (which is what the entry currently reads): they'll say they mean "Abbreviation of until.". So, while the former is correct from a where-it-comes-from point of view, the latter is correct from a how-it's-used point of view. We currently relegate the information about abbreviating until to the etymology section. Should we switch to the "Abbreviation of until." definition, relegating information about till to the etymology section, as descriptive? Or, better, put all the etymological information in the etymology section, and define it merely as "until" (with appropriate {{context}} tags)?—msh210℠ (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I had only focused on the tendentiousness of the usage notes, but the same spirit is in the etymology. I think users would mostly encounter it in poetry. I find it hard to understand the validity of the "true" etymology given. Why would the front apostrope indicate the loss of the second "l"? The supposed false popular etymology has face validity - as all good folk etymologies do - but also fits the convention for use of apostrophes. Til, without apostrophe, might be an abbreviation or alternative spelling of till. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't totally understand your comment, DCDuring, but as the person who wrote that etymology, let me clarify what I meant: the words till/'til and until are both survivals of much older forms, with the etymon of until being derived from the etymon of till/'til. (In other words: roughly speaking, till/'til is the original form, and until is derived from it.) The spelling 'til results from reanalysis: some people came to view till as a clipped form of until, and some of these people started to respell it accordingly. (This is rather like how the form mike ("microphone") got respelled as mic, the latter now being the more common spelling. In that case, of course, no reanalysis was necessary, as mike was short for microphone. But the respelling followed the same idea.)
Regarding msh210's point: I think "abbreviation of until" would be wrong, but I would be fine with a definition along the lines of "Till, until".
—RuakhTALK 17:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC) - Now the scales drop from my eyes. Unbeknownst to me, all my life I've been saying till when I thought I was saying 'til (to whatever modest extent I have ever thought about it at all). Because I don't think I have ever written "till" as either conjunction or preposition. Nor have I written "'til". I actually wouldn't have believed that I had ever even read "till", but the COCA statistics suggest that I must have read "till" nearly one-fifth as often as "until" for the preposition and 3% as often for the conjunction.
- What would you suggest for 'till? It gets 108 hits at COCA, vs 738 for 'til. Just a misspelling? DCDuring TALK 22:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I used to spell it 'til thinking that the spelling till was a mistake, confusion with noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- @Mglovesfun: Yeah, I think that's pretty a common belief. Some sort of usage note at [[till]] is likely warranted, though I don't know quite what it should say ("in recent use, sometimes considered an error for 'til"?). —RuakhTALK 01:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- @DCDuring, re: 'till: I don't know. I only remember ever seeing one instance of it, and I took it to be an error — a sort of "spelling blend" of till and 'til — but I don't know how to judge. I find this hit intriguing: the book mostly has till, and never 'til, but in a few places it has 'till, even sometimes just one line after till. —RuakhTALK 01:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's not terribly common if we consider it a misspelling, especially compared to the number of occurrences of until. It is about 2-3% of till (as prep and conj). But about 100 instances at COCA. DCDuring TALK 02:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- @msh210: Having thought about this further, I don't think I agree with your rationale in arguing against "alternative spelling of ____". In general, I doubt that most people ever think of any spelling that they use as an "alternative spelling" of some other spelling for the same word. If we took the view that a spelling is only an "alternative spelling" if its users see it as such, then we could probably just dispense with {{alternative spelling of}} altogether. It would get so little use. I suppose you're distinguishing between users of 'til, who see it as a shortening of until, and users of till, who see it as a word in its own right; but this is a rather tenuous distinction. I'd bet that most users of till do see it as an informal variant of until, but spell it till for the same reason that most people spell perk ("perquisite") and tummy ("stomach") and Nick ("Nicholas") and Mike ("Michael") and Shelly ("Michelle") in ways that don't match their associated more-formal variants. —RuakhTALK 21:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
rfc-sense - "The frequency and quality of a person's sexual encounters."
- Flagged, not listed. (?)
- I've added some citations that don't really fit the definition, which strikes me as being more evaluative in tone than it should be. Perhaps some more modern, more colloquial quotations would be in order. — Pingkudimmi 08:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- What's the problem? Seems both clear and correct to me. --Mglovesfun (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, um.. I don't know why it was rfc'd in the first place. I put it here because it had been flagged already and apparently not put up. If it had not been flagged I don't think I would have used rfc to raise my issue, but since it is here I have taken the opportunity.
- In any case, the citations I've found don't seem to match the nuance of the definition, but rather something like "that part of one's life that involves sexual activity." The definition above, however, seems to be trying to rate the quantity and/or quality. I don't think this is inherent in the term. I don't see it in the quotes I found. — Pingkudimmi 16:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Fair point. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
New sense created, this one sent to rfv. — Pingkudimmi 16:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Min nan "transliteration for ba or bar". That's just silly. You can't transliterate the Latin alphabet into the Latin alphabet. --Mglovesfun (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Terrible, terrible entry. Might be better to delete the whole thing and start again, assuming it's attestable. Which I'm not assuming. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually seems to be valid; this, hyle, ylem (etc.) are more or less the only edits of Jacob van Straten (talk • contribs) who's written these rather like university dissertations. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
And taughten. Connel MacKenzie "helpfully" changed the header to Middle English, for no apparent reason. Again, deleting/replacing the entire content seems the best option. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Would like to speedy delete the Middle English. Only English definition I am sure of is #1. #2 seems like utter tosh, #3 I have never heard of; what context is it used in, a legal context or what? Mglovesfun (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think the Middle English infinitive of witen (which we lack) so when we have it, if I'm right of course, this should be turned into a verb form. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, Chaucer "As who seitk, nay ; for no man travaileth for to witen thinges that he wot."[2]. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Encyclopedic definition. -- Prince Kassad 10:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Header is Karelian and category is Estonian. I don't speak either. --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Now at rfv. -- Prince Kassad 18:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's Karelian. Category is correct now. --Hekaheka 16:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
rfc-senses
- Relating to the Norman language.
- Referring to the dialect of French spoken in Normandy.
I believe these are one and the same; the Norman dialect is sometimes considered a separate language, so these senses could be merged.
Furthermore we don't have a meaning for relating to Anglo-Norman, so I was considered just changing "Relating to the Norman language" to "Relating to the Anglo-Norman language spoken in England after the Norman conquest". Mglovesfun (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Defined as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 00:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK now? -- Prince Kassad 12:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- The example sentence doesn't sound very natural to me, but I can't quite put my finger on why. The def itself seems O.K. to me. We can speak of the "attestation" of a phonetic or phonological feature (say, the lowering of a vowel), which doesn't quite mean that the sound itself appeared in records, but it's close enough. —RuakhTALK 14:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- I've changed the usex to something that hopefully doesn't sound quite so forced — see what you think. — Pingkudimmi 06:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Per Hippietrail; this started out as Mandarin, the header changed to Cantonese per it's still categorized as Mandarin. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
"per æqum|aequum|equum ignotum" is not to be found at bgc. DCDuring TALK 16:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually all the Google hits are Wiktionary, Delete. --Mglovesfun (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Try Googling ignotum per aeque ignotum (Eroica 14:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC))
Wonderfool Latin entries. They seem to be worded like English entries; are these in fact Latin phrases used in English? If they are Latin (which I don't really doubt) are they sum of parts, so that only the English should remain? --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- A bgc serach for "ignotum+per+æqum|aequum|equum+ignotum" yields abundant cites of logic (or rhetoric?) sense. (Are all fallacies presumptively part of "informal logic"?). DCDuring TALK 16:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I assume the hits are in English, presumably a Latin phrase borrowed into English, unless the 1989 OED also does Latin definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Volunteer to clean up the etymology, as my browser deals poorly with right-to-left script. Perhaps one of our Hebraists? --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also seraphim, please. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done, I think. (Formatted correctly, I mean. Not checked for accuracy.)—msh210℠ (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks - I struggle with piped links (like [[this|This]]) in right-to-left scripts; plain links are usually ok. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- You can always use <!--x--> after the pipe to straighten things out:
[[ב־|<!--x-->ב]].—msh210℠ (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Reads like an encyclopedic article. -- Prince Kassad 08:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- More like a primer, IMHO. Is it worth clean up, rather than RfD? DCDuring TALK 16:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dunno. en.wikipedia doesn't have it, so maybe it should be transwikied. -- Prince Kassad 16:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
-
- But is it correct? My "Harrap's English Grammar" makes no mention of them. SemperBlotto 16:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- That might be an RfV question. There is usage of the collocation among linguists, but it is hard to say how consistent among uses and with our sense. DCDuring TALK 17:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Could this be a tail wagging its dog? Is it a misleading calque of something meaningful in Russian? DCDuring TALK 17:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- It seems it would need a context of something like "(in Russian grammar)". Much other usage doesn't seem to correspond to this sense, AFAICT, but I definitely could be wrong. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed; helpfully pointed out by an IP at WT:FEED#stead. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- More or less sorted. Ƿidsiþ 09:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Looks (very) good to me. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed. An old one, it seems. I'll add my two cents and say the name is very misleading. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's not very clear when exactly a word is considered a lemma. With cases this is usually clear (me is the object form of I). But how does it work with gender? Is German sie a form of the lemma er? And does that mean the former shouldn't get its own entry? What about English she and he? —CodeCat 14:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do we want to keep this at all? I mean, it should say in the title with respect to translations or something: from the title I would assume it's simply about languages with one than one grammatical gender, which is a lot of them. But it's not. If anything it reads like a Beer Parlour subpage. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Definition: (philosophy, Sartre) Having its being or essential nature not reducible to its being perceived.
I can't understand this, let alone determine its correctness in the absence of citations or authority. What are the standards for a philosophical definition, especially one only defined in connection with a single author? DCDuring TALK 18:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Totally new editor Renegade5005 (talk • contribs). Furthermore he's not replying to messages left on his talk page. Providing this is the correct title (and I don't know at all) it should be like our other Proto-Indo-European verbs. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Sense: A period or condition when food is rare and hence expensive; famine.
I no longer understand which forum is appropriate to challenge what seem to me to be erroneously worded senses, especially in cases where evidence might be produced contradicting my claim of error. So, I try this one.
I don't think that "period or" belongs in the definition. Others may differ. Authority or citations would help settle the matter. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- google books:"during a dearth" has quite a few hits that use "dearth" where I would have used "period of dearth". See e.g. this one. —RuakhTALK 15:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- By the way, regarding which forum to use: one approach would be to split it into two senses, one for "period" and one for "condition", and then list the former at RFV to see if periods of famine are ever referred to as "dearths". (I think the "period" sense would easily pass; and surprisingly, based on the cites I've seen, the "period" and "condition" really seem to be a single sense that spans both viewpoints — not what I had initially expected — so after it passed RFV I would probably re-merge them and add some more "condition"-y cites so as not to give the wrong impression.) —RuakhTALK 21:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Based on earlier discussion, should I try to get empirical work done on RfC and RfD? Based on observation I had concluded that RfV caused some actual empirical effort, whereas RfD caused occasional resort to authority, but mostly chin-flapping and voting; RfC caused formating, sometimes sense revision that mysteriously bypassed RfD and RfV, and sometimes RfD and RfV. RfT leads to no specific action, and so seems best for matters that are unlikely to lead to one of the others.
- So, would flood#Noun, war#Noun, mining#Noun and all such non-point-event (durative?) nouns (and -ing forms?) need a similar rewording? DCDuring TALK 22:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I agree with your observations about forums other than RFV. RFV is the only forum that consistently combines attention-to-reality with actually-accomplishing-things. Where we differ is in the conclusion we draw: you conclude that when reality is relevant, we should use RFV; but I conclude that, since reality is always relevant, the other forums simply fail at life, and we need to be better at them. It would be nice if more people would chime in with their thoughts on the subject(s) . . . anyone? Anyone at all? —RuakhTALK 23:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think RFV and RFD both have quite specific jobs to do, which they do more or less well depending on who's involved. For general wording issues and definition tweaking I would use the Tea Room, personally, though in cases like this it could be seen as an RFV issue. Ƿidsiþ 07:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would have sent the entire sense to RFV, expecting proof of the "condition" part to be found. If proof of the meaning "period" hadn't also been found, I would have rewritten the definition to remove that part. - -sche (discuss) 00:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't want to waste time on citing the whole sense, when only the one element seemed questionable to me (and to other dictionaries, I might add). To me that seems to be an RfV matter. Whether one is going after a headword's language section, a PoS, a sense, or a portion of a sense, RfV seems appropriate. OTOH, generalizing senses, rewording for substitutability, cleaning up countability/comparability/inflection, rewording as the correct PoS, reducing wordiness/encyclopedicness (?), and similar more "technical" matters don't seem to warrant RfV. If I see my way clear to how to make and defend such changes, I often do them myself, otherwise I RfC them.
- But I got my knuckles rapped for abusing RfV on matters of challenging proper noun definitions that seemed OTT encyclopedic, hence my questions about venue. Is it only proper nouns that are immune to RfV challenge at below the sense level? DCDuring TALK 00:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
English definitions are quite messy. -- Prince Kassad 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Originally tagged with {{attention|nl}}, I moved it here. First definition should be in English, 'good' is way too ambiguous for the second one (which I translated from goed). --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The second definition is not up to scratch. ---> Tooironic 10:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Encyclopedic description - removed. SemperBlotto 10:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Devils by WritersCramp
All the latest offerings by User:WritersCramp - such as Prince of Demons. Most lack a language section and a part of speech section. Some are described as nouns rather than proper nouns. I haven't got the time or enthusiasm to do it myself. SemperBlotto 07:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- He's done most of them himself (herself?), I've done Diabolus. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Striking. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed; all the appendices could do with a tabulated format. Even better would be to use {{sk-decl-noun}} to create individual declension templates for noun declension patterns. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Not so much the definition as the usage notes "In contemporary Norwegian, this usage is hardly known, and the modern definition is wank (masturbate)." These aren't usage notes, it's another definition. An IP just changed them, and since I don't speak any Norwegian I can't help, other than blindly assume that it does indeed mean (vulgar) to masturbate. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
What does "carry (on a litter)" mean? See litter#Noun, load of definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Only one definition is possible. It is unambiguous. —Stephen (Talk) 12:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- What is tha unambiguous definition? --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Like Stephen, I find it pretty obvious. Actually since it says "a litter", and only two of our senses of litter are countable, there are only two grammatically possible definitions, and one of those is absurd. Ƿidsiþ 08:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Detagged. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
¶ This page is still helpful, but it has been abandoned for nearly two years. There are also 'average‐looking' words which inexplicably contain capital letters (examples: Cœlomata, Supernovæ, Cœcal), which I find confusing. ¶ Perhaps this page will have to be deleted, since it is hyponymous with Wiktionary:Requested entries (English). --Pilcrow 09:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Move to Wiktionary:Requested entries (English)/diacritics and ligatures, or add the entries alphabetically and delete, as you've said. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
¶ I personally want this divided into Wiktionary:Requested entries (English)/ligatures and Wiktionary:Requested entries (English)/diacritics, for sorting. Howëver: W is technically a ligature, but I do not think most English speakers are aware of that.--Pilcrow 10:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC) ¶ I did some cleaning so the page looks more organized. Although there are still some requests which appear to be regular words rather than proper nouns. ¶ I suppose this issue is resolved until somebody objects soon; since this topic has not gotten a lot of feed‐back, perhaps this request is too minor. --Pilcrow 03:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
¶ Why is "plura" included there? Furthermore: are those inflection boxes outdated? Something cannot be quite right with this section… --Pilcrow 01:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- In the Latin section, you are correct; the inflected forms get their own entries, not stacked under this. The tables are also 'nonstandard' as they're written out rather than via a template. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Resolved. --Pilcrow 03:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Definition not written in English. I wonder if this is classed as a 'noun' in Korean. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- 이젠 (ijen) is a contraction of 이제는 (ijeneun). The suffix marks it as the subject of the sentence. It's a noun: 이젠 안녕 (ijen annyeong, goodbye for now). —Stephen (Talk) 07:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Created numerous entries in the mainspace, most notably Mandarin and Vietnamese ones, with badly formatted pages, which lacked either headers, important templates like {{vi-etym-sino}} or {{vi-noun}}, etymologies, pronunciations, various parts of speech and a few categories for them. In fact, probably the only useful thing worth keeping is the definition added, and judging from a quick glance at them, I believe a few may be a little vague in meaning or otherwise inaccurate. In short, needs heavy fixing/editing. TeleComNasSprVen 10:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Finnish: head word is gestapo (lowercase)
German: is it a proper noun? Not me asking, already tagged. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- German is indeed a proper noun. Needs proper formatting (should be easy). -- Prince Kassad 23:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hopefully ok now, split into lowercase and uppercase first letter. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Striking. Finnish section has been moved to "gestapo". German "Gestapo" as referring to a particular organization is a proper noun, and is so marked up. --Dan Polansky 10:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Third definition is just plain wrong, but the other two definitions only cover verbs. Verbs and pronouns can have first/second/third person forms, perhaps in other languages, other parts of speech. A fear a lot of ttbcs after the reorganization is done, but it's better that than inaccurate, misleading definitions, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the third definition? A third-person pronoun is he, she, it, they, one. The rest of what you wrote is unintelligible to me. —Stephen (Talk) 17:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- Yes they are third person pronouns, the entry says. They are are not third persons. It needs to be removed but when we do, there won't be any definition to cover pronouns as opposed to verbs. If you want to find citations for "she is a third person" as opposed to "third person pronoun", feel free. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- To clarify, is wasn't a definition but rather a list; it would be like defining animal with "lion, tiger, turtle, frog, mouse" and then not even naming all of them, which is what the definition did. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
¶ Those examples look incongruous. Could somebody please apply the Deutsch translations of them? --Pilcrow 14:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I added the German translations. The second sense does seem a bit dated (one would rather say was für nowadays), so I added that. Longtrend 08:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- ¶ Thank you. Resolved. --Pilcrow 03:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This entry is miscategorized into both Category:Mexican Spanish and Category:Canadian Spanish, and the first definition could use some work. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 19:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've mainly removed the superfluous stuff, it linked to atlatl and then went on to define it in full anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Esoteric definition. Equinox ◑ 09:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This entry was tagged but not listed here. —CodeCat 18:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've followed Wikipedia and turned this into an English proper noun. The Inuktitut seems to be NunatuKavut, but I'm not gonna start making Inuit entries. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- The original entry I wrote is perhaps clearer than what's there now, so we should restore it to that state and recover any pertinent info from subsequent edits. Mindmatrix 18:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- I think the biggest problem with it was the etymology. It made no sense to say that the word comes from itself. Nuna means land, -vut means our. I am uncertain about the middle part, tuka, because my experience is with Yup'ik, which is a little different. Tuka might be related to tukangcar-, meaning to raise or rear a child. If you don't know the etymology, it would be better to leave that section out than to say it comes from itself. —Stephen (Talk) 19:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
How should these be formatted? --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Any anything else that Benlisquare (talk • contribs) comes up with. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] wrong template for japanese compounds
hi.
Just an FYI, the entry 異国 has the wrong template. It is showing up as an English compound. Ishwar 06:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
same for tyskertøs. Ishwar 06:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- They lack lang= whatever the language is. There are a few thousands of these to find. Good luck! Mglovesfun (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The etymology for this word requires a small bit of clean-up with regard to the references; the etymology is perhaps rather bloated as well. Caladon 09:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. The etymology is extremely detailed, but it is also a relevant and interesting discussion of how definition two came about. 69.203.1.88 03:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've put the additional details in a box. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
definition: "inclined to avoid notice". Not the best. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the distinction between the one#Noun and the one#Pronoun and I don't think this is either. It seems to be a determiner fused-head NP or nominal#Noun. I suppose that would make it a phrase. DCDuring TALK 00:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
-
- The plural seems a tad counter-intuitive. Does it actually exist? — Pingkudimmi 01:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- It you are looking for examples of our best work, entries like these are not the ones you should consider. DCDuring TALK 03:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Hmmm... That doesn't sound quite like the plural of something unique, or even merely special. I was hoping for something along the lines of a young lady's exes being collectively referred to as her the ones. In any case, the sense is already at one, as of this edit. This is exactly where it should be, IMO. Recommend delete. — Pingkudimmi 06:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have RfVed the plural to see if there is any use of other than as fused head, unless I misunderstand the RfD and the definition. Is the definition just an attempt to put words to the fused-head use? DCDuring TALK 10:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I found this, which is just about right, except for the quotation marks. — Pingkudimmi 12:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- If we only find it in quotes and with "One" capitalized, that suggests to me that it is not normal English. DCDuring TALK 13:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I thought so too - it seems like the writer recognises it's a stretch. On the other hand, some such construction might be expected to highlight that it is the two-word unit that is being pluralised. (It is after all an unusual plural.) I found a citation that uses just single quotes and lower case, which I've put in the entry. Even allowing that, I'm not very confident we'll reach quorum. — Pingkudimmi 14:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Have you found any uses of "the one" in this sense used in any way other than as a predicate? I find it amusing too, that we don't have an entry for the One or One in religious or philosophical senses. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The Duke of Najera
Can a member of the wiki community make a better article on this specific topic?
- You must be confusing us with Wikipedia (many people do that). We don't have entries for specific people. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
If someone (me to an extent) has time to review these, please do. Apart from missing templates, there are mistakes in the English, both spelling errors and impossible grammar. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am currently cleaning up Dutch nouns he created that have no gender in the headline template or have the gender in the wrong place (as well as simplifying the entries as he tended to be unnecessarily verbose). Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 04:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Unnecessarily Verbo's maybe! --Mglovesfun (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This entry showed only numerous senses of an "adjective" and omitted the verb. Only some of of the senses would be true adjectives. I hope this doesn't have to go to RfV. DCDuring TALK 02:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The first definition line has several sentences instead of a definition. Furthermore, it has wikilinks to Wikipedia. Marked for rfc by me in this revision. The sentences were added in diff. --Dan Polansky 08:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Inconsistent presentation. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The first three definitions mean the same thing to me. Combine them and replace with convincing, terse and meaningful. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- brief and to the point? DCDuring TALK 03:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds better than mine! Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 04:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just my two cents, but brief and to the point is the same definition as terse, but I don't think they have the same sense. Terse implies spare and unornamented, whereas pithy is more concise and meaningful.--T. Mazzei 03:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's only one sense of terse. Another (the one you are thinking of I think) is defined as abruptly or brusquely short. Are you suggesting the former sense should be sent to rfv? — Pingkudimmi 06:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's the one I'm thinking of. My issue was with the definition of pithy, since it seems to miss the meaning of the root (pith). But now that you mention it, I don't think brief and to the point defines either term properly. In my mind, the command "Here!" is terse but not pithy, "cogito ergo sum" is pithy but not terse, however both are brief and to the point.--T. Mazzei 14:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm supposing you mean that something pithy is brief, but still communicates the essential element of what is meant. That essential element is "the point." "Cogito ergo sum" is as brief as you can get, IMO, and retain the sense that it is a logical statement, a point that Descartes doubtless intended. The command "Here!" is terse (short and abrupt or brusque), and goes a bit further along the way of brevity, to being ambiguous and dependent on context. That said, I'm not convinced of the apparently separate sense of terse meaning "brief and to the point." I would welcome some citations to demonstrate the use, and thus for it to go to rfv. — Pingkudimmi 18:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree wrt terse, I don't think "brief and to the point" is a separate sense of the word. However, I don't think "brief and to the point" is an accurate definition of pithy either. The statement "The car is parked on the street" is brief and to the point, but it is not pithy. For a statement to be pithy, it has to convey something profound or meaningful; it has to contain pith, as opposed to trivial fact or observation. In fact, I don't think that the original sense of the word necessarily implied brevity at all.--T. Mazzei 18:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Somewhat encyclopedic. Needs syns or alt forms. Not my cup of tea. DCDuring TALK 03:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think there are any alt forms. It's called VFAT for as far as I know. I modified the definition slightly. It really can't be shortened any more without forgoing essential information. Also added link to wp. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- It initially had virtual FAT in the definition, I have no idea if that's real or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I guess you could break it apart like that. Will need a new entry for it. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 03:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Glosses for homophones? heading order? Homophones header? DCDuring TALK 03:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Done; the synonym should be in the form of a kanji but I don't know what that kanji is. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- The word プロセス (the one currently listed under Synonyms) is from English, and there is no kanji for this word. Another possible synonym is 経緯 (いきさつ, ikisatsu) which I'm about to add. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
-
- Striking, since this entry is now cleaned. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
A lot of stuff that ought to be under English initialism is under Translingual symbol, and so forth. It's all a big mish-mash. I noticed this because I was planning to add "(UK|politics|in election results) Conservative", and couldn't work out where. For extra brownie points, add that while you're cleaning up. Thanks! Equinox ◑ 23:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
May need to be split by etymology.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed it did. Done IMHO. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The encyclopedic LISP sense contains six clauses. IMHO, one or two seems the right number for a dictionary. DCDuring TALK 23:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I merged it with the general computing sense of a "codified list", because that's what it is, and cut it down a bit. It's true that lists are far more important in LISP than in most popular programming languages, but they are still the same kind of data structure. Furthermore we don't need technical details about the fact that lists can be recursive and so on. It's generally understood in programming that a structure may refer to similar structures, or to itself. We don't bother mentioning under pointer that the target of a pointer might be the pointer itself. Equinox ◑ 23:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Definitions inconsistent with part of speech. If it's a plural-only noun, how can it be 1. a singular belief and 2. an interjection or catchphrase? Equinox ◑ 15:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Answers on a postcard, please. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The PoS and definition don't look right and entry needs proper formatting, etymology, Latin. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Lots of encyclopedic content. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Wrong PoS? Is agg and alternative dialectal form of egg#Verb? DCDuring TALK 01:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
mineralology. A five-clause, three sentence definition. DCDuring TALK 07:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Tagged (by Wonderfool, admittedly); not listed. Equinox ◑ 00:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
rfc-sense: something that relieves. Relieve has 12 definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me this might be Czech, and the user just didn't know how to convert from en:noun to cs:noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Lots of encyclopedic content. What should a model mineral entry look like? DCDuring TALK 18:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, terseness is always a virtue, lest we become Wikipedia, and I don't think people will (or should) come to us for a table of Moh's hardnesses and fracture types. I've tried to shorten it but keep a decent number of identifying details and the real-worldy bit about decorative usage. Is it okay? Equinox ◑ 22:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
This is pretty terrible. Senses 1, 3, 4 seem to be SoP, rather like "ruler of the world", and miscapitalised, while sense 2 (the media franchise) is only Masters of the Universe (plural) and does not belong under this headword. Equinox ◑ 20:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Three separate senses which I expect could be condensed and merged. Perhaps it's just "an objectionable person"...? Equinox ◑ 22:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Mandarin entries that are not always properly formatted, and often don't make a lot of sense (to me). SemperBlotto 15:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- The edit summaries are very strange too... it looks like it should mean something but it's in some kind of code I don't understand. —CodeCat 15:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Reminiscent of a permanently blocked user, as it happens. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, it's Sven. Why he hasn't been blocked on sight, I don't know. -- Prince Kassad 18:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have deleted or rolled back all of that IP's contributions, except for this one, and blocked it for a week. Anyone want to fix up [[类别]]? —RuakhTALK 02:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
This user has been creating Low German entries that don't conform to the standard layout. Most of them have missing headword lines, use nonstandard headers and have language parameters missing in templates. —CodeCat 15:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- He (or she) seems to have good potential as an editor, we just need to 'nudge' him or her a bit more in the right direction. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how this can be an adjective. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Dutch, supposedly a noun and a verb. The verb says "to use the v-word", what is the v-word, vagina? Or is it a word that starts with v in Dutch but not English. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've cleaned up the entry but I don't know what that definition is either. —CodeCat 10:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Multi-sentence encyclopedic definition that probably contains two definitions and non-dictionary material. DCDuring TALK 12:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The table takes up a lot of space where it is now, but I don't really know where else to put it. —CodeCat 15:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- It would go well in a linked appendix, replaced by a more compact image, possibly of the basic table with the "rare earths" telescoped beneath. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- An Appendix:Chemical elements aleady exists. --EncycloPetey 21:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The definitions given below are rather old-fashioned, and would greatly benefit from example sentences, quotations too:
- A communication, or what is communicated; any concept or information conveyed.
- An underlying theme or conclusion to be drawn from something.
thanks--Dilated pupils 12:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Tagged, not listed. Lots of red links to encyclopaedic or miscapitalised terms. Equinox ◑ 18:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- DCDuring has done a nice job of tidying. Thanks. Equinox ◑ 20:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"Describing a set or group with six components." Not got any idea what this is supposed to mean. If it were up to me, we could move the other sense to the noun section. Six is just a noun, it has a plural and can be used countably in the singular (a six). Mglovesfun (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Other numbers have that sense too, cf. four or three. -- Liliana • 00:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Counter-argument to my argument; in "there are six chairs" six isn't being used as a noun, so it needs a part of speech other than noun. Perhaps that's what this sense refers to. Comments? --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think what we really ought to do is have a Tea Room discussion where we work out what senses cardinals have and agree on how we should define them. Then we implement this project wide all at once instead of doing it piece-meal. --EncycloPetey 21:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a bit of a mess. The "alternative" forms reggaetón and reguetón are Spanish, according to Wikipedia, so I have commented them out. The "see also reggaetón" link redirects to "reggaeton". The anagram is actually the alternative form, if it is actually correct and not just a misspelling. — Paul G 10:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The entry for this UK (?) colloquial term apparently has many senses. Which ones are transitive? Which intransitive? Which both? Can the wording be made to reflect those facts? Usage examples would help. Some of the senses seem generalizable/mergeable. DCDuring TALK 14:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] 90.209.77.109
All edits by user 90.209.77.109. Several people have tried to get him/her to use standard formatting, but this user persists in duplicating definitions, adding long "See also" lists, adding tanslations to "See also" lists, adding non-synonyms, using parenthetical (s), (es) to indicate plaurals in lists of synonyms and see also terms, and many more problems besides. --EncycloPetey 21:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- This user seems sincere, but is a bit of a bull in a china shop -- I confirm all of EncycloPetey's descriptions above, and will add that this user will arbitrarily remove RFC tags, so keep your eyes peeled. They don't seem to read their Talk page; I've tried posting there, but to no avail. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
(Yes) I think it should be uncapitalized, it is just an uncapitalized noun in (Old) Swedish. //--83.253.153.158 16:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'd revert to this version. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done so. Provided a "see also" to the uncapitalized form. SemperBlotto
- Now a better version with source on russ. //--83.253.153.158 19:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
doesn't conform to ELE -- Liliana • 18:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- User seems to be working for a Swedish etymological dictionary, and doesn't have a good enough level of English to communicate his or her ideas. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- What is wrong now? I think the article is OK now. I'm not working for this dictionary. What is ELE? --83.253.153.158 19:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I meant from not for (mea culpa). I just meant I don't understand the English in this entry. If others do, great! Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
This Turkish term is translated as a "misket", which does not appear to be an English word. --EncycloPetey 21:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Quite a mess here. Equinox ◑ 18:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Needs a fact-based treatment of usage, including UK/US differences. [[blonde]] provides a good start. DCDuring TALK 11:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Second definition is unclear --Newfriendforyou 12:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Definitions too wordy, too limited in scope. "Heading" implies motion, I think, but "o'clock" can refer to position relative to static object, albeit one with a front and a back. "Heading" is also itself a bit too jargony. The sense for "beer o'clock" (and similar) is missing. DCDuring TALK 14:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Better now? Still wordy, but hopefully more precise, and the missing sense is there. Is it really an adverb? — Pingkudimmi 17:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but I wouldn't take the tag off yet. Good job on the "beer o'clock"-type sense. The w:Clock position says that the direction clock can be either horizontal with 12 o'clock straight ahead or vertical with 12 o'clock straight up ("high"?).
- As it is a contraction of a prepositional phrase, it could conceivably be used to modify either a verb (or adjective, adverb, or clause) or a noun, but I can't think of any instances of modification of a verb. "Twelve" in "twelve o'clock" seems to be a noun modified postpositively. So adjective would be better than adverb. We could also call it a contraction. I don't think we can call it a preposition phrase because it doesn't look enough like one. DCDuring TALK 19:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Tagged, but not listed. Perhaps already sorted. -- Gauss 12:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a problem in the Swedish section, where the tag is? DCDuring TALK 13:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- RfC inserted at entry bottom September 2008 in this edit. A lot of water under the bridge since then. DCDuring TALK 13:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Tagged, not listed. Looks like an RFV might be in order. Equinox ◑ 10:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
There has got to be a better way to present this information than a collapsobox between the inflection-line and the first sense-line. —RuakhTALK 01:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- First idea: move the box. Second idea: put all of the information on the headword line, as ဝိုင် (MLCTS: wuing, BGN/PCGN: waing, ALA-LC: vuiṅ', Okell: waiñ). I imagine there is a way to use subst: or a bot to convert all of the entries using the template from their current form to that form. - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Translingual and Latin section, but the only category is Category:en:Biology! Mglovesfun (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- The category tag was simply missing a language parameter. I've corrected it to {{taxonomy|lang=mul}}. --EncycloPetey 18:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
There are a few hundred of these: pages that invoke {{Xyzy}} with invalid language codes. Sometimes they're codes for language families rather than individual languages; sometimes they're three-letter alternatives to two-letter codes; sometimes it's just a missing parameter (for example, I just fixed a {{t+|qirr}} that was supposed to be {{t+|ku|qirr}}). —RuakhTALK 17:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The Italian uses {{infl|la|noun}} ({{la}} being for Latin, not Italian). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- It occurs in both languages: [3] --EncycloPetey 21:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- The error was introduced by a User editing words in both languages. Fixed. SemperBlotto 21:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Needs to be split by etymology along lines indicated in current Etymology section. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Use of templates in the etymology, make the alternative into alternative forms, or move that information elsewhere. Also it has 'Slavic' in the descendants section, though it's not a language. Definition is also imperfect, and it uses {{ru-decl-noun}} although it isn't Russian. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
no proper definition -- Liliana • 16:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Sense (noun): (figuratively) A fit.
-- Can someone make sense of this? I haven't found a definition at OneLook I can connect to this. DCDuring TALK 21:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] 108.91.140.127
All contributions by User 108.91.140.127. Most lack language or POS headers, although most seem to be real words with useable content. --EncycloPetey 06:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Sole sense: A fictional character who is employed by the baron to snatch and imprison children.
What baron? Subordinate clause not supported by cites. DCDuring TALK 12:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- w:Baron Bomburst, it seems; a character in a story-within-a-story. Encyclopaedic. — Pingkudimmi 16:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Would suggest RFD. The citations page don't show any 'generic usage', they simply refer to the actual fictional character. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Absurd. Please delete. Equinox ◑ 19:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No headword. Definitions lacking an initial #. SemperBlotto 17:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Many of these seem to be the result of badly formatted plural forms. I've left a note and model on his user page in the hopes of staving off more sour notes. --EncycloPetey 21:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Sense: "Exposing to loss or evil." Had old {{attention}} tag. DCDuring TALK 18:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Sense: trinitarianism; Christian teachings, opposed by Arianism, which defined the relationship between God the Father and Jesus.
This preposterous definition is just something based on an incomplete ("jew"? "bang"?) morphological analysis cum history by Joyce scholars, not usage. How could it be? It is necessarily encycylopedic. Good look with a real definition. DCDuring TALK 18:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Move to RFV? Ƿidsiþ 18:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- We consider Ulysses a well-known work. Ergo, automatic inclusion based on already-provided citation.
- IMO, The problem is how to come up with a "definition", probably "non-gloss", that points a user to some sources and doesn't tempt amateur Joyceans to more non-dictionary material. All nonces without a transparent etymology or morphology would have a similar problem. After decomposing this and glossing the components, what are we supposed to do? DCDuring TALK 19:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Appendix. bd2412 T 21:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- The whole entry or what? DCDuring TALK 21:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- I propose an appendix of coined words appearing in well-known works for which no clear definition exists. Consider the plethora of nonce words making up Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky. bd2412 T 21:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think the "concordance" namespace is a better fit. —RuakhTALK 00:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Concordances address words from specific works, and we typically use them for words that actually have discernible definitions. I am thinking of an appendix of undefined words irrespective of work. bd2412 T 17:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- That would fit with {{only in}} to point to it. DCDuring TALK 22:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is exactly why that rule is so unworkable. With only one use, we have no evidence on which to base a definition. Ƿidsiþ 21:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I don't want to break another lance on that fight. I'd settle for any practical solution that didn't involve the speculative kind of definition that literary scholars might produce. DCDuring TALK 21:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
-
- For some situations, that's likely to be unavoidable. There are, for example, many rare and unique words in the Hebrew Bible whose definitions rely entirely on how those words were translated in the Septuagint. That is, we're assuming that the knowledge/speculation of a group of early scholars gives us the basis for an adequate definition. --EncycloPetey 21:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- It still doesn't seem like dictionary material to me, however worthy the scholarship and important the term. Virtually nothing of our format, methods, methods, disciplines, and principles is applicable, though I suppose our slogan applies. DCDuring TALK 22:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- @EP, o/t: Could you give some examples of that? There survive a number of early non-Septuagint translations of the Bible into Greek and Aramaic, so it seems odd that the Septuagint could really be the only basis for a definition. (I suppose it's possible — if other translations punted on those words by transliterating them, say, or if they used Greek/Aramaic words whose meanings are just as unclear, or if they're thought to have followed the Septuagint for those words — but I'd appreciate some specific examples that I could look into, if you can name any offhand.) That said, I don't doubt the general claim that, even aside from Joycean and Joycesque coinages, there will always be hapax legomena that will require some amount of speculation. In fact, even non-hapaces can require some speculation. The question is, does the existence of some cases where we don't have a choice (words in the Bible, in Homeric epics, in Shakespeare, where clearly the original intent was that the word be understood, it just didn't work out that way) justify cases like Joyce? I mean, is it even reasonable to describe contransmagnificandjewbangtantiality as "an English word"? —RuakhTALK 00:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that not all words with one use are equal. To me there is a clear difference between creating a word like, say, elbowness on the spur of the moment using elements that are part of the language – and inventing deliberately nonsensical one-offs. Ƿidsiþ 16:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Sense: Verb: To act with a strong attitude.
Was tagged with {{attention}}. DCDuring TALK 23:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've added a couple of senses, one of which probably replaces the tagged one. I also found some apparent usages of attituded as an adjective. — Pingkudimmi 16:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Multi-sentence encyclopedic definition. DCDuring TALK 15:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Good now?—msh210℠ (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
rfc-def: The quality or state of being oneself. No cites to confirm meaning, improve definition. I can't relate this to the two senses MWOnline has: selfishness; selfhood. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Dubious Japanese compounds remain, but I don't have time now to go through. Much spurious content added by suspect IP users. Some content they added is also good, so just reverting them doesn't seem the way to go. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Cleaned, so striking. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Wording objected to. DCDuring TALK 21:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Is it a verb or a phrase? It seems to be worded like a verb, with the header 'phrase'. Also, is it an imperative? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to me to be an ellipsis for a phrase with a verb in it, which missing verb is a natural part of the definition. It doesn't inflect like a verb. It seems to be used just like an imperative form of a verb. There are others of this structure, like eyes right. DCDuring TALK 11:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- ...and one side which is, oddly, listed under a "Noun" header.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The usage notes here are way too long and encyclopedic. ---> Tooironic 13:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- And the example sentence is awfully, um, provocative. —Angr 14:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Noun section has 4 encyclopedic-style definitions that look to me like instances of the verb form. IMO, they aren't even worth adding as senses to monitor#Verb, but others may disagree. DCDuring TALK 11:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Populate, or delete?—msh210℠ (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Either really. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept unfixed. Nominating at RFDO and striking here.—msh210℠ (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The second of the senses seems to be a bit encyclopedic, overly detailed and narrow, and, to the extent it is not, to duplicate the first sense. DCDuring TALK 18:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- See [[talk:text file]]. The distinction between the two senses is roughly that 2 is all files except binary files, so including HTML, CSS, Javascript, CSV, RTF, and many other files excluded by 1, which is just plain text meant to be read by humans and not machines. (This comment is meant to address your last concern, duplication, only.)—msh210℠ (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Native American demonym and glossonym to be sorted. Is it a family? DCDuring TALK 00:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- The family would be Salishan I think. -- Liliana • 05:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] 90.209.77.109
All translation edits made by User:90.209.77.109. This user has been putting Japanese translations in {{l}} instead of {{t}}, among other problems. --EncycloPetey 00:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
(See previous discussion above, on this same user). --EncycloPetey 00:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The noun definitions are totally unformatted, and I'm not positive we need all of them. -- Liliana • 05:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- The wording could be improved, especially sense 9, the business title sense. DCDuring TALK 11:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Encyclopedic, inflection lines don't match headword. DCDuring TALK 11:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed.—msh210℠ (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
if it's a verb prefixed "to" then it isn't a "statement of anger" Equinox ◑ 17:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
-
- Agreed; also seems worthy of deletion as SOP. ~ Robin 14:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
More fun magic-related messiness from IP users. Needs cleaning, probably some verification too of the (exhaustive!) list of synonyms and see-alsos. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- The reading is wrong too; I might have some time today to deal with this entry. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
No such verb; The right form is зная.
- So, what kind of cleanup does the entry need then? What should the text say? What is wrong with the formatting? --EncycloPetey 20:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
A partial "quote" from Donne is included, but no definition. --EncycloPetey 17:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Seems to meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Most of the members of this category are just verbs, which end in -en because that's the infinitive suffix in Dutch. In theory any verb could go here, so that doesn't really make much sense. The only legitimate example of -en as a suffix seems to be the 'material adjective', which is the same in English ('golden'). —CodeCat 18:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- By way of analogy rather than as a true response, many French verbs are formed from stem + suffix. Aimer is undeniably from Latin amō, but podcaster is from podcast + -er. So there are some French verbs suffixed with -er. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
1980s slang. Needs lots of work, including prep for RfV for the several PoSes and senses. DCDuring TALK 22:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
If this is just a variant spelling, why are the definitions reproduced here? We should just be cross-referencing "vermilion". In fact, the definitions are already inconsistent with those at "vermilion".
I would also posit that it is a common misspelling rather than a variant spelling. The OED lists it as such. — 194.74.1.82 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
rfc-sense
- Excited by desire in the pursuit of any object; ardent to pursue, perform, or obtain; keenly desirous; hotly longing; earnest; zealous; impetuous; vehement; as, the hounds were eager in the chase.
Definitions appear to be wrong, c.f. the JA WP article linked to from right in the entry. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 06:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Another entry by Special:Contributions/90.209.77.109. Originally just copy-pasta from the WP stub article for w:Reikon. I've done a first-pass cleanup, but the list of synonyms and see alsos still needs some pruning. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Cleaned; striking. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Synonyms / see alsos need serious pruning; readings wrong in many cases (there's no "wu" in Japanese, etc.); formatting is a mess. Another beauty by known-suspect IP users. The term *does* actually show use, entirely in manga as best I can tell. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Did some major surgery; synonyms might still need some pruning, but I've confirmed at least that the terms still listed are all valid. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Major key articles
The C major, D-flat major, D major, F major, and G major articles each are said to have plurals when they are uncountable.
Celloplayer115 16:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
New entry by known-suspect IP user Special:Contributions/90.209.77.109. This one's actually a word, but the formatting is a mess, the readings are off, and the meanings need checking.
This user is a persistent problem who seems oblivious that their Talk page even exists. I've written Encyclopetey about blocking them; is there somewhere else I should post such a request? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 20:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Done; striking. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Header was: [[gayville]].
Tagged, not listed. Equinox ◑ 17:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've simply reshuffled the content, the definition is however, substandard. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've cleaned it up and moved it to [[Gayville]]. An RFV may be warranted; I think it's probably citeable, but am not sure. —RuakhTALK 01:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
There is an excess of information in this. --Pilcrow 00:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I just removed everything that came after the definition. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- That is good enough. --Pilcrow 13:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
If this dos exist, I imagine it's a verb to break bad. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like a valid US regional colloquialism. I'll try to cite it. It looks like a clear {{move}} candidate. DCDuring TALK 09:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Is this English or Kurdish? If it's Kurdish, is the entry name in the correct script? Either way, the entry will need much formatting. --EncycloPetey 03:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speedily deleted by SemperBlotto. And Kurdish does use the Latin script. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Romanizations of Mandarin entries
Special:Contributions/2.25.213.203 This user has added a number of romanizations of Mandarin terms. What is to be done with them? DCDuring TALK 01:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately we can't block 123abc as he/she seems to be able to generate an unlimited number of IP addresses to work from. I think we should simply stick with noun, verb, (etc.) as headers, the same we do with Japanese. For example, in a Serbo-Croatian or Azeri entry, I wouldn't expect to see ===Cyrillic spelling=== or ===Latin spelling=== as a header. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you do that, an entry ends up looking like this. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Yet, the reading given for the lemma yèli seems to have a missing tone -- this clearly shows a low tone, not a neutral tone, on the final syllable. Unless the word is often pronounced with a neutral final syllable, I'd classify this entry as flawed and either 1) move it to yèlǐ, or 2) delete it as garbage.
-
-
- Frankly, I tend towards wanting to remove such pinyin-only entries, unless there's clear evidence of use as pinyin -- as has been pointed out ad nauseum elsewhere, Wiktionary's search box works just fine when entering pinyin to find Chinese hanzi entries, so there's absolutely zero need for pinyin lemmata.
-
-
- As a side note, is there any way of telling if this IP user is in fact User:Engirst or User:123abc? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- A Checkuser could tell what IP addresses a registered user used, but there is a lot of smoking-gun evidence that the edits for these entries is User:Engirst. See Special:Uncategorizedpages for the growing list of such entries. DCDuring TALK 11:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Given the circumstances (uncategorized, incorrect tone in some cases), just use Special:Nuke. I've done a lot of them but probably some remain. Will have to wait for the up-to-date last next time the server refreshes the list. If only 123abc would actually talk to other users... Mglovesfun (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Interesting, thank you both. About Special:Nuke though, I can't seem to see anything there, since I'm not an admin. (Which is fine with me, that's just meant by way of explanation.) -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- There are a few more at Special:Contributions/2.25.213.159. DCDuring TALK 21:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
"Settlements with shacks made of wood, cardboard, tin and other scrap material" followed by a lot of usage notes that aren't part of the definition itself. Tone also seems to me to be too informal. Furthermore, surely the definition isn't "Settlements with shacks made of wood, cardboard, tin and other scrap material", it's essentially some sort of camp, the fact that the shacks are made of wood, cardboard (etc.) is just incidental; if the shacks were made of plastic sheeting, it wouldn't disqualify it from being a squatter camp, would it? I also wonder if it's merely a camp full of squatters, if so it would be rfd material. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- English is usually ambiguous about the exact case/prepositional relationship between the head noun and attributive noun in N-N compound nouns. A squatter camp is easy as it is a "camp" with/for/by/of "squatters". No OneLook references other than a couple of wikis have this either. It seems quote NISoP to me.
- OTOH, it seems to be a part of South African English or possibly colonial English or UK English to call it a "squatter camp". In the US it is more likely called a "squatters' camp". DCDuring TALK 18:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Excessive list of See alsos, brought to us by known-suspect IP user Special:Contributions/90.209.77.109. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
This includes a somewhat encyclopedic definition and one or more definitions that seem to be of proper nouns. The term seems to be used in various ways including as a single mountain range, a group of mountain ranges, and a group of mountain ranges in a certain type of location relative to a continent. Sometimes the plural is used for the latter two, I think. Cordillera may not exist except as a deixis or anaphora referring to a particular cordillera, which might account for the second sense. DCDuring TALK 15:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Def #1: "fresh and animated." I'm struggling to get an idea of what that means. --Jerome Potts 04:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've had a go —Saltmarshtalk-συζήτηση 05:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
More messy not-quite-vandalism from enthusiastic-but-not-very-clueful IP users. The list of compounds is nearing encyclopedic proportions; I'm reasonably sure that some of the items are not Japanese, the formatting's a mess, and putting these into a table wouldn't go amiss. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
More from Special:Contributions/90.209.77.109. See also section needs pruning. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 01:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Looks pretty well cleaned up now, mostly by Special:Contributions/90.205.76.53, whom I suspect to be the same as Special:Contributions/90.209.77.109 - .109's contributions stop right when .53's begin. Either way, 番犬 looks good to me; striking from this list. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Yet another. See alsos again. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 01:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
There are a few 4-year-old related entries that need variously to be cleaned up, coordinated, considered for RfV. DCDuring TALK 12:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
A bit confused, this one. There's an RFE for Japanese in the Translingual section, and the Japanese marks the character as a kokuji or "Japanese-only", making it very unlikely that there should even be a Translingual section in the first place. Can anyone can find non-Japanese use of this character? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Heading levels
I just saw today that KassadBot had flagged a couple entries I created last night as follows:
Noun at L4+ not in L3 Ety section
The entries ウェイトレス, ウェートレス, and ウエイトレス were all flagged, and all have the basic heading structure:
- Japanese
- Etymology
- Noun
Many words in Japanese have multiple etymologies, with the POS entries particular to certain etyls; see かみ for one such example. Given this, and what I've seen in other entries, the POS heading belongs under the Etymology heading, as above -- which makes the Noun heading here L4. So what is the bot flagging this for? I'm confused. Did it parse the wiki markup incorrectly? Am I misunderstanding its message? Somebody please clue me in. -- 71.32.86.154 05:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Gah, that was me, but apparently my session expired before I hit "Save page". -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 05:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I also noticed over at 特製 that KassadBot made the Compounds header L4, under the Noun sense. This strikes me as incongruous for Japanese, as compounds are formed from the kanji, irrelevant of whichever part of speech -- so compounds should be L3, as best I can tell. There are cases where a kanji term in Japanese might have multiple parts of speech, such as 特別 which could be either adjective or adverb; compounds created from this term could be using it in either sense, so L3 for the "Compounds" header would be more appropriate. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 05:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know whether "Compounds" is a valid header. Wouldn't "Derived terms" be adequate for what is included under the heading?
- KassadBot does not usually mark the heading that is the actual problem. WT:ELE specifies that Alternative forms appears above any Etymology at level 3 if it applies to all the following Etymologies. If it does not apply to all etymology section it can appear below each applicable Etymology section at level 4 if the forms are only applicable to some of the etymologies (or, possibly, in the normal location with a qualifier tag specifying the etymologies for which applicable).
- WT:ELE also specifies that PoS appear one level below Etymology if there are multiple etymologies, but at the same level if there is only one.
- I simply don't know about any language-specific rules that apply to these entries, but generally cross-language consistency in formatting is desirable. You might want to pose your questions also at WT:AJA for language-specific counsel. DCDuring TALK 14:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Derived terms/Compounds could appear at the bottom of the applicable Etymology section or at the bottom of the entire Language section, but above References etc. DCDuring TALK 14:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks, DCDuring. As you probably saw over at WT:AJA, it seems the policy is to use "Derived terms" for inflected forms and "Compounds" for kanji-only forms. This makes sense to me, FWIW, since in talking about Japanese in English, strings of just kanji have generally been called "kanji compounds". -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 04:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently this is a Hassānīya prefix. Looking at Category:Hassānīya language, it doesn't indicate a script, but it's an Arabic language. Should this be moved to the Arabic script for? Or moved to ould-? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- FWIW, enWP says it uses Arabic script, and Ethnologue says it uses Latin.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Two senses, probably mergeable and both rather vague. A citation that uses the wrong form/part of speech, or suggests verb instead of noun (it was entered as "phrase"). Also appears to be a fleeting sports catchphrase that might merit an RFV. Equinox ◑ 00:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- We are perhaps missing some senses in the entry for dope. For instance, see here. — Pingkudimmi 07:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The alternative forms seem rather silly: some are not attestable and some are long jokes rather than short dictionary phrases. Also there's a guy who keeps coming and adding them when they are removed. Equinox ◑ 16:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Too many: remove all red not-very-common ones IMO. This is an example, though, of why alternative forms should be beneath definitions.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed them all. They can always be put back as needed. That aside, I wonder about the definition ("Said to express confusion"). I thought this was used the same way as I see (i.e. to express understanding), and to express confusion only when used euphemistically (or sarcastically perhaps). Anyone know?—msh210℠ (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Greek terms in English categories.
There are a couple of categories that have Greek words (not borrowings). Here is the first and here is the second. I am too scared to remove them myself. --Pilcrow 23:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Done. —Angr 09:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- They use {{US}} and {{UK}} instead of of {{qualifier|US}} (or UK). Mglovesfun (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I just created this page, adapting content from w:Mentaiko. This included a reference, which I've kept in case it's important, but the <reference/> template on WT doesn't seem to include everything that's needed. Would someone more knowledgeable have a look and either 1) use the proper reference template, 2) format otherwise as appropriate, or 3) remove the reference if that's not proper for WT? -- TIA, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Missing language, missing definition line, crazy formatting. I haven't got the time. SemperBlotto 21:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- What else did you have planned? Equinox ◑ 21:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- A half-hours read in bed, then a good night's sleep! SemperBlotto 07:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Anything else I should be worried about or fix or learn?
Definition is not English. 75.105.212.115 01:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Stephen G. Brown as fixed it. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] administration
According to the Oxford Dictionary "administration" is a mass noun, and shouldn't have a plural form. Administration needs attention by an expert, and administrations should possibly be deleted.—This comment was unsigned.
- Our definition 2 is certainly countable: the administrations of the various schools.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- A comparison between the Bush and Obama administrations. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The English definitions are, I strongly suspect, incorrectly split by etymology.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure what the lemma form is, but the current one is definitely wrong. (Maybe this request is more suited to WT:RFM...?) -- Liliana • 16:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
memory like a sieve redirects here, but it seems that it should be the main entry. The citation given here does not use "have", and anyway you can "have got a memory like a sieve", "possess a memory like", etc. Equinox ◑ 09:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- And "leak like a sieve". Why not RfD it? DCDuring TALK 14:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Fixed.—msh210℠ (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Surely if zindelijkheid is the noun, this is the adjective. So it needs a definition to match, also categorization - zindelijkheid needs {{nl-noun}}. NB I'm seeing Google Book hits, so deletion ought to be avoided. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- I've cleaned the two entries up now. —CodeCat 13:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Not a well-formed entry. (Egyptian Arabic). DCDuring TALK 23:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it had an Egyptian Arabic header, but Pashto language codes. Wikipedia only has it as a Persian letter (and other references have that Persian letter), so that's what I made it. - -sche (discuss) 20:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Keene (talk • contribs)'s definition "rare and scarce" is crappy. --Rockpilot 18:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Why? 86.183.2.73 20:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps because rare and scarce are synonyms in the applicable sense, whereas the expression implies something beyond mere rarity or scarcity, perhaps being "hard to find". DCDuring TALK 21:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Another frankly gawdawful mess of an entry, mostly by IP user Special:Contributions/90.209.77.109 with some "help" from the equally-clueless Special:Contributions/2.221.151.187. I've cleaned up the JA entry and removed the RFC from there, but the Cantonese and Mandarin entries need some serious help, including proper hanzi templates. I'd add them myself but I have no idea which ones are appropriate. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
This IP user is becoming increasingly disruptive, adding rubbish content and then reverting editor attempts at fixing the rubbish. Please be on the lookout for anything by this user. They are quite interested in magic, the occult, and anything Japanese, but they have minimal Japanese ability. They are also demonstrably ignorant of WT:CFI, WT:AJA, and WT:ELE. I strongly suspect this is the same user as User_talk:90.209.77.78 and User_talk:90.209.77.109; see entry above at WT:RFC#魔法 for a bit more detail.
A short-term block would not go amiss, as it would give Haplogy, myself, and any other Japanese-reading editor a chance to catch up with the cruft. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The noun definitions. I tend to say of the eight definitions, five of which appear under definition #1, all are either invalid or substandardly written. #3 seems to be a specific example of #1, though since #1 is poor, it's hard to tell! Mglovesfun (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
One of many examples of putridly outdated and moldy archaic-sounding definitions and citations.--Rockpilot 00:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Sense one should read smoothly in one sentence; sense two needs to be better defined and its example sentence should be separated from the definition. ---> Tooironic 23:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Good now? (I've detagged, as I think it's fine. Feel free to re-tag it if you disagree.)—msh210℠ (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Beautiful. Thanks. ---> Tooironic 01:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Likely bogus content here, brought to us by known-problematic Special:Contributions/90.209.77.109. I've cleaned the JA content, but the Cantonese and Mandarin entries still need help. The content seemed to be copy-pasted for all three languages. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 23:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- ✓ 破魔師#Cantonese, 破魔師#Mandarin + 破魔师#Cantonese, 破魔师#Mandarin --Anatoli 04:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
What should the Mandarin section of this entry look like? These edits reclassified it as a Pinyin Romanization of ... itself ... which is possibly even more awkward than what we had done previously, which was call it Mandarin with a Pinyin reading of ... itself. Possible solution: use {{infl}} in this instance, rather than the dedicated Chinese templates, so that we don't have to say it's the Pinyin of itself or it has itself as a Pinyin reading. - -sche (discuss) 01:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Struck, has been cleaned. - -sche (discuss) 20:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
These need to be formatted by a Sanskrit editor. — Beobach 07:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've formatted them a bit. For महात्मा I used the Portuguese entry. However, it might be better just to delete all three, created by a permanently blocked editor and we have no real way of verifying them, I don't think we have any Sanskrit editors. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I can verify them later today (if I remember). I had a year of Sanskrit as an undergrad and another as a graduate student, that should be enough to get me through three dictionary entries. —Angr 09:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I've cleaned them up. महात्मा is the nominative of the adjective महात्मन्. आत्मन is a mistake for आत्मन्, and I've redirected it thither. महा is the form of महत् used in compounding. —Angr 20:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! - -sche (discuss) 20:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The Mandarin section seems a bit confused -- it has both ===Romanization=== and ===Pinyin=== subheadings, with some redundancy between the two. The ===Pinyin=== section also doesn't seem to clearly indicate traditional and simplified spellings. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand it either. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have cleaned up some. --Anatoli 22:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems not all the noun senses here are necessary. If they are, they're really badly worded. 4, for example, links to a verb form. -- Liliana • 04:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have no idea what #4 means, but everything else seems more or less ok. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Webster entry. Definitions need formatting. Synonyms and Antonyms need to be associated with definitions rather than numbers. -- Liliana • 12:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand sense 3 of get it:
3. (idiomatic) To possess a preferred outlook on a given issue or issues.
- When it comes down to the important issues, our senator really gets it.
- Her principal really just doesn't get it; that new policy won't prevent any violence.
The way I read these examples, "get it" just means "understand, comprehend, or grasp", which is sense 2 (under consideration for deletion).
If this is a valid different sense, could the examples be changed so that they are obviously different from the "understand" meaning? 86.160.216.161 02:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- I wholly agree. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think you've got it. ~ Robin 14:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Category:en:Music
The pages スケール and エチュード are in Category:en:Music but they're not English words. Celloplayer115 03:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- The lang=ja tag must be missing. We have several thousand, possibly tens of thousands of entries needing language tags. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Are the example sentences given violating copyright? ---> Tooironic 20:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I can't see why they would. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Copyvio is a possibility, as specific Bible editions can be copyrighted, if my understanding is correct. At any rate, the formatting is a mess (CJK languages generally should never be italicised due to severe legibility problems; the relevant words are not bolded), transitivity isn't clear, reflexivity isn't clear, nothing is linked, the usexes given don't clarify anything, etc. Looks par for the course for 123abc's work, unless I miss my guess. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how long a citation has to be before it's a possible copyright violation. Furthermore, I searched the entry to find where the page name is used in the citations, and it isn't. Why is that? Is it a conjugation issue? I can't read Korean so I can't bold the right bit. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure either about length. However, I can at least elucidate a bit about the verb -- the -다 (-da) on the end is the verb ending that changes through conjugation, but the 낮추- (natchu-?) stem should remain the same in at least a few conjugated forms. C.f. the conjugation table for 말다 (malda) ("to roll up", not sure if this is trans or intrans), where we find the stem 말- (mal-) in some forms but not all (changes due to phonemic environment). -- HTH, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Citations/references need to be formatted. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 15:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's formatted in quite a Wikipedian way. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The entry is really a huge mess and needs lots of cleanup. -- Liliana • 20:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't go quite that far, but the citations should go with the sense the exemplify, and not under a ===References=== header at the bottom. Again, looks like a Wikipedian style where a Wiktionary style would be better. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a category tag ([[Category:English suffixes|]]) misplaced in the entry. --Pilcrow 18:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
If there's anyone in the Wikimedia community that's familiar with this word, could this entry be fixed? Thank you. --Lo Ximiendo 06:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
According to Wiktionary: "A type of tablet that is meant to be tamper-resistant."
I have seen a number of packs of medication branded as "caplets", and I have no idea why they would be considered any more "tamper-resistant" than ordinary tablets. Although [4] mentions "tamper-resistant", most other definitions just say that they are coated tablets shaped like a capsule (i.e. longer and thinner than regular round tablets), presumably formed that way so as to be easier to swallow(?). Our definition does not even mention these apparently definining characteristics. Can anyone shed any light on this? 86.179.116.13 12:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've added the sense you and I know. The preexisting one can be nominated at RFV if no one comments here that it's known (and even otherwise if you like).—msh210℠ (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- American Heritage Dictionary seems to think they are tamper-resistant, but all other refs I can find seem to be copies of either this or Wiktionary. Can anyone find a genuine cite for the tamper-resistant suggestion. Most of the claims that I found were for tamper-resistant packaging of the caplets, not for the caplets themselves. Dbfirs 10:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't meet ELE in the slightest. -- Liliana • 13:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- better now? --Rockpilot 13:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Sense: A means of joining two pieces of wood together so that they interlock.
As worded this sense excludes a butt joint. DCDuring TALK 17:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The translations are quite messy with many different translations. Especially the German translations are quite bad, I'm not really sure how to sort them all or even if they qualify as 'German'. And what is Camelottisch? —CodeCat 22:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- No idea. Looks like a joke. -- Liliana • 07:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Catalan conjunction meaning "according to"? DCDuring TALK 00:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Another by IP user Special:Contributions/90.215.199.167. Defs, syns, see alsos approaching encyclopedic proportions. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
