| Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup Nov 27th 2012, 21:52 | | | | Line 2,726: | Line 2,726: | | | ::: I'd like to see you try to define {{term|atheism|lang=en}} without using {{term|religion|lang=en}}, {{term|faith|lang=en}}, or {{term|belief|lang=en}}. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 21:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | | ::: I'd like to see you try to define {{term|atheism|lang=en}} without using {{term|religion|lang=en}}, {{term|faith|lang=en}}, or {{term|belief|lang=en}}. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 21:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | | | :::: How about '''The absence of a mental acceptance in any deities''?' --[[User:Æ&Œ|Æ&Œ]] ([[User talk:Æ&Œ|talk]]) 21:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | | :::: How about '''The absence of a mental acceptance in any deities''?' --[[User:Æ&Œ|Æ&Œ]] ([[User talk:Æ&Œ|talk]]) 21:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | | | + | | | | + | : I changed the definition of [[convert]] to "To induce (someone) to adopt a particular religion, faith, '''''ideology''''' or belief." — ''[[User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|Ungoliant]] <sup>([[User Talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|Falai]])</sup>'' 21:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 21:52, 27 November 2012 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. Category:Pages with broken file links should also be cleaned out periodically. 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) - I tend to agree, there's a lot of overlap. I would merge some of these. I think it's always transitive. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2012 (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)
- Almost a year later, and I only just noticed this now. Sorry! Anyway, I've made an attempt at cleaning it up; let me know what you think. —Angr 14:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- It looks great, thanks! —RuakhTALK 02:49, 18 June 2012 (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: [1] --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) - Sense deleted, but not trans table. Ety 1, noun needs clean up pursuant to other RfC. DCDuring TALK 14:54, 20 September 2012 (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)
- Belated thanks for the senses. The adjective could easily be denominal "With an attitude". DCDuring TALK 14:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted now-redundant sense. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Multi-sentence encyclopedic definition. DCDuring TALK 15:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC) - Good now?—msh210℠ (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Seeing no objection, I've detagged and am striking.—msh210℠ (talk) 01:29, 12 December 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)
Couldn't one argue it's most commonly an interjection? —This comment was unsigned. - Interjection?! Yes, you could and many do. I'd prefer that we follow a definition of interjection that was limited to expressions of emotion, whose meaning is not covered by other parts of speech or the phrase pseudo-PoS. Many words can be used interjectively (?) such as "interjection" at the start of this. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 23 December 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)
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)
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)
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) 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) - Done, so striking. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:24, 14 November 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) 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) - Done. Know enough now to deal with this. Striking. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:10, 14 November 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)
- Actually, the OED has a couple of cites of the plural, including one from Macaulay. There are many words that are usually mass nouns but occasionally have a plural sense. Dbfirs 14:32, 25 November 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) 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) - Yeah I just rewrote it all. Ƿidsiþ 18:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
One of many examples of putridly outdated and moldy archaic-sounding definitions and citations.--Rockpilot 00:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC) - Yes, it does read like a copy of an outdated dictionary, but I think "scoff" is still a synonym. Dbfirs 14:24, 25 November 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)
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) [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) - What's wrong with it? Equinox ◑ 13:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Same question. --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Apparently I had cleaned it up from an earlier version and forgotten about it. Closing. Equinox ◑ 14:10, 20 November 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 [2] 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)
- According to [3] and [4] there was a case in the 1980s when certain capsules were tampered with (the halves separated and something harmful substituted), and this caused the company to promote "caplets" as a more tamper-resistant alternative. This is probably where the "tamper-resistant" idea comes from. I don't think our definition "A type of tablet that is meant to be tamper-resistant" really gets this across though, since it seems to be saying that caplets are more tamper-resistant than tablets, not capsules. I don't know to what extent tamper-resistance is a factor in the promotion or use of most caplets today. I have seen cases (e.g. paracetamol) where caplets are apparently an alternative to tablets, and where the only advantage would seem to be ease of swallowing. Apart from the shape, these caplets do seem to have some kind of very thin smooth coating absent from the regular tablets, perhaps again for ease of swallwing. I suppose, being slightly cynical, "caplets" may also present new marketing opportunities even in the absence of any actual benefits. Something like the following definition would make sense to me:
-
-
-
- "A smooth-coated tablet shaped like a capsule, used as a tamper-resistant alternative to a capsule, or an easy-to-swallow alternative to regular tablets."
-
-
- 109.151.34.223 04:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Thanks for your research and suggestion. I propose that we replace the current two senses with the single definition that you give above. Does anyone object? Dbfirs 22:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Since no-one has objected in the last three weeks, I've made the alteration. Does it look OK? Dbfirs 21:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- yes. Thanks. Striking.—msh210℠ (talk) 01:06, 12 December 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)
- Copyright violation?—msh210℠ (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] Yes, it seems so: a bunch of translations were added July 6, 206, and the external page in question already had those translations at that time. I suppose we should revert that edit, then?—msh210℠ (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- That's what I did. -- Liliana • 02:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you!—msh210℠ (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- addendum: are there perhaps any other translations taken from that source we need to remove? -- Liliana • 02:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. The last non-copyvio revision of from 2006. What to do? -- Liliana • 02:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
So can we detag now?—msh210℠ (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC) - Probably. So I've done it. -- Liliana • 23:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Catalan conjunction meaning "according to"? DCDuring TALK 00:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC) - The definition is not right, I think what's meant is just segons. segons que also exists but is used as a subordinating conjunction, so its definition needs to change. I don't know what it is though. —CodeCat 14:33, 11 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) Part of speech seems seriously wrong to me -- Liliana • 02:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC) - I've changed it to a noun and made the "person" consistent (they'd mixed up "me" and "you"). Consider a move to water to one's mill if that form exists. Equinox ◑ 13:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Three wordy senses for basically one thing; and "so far as I know" appears rather comically in the References section. Equinox ◑ 13:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC) - I don't think they do mean the same thing. How well attested is this term, can we really cite three separate senses of it? --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
"Something to keep order". Way too vague. In fact I don't know what it means at all. But a policeman keeps order, is he a rule? I don't think so. So, what does it mean? I really don't know. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC) - There is no way to clean up something as vague as this without citations. It would seem to have no usable content. I added two senses, but I don't think they approximate the sense. The entry is simply deficient of many senses that competing, more complete dictionaries have. We don't even have what Webster 1913 had (11 senses and subsenses). DCDuring TALK 13:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- We should probably just delete it, then. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I did a bit of pruning and cleanup. The "See also" section still needs help. Can we collapse most of that section into a link to Category:ja:Festivals? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC) - Done, as I did for the other slew of Japanese festival entries that had encyclopedic "See also" sections. Striking. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Tendentious definitions, missing senses/subsenses. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Added at Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#月野兎. I suspect that at least some of this page will pass. As the page currently stands, the defs are a bit of a mess, and the JA entry has an excessive list of "See also" items that are almost all badly transcripted names of characters from the w:Sailor Moon manga/anime series. Perhaps these should be moved to an appendix somewhere? Or should they just be deleted? They're all redlinked, so there wouldn't be any need to delete pages. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC) - Thoroughly disavowed by Chinese and Japanese speakers both. Deleted, so striking. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Intimidatingly long and encyclopaedic. Equinox ◑ 14:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC) - The first lot should be merged into one definition with the meronyms mentioned in the 'Coordinate terms' section. I'll do it, should be easy enough. I'm hoping the current definitions aren't copyright violations; the author cites other dictionaries, but with any luck he/she's paraphrased them instead of copying them out word-for-word. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Looks good. Detagged and striking.—msh210℠ (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Suspiciously like the AHD sense. I can't think of a nicer way to define this though. —Internoob 00:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC) - Isn't this onomatopoeic? That might be one piece of information to include by way of differentiating from the AHD entry. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that might work. I also found another one: solipsism, also a WOTD nom. —Internoob 00:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Probably Yahoo just changed one word in the OED definition "Esp. of an infant: to cry feebly, to whimper; to make a whining noise.". The OED claim the obvious onomatopoeia, via Middle French "miauleur" and "miaul" --> "meawl". Dbfirs 14:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Is the pronunciation applicable to both etys? Is alt forms also limited to ety 1? DCDuring TALK 00:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Tendentious definition not in accord with the citations. DCDuring TALK 05:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC) - Yes, the stated definition is just one (unfairly chosen) example of the two-word term (or possibly metaphor) sleeping giant. Does it deserve an entry or is it a sum of parts? Dbfirs 13:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is a metaphor, for sure. I couldn't predict which way voting whimsy would go at RfD. DCDuring TALK 18:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've taken a stab at improving the definition. See what you think.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Unrevealed" or, um, "dormant", "unused", "idle", "latent", "inactive", "quiescent"?
- BTW, the citations are not all of the headword. The contributor asserts that silent majority is the same as sleeping giant and put sleeping giant in the mouth of Richard Nixon!!! DCDuring TALK 02:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've fixed the citations, I think, and moved the etymology to the etymology section. Etc. I've also replaced unrevealed with latent, a much better synonym. Further tweaks may be necessary; I've left the rfc tag in place for now.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- The metaphor is much older than 1970. I've added an earlier cite, though I agree that the expression was popularised by the film. Dbfirs 08:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks.—msh210℠ (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Seeing no objection, I've removed the rfc tag and am striking.—msh210℠ (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Needs updating for the last five or so months. There are also probably holes in the dates. Bot maybe? —Internoob 05:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Tagged but not listed, needs to be formatted with traditional, simplified and pinyin forms. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Per my request on the entry page. I am not familiar with most of the definitions, so can someone who is more familiar with the word wikify and categorise the definitions? Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Tagged by Luciferwildcat as "encyclopedic definition". I don't think it's that bad, but then I wrote it. Equinox ◑ 21:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC) -
- Aww your so unbias, that's very honest and sweet.Lucifer 21:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Cleaned up and detagged. Striking.—msh210℠ (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Possibly redundant to wham, bam, thank you ma'am, except that this one is hyphenated and defined as a "phrase" — but the definitions suggest a verb. Is it a verb? What are its inflections? Equinox ◑ 19:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC) - Seems to have been cleaned up. Someone also detagged. Striking.—msh210℠ (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Irish noun meaning 'time'. No idea why this is tagged, help! Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC) - When it was tagged back in October 2007 it looked like this. It's not even clear whether the RFC tag was referring to the Irish entry or the Romanian entry. At any rate both languages' entries have been cleaned up a lot in the past four years so I'm removing the tag. —Angr 23:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Just looking to combine the two etymologies. Point raised by an anon on the entry's talkpage. Any volunteers? Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC) - Volunteers for what? If someone can confirm that the two senses are indeed from the one etymology we have listed, I'll be glad to combine them. But I can't supply that confirmation myself.—msh210℠ (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- No reputable source disagreed.
- Done DCDuring TALK 20:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Tagged, not listed. Equinox ◑ 17:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Listed as an adj. Seems like a preposition to me, but I'm not sure enough to make the change.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC) - I don't think it's actually a constituent; "possessed of X" is actually "possessed {of X}". This sense of the adjective (or active past participle?) possessed uses the preposition of to construe its mandatory complement, but that doesn't make "possessed of" into a syntactic unit. But if we have to assign it a part of speech, I agree with you that "preposition" is probably closer. —RuakhTALK 22:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
-
- There's no reason we have to. We can use
===Phrase=== {{infl|en|non-constituent|head= etc.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- I feel like "phrase" implies "constituent" even more than "adjective" or "preposition" does . . . —RuakhTALK 14:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- In my enthusiasm nearly four years ago, I had extracted this from the entry for possessed. User:Frous thought it should be a redirect to possessed, but I reverted the change. Now, I think Frous was on the right track. Perhaps a usage example or citations should illustrate this at possessed#Adjective, if not a specific sense (already present) for this somewhat archaic construction. DCDuring TALK 23:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me, and Ruakh's comments (22:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC), just above) argue for that, too, though I don't know that that was his intent. Anyone object to making it a hard redirect?—msh210℠ (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Written as a verb, but it isn't one. In fact I'm not sure what it is, adjective I guess. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC) -
- Yeah it's an adj.Lucifer
- Sense 1 could use {{&lit}} despite the claim in its context tag. The usage note identifies a third sense we don't have listed as such.—msh210℠ (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- This looks to me like an entry for which the "Phrase" PoS is made. The headword does not behave very much like a true adjective. It is hardly ever used attributively and does not form a comparative. Instead it fits in the natural sequence "more X than Y", "as X as Y", and "less X than Y". DCDuring TALK 15:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- To save time, I'll agree with everything msh210 said. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ever?
:-) —msh210℠ (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC) - Above my previous comment! Mglovesfun (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Does it really have ten different meanings? I don't know any Polish, but I find it hard to imagine. Are they not all one meaning (albeit usable in any person and any number and any gender and any, er, whatever the thing is called that distinguishes current sense 10 from current sense 9)?—msh210℠ (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC) - The definition is similar to these you can find in Polish-English dictionaries (url). I split the definitions because I think we can add a different example sentence for each one. Do you think it will be better to merge them on one line?
- Się is a very specific word in Polish and it's not usually translated for "myself", "yourself"... etc. In a sentence it always occurs with a verb. It's like "up", "down", "for" or "on" in English phrasal verbs. It's a part of a verb and it has actually no exact English equivalent. Maro 22:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- What does it do, then? Perhaps a better definition than the ten we have would be "{{non-gloss definition|Marks a verb as reflexive}}" or "{{non-gloss definition|Used to form verb phrases: indicates volition}}" or "{{non-gloss definition|Appended to verbs to indicate occurrence by accident}}" or something. Compare to our adverb definitions for over.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Noun added as verb, I think. Equinox ◑ 17:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC) - Yup. Fixed now. —Angr 18:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The translations need checking and cleaning up, can someone help with that please? —CodeCat 17:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC) - I've also signalled on Talk:wave that definition #8 makes no sense, to me, anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Senses: - A real or mythical person of great bravery who carries out extraordinary deeds.
- A champion.
The second is at best ambiguous, a champion of what? A competition, like boxing or soccer or whatever, or someone who promotes something, or the Medieval sense? For the first, it doesn't seem to cover actual usage. Do you have to 'carry out extraordinary deeds' to be a hero? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC) This word ayu is borrowed from Japanese but can be found in most of the English dictionaries. So this is considered to be an English word, guys please advise. Rockin291 07:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC) - Yeah it's fine, I know the word from Scrabble but have never bothered to look up the meaning! Mglovesfun (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed: (music) A tune or air to regulate the movements of the dance so called; , having the dance form, and commonly in 3/4, sometimes 3/8, measure. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC) - Good now?—msh210℠ (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Needs part of speech.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC) - Better? —Internoob 22:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks.—msh210℠ (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
citations look badLucifer 22:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC) - I fixed the format. The cites were kind of bad to begin with because they don't really demonstrate the meaning of the word. —Internoob 21:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Noun doesn't match headword. (Does the singular even exist?) Equinox ◑ 23:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC) - Well the adjective form has to be "straight A", but I don't think the singular exists for the noun form. I don't know what the policy is in cases like this. Leonxlin 23:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Attributive use of 'Straight A's'? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, the adjective form of this compound ought to hyphenated as "straight-A" as it's a standard adjective-noun composition; and the pluralisation of the noun form commonly wouldn't include an apostrophe as there's no disambiguation required with "straight As" (assuming the "s" is uncapitalised, which it ought to be). Basic formatting needed, but also can someone please check that it isn't a copyvio? Equinox ◑ 21:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC) - I've made an attempt at improving the entry, but please improve further. Dbfirs 23:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Needs ety, Devanagari script. Reference or verification? DCDuring TALK 23:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC) - Does it have to be from a Devanagari script language? Other than that it's ok. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have cleaned up and will reference this entry. It will still need scripts, which I will leave the rfscript on that page to get that covered. I will remove the rf template.Speednat (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Needs inflection line, confirmation of senses. DCDuring TALK 00:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC) - OK now? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't figure out how to correctly pluralize this word.Lucifer 20:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC) - Done —Angr 00:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks!!!Lucifer 01:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Added a French abbreviation for violoncelle which I discovered whilst adapting Le Cygne for a string quartet. However, I'm a Wikipedian, not a Wiktionarian, and don't really know the formats you guys use here. I'd appreciate if someone reviewed my addition and cleaned it up as seen fit. Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC) - Ok I'll add it back (I had deleted it) but I'll look for some more evidence that it's used outside just this one piece of music. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- I saw it frequently in my youth when I used to play cello, but I can't vouch for its being periodless velle as opposed to velle. with a period, nor for its being lower-case as opposed to upper-case. I seem to remember it was usually formatted "Velle" (maybe with a period). —Angr 21:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
can someone help me with the spanish wikipedia link?Lucifer 01:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC) - {{wikipedia|lang=es}} (done by SemperBlotto). Mglovesfun (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I need help with complicated plurals please.Lucifer 19:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC) - Should be ok, I used {{es-noun|mf|pl=brókeres}} for bróker, and {{es-noun|m|f=agente inmobiliaria|pl=agentes inmobiliarios|fpl=agentes inmobiliarias}} for agente inmobiliario. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This user was blocked three years ago (thank goodness!) but there are still a lot of very dubious Dutch edits. They seemed to enjoy reinventing the wheel instead of using established formatting conventions. A lot of the etymologies this user added are confusing and overly verbose, and some are downright wrong, not to mention that none of them use any etymology templates at all. For example see diff (after I fixed it). The same applies to form-of entries as well, none of them have any templates, they're all just plain text. I am slowly working through their edits to check them but it's a lot and I'd like to ask others to help out. —CodeCat 22:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Oh, and they also made several edits that include a plural and diminutive on words that have none, like diff. And in any case, even if that word had a diminutive, only one of the two forms given would have been valid! —CodeCat 22:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC) - This should really say 'all pages edited by User:Verbo', no reason to stick to only Dutch. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note that User:Fastifex was a second incarnation of this user (also blocked, for adding "erotic" sentences about spanking to almost everything he edited). Equinox ◑ 13:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This page is misleading due to the embedded list of words at the end. No references of any credibility, and the inclusion of a user's sandbox page as one of the links leaves the entire thing suspect. One suggested reference included on the talk page for the page. Ebbixx 15:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Also, if this particular page was ever accurate at all, it is further misleading because it purports to contain only the most frequent words from 101st through 200th. Ebbixx 15:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Encyclopedic psychological definition. I would just delete, but perhaps something can be salvaged. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC) - I've had a go. Hopefully not far off the mark. — Pingkudimmi 01:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Currently has the U.S. pronunciation with stress on (neither? or) the final syllable. Is this correct? I have no statistics on use by the public (of course), but I always thought the stress was intial (as, indeed, our IPA indicates the Brits pronounce it).—msh210℠ (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC) - Now Angr has merged the accent tags, claiming that both the IPA and the sound file are both US and UK, but they're different: the IPA has primary stress and the sound file has (none? or) secondary. He's also removed the rfc tag, though the issue doesn't seem resolved to me.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't claim the sound file is both US and UK; I labeled it US. When I listen to the sound file, it sounds like she's actually putting stress on the second syllable, which must be a mistake since the word isn't pronounced that way in any variety of English. Here's a link to Merriam-Webster's sound file, pronounced by an American, where you can hear the word is stressed on the first syllable. We should probably remove this sound file and replace it with a correct one. —Angr 17:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry about the false statement and apologize.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Angr. I've come across some other poor audio files in my time too. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I remember hearing this word got added to real dictionaries a while back. It definitely exists and there are plenty of google book uses (that are independent of the Jay-Z song). I just am having a lot of trouble properly formatting it (conjugations). Further I think I just cant word it properly. It is mostly just used as Big Pimpin, no big pimped, big pimps, big pimp, so I am a bit confused but I think it is a worthwhile entry, can somebody help sort it out for me?Lucifer 20:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC) We have eight senses, compared to MWOnline's four. None of ours are fully attested. I am reasonably confident that some senses are badly worded, wrong, and/or overlapping. DCDuring TALK 16:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC) - Also, in the Christian sense (and probably other religions too) you can be receive a blessing from a vicar, priest, minister, etc. It seems to me we have nothing to cover that sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Two adjective sections, in one headword is defined as noun, encyclopedically. DCDuring TALK 15:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC) - I'm not sure there is an adjective. I mean, how would you use it in a sentence? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Are temperature scales nouns or adjectives? There seems to be inconsistency here. Fahrenheit says adjective, but centigrade says noun. What part of speech is Celsius in "Celsius temperature scale"? At least "A metric scale of temperature, originally defined as having the freezing point of water as 0° and its boiling point as 100°, at standard atmospheric pressure" should be removed. This is actually incorrect, it is the definition of centigrade, which is not quite synonymous as claimed by the entry. The centigrade page has the same error. SpinningSpark 22:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] warmer Our definition of warmer is "comparative form of warm: more warm". But warm means "Having a temperature slightly higher than usual, but still pleasant; a mild temperature". In my experience, warmer does not mean "Having a temperature even higher than usual, but still more pleasant; a more mild temperature" (or anything of the sort): in my experience, warmer means precisely the same as hotter: "more hot". Am I alone in this? If not, i.e. if there really is a "more hot" sense, then are there two senses of warmer, including the one we have, or is there only the "more hot" sense? And what does our current sense mean, anyway?—msh210℠ (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC) - Hm, on the other hand, warmer in my experience does mean "more warm" in the sense of warm that we have as "Caring or charming, of relations to another person" or other senses. Perhaps that's what our "more warm" sense of warmer is meant to convey, and we need merely to add another sense. I await confirmation that the "more hot" sense I'm thinking of is familiar to others before adding it. The question remains whether to qualify the "more warm" sense, restricting it to certain senses of warm.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- My impression is that, with respect to measured or perceived temperature, warmer is not interchangeable with hotter. I think it is usually used to mean something like "having a higher temperature, but not one usually considered hot". But I'm not sure whether one would say that -35C is warmer than -40C. It would be an empirical question. DCDuring TALK 22:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- You agree though that if one thing is hot and another merely warm, the second isn't called warmer than the first? Then warmer does essentially mean "hotter": but maybe, as you note, qualified that it's only used when the thing that's warmer isn't hot also. A definition would then be "hotter without being hot" or something. In any event, it doesn't seem to mean "more warm" (in the temperature sense), does it?—msh210℠ (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I searched for "warmer" "not hotter" and could not find the distinction that you object to. There might be other searches that would find the sense.
- While searching, I found this quote, which illustrates the point I was making:
- 1897, Charles Thomas Davis, The manufacture of leather, page 394:
- When they are ready for scouring, some curriers object to warm water, but it is very necessary for these goods, as it not only aids in cleansing, but it opens or rather mellows the fibres so that the leather may be fully extended and laid flat; they should then be placed in a tub or vat, with sufficient warm water to cover them without pressure, and be firmly slicked out on the flesh and well brushed over and put back into rather warmer water than before, but not hotter than the hand can be held in, as heat in this state of leather that will not injure the flesh of the operator will not injure the article operated on.
—This unsigned comment was added by User:DCDuring (talk • contribs).
- How many other instances are there of groups of adjectives (or adverbs) whose absolute forms can be viewed along the same underlying scale but are at different points, not synonymous. Obviously cold and cool (frigid?). Are red and pink like this? Are there other scales besides temperature (and possibly color)? windy/breezy? Do human emotions have this, eg, angry/annoyed? This seems like a larger problem, potentially than this entry. It also seem more like a usage note or linked appendix concern than a definitional one. I have removed the RfC, but feel free to revert if you think this can be addressed at the level of this entry. DCDuring TALK 13:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This page needs serious clean up. The only thing it should really say is "An alternate spelling of shell shock." ♫♪╚╗□└┘┌┐┌┤╚╗└┤┌┐┼├┐∑└┐│└┐ 04:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC) -
-
-
- HTH. DCDuring TALK 02:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The entry suffers from a proliferation of senses, mostly without citations, with usage examples that mostly don't support the senses given. Is anyone familiar with East African English. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Assuming that the term is valid, the translation tables are a mess. But the first issue is still the validity of the uncited definitions, which differ from the ones that failed RfV. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Some of the entries in this category are not English chemical elements. See, for example, bor, fluor, helio, hidrógeno etc. SemperBlotto 18:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC) - It's because {{elements}} categorizes. It's the same problem as context labels that categorize, just much, much smaller scale. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Spanish noun, defined as adjective: "written in many languages". DCDuring TALK 00:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC) - Done I think. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Translation table needs shipping to, and merging with that at airplane. SemperBlotto 16:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC) - Done. --Hekaheka (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't quite feel like a dictionary entry yet, and should the two senses be merged somehow? Equinox ◑ 23:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC) - Note: the creator has tweaked this many times since I posted it here, and it's looking a lot better now. Equinox ◑ 00:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Sole adjective definition: "More than one of something." Sounds wrong or rather poorly worded to me. Also it doesn't cover the most usual English usage such as 'plural form', you can't say that 'houses in the more than one of something form of house'. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC) This user has been creating redirects where (s)he shouldn't... could someone more familiar with the Wiktionary's treatment of romaji-kanji-katakana fix this? Thanks. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC) - At the moment, User talk:Curley Turkey is a red link. Maybe someone should try talking to him first. —Angr 09:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
"(arts|slang) A genre of art; referring to any piece which is fueled, at its core, by a moebius of self-referential meta." What's a moebius? What is meta (noun)? What does this mean? Can someone define it in English? Equinox ◑ 21:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC) - Sigh, it's a transwiki. Quite easy to spot a transwiki because they're very often unattestable, sum of parts or incomprehensible. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am seeing what looks like three good hits on books.google.com, but I can't work out the meaning from them. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I added a sense reflecting the predominate usage: exploitative art films. I haven't seen anything to support the original sense, which I take to mean art which is preoccupied with itself or the artist's self ("moebius" seems to refer to the Möbius strip, a shape that twists back on itself in an infinite loop). I think we should rfv the first sense, which may very well be a protologism (in that sense only). Chuck Entz (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
See talk page. There are incorrect forms in the conjugation template. This also applies to other entries such as schießen, scheißen or reißen (all verbs whose stems end on an /s/ sound?). Longtrend (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC) - I have commented on the talk page. The German Wiktionary's conjugation page has the same forms (and problems) as we have. - -sche (discuss) 08:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I genuinely do not understand the definition. Equinox ◑ 01:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC) - I get it, but I had to read it slowly, and more than once. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
A bit long and rambling. Shaky grammar. Equinox ◑ 14:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Shouldn't un montón and del montón be created separately? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC) - I created del montón, which was pretty obviously idiomatic. I'm not quite sure what un montón is. There are variants like muchas montones and un montón grande that make it look more like SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Needs help from someone with more background than I in literary history. Contexts and applicability of term seem confounded in first three senses. Implications for translations? DCDuring TALK 13:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC) [edit] Translingual plurals Does Translingual language have a grammar? The first two entries were created as English and then changed to Translingual, so I think they should be deleted or changed back into English. 12° has a Translingual header but categories and templates are for English. Maro 19:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC) - I wouldn't think so, though an argument could be made for a kind of grammar for binomial taxonomic names. But that is a looser definition of grammar than I think we mean. I think delete. DCDuring TALK 19:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- 12° seems Translingual, like the other paper sizes, and I have made it so.
- §§ seems plural to me, even as a Translingual, though they could be.
- For all of these and for all the paper and book size entries, some attestation would be useful. The families that are from Latin or are purely graphic or typographic, like §§, may well be used in many languages. It would not be fun to attest them. Probably the most effective way would be to find whether reference works in various languages contain them. DCDuring TALK 20:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- The -s forms look to me like a mixture of translingual and English, much like you see with kanji and hiragana in Japanese. The test would be whether such forms ever appear in any language that forms plurals differently. As for §§, I think we would be better treating it as a translingual representing a plural rather than the pural of a translingual. How do we treat Chinese characters that are different depending on the gender of the referent (spoken Chinese has no grammatical gender)? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I found the example I was thinking of: the 3rd person singular 她 is a version of 他 that's used to refer to females, as in English "she". Spoken Chinese has no grammatical gender, so the distinction is strictly translingual- they're both tā in pinyin and are spoken the same. We mention 他 in the etymology section of 她, but we don't treat it as the feminine form of 他. More evidence that we shouldn't treat translinguals as inflected forms. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Also see spp. and pp. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I have doubts about the translinguality of 12°. In fact I'm under the impression that most countries in the World use ISO 216 standard in which 12° does not belong. On the other hand, if it is translingual, twelvemo is hardly its translingual synonym, probably duodecimo neither. Might be safest to change it back from Translingual to English. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC) - Whatever they use now, the older standard (and a current standard among used booksellers) includes all the forms that are in the table that involve only Latin or Italian derivation. The singulars for many of these can be found in a few European languages. There may be some individual items that are not attestable, even in English. I can find the plurals for many in English, but not in other languages, not even French. I think we could start by making all the plurals English and, of course, eliminating any instances of {{en-noun}} from the inflection line for the Translingual entries. If we would like to make all of the paper/book sizes English, subject to attestation in other languages, that would be fine with me. I am personally much more confident in the English, I never have high expectations about attestation effort in languages other than English, and, after all, this is English Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 23:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Six senses, perhaps as little as three distinct senses. The thick end of something, seems ok, the bully sense is at rfv, the other four senses seem to be all overlapping, I think they're either two senses or one. They are: - (US, colloquial) An incompetent or unsuccessful person; a loser.
- (pejorative) an unintelligent person; a blockhead.
- a gullible person; a sucker; someone easily taken advantage of; the target of a scam.
- someone lacking good sense - especially considered so for being scrupulous or unselfish.
Surely unintelligent, gullible and lacking good sense are all the same sense. The top definition is actually mine though I'm not happy about it. I think 'chump' is a catch-all pejorative term a bit like 'dickhead' but can also imply stupidity. Can anyone suggest a good way of defining this in either one or two definitions. If I could do it, I would have done it by now. Translation tables would also need revising. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC) - An unsuccessful person could merely be unlucky. Repeated lack of success is evidence of incompetence. "Incompetent person; loser" seems legitimate.
- I think "a gullible person" is a central sense and is much more specific than "a stupid person".
- 2008, Geoffrey Moehl, Storm Castle, page 106:
- I will not be the chump who takes the fall. I've ignored common sense long enough, and, as usual, trying to be agreeable with Lindsey only succeeds in causing major damage
- Foolishly unselfish or scrupulous, if attestable, is also distinct.
- Frankly, they all seem distinct. I don't know that they are all attestable, but the "overscrupulous person" sense seems the most questionable. DCDuring TALK 00:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I suspect the gullibility sense is off the mark: a chump is someone who's been taken advantage of (or is intended to be), not just someone who's gullible enough to potentially be taken advantage of. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- There are plenty of cites like: "You're just the kind of chump they'll get to do the dirty work." The characteristic seems prior to and distinct from the exploitation of the characteristic. DCDuring TALK 23:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I did some more cleaning and combining (prior to reading this discussion, in fact). - -sche (discuss) 02:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
slug#Verb 2 senses: - "To down a shot." Is this transitive or intransitive?
- "casual carpooling; forming ad hoc, informal carpools for purposes of commuting, essentially a variation of ride-share commuting and hitchhiking." This is a definition for a noun. How is this used as a verb? How should it be worded. Where is it used? DCDuring TALK 16:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- It looks to me like "casual carpooling;" is context rather than definition. The real definition starts with "forming". Chuck Entz (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe something like "To form ad hoc, informal carpools, in what is essentially a combination of ride-share commuting and hitchhiking" Chuck Entz (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't quite fit the two citations I found, which are not yet sufficient for attestation. There are probably more to be found on Usenet. DCDuring TALK 23:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's the verb formed from the last sence in the list of noun forms, above it on the same page. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Many formatting issues. Lowercase in section names. No headword. Definitions/translations not starting with #. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC) - I gave him/her a 15 minute block in order to explain to him/her what he/she was doing wrong, and fixed the remaining entries on AWB. Editor is now making fewer and less serious mistakes, just not none. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
This is incredibly verbose and technical. I don't believe it is helpful to anyone trying to understand the word. Equinox ◑ 01:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC) - I simplified it. It may require some further tweaking, but at least it's readable. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
This one has a template problem and needs some fleshing out. Also see: WT:Requests for verification#hread. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC) - I think it's okay now. Of course, the RFV thing is a separate problem. -- Liliana • 17:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
A huge mess. Not even all the entries listed on the en.wikipedia disambiguation page are covered by our meanings. -- Liliana • 17:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Evaluate the senses: are the first two distinct and accurate? Should the third be folded in to one of them? Should the second be removed? Are any senses missing? Note the RFV, which I just closed. - -sche (discuss) 21:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC) - They all feel like one definition to me. I shall await rebuttals. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Another entry from our known-suspect magic-obsessed IP user. This term appears to be cromulent, showing up in a Buddhist terminology list among other places. However, the entry is a complete mess, and I suspect that many of the synonyms and see alsos are bogus. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC) - One possible method of cleaning entries like these is to replace the extraneous content and questionable defs with {{rfdef}} and track down and add the valid information at leisure. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
More fun, same user, same obsessive messiness. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Tagged in 2010, but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC) little format --Cova (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC) [edit] headword-line templates Here is the list of all headword-line templates: [[User:Maro/headword templates]]. - Some of them are declension/conjugation tables and need to be removed from the category Category:XXX headword-line templates (e.g. {{nn-verb table}})
- Documentation subpages (e.g. {{pt-noun-old/doc}} should be removed from these categories as well.
- Some templates for the same language generate different font types, e.g. Korean templates generates 3 different (missing sc= (script) parameter?):
- Some of them generate an extra line before page name (e.g. {{no-proper noun}}). Template:te-letter generates 5 redundant lines.
- Some templates of the same language don't include missing transliteraions, e.g.:
- Templates without parameters should display PAGENAME and shouldn't display any empty brackets.
- Thousands of them need to include {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||[[Category:XXX]]}} to remove Users' (and other namespaces) pages from main categories.
Maro 19:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC) - I dont understand, what's the problem with {{ka-noun}}, {{ka-verb}} , {{ka-adv}}? All of them DO write that transliteraion is missing--Wikstosa (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ka-verb and ka-adverb don't add entries to the category Georgian terms lacking transliteration, there's only information in the entry "Transliteration needed". Maro 20:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thats's an enormous list; we can eliminated all the ones without problems? Or create subpages per problem, for people who want to ignore the perfectly good ones? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's enormous because of including many long /doc templates which should be unlink from the category Headword-line templates. Maro 20:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, Mglovesfun, I sorted it alphabetically and split into 5 subpages. Maro 21:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Would somebody mind dealing with this? Thank you --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC) - I will be adding cognizor when I get to it. (I'm doing Webster in more or less random order.) Equinox ◑ 21:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks - I feel so amateur with all these ultra-committed editors around... :) --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
these usexes don't use the word meronymy. --Cova (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC) - Done. Usexes replaced with citations. — Pingkudimmi 08:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
See: tilhøre or forlate for example. - This template should be named no-conj-verb or something like that. It is conjugation template but is used in the place for headword-line template (under L3 header).
- Something is wrong with the imperative.
- What is inflection 1 and inflection 2? They look the same.
- It is used under == Norwegian Bokmål == but the conjugation is for NB and NN. Maro 16:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I made this entry after a vandal started it (with sexual nonsense, as usual), but I don't actually speak Old English. Can somebody check that I didn't massacre it (I vaguely remember that ang declines, so maybe it needs a declension table, etc)? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC) - I gave it a go. The template seems to want a plural, but other than that I believe it's pretty much accurate now, albeit not complete. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Recent addition by new user User:Scienceexplorer (Talk, Contribs). The definition in its current form is quite dense, and I'm left feeling like I know less about signal transduction than I did before I read the entry. Could someone who knows about this field rework the definition for greater clarity? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC) - Well, biology is a major side interest of mine, but some concepts assume so much knowledge that they can be hard to define understandably for laypeople. How is it now? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- That looks much better, thank you! -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
If someone can explain to me why an apparently ASL entry, which is incomprehensible to me in any case, is on a page with a title in Hangeul, I will be much obliged. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC) - It was created that way. If you look closely, you'll notice that the ASL part is just an empty framework. My guess is that the IP who created the entry copied it from somewhere to serve as a template, then forgot to take down the scaffolding after it was built. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Right, it's fairly common that people will creative 'new entries' with no content other than the preloaded scaffolding the new entry creators provide. I've deleted it as not being usable content. The Korean entry still exists, though, 'cause I presume it's OK. - -sche (discuss) 05:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, it's just a transliteration of the English word stocking, but that seems citable. However, perhaps the author/vandal meant w:Star King (TV series). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- My favorite quickie reality check is to go to the Wikipedia article for a word and click on the interwiki link for the article in the appropriate language. Korean Wikipedia indeed has an entry for stockings under w:ko:스타킹. I might add that transliteration would only be used to describe converting the spelling of a non-Korean word into hangul. This is the spelling of a Korean word borrowed from English- I'm sure it accurately represents the pronunciation of the word as it's used in ordinary Korean speech. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- The original question was about ASL (which has been cleaned up), not Korean. The Korean is correct. --Anatoli (обсудить) 04:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] cītlalli helpLucifer (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC) - You left out a parameter. The second argument is the text to go before "of". It doesn't supply that, it just formats it. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please fix the collapsible table at the bottom and also make sure that I did the whole entry right (having never added a Korean word before)? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC) I think this is the same person as our previous magic-obsessed Japanophile IP user posting under addresses in the 2.2xx range, and possibly the same as the user with addresses in the 90.xxx range. I gave them a 3-hour block earlier today to prompt them to read a number of WT reference pages and to give me time to go through their edits. Of 11 total edits that they've made so far, yesterday and today, every single one had issues: - Created the page steely-eyed, now up for RFV at Wiktionary:RFV#steely-eyed.
- Added links on several other pages to steely-eyed. (I've left these alone pending RFV.)
- Added a non-synonym to the 霊 entry. (Removed.)
- Added translations to the Selene entry that required reworking. (Done.)
- Created 5 other new term pages, all for Japanese, all requiring substantial reworking. (Done.)
- Included links to JA WP pages that don't exist.
- Included links to other languages' WT for pages that don't exist.
- Added content more suited to WP.
- Added wholly-bogus content scrounged up from who knows where, or maybe made up on the spot.
- Misused categorization templates, and misattributed source languages.
This user appears to be a huge time sink just waiting to happen. I sincerely hope they clean up their act, but if they are the same user as before, my hopes are not high. Please be on the lookout for edits from this user. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC) - This user is so consistent in their bad editing, and it is such a drain on our time, that a longer (or even indefinate) block could be appropriate. - -sche (discuss) 08:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- In the interest of giving someone a fair shake, I'll give them another chance -- so far I've only written to their talk page just the once. But if they come back with another slew of problematic edits, I think I will block them for a much longer span. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
It feels like someone non-discriminately mixed the English and Latin entries together. Oy... --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC) - Seems done. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I keep forgetting to strike things when I actually get around to doing them... --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm reasonably certain that the last sense should be moved first and reduced to {{&lit}}, but what about the others? And should we have an entry for squeeze into? One can squeeze a dinner into a tight schedule, after all, or squeeze into tight jeans, just as well as one can squeeze an appointment in or say "it was a small car, so we all had to squeeze in". - -sche (discuss) 08:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Weird. Not very clear. Sense 3 is not a definition. Equinox ◑ 16:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC) - See also being-for-itself by the same editor. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- And being-in-itself. DCDuring TALK 18:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Reference suggests contributor is just reading Hegel. Do we have the sense Hegel uses of being? DCDuring TALK 18:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Adding so I don't forget. Sort args, formatting ("Derived terms" seems to be using a POS header), links, etyls, additional POS & entries, etc. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)  Done, striking. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
An adjective sense needs to be merged with the adverb sense (I think). SemperBlotto (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC) This is categorizing in Category:Latin script characters even when not in the main namespace. The code is so complicated I can't find the problem. -Mglovesfun (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC) - I think I fixed it... diff —CodeCat 22:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Categorizing in the wrong namespaces again. Sigh! Mglovesfun (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC) All the subsenses seem to be saying the same thing, and badly, e.g. "Always perfectly cured from injuries" is not a meaning of "immortal"; it's just the never dying that makes such a creature immortal. Equinox ◑ 13:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC) - This [5] is where the trouble started, IMO. Equinox ◑ 14:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'd start from scratch, I'm not 100% happy with any of our adjective definitions. Perhaps the last one. Also are "more immortal" and "most immortal" not attested? I suspect they are. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Immortal doesn't mean "Always perfectly cured from injuries". Consider two fictional examples, Torchwood, Miracle Day (2011) and Death Becomes Her (1992). It's a bit like diabetes and obesity; one may or may not imply the other, but they are not synonymous. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, "more immortal" and "most immortal" are very easy to attest, although mostly in the historical sense ("his most immortal poem") and the negative sense ("He was no more immortal than her"). Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- ("No more immortal than her" isn't using "more" as that kind of comparative, though, is it? Cf. "you're no more a fireman than I am".) Equinox ◑ 18:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- (Since "immortal" is an adjective, I think it is. "He was no more intelligent than her" or "He was no cleverer than her" are definitely comparative, right?) Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- The comparative would be "He was not more intelligent". "(He) was no more ..." is a figure of speech related to "(He) was no...". Chuck Entz (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've taken out the pointless context tag (seeing as it listed so many contexts that it was basically universal). My suggestion for cleanup would be to replace the first senses and all its subsenses with two senses:
- Living forever; incapable of dying.
- Undergoing an eternal cycle of resurrection, reincarnation or metempsychosis.
- and then have a link to biological immortality in derived terms. Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- I think you're missing an important sense. "Immortal" does often mean "living forever; incapable of dying", but I think it more often means "potentially living forever; capable of not dying". In particular, characters who don't age, and will never die of old age, are generally considered "immortal", even if they are still susceptible to certain forms of death (either very specific forms such as beheading or a stake through the heart, or more general categories such as injury or poison). —RuakhTALK 18:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Hmm, good point. How about "Capable of living forever" and "Incapable of dying" as the two separate senses? Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Extremely encyclopedic and the see-alsos are in various langauges. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Tagged but not listed. I can't be bothered right now, sorry. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC) All adjective senses. Which of these are a true adjective sense with a meaning distinct from that of a corresponding verb sense? Are we missing some verb senses? DCDuring TALK 17:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC) The only definition given is the crayon color, but that only dates to 1993 and there are cites given dating back as far as 1947. I'm not sure how to word the non-crayon definition, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Seems to have been mostly copied-and-pasted from kolbítur, without changing the definition...or headword... - -sche (discuss) 20:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC) - Cleaned, I think. - -sche (discuss) 21:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to add some translations but I don't think senses and translations match, also don't see a common sense - revision (of the studied material). --Anatoli (обсудить) 02:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Could a Chinese-literate editor please clean this up? I would, but I'm not familiar with the conventions or the language. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Derived terms. How many of these are actually derived using this suffix rather than -ation or -ion? I'd certainly like something more than a set of bald assertions in the form of a list. DCDuring TALK 02:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC) - Most likely none... this probably doesn't exist. Not as a suffix anyway, only as a string of letters. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding this entry, both Translingual and Mandarin sections. Could somebody please clarify and elaborate? Thanks --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC) - I fixed the worst problem with the translingual section, but that exposed another: the definitions are verbatim from here]. The contributor obviously just copied-and-pasted them- even forgetting to separate two of them after removing the letters marking each one. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- From the history, it seems it was created by a bot using the Unihan database, which is where the error comes from. It still seems like the definitions ultimately came from the source I linked to above, though they may have come from a common third source. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- The ZH WT entry at zh:迧 gives 陳 as an alt form, but I do not know if this counts as a simplified, traditional, or simply alternate character form. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The synonyms need to be split up by sense. — Paul G (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC) This explains it: more Wonderfoolery. How did I not guess? In any case, this is a jolly mess he's left for us. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC) - In fairness, this is what {{rfdef}} is for. If there were no citation to go with it, I'd delete it happily, but since there is, let's keep it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to find any uses of the term outside this one particular dispute (the Scottish football club Rangers is in financial trouble, and its owners want to wind it up and then start a new company - the newco - which would continue the Rangers name), but there is a Wikipedia page about this word, and the fact that no newspaper articles about the dispute define newco makes me think that it must have been used before. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, cited, and I've added a second sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- NewCo, Newco, and newco all occur in business discussions, especially in the discussion of corporate restructurings (mergers, etc). The capitalized forms are proper nouns whose specific reference is defined in the context of a specific proposed business restructuring transaction. I don't think that anything significant can be associated with the capitalized forms, but we can inflate our entry count by having them. It should be possible to cite the common noun by searching for "a newco" and "newcos". I don't really think two senses are necessary. DCDuring TALK 11:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have added citations for newco in the headword's capitalization. DCDuring TALK 11:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The citation given for the second sense does not seem to support the definition. To me, it seems to discuss "newco" in the sense of the first definition. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC) A new user has been putting a good bit of work into this in good faith, but not all of it is according to Wiktionary standards. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC) - I took a stab at cleaning it up. See what you think. —Angr 09:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oops... I forgot this one. Yes, it looks to be all in order. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk)
Since yesterday, an IP has been editing this, starting by reverting to a version from 15 November 2009 (in my edit summary I said August 2010; that's also correct as those two versions are identical) and has now added a LOT of extra information, making it a lot more like a Wikipedia article than it was previously. I don't however feel confident enough on this subject to clean it up myself, so I'm listing it here. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC) - Seems this may be Wikipedia:User:Satbir Singh, indef blocked some years ago for editing Kamboj-related articles in an unacceptable way. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's getting longer and longer. Any objections if I trim it right back to a simple dictionary definition? SemperBlotto (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me- maybe it's just 'cause I'm a newbie, but I think that's why it's in RFC... ;-) I've been watching that rickety pile of POV accumulating for some time now, but I don't know the subject matter well enough to deal with a persistently contentious user like this one seems to be. That noise you hear in the background is a whole bunch of people trying to conceal their relief that someone else is dealing with this. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've done some trimming. I think the etymology section is good now (somewhat expanded, but not so much that it becomes encyclopedic). My concern is with the three senses which exist now where there was previously only one. - -sche (discuss) 09:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Nuff said. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC) since 2004 no longer a official German word according to „Rat für deutsche Rechtschreibung",
see page 31 of
and list of words 2006, page 132 --J. Lunau (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC) - So? It's listed as an alternative spelling, and as long as it has been used in print in the past we can include it here. Also, you put the "RFV" tag on it but listed it at RFC -- are you asking for verification or cleanup? —Angr 16:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I changed the tag from rfc to rfv as that seemed to be the author's intention, I will delist it from rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Could this be called dated? 2004 seems much too recent to be called archaic or obsolete. Do German speakers stick to official word lists? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Cleaned up by adding a "dated" tag. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- @Mglovesfun sorry for the confusion about rfv / rfc and thank you for correcttion
- @Angr please tell me, where it is listed as an alternative spelling? The online Duden does no longer list, because the former alternative spelling was withdraw by the „Rat für deutsche Rechtschreibung". But maybe I am wrong, than of course the word should stay and I would add it to german Wiktionary as well. --J. Lunau (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- @J. Lunau we base our information on how people use words, not on other dictionaries. If a word is withdrawn from a word list, all the instances of the word being used are not magically erased. The best example I can think of is French savoir, which was spelt sçavoir for centuries. But when the spelling was reformed to savoir, the term sçavoir didn't magically disappear from many thousands of texts. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Our entry scharmant is labeled an alternative spelling. We don't follow what Duden or the Rat für deutsche Rechtschreibung say, we follow how people actually write and have written in the past. I think RFV really is the right place for this: if we can find attestations of people spelling the word this way, then we can keep the entry, though it can be labeled not only "alternative spelling" but also {{nonstandard}} and probably {{rare}} as well (even before 2004 this was hardly a common spelling, I think). —Angr 17:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Even if Wiktionary doesn't follow the Duden or the Ortography Reform, these rules are used in schools, government and many printed publications. So whether a spelling is "official" in this sense is important information that should be included in the Wiktionary entries. There exists a template (de-usage obsolete spelling) that can be used in the usage notes. However, I fail to see that scharmant is obsolete. This published word list of 2006 still contains the spelling: [6]. Is the list given by user J. Lunau maybe a draft? So until there are better references, I would suggest to remove the "dated" tag. --Zeitlupe (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. It's listed in the published list under C after the entry for charmant. --Zeitlupe (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Unless this really may not exist (or have existed) in German, it shouldn't be at RFV. If citations are needed to confirm whether it's dated or obsolete or not, this is the right forum (or as good as any other, WT:ID, WT:TR for example). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I added a 2012 citation, plenty of 2011 citations too; I consider the matter closed unless someone has new evidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to WT:RFDO#Appendix:Old English prefixes.
Confusing definitions: - A shared or community fund.
- The people's purse.
1. is obviously ok, is the second one just the same thing as the first? I assume purse doesn't refer to the physical object so if distinct from sense #1 it needs some clarity. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC) The only def given is: We don't have anything for Zionize at the moment, so Zionization is effectively without a definition. Can someone add a usable def? Without one, this looks ripe for deletion due to no useful content. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 14:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC) - I've changed it to "The process of becoming Zionist." We don't really have the appropriate sense of Zionist, but I think it's good enough. —RuakhTALK 15:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- Cool, thanks! Strike from RFC? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- This term doesn't seemed to be used except as a codeword for alleged nefarious Zionist influence, a way to counter accusations of racism by making the conspiracy an ideological or political one instead of racial. We need to be careful- it's a POV-magnet. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Absolutely agree. A since-deleted change to the WT:Feedback page adding just such politically charged content for this entry is what initially drew my attention. The relevant EN WT entries at present all appear to be quite neutral, so (for now, at least) I see nothing POV that might need changing. (I'm also no expert on Zionism, etc., so there might actually be something POV that I just don't pick up on.) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- @Chuck Entz: I agree that it's a potential POV magnet, but I don't think it's true that it's only used cryptoracist-ly. A fair number of the hits at google books:"Zionization" do exhibit hatred and/or paranoia, but quite a few hits seem to be in decently respectable academic works that are sincerely examining the adoption of Zionism by various persons or groups, without really passing judgment. (I note that a fair number of the hits at google books:"Zionist" are also anti-Zionist, as are a few of the hits at google books:"Zionism". This doesn't negate the positive and neutral uses of those words.) —RuakhTALK 01:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I definitely overreached with the "doesn't seemed to be used" part. Still, the volume and the intensity of the POV usage is reason enough for caution, even if it's not the only usage out there. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The adjective definitions aren't of much help, IMHO. --Maria.Sion (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Definition uses an invalid header, a standard non-POS level 3 header, either idiom or phrase, should be probably used instead. Fedso (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC) A veritable essay. Equinox ◑ 01:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC) - Ok, I've had a shot at tidying it up. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- Looks good. Equinox ◑ 18:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Since the creation of the entry by an anon in 2005, this entry has content now in Usage notes and External links that looks misplaced and probably excessive. Someone familiar with w:Dichotomic search might be able to salvage something and finish cleaning this up. DCDuring TALK 15:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC) - I was bold and just removed all the links (except those in the definitions) and usage notes. They were all encyclopedic material. Still needs a decent pronunciation. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 04:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The entry includes the definition of two expressions: hacer juegos and juego de manos. These should have their own entries, but I'm not familiar with either (hacer juegos also needs to be clarified, and might be SOP). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 02:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC) There is a dispute with another user that auscultate only refers to touching a stethoscope to a patient in order to listen for their lung sounds but it is clearly also used to refer to the ausculation of heart sounds, this is evidenced by the articles on wikipedia for stethoscope and heart sounds, and any medical book. This other user stubbornly blocked me for reentering factual information and the definition is currently inaccurate, any thoughts?Lucifer (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC) - You do realize that you are that "other user"? See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/auscultate?diff=16869694. —RuakhTALK 19:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
-
- This time, Lucifer is right. I have fixed the definition and removed the tag. Technically speaking, the defintion was already correct, because it refers the reader to auscultation, but it's clearer now. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Actually, he's wrong: he would only be correct if either (1) only lung sounds could be auscultated, as he initially claimed, or (2) only lung sounds and heart sounds could be auscultated, as he now implies. But neither of those is true, because in fact, plenty of other things can be auscultated as well; for example, examination of the abdomen includes auscultation to listen for bowel sounds. The best fix is simply to remove this encyclopedic information that is not relevant to the term auscultate. —RuakhTALK 22:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've never heard of bowel auscultation, but auscultation supports that idea of everything, so I'll change it. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- The real problem is that this isn't really a full-fledged lemma in its own right. The proper place for this stuff is auscultation, which already has a definition that covers the extra information. By the way, the "see also" section has ausculate, which doesn't seem to exist. Perhaps LW was thinking of osculate, which is only similar in that heavy breathing is often involved... Chuck Entz (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's one of his more common spelling errors, I'll fix it. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have common spelling errorz?Lucifer (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, even when you're not imitating a lolcat. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Adjective defined as noun, so essentially no definition. Another transwiki not cleaned up before being moved into the main namespace. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC) - I spent some time on it, but it's still not perfect. If you look at autotelism (which has lesser problems of its own), it seems that the adjective was copied whole from the noun, with only a very rudimentary attempt at adapting the definitions. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- After looking at the edit history, and the first WT edit, it seems I wasn't as wrong as I thought I was at first: the headword was originally autotelism, but it seems to have been moved to Autotelic, then autotelic, with an autotelism entry created and populated from the original entry, then the original entry was jury-rigged into the current autotelic article. The result was almost as bad as the process. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Terms derived from Proto-Oceanic As we treat it, Oceanic is a term for a sub-sub-sub-sub-? group of the Austronesian languages. This includes many languages of Micronesia, New Guinea, and Fiji, as well as the Polynesian languages. It does NOT, however, include the languages of the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, or nearby areas. The narrowest grouping that contains those and Polynesian is Malayo-Polynesian. Somehow, someone got the idea that Oceanic or Oceanian was the name for what is really Malayo-Polynesian or Austronesian. I'm not sure if Embryomystic (talk • contribs) is that person, but that user is the one who put {{proto|Oceanic}} in every entry I've seen so far in this category or its subcategories. Perhaps he/she was just making sure they all had a {{proto}} template. Not that it matters now... While I can't guarantee that there aren't a few late borrowings via other languages, It looks to me like the following categories should be pretty much empty: What's more, any entries in the following categories that say in the etymology: "From {{proto|Oceanic}}, compare " followed by words in any of the languages categorized above need to be corrected: In other words, all entries in the subcategories of this category are potentially messed up, and will have to be checked. For those of you that don't know Austronesian historical linguistics, the languages marked above with an * are guaranteed to have no subgroups of Malayo-Polynesian in common with the languages in the second list, so entries in the * categories that cite cognates in the languages categorized by the second list, as well as those entries in categories in the second list that cite cognates in the languages categorized by the * categories, can safely have {{proto|Oceanic}} changed to {{proto|Malayo-Polynesian}} without further research. Those of us who know how to look up the etymologies should concentrate on the rest. Sorry for the volume and dry nature of this, but the problem arose from people not having details straight, so we'll need to make sure we do, in order to fix it. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC) - Chuck is quite right. I've already cleaned up Hiligaynon and deleted the erroneous category. —Angr 22:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like just the right job for me! I'll go through the Polynesian ones and replace Oceanic comparisons with links to my Proto-Polynesian pages. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rotuman is related closely to Fijian, but all the terms in this category are in fact derived from a Polynesian language, so I'm going to mark them as such. I'm still working through the rest, although I don't know enough to fix them all. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Should we speedy delete the now empty categories? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC) - The categories in the first list involve languages not descended from Proto-Oceanic. Those might be populated by late borrowing, for instance if Tagalog borrowed an English term itself borrowed from a Polynesian language. It may very well have happened, but too rarely to maintain a category for it. We've been deleting those as we empty them.
- The second-list members are more problematic: a few cognate sets can be traced back to Proto-Oceanic, but no further. Those cognates are legitimate members of the categories in question, and I've indeed run into at least a couple such cases (one could also add Proto-Oceanic as an intermediate step in the etymology, but that seems more clutter than useful information). So it's a judgment call as to how likely the categories are to have members in the near future. I haven't been deleting them, but others might. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Is this all true? Moreover, is there a better way to phrase it? Maybe direct readers to the superior entry Don Quixote? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Added to entry by DCDuring, but no entry here. No idea what need to be cleaned up. -- ALGRIF talk 12:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Good grief, all the derived terms and see alsos in the Volapük section are longer than the rest of the page put together. Most derived terms seem to be sum of parts (Pakistani dinosaur?), and some of the see alsos are beyond bizarre (scientist? category? the?!?). Unfortunately, I don't know enough of the language to properly cut this down to size. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC) - I spent a couple minutes straight laughing, and then I deleted the entire See also section, filled with unrealted and semirelated terms that didn't belong there. I also deleted all the terms in Derived terms that were obviously SOPs, but the rest are mostly borderline SOPs; Volapük has the same problem German has with single word pseudo-SOPs. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Long, encyclopedic category-theory (mathematics) definition that abuses our formatting conventions. Can a good definition be salvaged? DCDuring TALK 16:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC) - Wikipedia has the full formal definition, we just need an outline. Done. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed with no edit summary in 2009, looks like a candidate for immediate untagging. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC) - The definition was somewhat confusing in 2009, but it's good now. I vote to untag it. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 22:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I had to look up freehold first, then I had to look up fee simple which is used in freehold. A few citations might make it easier to understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Definition "The way to do something." I find this way too general and/or ambiguous. For example, if I see someone holding a cricket bat wrong, I can't sau "you're using the wrong route" or "your route is wrong". Mglovesfun (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC) RFC-sense "A part of Unitarian Universalism." I'm not sure what this is getting at, so I don't know word it better. - -sche (discuss) 20:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC) [edit] need help with complicated ass formatting for plurals please Lucifer (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC) - I don't really understand what's wrong with those entries. They look fine to me? —CodeCat 11:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Etym 2. crab means crab apple and "crab apple tree". This could be right (I suppose some people somewhere possible use "crab" to mean "crab apple", but the entry at crab apple says etymol crab+apple. So what does "crab" mean? Possibly means "bitter", or "wild". I don't really know. If someone does know, could they add that definition. Then there remains the problem of all those supposed derived terms (with crab grass noticeably missing). What a mess! -- ALGRIF talk 13:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC) - I've seen crab used to mean crabapple in the context of horticulture (as in, "this cultivar is one of the best of the flowering crabs"). Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me like crab apple is a redirect to crabapple, which has no etymology section, and I don't see anything in the history of either to indicate a recent change. What's more, there's an etymology under Etymology 2 that notes a Swedish dialectal cognate. Where are you getting all this from?
- At any rate: I was under the impression that crab apple is the main term, and that crab is just short for it (which means nothing until someone checks the actual history of the word). If so, the etymology should go to crabapple, and be replaced by "From crabapple". Either way, crabapple/[[crab apple] is the term most are familiar with, so it should have an etymology, if only "From crab (apple)" Chuck Entz (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm getting it from crab#Etymology 2 -- ALGRIF talk 16:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I was referring to "but the entry at crab apple says etymol crab+apple." Check for yourself- it doesn't. Perhaps you were getting crabgrass mixed up with crabapple? Chuck Entz (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Equinox ◑ 00:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC) "Used in building." Sorry what, does this mean that a hammer is structural? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC) - RFV it? It might be redundant to sense 1. Equinox ◑ 18:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't make any sense, and full of links that might be spammy. Please cut it down to actual definitions that make sense to human beings. Equinox ◑ 21:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC) - I'm really unfamiliar with how to write wiktionary entries, but of use may be three definitions on the related Wikipedia article, all by Wilhelm Reich:
- "[the] capacity to attain gratification by discharging an amount of libido equivalent to the built-up sexual tension in the organism" (1927, Further Remarks on the Therapeutic Significance of Genital Libido).
- "the capacity to surrender to the flow of biological energy, free of any inhibitions; the capacity to discharge completely the dammed-up sexual excitation through involuntary, pleasurable convulsions of the body" (1940, The Discovery of the Orgone, Volume 1: The Function of the Orgasm.)
- "the capacity for complete surrender to the involuntary convulsion of the organism and complete discharge of the excitation at the acme of the genital embrace" (date unclear, Selected Writings).
- All the other definitions are either distortions or derivatives.--Gulpen (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- They're not of much use, if any, to me. If other people understand them, great, good for them. I take it Equinox you've checked that this can get three citations, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that these are terms very specific to Reich's arcane and long-discredited theories, and mean nothing to those who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- I do not see why the validity of Reich's work should be of any concern for an accurate definition. (It is also simply false to claim that all of Reich's work is discredited. His 'Character Analysis' was used as a standard textbook in psychology for many years, for example.) At any rate, there is such an incredible amount of disinformation and distortion about Reich's work that it justifies keeping close to Reich's OWN definitions, which is why I supplied them. Fact is that 1) Reich coined the term and 2) he adjusted the definition several times.
- If it is necessary to fully understand the terms, there is a related Wikipedia article (including many references) that are available for study.
- By the way, of interest to fixing this entry may also be the term 'orgastic impotence' as the opposite of orgastic potency.--Gulpen (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I think our current definitions lack lexical potency in the sense that they fail to clarify the term. I'm not an expert in Reichology, but to me his definitions look like complicated ways of saying "capacity to reach an orgasm". --Hekaheka (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC) - No, the two are fundamentally different. For example, though virtually all men have 'ejaculative potency', during an orgasm many experience disgust, unpleasure, phantasies, partial release, various forms of anxiety (conscious or subconscious), mechanic movements, etc. etc. However, none of these can occur with orgastic potency (not to mention that almost no people experience the involuntary, rhythmic convulsion of the whole body - merely some local response). This is all written down on the related Wikipedia page. Every single word in Reich's definitions are crucial as they function to exclude all the pathological phenomenon associated with orgastic impotence.--Gulpen (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Again, I'm not arguing whether any of this is valid. I'm just trying to help clarify the conceptual difference.--Gulpen (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Drago's "Original" etymologies While dealing with the "Proto-Oceanic" mess, I ran into (or should I say stepped in?) another long-ignored set of erroneous etymologies: User:Drago (talk • contribs) wasn't active for more than a few months, but his/her misplaced confidence in his/her expertise, and prodigious work ethic, left errors scattered all over the place, many of which are still yet to be uncovered, six years later. One innocuous-looking practice was to put "Originally x" in the etymology, where x is a presumed earlier form of the headword. It's only after you stop to examine the specifics that you realize he/she wasn't citing an attested earlier form of the same language, but (sort of) reconstructing a proto-form without mentioning the fact, and without any information about where it fits in the history of the language's development. I first noticed these in Polynesian-language entries, but I've also seen several Germanic examples, such as Old High German forms followed by an "original" form with the Old High German consonant shifts "unshifted". I also noticed one case of an Old English word oroþ where Drago's etymology said: "Originally very likely *ozoþ, from a Germanic *uzunþa-". Given that the change from *z to *r is supposed to have happened in Proto-West Germanic, and the loss of the *n before *þ is supposed to have happened in Proto-Ingvaeonic, hundreds of years later, *ozoþ could never have existed at all! There are no doubt many more examples where I'm not familiar enough with the sound changes to spot errors as easily as I did with this one. This strikes me as misleading, rife with inaccuracies, and definitely a violation of our standards for reconstructed forms and proto-languages. We need to go through Drago's edits and either convert these into real, verified etymologies, or remove them. The problem is that these edits are only a fraction of Drago's 19,672 edit count (12,311 separate pages)- so far, I've found just a few dozen. I tried searching for "Etymology" and "originally" together , but the sheer volume of legitimate occurrences has made it very slow going. Would it be possible for a bot to tag all entries having 1) an edit by Drago that 2) includes the word "originally" (capitalized or non-capitalized)? If we could get all of these into a temporary maintenance category, we could then sift out the false positives and those that have been fixed, and then fix the rest as we have time. I have the references and background to do the Polynesian entries myself, but someone else will have to help with the others. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC) - Done- the slow way. It seemed like there were over a hundred of them, mostly in German entries. Thanks to anyone who helped. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Definition: "Inside of a church, for religious purposes." This definition doesn't fit the following usage examples: - They were married in church.
- It seemed wrong to talk louder than a whisper in church.
- DCDuring TALK 18:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- I took a stab at it. It seems like some cases need "while" and others don't, so there's more detail than I'm covering. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've been looking at several of these bare-noun prepositional phrases. Now maybe I can help. DCDuring TALK 12:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's certainly better. Ill remove the tag. There's still something bothering me about how these bare-noun PPs are worded and even whether they are idiomatic. It could be that there are missing senses of church along the lines of the senses I added to bed. Or the senses of bed may be excessively detailed. There are at least 20 bare-noun prepositional phrases as entries. They include some true idioms, but many of them seem grammatical, with the meaning directly following from the meaning of the preposition and some sense of the object noun that can be place, time, activity, or status. In this case in church certainly can refer to place, possibly qualified by the presence of absence of a service. But "They were married in church" suggests a sense of church as a state of the marriage activity that is less fully conveyed (by implicature) by "They were married in a/the church". I'm going to add some citations to the entry or the citation page. DCDuring TALK 12:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The computing sense consists of five sentences. The music sense also seems a bit encyclopedic and PoV. The cricket sense is encyclopedic, belonging in a rulebook, not a dictionary. DCDuring TALK 11:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC) - Trimmed computing sense. That leaves cricket and music senses. Equinox ◑ 13:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've had a go at the cricket sense. The music sense seems to be a bit obscure, and misses the main music meaning as in session musician or session band. SpinningSpark 12:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I wish I knew what the contributor was getting at with the Gaelic bit. It seems encyclopedic. Does a WP article shed any light? Put it in the talk page? DCDuring TALK 12:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The gaming sense seems like a specific use of sense #1, could be rfd-redundant but in all honesty to me it's uncontroversial enough just to remove it. The cricket one probably is distinct from the other senses, I know what it means, I will reword it at some point (expecting visitors here, can't guarantee I can do it now). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed the gaming sense, added a usex to the first sense to show music use, RfV'ed the existing music sense, and removed the rfc tag. DCDuring TALK 12:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
so someone created this category and i added to it and grew it but it still wasn't created and now i am not sure what to do. ayuda por favor?Lucifer (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC) - I created the category, and re-categorized all the terms in the old category, so it's now empty. By the way: I'm not sure if it's possible to create a valid topic category with {{lexiconcatboiler}} (the way you had it set up certainly wasn't right), but I prefer {{topic cat}}. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
help plz71.142.69.216 06:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC) - Done. Is that what you wanted? Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 06:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
are these right or is there some formulaic def for these female versions of púbico?Lucifer (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC) - Done. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
"(law) When referring to a clause in a testament: a sentence of secret character inserted by the testator alone, of which he reserves the knowledge to himself, with a condition that no will he may make thereafter shall be valid, unless this clause is inserted word for word; – a precaution to guard against later wills extorted by violence, or obtained by suggestion." Supposedly an adjective! Would someone who understands it please move it to [[derogatory clause]] or a different POS section as needed, or reword it to be an adjective, whichever is appropriate? - -sche (discuss) 01:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Chatty; encyclopaedic. Equinox ◑ 18:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC) - I've cut out the encyclopaedic stuff and added a link to Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 08:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Lovely. Equinox ◑ 16:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think the addition of "...largely superseded by the World Wide Web" is going back towards encyclopaedic. What it was superseded by is an encyclopaedic fact which does not affect the definition. Imo better would be "A type of computer system, now largely obsolete, used to exchange messages and data" or else add a suitable template, if there is one. SpinningSpark 10:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The etymology consists of: "Originally, 角 is written by mistake, which the sound is "gluk"". Is there any useful information in this? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC) - Etym apparently added by Lo Ximiendo in this edit. However, the surprisingly ungrammatical nature of the added sentence makes me worry that Lo Ximiendo's account has been hijacked; her writing is usually better than this.
- FWIW, this character does not appear in any of the Japanese references I have to hand, and web searches for Japanese pages show usage only in reference to Chinese place names. The ZH WT entry lists this character as an alternate for 角, potentially consistent with Lo Ximiendo's addition. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- All Lo Ximiendo did was move the etymology to its canonical position. The poorly written etymology itself was added by an anon here. —Angr 06:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you Angr, I'm clearly not at my most observant.
- Hearkening back to Chuck's original question then, I suspect the anon IP meant to convey that the 甪 character originally derived from a corrupted form of 角. James, or any of our other Chinese-speaking editors, can you shed any light on this? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
rfc-senses: poker slang 'a card that appears to help no one' and 'a low card'. Neither of these are quite right in my opinion. Rags as a plural is often used in poker slang to mean 'poor cards'. I've never heard of it as a community card as a opposed to hole cards, but I'd like to try and find out if it does exist. So in summary, I'd like to merge these into one, more accurate definition which better fits actual human usage. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC) - The card that appears to help no one sense is real; I added one citation to Citations:rag and I've just found a second one. I don't feel like I need to add three citations as I was the one questioning it in the first place. Still... the two senses are really the same, it just so happens that low cards (ones with low numerical values) are unlikely to help anyone as player usually play high cards. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Needs some kind of fi-verb or part of speech etc. or it won't be categorised. Equinox ◑ 16:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC) - I've categorized it, we still need a native/competent speaker to look at it. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is very common in spoken language. I added pronunciation, alternative forms and a usex. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Chatty; encyclopaedic. Equinox ◑ 01:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC) - I think this needs citing before cleaning up, we can't define it until we know how it's used. I couldn't turn up anything on a quick search - perhaps it should be deleted altogether. SpinningSpark 10:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I took a run at it. I used a bit of it to enhance [[behind the curve]]. DCDuring TALK 11:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I found this template as one of the two uses of {{ö}} (which I've listed at RFD); I removed {{ö}} as I imported the pronunciation from fr.Wikt, but this noun is still defined as "resemblance; concretely model, shape; adverbially like: - fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude", which seems to be an amalgam of noun, verb and adverb definitions. Also note that the word is transliterated differently in the translations sections of [[figure]] and [[character]]. - -sche (discuss) 17:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC) This was the second of the two uses of {{ö}}. I've subst:ed it (ᵊ), and added a quotation, but the entry still needs formatting and possibly vowel pointing. - -sche (discuss) 17:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC) - The particular passage quoted is written in Aramaic, not Hebrew, so I've merged it into the Aramaic section. Still needs vowel pointing and standardized pronunciation. —Angr 17:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Tagged a few weeks ago by Hamaryns (talk • contribs), but not yet listed. An IP tried a sort of piecemeal fix, which Razorflame (talk • contribs) reverted. I'm sure it was a good-faith edit, but this needs a more systematic reworking : right now it reads like it can't make up its mind whether it's a dictionary entry or bullet-points from a lecture, and I'm sure there's a good bit of overlap in the senses- it says a bunch of things without really adding up to much of anything. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC) -
- Yes, there are too many definitions. I have added a bunch of translations, which are all about the same sense, mistress and slave-girl translations should be added separately. I'm having trouble writing the definition properly, though, so it's not defined as simply "mistress", "lover" or (female) slave, etc. Perhaps the status of both should be mentioned? We hardly use concubine in the modern world, since there is no nobility any more. --Anatoli (обсудить) 04:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
"Eager for prey or gratification." Is this meant to be praise or gratification? In any event, given the citation, is this correct anyway? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC) The description in the entry seems a little off and it also mentions and which I believe is meant as English rather than Norwegian (because in Norwegian it means 'duck' I think). The synonyms are also suspicious. —CodeCat 00:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC) - It looks like the anon who added it actually forgot which language they were writing. A quick look at a Norwegian dictionary leads me to guess that the following were actually meant (except in the definition line, of course):
- and=og, plus=pluss. As for the substance of the usage note, that will take someone who actually speaks Norwegian to fix it. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Def doesn't quite match quotation. (It's low in "substitutability".) —RuakhTALK 02:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC) - This started out as "work up a head of steam", created by WF, in typical WF fashion, in order to make use of the quote. It got moved to head of steam, but the POS-reassignment surgery to the definitions was botched. It's probably best to throw everything out and start fresh. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Substitutability problem was mainly a mismatch between countable definiendum and uncountable definiens. I have RfVed the second sense and added an etymology. Do with it what you will. DCDuring TALK 12:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
"Having a magical protective power". Not really sure what this means. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC) - Could it be in the sense of these quotes;
- The talismanic power of the victorious athlete is quite similar to the consecrating power associated with a purified murderer...[7]
- Was it something after this manner that Ficino himself composed images, in which the basic magical or, talismanic power was softened by expansion into Renaissance classical forms?[8]
- Nevertheless, there exist a number of prayers the purpose of which is to provide talismanic protection to the reader or wearer or, in some cases, to others less directly associated with them.[9]
- The talismanic charm of that missive will never be textually known, Madame Hanska's letters, one and all, having been destroyed.[10]
- SpinningSpark 15:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The current "pronunciation" is really something halfway between a pronunciation transcription and a transliteration of the word. (It is also possibly redundant to ח.) - -sche (discuss) 19:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC) - The usage note says "this is rarely if ever used", should we RFV it? Perhaps Ruakh can help us? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't the usage note saying that LOL, or its transliteration, is rarely used, not that חחח is rarely used. SpinningSpark 12:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Re: Pronunciation/transcription, I really have no idea. Like English Internetisms, I'd guess that different people have different mental pronunciations (copypasta sounding like "copy-paste-a" or like "copy-pasta"? LOL like "L-O-L" or like "lawl"?), but if there is one standard pronunciation, I don't know it. Personally I'd always pronounced it mentally as /χaχaχa/, but he.wikt lemmatizes it as חְחְ, which implies it should be something like /χχ/ (maybe /χ̣ː/?) or /χəχ/.
- Re: usage-note/RFV: Spinningspark is correct. I've removed the usage note, since it would be like having a usage note at dog saying that people don't use the word canine very often. I would say that חחח is in "clearly widespread use"; but if it actually came to RFV, it might be hard to cite, because it's such an Internetism, so it doesn't tend to show up in durably archived sources. (I've added a news-article cite to show what a durably-archived cite might look like, but that specific article is not durably archived SFAICT.)
- —RuakhTALK 16:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've detagged the entry. - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
This entry now has a proper noun and two noun headers. I marked the edit doing this as patrolled, because I thought it would be easy to integrate the edit into what was already there- it wasn't. The Malagasy language is either a single language with multiple dialects, or as many as 13 languages (a macrolanguage, perhaps?). Merona Merina, the language/dialect spoken in the capital, can be referred to as Malagasy, or the term can be applied collectively to all the languages/dialects as a whole. The Malagasy people can be referred to collectively as "(the) Malagasy", or individually as "Malagasies". I remember we went through similar issues with Irish, though perhaps the way it was dealt with at Xhosa might be a better model. At any rate, I wasn't happy with the status quo, but I don't like multiple noun headers, either. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC) - I've made some changes to the entry. Next to [[Irish]] and [[Xhosa]] I would add [[Great Russian]] as a possible model: someone came up with a good way of handling that that entry is a term for a "dialect" that's actually a language, which I've reversed in approaching "Malagasy" (term for "a language" that's actually several). - -sche (discuss) 03:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- out of interest, is the pronunciation /æsi/ or /æzi/, as it displays the first one, but I would instinctively use the second one. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- ...and Wikipedia has [ˌmalaˈɡasʲ], which doesn't seem likely to be a widespread English pronunciation — perhaps that's the pronunciation used in Madagascar, or in Malagasy? - -sche (discuss) 22:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- French Malgache and English Malagasy are both representations of the same Malagasy word. If I understand it correctly, there are rules that reduce or elide vowels, depending on their position in the word, and their position relative to the stress. There also is palatalization that varies as well. The fact that French has ch rather than j for the palatalized variant indicates that the underlying form is unvoiced- so the /æsi/ form is more likely. I've heard people from Madagascar pronounce it that way, but they may have just been adopting an Americanized pronunciation to be understood better by non-Malagasy. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Sundanese. PoS issues. PoS given is adverb. Wording of definitions suggests verb or noun. DCDuring TALK 01:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC) - It really depends how Sundanese works. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have fixed it up, but only be going on my (limited) knowledge of the grammar of related languages and the original wording in the reference (an out-of-print dictionary). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Should not this be a proper Noun ? There is also etymologic Information awkwardly placed in the Definition. --Æ&Œ (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC) These two are listed as antonyms but have the same definition. -- Liliana • 08:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC) - And guess what? One is a variable that has local scope, the other a variable that has global scope. Just delete them both. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wiktionary:Beer parlour#User:Sae1962. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've improved the definitions. —CodeCat 11:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not like you could've made them worse! Mglovesfun (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I do think these should probably be deleted, though, and the relevant senses added to local and global. There are many other possible kinds of variable scopes, like static, thread-local, and those terms don't have to apply only to variables. —CodeCat 12:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Example sentences are in with the definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Lancet is defined as "a fleam" and fleam is defined as "a lancet". So, what does it mean? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC) - Done. This was just a misuse of #. —RuakhTALK 14:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
According to the latest WT:STAT dump, 10+ entries use "Latvia" as a language header. If anyone can figure out how to find them... correct them (they should be "Latvian"). - -sche (discuss) 11:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC) - Done: Special:Contributions/Ruakh?offset=20120706130059&limit=14. They were all added by a single contributor, who's also added a lot of Latvian entries with the correct header, so I think it's just an occasional typo he's prone to, but if you want to poke him on his talk-page, be my guest. —RuakhTALK 13:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
-
- Just checking: is this something Autoformat/Kassadbot would have caught and tagged at some point? - -sche (discuss) 08:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, but Wiktionary:Todo/invalid L2s would have found them. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
This page is aggressively bad. Until I expanded it, the only sense was "A judicial court of chancery, which in England and in the United States is distinctively a court with equity jurisdiction.", which I have kept for now but cannot make any sense of (the court itself is not a chancellor, surely?) Most of the facts in the usage note I have been unable to verify, and most of the derived terms look like clear SOP, probably imported from 1913 Webster by mistake. Can anyone work out what the original sense means, and tidy it up a bit more? Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC) This is defined in the way square peg in a round hole is and should be defined. I can't think of how to define this without reference to one of the several verbs commonly used with this (at COCA: fit (2), force (2), ram, pound, drive). It could be finessed by defining it as an alternative form, though that is not the narrow definition of alternative form. (We do use a broad definition of alternative form for proverbs.) Is this derived from a proverb? DCDuring TALK 17:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC) The term seems real, but I don't know what it means and our current definition certainly doesn't help.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC) - I've had a go at this and added an etymology. SpinningSpark 21:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The etymologies should probably be split into three sections, but I don't know which senses go where. —CodeCat 00:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC) - I think it is principally the noun that is the problem. Some to the senses (those having a sense of "group") belong to the ety derived from secta#Latin. After those have been separate into Ety 2 3, the assignment of the remaining noun senses should be relatively straightforward. But h[H]aving an OED handy would be very helpful essential for a split between an Etymology from a OE/ME verb and the past participle of that verb. I don't know if it would be sufficient. MWOnline provides no etymology for the noun. AHD has a single etymology for all but the "group" senses.
- I have begun the process, but must stop. The entry is usable., but has the non-standard title "Etymology 1 & 2". Some of the noun senses in Ety 1 may not belong there. There are also missing senses and poorly worded senses among the nouns. I haven't looked much at the other PoSes. DCDuring TALK 02:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
A lot of etymologies, particularly of Romance words, are written like this: ...of {{etyl|gem|xx}} origin, from (Germanic language). This is not right because it adds the entry to both the language-specific derivation category and the Germanic family derivation category. The convention is to add entries to derivation categories of families if more specific etymologies are not known. But in this case they are known, so they don't belong in those categories. It's also redundant... if you say 'from Old High German' you don't need to also say 'of Germanic origin' because that is implied. —CodeCat 17:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC) - Most of these are by Leasnam (talk • contribs). Luckily he doesn't do this anymore, so there's a realistic chance of fixing all the entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed. I kinda see where the entry is going, though is it only used with 'to fire'? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC) - No, I don't think 'fire' is the only verb that can be used with this. You can also raise your voice in anger, growl in anger and so on. —CodeCat 20:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- In football (soccer) I've heard of 'kick a ball in anger' (kick a ball during a match, as opposed to in training). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why not just RfD this verb + adjunct expression? If someone can produce citations that show it to be something other than fire#Verb + in anger, good. I also rather doubt that in anger is inclusion-worthy. There is a use of in anger meaning something like "for real" (as opposed to "for school", "for play", and especially, "for practice"). Perhaps this entry should be moved to [[in anger]] and cleaned up there. DCDuring TALK 21:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- It looks to me like "in anger" has a specific military definition that anger wouldn't cover. The definition should be at in anger, rather than here, because it may take other verbs. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've change my mind and agree, but, as MG pointed out, it's a bit broader than military, certainly including competitive sports. I could even imagine it being used in business. DCDuring TALK 21:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- You can also do something 'in' other emotions... in fear, in frustration... —CodeCat 21:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- But the point is, as the usage note says, that "fire in anger" doesn't actually necessarily imply the emotion of anger; "in anger" seems to be a military technical term meaning "with intent to kill, cause damage, etc." regardless of the emotional state of the person firing. —Angr 22:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that almost always the meaning of in anger is recoverable from its components. To me the use that the contributor of this entry and MG have in mind is a bit different. Anger does not mean "seriousness" or "a state of intensive motivation". At MWOnline, usually quite inclusive of senses, only two definitions appear: "a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism" and "rage". Our definition at [[anger#Noun]] does not include this either. As User:Angr points out, an individual soldier need not be angry to fire a shot in anger. Perhaps the definition of anger could be stretched by personifying the forces at war and imputing anger to the personifications. I also don't think that anger has this sense with other prepositions (not from, because of, or out of, for example) nor as subject or object of a verb. The periphrasis "in a state of anger" also does not yield this sense. DCDuring TALK 22:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Removing existing words Would it be possible for a bot to remove words which already exist in Wiktionary from these words collected in Wikisource? This would greatly help me to clean up the misspellings, etc. Thanks in advance. Ineuw (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Words to be added from the Wikisource PSM project A to C
Words to be added from the Wikisource PSM project D to F
Words to be added from the Wikisource PSM project G to I
Words to be added from the Wikisource PSM project J to L
Words to be added from the Wikisource PSM project M to O
Words to be added from the Wikisource PSM project P to R
Words to be added from the Wikisource PSM project S to U
Words to be added from the Wikisource PSM project V to Z
- Words that exist in any language? If so yes I believe it can be done. It can be done using {{subst:#ifexist:}} but I think not on pages this size, as they would in fact never ever save. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- These are all supposed to be English, but technical from late 19th century (PSM = Popular Science Monthly), so some Translingual/Latin, many proper nouns, some foreign terms for which no English term existed. Also many digraphs and umlauted and accented letters. Even if we have the English term we might not have a meaning appropriate for the context it originated in. DCDuring TALK 21:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also, it will take a long time to process this list exhaustively for Wiktionary purposes. FWIW, I don't think there are large numbers of mistakes: scannos, misspellings, or any other kind.
- What would help you? To know what language we have for a word? Whether we have it as a capitalized word in English? Whether we have a word spelled with a digraph with the letter separated? Whether a word is an inflected form of a word we have in its lemma form? I'm not sure which of these questions we can readily answer for a large number of words, but our crack template and bot wizards surprise me sometimes. DCDuring TALK 22:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the input and info. My idea was that ANY linked word is to be removed from the list. This would greatly help in eliminating the garbage I saved erroneously. These include a lot of misspelled ligatures and many other errors. Then, I can check the non-existent words if they have any meaning, and mark them accordingly for others to use. My intent was to provide additional words to Wikisource, but I have not the ability to contribute because of my commitment to the PSM project on Wikisource. Ineuw (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Swedish; rambles on a bit, usage notes duplicate the definition, IPA uses a non-IPA character. Actually if it weren't for that, I could clean it up myself. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC) - You mean the grave accent? That is an IPA character. It also had an apostrophe instead of a stress marker and a regular colon instead of a triangular colon, which I fixed. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Seems okay now. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
(Italian) The gloss isn't useful as there are two definitions of stilt other than the bird. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC) - I've never thought about it before, but it may mean both non-avian senses. Unfortunately, this style of definition is common is non-English entries (like French position, for example). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think glosses should have enough information so that it is still possible to understand (or at least have an idea of) the term's meaning without clicking any links. Sadly we are still lacking in this aspect. — Ungoliant (Falai)
- @Metaknowledge, I couldn't agree more, just I don't have enough patience to fix every entry of this kind, let alone find them all. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- In the future, I think just tag this {{rfgloss|lang=it}} instead of bringing it here.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Not exactly sure what to do with this etymological addition - can somebody rewrite it or something? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC) - Yes and no. It's probably valid but copied verbatim from a copyrighted source, it even links to this source to confirm that it's a copyright violation. So first job is to revert it and mask the edit, then add back whatever information is useful with an original wording. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is it a copyright violation when it's quoted and attributed? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know, but I don't know that this one was 'attributed' so much as it had the URL at the end. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- @Μετάknowledge: I think you're confusing "copyright violation" (a legal problem) with "plagiarism" (an ethical problem). Attribution is not generally a factor in copyright violation. (With some exceptions. Example exception 1: certain copyrighted works, such as Wiktionary entries, are publically licensed with an attribution requirement (via CC-BY-SA or GFDL or whatnot), so of course it's a copyright-violation to violate that license by using them without attribution. Example exception 2: certain kinds of fair use only make sense if it's clear what the original source is. It's hard to claim "it was just a book review!" if the "review" doesn't mention the book.) —RuakhTALK 12:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Haha, thanks. I try to avoid the two, and I also try to avoid legal discussions, so there you go. I would always rather refer situations like these to RFC and do manual cleanup myself. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
[edit] User:Lycomedes Lycomedes (talk • contribs) created entries over a 4-day period in February, mostly Latin and English scientific terminology. The bulk of it is no doubt reasonably accurate, but there are a few entries where the definitions are obviously wrong: epipterygius is defined as "yellow-stemmed", which is obviously a guess based on the common name of a fungus with epipterygia as the specific epithet (the Greek components to the word have nothing to to with "yellow" or "stem"), caryophyllus is defined as "fleshy-leaved", when it really comes from the Ancient Greek name for cloves, and autotoxicus is defined as "autoimmune",when it should be "autotoxic" or "self-poisoning" (it seems to only occur in the phrase "horror autotoxicus"). Many of the Latin entries have usage notes to the effect that they're only used in taxonomic names, which means they probably should be treated as multilingual rather than Latin. Unfortunately, the obvious bad guesses call into question the credibility of the whole lot, and the fact that the entries are well-formatted, and that there don't seem to be any obvious errors in use of Latin and Greek templates, actually makes things harder- there's no easy way to tell which ones are nonsense. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC) - DCDuring (talk • contribs) has a policy of treating taxonomic Latin as Latin rather than Translingual. The rest of us aren't so sure what to do with them. Latin is supposed to be attestable, like any other language, in running Latin text, and I question whether some of our species epithet Latin words are. I think for DCDuring, something like Gorilla gorilla would count as a two-word attestation for Latin, even if imbedded in another language's text. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- A fair summary. If we decide otherwise, or to drop taxonomic names in whole or in part, I wouldn't mind.
- We don't seem to have convenient access to the botanical descriptions in botanical journals which presumably use some or all the these terms, sometimes in accord with rules of Latin grammar, often with extension of sense, new vocabulary, and curious inventions. I don't have very good resources for terms that are not in widespread use or closely connected to classical Latin.
- I seek protection for such terms in the ultimate refuges here: "All words in all languages" and "Someone might come across them and want to know what they mean.
- As to the user's contributions, they do need cleaning up. I will do my best, but the first thing is to tag the most suspect ones with individual tags. That's certainly what I will do with those I can't improve. The extent of what I can do is often limited to what I did at epipterygius, which really needs checking by someone with better Latin and better botanical references than mine. DCDuring TALK 04:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know Indonesian, but I can guarantee that "us" is not an adjective. Either a def problem, a POS problem, or both. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC) - I don't know Indonesian either, but I noticed that it's been that way since the Indonesian section was added to the entry in July of 2003. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think lain defined as "us" is an error: see [11], [12], etc. --Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 10:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
-
- As for it having been in the entry since 2003, we've had other odd, old problems with Indonesian pronouns: Talk:saya#RFV. - -sche (discuss) 18:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Rubbish definitions: - A sound made by a snake, cat, escaping steam, etc.
- An expression of disapproval made to sound like the noise of a snake.
#1 gives no indication of what it sounds like, #2 might be the same definition, just an example of what a hiss could mean. For example this hiss of a cat is an expression of disapproval, but it's in #1 not #2. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Maybe should be converted to a Wikisaurus page? —RuakhTALK 01:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC) - O che sciagura d'essere senza coglioni! More like converted to an appendix. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Or covered by WS:coglione with coglione remaining as an entry. Wikisaurus already used in Portuguese without anyone disputing it, so Italian should be fine too. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The translation-table glosses don't match the defs . . . and the former actually seem better to me than the latter. It makes me wonder if some past vandal removed some good definitions? —RuakhTALK 02:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC) - Just a guess, but it looks like it might have been some overly bold edits, rather than vandalism. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
"To undo the act of fucking." Not really sure what this is supposed to mean. We have eight senses of the verb fuck. I'm not sure even in a humorous way it could mean to undo the act of sexual intercourse. Citations welcome of course. And of the other seven senses, if it means fuck as in to break, that's already definition #1 of unfuck. Looks a bit like a poorly defined Wonderfool effort to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC) - I see a handful of Web hits for "unfuck a pregnant".—msh210℠ (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- I found a few book citations;
- SpinningSpark 14:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- We also have an article for unring (as in unringing a bell). Just because something is impossible doesn't mean the word can't exist. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've added "or its consequences" to the definition, removed the tag, stricken this, and copied this discussion to the talk page. DCDuring TALK 13:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Verbo entry: "An insignificant critter 'writhing in the dust', notably a mortal versus divinity". I really don't know what this means. "An insignificant critter" makes sense, though 'critter' seems to me to be not the best choice of word, after that I really don't know. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC) - I'm not sure either. It seems like if you call someone a 'worm' or a 'maggot' but I really can't say I've heard the word being used very often in that sense, if at all. —CodeCat 10:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like a metaphorical combination of earth, in the sense of earthly, and worm in its pejorative sense, calqued into Dutch. I suppose it might show up in poetry or some over-the-top religious tract (using what I've heard described as "worm theology": "without God's Grace we are all just worms writhing in the dust of mortal existence"). Seems a bit of a stretch, but, then, bad writing can be found in any language... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- But "earthly worm" in Dutch translates into aardse worm, which would specifically indicate a worm from Earth (compare buitenaards ("alien, extraterrestrial")). aardworm is earth-worm, nothing more. —CodeCat 14:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Strange things going on in etymology section--Monty Burns Jr (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC) - Better now? —Angr 16:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Odos probably is an older form of odor, so the entry should reflect that, but I don't know enough to say if this is true and if so, when each form is found. The entry for 'odor' may also need macrons judging from the headword line at 'odos'. —CodeCat 18:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC) - Better now? —Angr 20:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Angr, when you fix macron usage at a lemma page, you need to remember to fix it for all the inflected forms as well (or else they will never get noticed). I've fixed them this time. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, sorry. I thought a bot did that. As for the age of odos, Lewis & Short give a quote from Sallust's Jugurthine War, which isn't old enough to qualify as Old Latin, though of course it may be attested even earlier. —Angr 20:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, they're bot-created but not bot-upkept. I think it could be called nonstandard by the Augustan age, but a lot of 'Old Latin' forms survived in literature and poetry for at least a good century after the scholars' delimitation for Old Latin. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- And I don't think it's known for sure when he wrote it - if he wrote it when he was nine, it might qualify :) --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm reluctant to use labels like {{nonstandard}} for Latin, and even more so to use {{dated}}, {{obsolete}}, and {{archaic}}. —Angr 23:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Obsolete and dated don't make any sense, but I think archaic would work, right? Even in a dead language, something can be archaic relative to the rest of the language. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Rather than "archaic", couldn't we just specify the time period it was used in, either with a name or a range of dates? E.g. (in very early Latin) or whatever dates it was used during. - -sche (discuss) 07:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Old-style quotations to be put in accorded form. H. (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC) In his Revision of 03:45, January 25, 2004, Polyglot said "definition needs work". We should finally respond to his suggestion. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC) This is marked as a numeral, but the definition looks like a noun. Huh? —CodeCat 11:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC) - It was vandalised, the previous definition said 'twenty'. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from WT:RFV#drug.
Rfv-sense: - 4. A substance, especially one which is illegal, ingested for recreational use.
- 1971, Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Harper Perennial 2005 edition, p. 3,
- We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold.
Surely if I participate in a pie-eating contest, the pies are not a drug. But cites will tell.... And if you think the problem is only the wording (butthe sense is valid), then you'd have come up with a rewording that doesn't make the sense redundant to any of our others: - (pharmacology) A substance used to treat an illness, relieve a symptom, or modify a chemical process in the body for a specific purpose.
- Aspirin is a drug that reduces pain, acts against inflammation and lowers body temperature.
- The revenues from both brand-name drugs and generic drugs have increased.
- (pharmacology) A substance, sometimes addictive, which affects the central nervous system.
- A chemical or substance, not necessarily for medical purposes, which alters the way the mind or body works.
—msh210℠ (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC) - People who say "don't do drugs" or "drugs are bad" don't usually include aspirin, caffeine, or Prozac.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Notable exceptions being Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Christian Scientists. —Angr 23:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sure there's a number of different intertwined definitions here. But I went through DARE programs, and the cases of fake drugs they pulled out never had aspirin in them, and they never would have said that all people who do caffeine, aspirin or Prozac were bad.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- The first two definition look pretty good, note that the sense of drug meaning medication isn't used in the UK, if you say you're off to get some drugs in the UK, it means something illegal. Three and four aren't good enough, in both cases sugar would qualify as a drug, as I could eat sugar recreationally, and it has an effect on the body and mind. I think we also need a definition to qualify uses such as "exercise is my drug". So I think this is better treated as an RFC issue. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Withdrawn, if I may.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I moved the preceding discussion from RFV. I agree with msh210 that the definition needs improvement, but there is definitely (especially per Mg's comment) a sense that refers only to illicit things, not to aspirin. - -sche (discuss) 07:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC) There are 50+ senses, many of which are too specific to their context and can be generalized and merged with other senses. As it is now, anyone looking for a definition of go or for a specific sense will be overwhelmed by the unnecessary senses. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC) - There's a lot in that word "unnecessary". MWOnline has 63 definitions, 49 intransitive and 14 transitive. They do a better job of organizing and, of course, maintaining them than we do. They have the advantages of having a consistent intellectual point of view and full-time employees, which show up the most on such basic polysemic words.
- Make, have, take, set, let, run, put, give, and do are similar.
- Do you think that organizing the senses into groups would help? Is it more important to group them semantically or syntactically (transitive/intransitive) or by general vs specific? Or should the senses be ordered by frequency of use or by date the sense came into use? Should some senses be concealed until the user clicks on something to display them, using something like {{trans-top}} or {{rel-top}}? DCDuring TALK 20:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Organizing them into groups is an excellent idea that I have been thinking about. Most dictionaries I've seen use subdivisions somewhat like the following:
- def1
-
- a. def2a
- b. def2b
- def3
- I think it would be a great idea to use subdivisions like that for all entries where it makes sense (not only the long ones).
- --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I also forgot to mention that I think semantic grouping is much better than syntactic grouping. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- The combined number-letter scheme is not available to us, but number-number is:
-
-
- def1
- def2
- def2a
- def2b
- def3a
- def3b
- This is more restrictive than the scheme used by MWOnline which does not require that a subsense have a parent sense. Note how we handle defs 3a and 3b. DCDuring TALK 10:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- To group senses without a parent sense, you could use (and on de.Wikt I have seen) a format like:
- first sense
- [empty line, just a # and nothing after it]
- sense that's in a group with the next one
- sense that's in a group with the previous one
- another sense
- You can also use (and I like) a format that has some grammatical or syntactic info rather than just blankess:
- first sense
- transitive, with a place as the object:
- sense that's in a group with the next one
- sense that's in a group with the previous one
- another sense
- - -sche (discuss) 03:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- If anyone is going to tackle this entry, I think the labelling of certain senses as "transitive" also needs looking at. I mentioned it somewhere else a while ago, but I don't remember where now. IMO, senses like "Let's go this way for a while" and "We've only gone twenty miles today" are not truly transitive. In fact, I wonder if there are any truly transitive senses of "go". 86.169.36.11 03:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- There is at least one truly transitive sense: the Australian sense of "to attack". --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Noun defined as 'to beg'. Never heard of it, so I can't help much. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Am not quite sure what's going on here. I am sure that it's a Turkish template, so the name is wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC) - I've rewritten the text in both the template and the documentation to try to make them clearer. Let me know what you think. As for the name of the template, perhaps {{tr-1st-person-stress-note}} would be better? —Angr 12:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, I'm not sure about having ====Usage notes==== right there in the template. For one thing, the level will be wrong in cases where an entry has multiple etymologies. For another, if a user clicks "[edit]" next to the header, he's taken to the template itself rather than to a section of the entry he was looking at. —Angr 12:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, that has to go for the reasons you've just given. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with you. I think that this template should have a "tr" in it, unless it is useful also for other Turkic languages. --Sae1962 (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
How do we handle words like this, which can be used of one person or of many? It doesn't seem to be a count noun with separate singular and plural senses, it seems to be a collective noun... but how do we word a definition such that it covers both "they're white trash" and "he's white trash"? [[trash]] is equally problematically-defined. - -sche (discuss) 03:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC) - Isn't uncountable correct? Compare "this book is garbage; these books are garbage". No plural needed. Equinox ◑ 15:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Uncountable, inherited from trash. It is slightly odd when it is used as singular subject of a sentence: "This white trash can't pay for his own beer." So speakers have a mild tendency to eschew it there, I think. But, that is stylistics, I think. DCDuring TALK 16:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Alright, but what should the definition be? Currently, the definition is "White people of low social status". That works for "they are white trash" = "they are white people of low social status", but "he is just white trash" ≠ "he is white people of low social status". - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think you have to define it as singular, but dispense with the a.
- A usage note to say that speakers usually avoid using it where it is marked as singular might be appropriate. "A person" and "one person" constitute a bit more than 25% of the occurrences of "person" at COCA. "A white trash" ("one white trash" doesn't occur) constitutes 2% of the occurrences of "white trash". The story with verb agreement is similar, but much longer in the telling. DCDuring TALK 19:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I find all four definitions confusing. They seem to overlap a lot. The first definition is probably accurate but really hard to understand. #4 I think is #1 worded specifically for people. #2 and #3 seem really similar. In fact I think #3 and #4 might be the same definition, but one is worded as psychology, the second is in layperson's terms. So basically, help, or put forward your own opinion. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Rambling definition part, with some information, including pronunciation visible only in edit mode, relevant to semi. — Pingkudimmi 13:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC) - I think I've got this one. Or did I go too far? SpinningSpark 16:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good. In places that refer to certain vehicles as articulated lorry, does such a vehicle always have a separable motorized component or could it be integral? I am think of articulation as in a locomotive and some pictures (or Matchbox toys?) that I have seen of one-piece articulated vehicles, not of US design or use. DCDuring TALK 18:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Good point, a truck and drawbar trailer or an articulated bus is not a semi but is still articulated. However, I think (but not quite 100% sure) that an artic in British usage always means what the US call a semi. The artic bit of the definition can be taken out if necessary without harm - I only put it in as an afterthought because semi is not a commonly used term in the UK. SpinningSpark 19:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever I thought I remembered doesn't seem to exist now, if it ever existed. DCDuring TALK 19:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Good work!— Pingkudimmi 14:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we have templates like poscatboiler to categorise these categories, but I can't find which one goes here. — Beobach (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC) - It should be {{poscatboiler|tr|verb plural forms}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Most of the translations for the first sense have uppercase first letters. I'll bet that's an error from a user who doesn't know our case system isn't the same as Wikipedia's. Also I removed 'Servian' Servitut with the code sv (reserved for Swedish). Feel free to add it back as Serbo-Croatian servitut if it exists. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC) - Sort of. They were all added in one edit back in April with the edit comment "Taken from Wikipedia". My guess is that they followed all the interwiki links from the WP article. Oddly enough, servitut is the title of the article on Swedish wikipedia, so they probably were just guessing the language name from the language code- not a good sign for the quality of the rest of the translations. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
We don't usually have conjugation tables in our entries for English verbs, do we? Would we like to start, or can we just give this verb's conjugation in its headword line, like every other verb? - -sche (discuss) 04:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC) - More to the point, why do we have etymology and all that other stuff for an alt form? It looks like it originally had everything in the headword line (I mean everything) and Doremítzwr responded to an rfc by making a table out of his excessively detailed list of conjugated forms. I also find it odd that it's tagged as 16th-18th c., but has only cites from this century (though one is quoting texts from earlier centuries and the other two look like typos)- I wish editors would discuss things rather than pile contradictory stuff on top of what's already there. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Doremítzwr was a bit of a valuable editor, but also POV-pusher, promoting rare/archaic spellings where standard 21st century spellings would have been more appropriate. In this case, can't we just remove the etymology and so on and use {{en-verb}}. The inflections are pretty standard so they can go in {{en-verb}}. Also the past tense is supposedly prove, I'd quite like to see some citations. Is there any evidence for prooved and prooven, for example? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I added {{misspelling of|prove}}, as that's really what the three citations back up. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've detagged it, I think it looks good now. - -sche (discuss) 07:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The entries in this category (and in a few other categories) are formatted with an array of different "alt-form-of" templates: - allœopathic : {{alternative form of|allopathic}}
- homœomerous : {{archaic}} {{alternative form of|homoeomerous}}
- amœba : {{rare spelling of|amoeba}}
- œsophagical : {{rare form of|esophagical}}
- amœbæan : {{archaic spelling of|amoebean}}
- cœmeterial : {{qualifier|rare}} {{archaic form of|cemeterial}} ({{qualifier}} sic)
- anœa : {{rare}} {{obsolete spelling of|anoia}}
- amœne : {{obsolete form of|amene}}
- Bœotia : {{dated form of|Boeotia}} (and possibly a few more variations)
(I cite each of those because it was the first of its kind I found in the category or the templates' Whatlinkshere. Many of those were created by the same editor, but this cornucopia of variants isn't that editor's fault, it's the fault of a number of editors including myself: I too have haphazardly used different templates.) In some cases, the difference in templates is justified: some spellings are rarely used on Usenet up to the present day, while others have fallen into obsolescence. In many cases, however, entries fall into the same category of "spellings which haven't been in use in a hundred years": how should those be formatted? {{obsolete}} {{alternative form of}}? ({{obsolete form of}} implies to me that a form was the only form before it become obsolete, but perhaps others see that differently.) There are also a lot of entires which are given as lemmata. In some cases, like [[Babœuf]], this is probably justified. In other cases, like [[Cœlenterata]], it's very misleading. DCDuring rightly worries that archaic words in definitions mislead non-native speakers who turn to Wiktionary for help translating or learning a language: the use of obsolete spellings as lemmata is as bad. (The reason North Korea's press releases use some obsolete words is said to be that they have only old dictionaries to use in translating them.) (Amusing side note: I used to use spellings like those myself, 'cause I thought the special characters were cool, till I wised up to how pretentious and unrelatable/un-understandable it made me to native Brits and 'Merkins.) Anyway, to repeat the question: assuming that a lot of entries in this category haven't been in use for a hundred years, how should those entries be formatted? - -sche (discuss) 18:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC) - If the spelling is an obsolete form (for example) of a term which is in and of itself obsolete, I would still just use {{obsolete form of}}, simply because both are obsolete. An indefinite article may be included if necessary. Using {{obsolete}} with {{alternative form of}} could confuse readers, since the latter should imply that the form is still acceptable to use. Personally, I would like to utilize the unmade template {{rare obsolete form of}} to shotgun down—if you will—the problem of deciding whether to use the 'obsolete' or the 'rare' template.
- I can easily go create the 'reduced' or 'split' forms for the considerably outdated spellings of modern terms, in which the bulk of information shall be moved to. I just really, really don't want pricks cleaning up 'messes' I make and then bitching at me when they could have asked me to clean them up (a pleasant note: a good user at Wikcionario calmly requested long ago that I fix some etymology mistakes that I made which I soon fixed afterwards, instead of him becoming hostile towards me over fixing things he didn't want or personally need to fix. I noted his complaint to stop myself from repeating the problem in future too.) --Æ&Œ (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't we just use {{alternative form of}} and "context/usage" tags as our base? I see that there would be instances where {{obsolete form of}} and {{archaic form of}} might be required if the form was the most common (or very common) at some time. I thought that we had decided against using "spelling", preferring "form", in the context of the L3 header at least.
- If someone has thought this through and has at least a partial logic for this kind of thing, it might be time to write it down, so we could have a consensus and participate in the cleanup or, at least, sin no more. I certainly haven't thought it through. There is the problem that a system that is too complicated will not be implemented correctly by anyone other than the developer of the system and perhaps an acolyte or two. We have plenty of instances of this, some of which I may be in the process of perpetrating. DCDuring TALK 03:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Listed as a noun. Um, you're kidding right? google books:"a ten to", google books:"ten tos". Also the translations for for ten to two, why? In most if not all cases you can lift out the 'two' bit. In cases where a certain case is needed, use {{qualifier|+ accusative}} or whatever. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC) - Well, it can be use as object of prepositions like at, after, until, before, by, since, toward so it is a nominal. What other PoS would you recommend? Also, consider:
- "Ten to is when we are leaving." (subject)
- "The ten-to train left two minutes late." (attributive use of ?)
- "It was nearing ten to, when we were supposed to board the train." (object of verb)
- It seems to simply beg a meaningful question to declare them "Phrases" and let the user figure of that they aren't verbals or adjuncts or whatever. DCDuring TALK 02:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
"To have fellatio." Is that to perform it? Or receive it? Or can it be either? - -sche (discuss) 17:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC) - Given the literal meaning of nosh, presumably to perform it, but I'd really like to cites for this meaning to be sure. —Angr 18:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Never heard of it, where is it used? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Also the noun has German naschen in its translation table; this cannot be a German noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've heard it used as a noun, back when I was in school, meaning a blowjob, but never as a verb. Not much of any use in Google Books or Groups, but [13] [14] [15] suggest some use of it as a noun. There's also one relevant Google Books hit for "noshing" - "Marty represented Rick Salomon, who filmed Paris Hilton noshing him.". Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've tweaked the def per the citations. - -sche (discuss) 08:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Not quite sure if sense number two is correct: "something that causes interference or blockage". --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC) - Surely something that causes interference or a blockage is a baffle, not a bafflement? Certainly, in an engineering context the word is always baffle. Perhaps this is using battlement as a pattern. SpinningSpark 22:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- One countable sense of bafflement seems to be "a cause of a state of [uncountable, sense 1] bafflement". This kind of extension from result state to countable cause or from cause state or process to countable result is not uncommon, I think. DCDuring TALK 01:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm confused about both answers, sorry. I just want to clarify if the 2nd sense is correct. If it's incorrectly worded but makes sense to you, what could be a new definition? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Does the rewording make sense to you? If so, please remove the rfc. If not, I'll try again with usage examples and cites, which the entry as a whole and that sense in particular could use. DCDuring TALK 01:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that's much better. Removed the rfc.--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking the question. We have a lot of little messes like that. Apparently doing careful translations can identify such problems. DCDuring TALK 02:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Current def doesn't fit the cites, which are not unrepresentative of other usage in news etc. DCDuring TALK 03:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC) (specifically, of an egg) Being a scrambled egg. You've gotta be kidding me. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC) - Looks like an RfD to me. I don't think it is an adjective in that sense, just a past participle of scramble#Verb. DCDuring TALK 16:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I cleaned up the definition as an adjective, but have no objection to its removal if definition 3 of scramble#Verb is cleaned up. —Angr 16:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I added transitive/intransitive tags for all senses of scramble#Verb and reworded and usexed sense 3. Is that good enough?
- I'm in no rush to RfD the RfCed sense of scrambled. DCDuring TALK 17:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- The only thing that worries me about sense 3 is that it might imply (1) you can scramble something besides eggs (you can't, can you?), and/or (2) scrambling necessarily involves multiple ingredients. It's perfectly possible to scramble eggs, or even one egg, alone. —Angr 18:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I can find reference to "scrambled potatoes" and "scrambled salad". At [[scramble#Verb]] I have given "egg" (not "eggs") a place in the usage label, as well as the usex. To me scrambled eggs involve the relatively thorough blending of white, yolk, and spices, and the less thorough blending of other components, but that may be personal and, in any event, would belong in WikiHow, not in [[scramble]], though possibly in [[scrambled eggs]]. (The photo there helps.) DCDuring TALK 19:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- AFAICT, "scrambled potatoes" and "scrambled salad" are usually just "scrambled eggs with potatoes" and "scrambled eggs with salad". On the other hand, I have facetiously referred to Kaiserschmarrn as scrambled pancakes. —Angr 21:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fond, distant memories of Austria, thank you.I don't know what to do with the definition and would welcome other efforts to improve it. DCDuring TALK 21:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have tried,
- (of eggs) Beaten and cooked.
- I was going to link to the relevant sense of beaten, but it doesn't have any definitions! There is also the figurative usage in "scrambled brains" which should perhaps also be included. SpinningSpark 23:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The Latin noun form should be properly formatted. Also, I don't think any of the descendants save Portuguese vastar, a red link, are correct. Latin va- doesn't give ga- or gua- in any Romance languages, does it? These are all from Frankish. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC) - http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/g%C3%A2ter Seems favorable to the Latin hypothesis (PS written in abbreviations in French, really hard to understand). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I withdraw this request, Nouveau Dictionnaire Étymologique says from vasto originally, but the exact spelling gâter is from the Frankish verb. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Most of the abbreviations this user has created seem to be attested, though not all. However, many have the two formatting issues I noted on the user's talk page. - -sche (discuss) 19:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC) - Most of them are too specialized or geographically limited, but we can't delete entries based on that. One other problem I noted was creating entries (which I deleted) in all-caps and with an initialism header for abbreviations that weren't initialisms- MCOMMERCE being the worst example. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
How have we overlooked inflammatory words like insidious and a generally overheated rhetorical tone in a mainspace entry for seven years? I'm not at all familiar with what it's talking about, but this entry needs to be toned down and made more impartial. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC) - Maybe nobody "[ran] across it and want[ed] to know what it means". DCDuring TALK 20:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I created these entries but I realise that the formatting and layout isn't ideal. When I first created the right-floating tables, I didn't think that some entries might have had 3 of them. I'm also not sure about the definitions, they are rather short and simple, but it looks strange seeing the same definition twice. The actual difference is in the noun class, which is given in the headword line, but that may not be obvious. So can someone look over these entries and suggest ways to improve them (or just fix them if you like)? Feedback would be welcome. —CodeCat 11:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC) This is currently defined as "[[homosexualist]]", which that entry in turn defines merely as "homosexual". So should this entry be defined as "homosexual"? (Also note the etymology.) See also միասեռական, etc. - -sche (discuss) 23:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC) -
- I don't see any problem. "Homosexualist" and "homosexual" (noun) are synonyms in English. In Russian we use гомосексуалист (gomosɛksualíst) as nouns only. Perhaps Vahagn used "homosexualist" (not "homosexual") as a term better understood in ex-USSR and to make sure it's not confused with an adjective? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Ok, if there's no difference in meaning on the Armenian side, I've gone ahead and changed the entries to "homosexual", because, in English, "homosexualist" is considerably rarer than "homosexual" and is often pejorative. - -sche (discuss) 00:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think it should be alright. Thanks. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've often heard "homosexualist" used in a jocular way. Not sure if such a sense can be attested though. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
-
- In addition, homosexualist looks like it is currently being used pejoratively to refer to some kind of ideology:
- "A homosexualist is a heterosexual who advocates the homosexual agenda. Bill Clinton, for example, is an excellent example of a homosexualist."
- You can't make this stuff up. DCDuring TALK 01:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- As I recall, the British magazine Private Eye used to use "homosexualist" as a deliberately ridiculous word for a homosexual person. (Maybe it still does ... I haven't read it for years.) I didn't know it was real word that could be used "sensibly". Collins dictionary labels it "old-fashioned" [16] 86.169.36.11 03:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The definition "to make a friend of" is not clear to me and I can see that many translations reflect this confusion. Is it "make friends" (with somebody) or "make someone to be your/somebody else's friend"? BTW, make friends's both senses seem to mean the same thing. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC) - I changed it to "To become a friend of". Is that clearer? --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, that looks better but let's see where Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#befriend goes. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- This seems a little complicated to me. In modern terms friendship is a mutual relationship between people: "We are friends". So befriend should mean "To enter into friendship with; to make friends with", which at least is consistent with mutuality, depending on our definition of friendship and friend. This would be the first sense, AFAICT
- Formerly, it seems that being a friend to someone was more one-sided. It seems to have meant "To show favor to" and was not so limited to people. "Fortune was a friend to me." For this sense, it is not really possible to "become friends". But there must be usage that is not inceptive, but does involve the mutual relationship, which is the RfVed sense.
- OED anyone? DCDuring TALK 00:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- As long as the first sense is the same as "make friends" (ie. become friends, mutually), I'm clear on this. All the translations seem to match "make friends" now, which is good. The previous definition was "to make a friend of" wasn't very clear to me (maybe because of my English), even though I understand the expression "make friends". Does it also mean "to make somebody a friend of someone" (e.g. the teacher befriended John with the new boy - made John a friend of the new boy) - not in a mutual sense? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- The first sense is definitely the most common sense in current usage. Befriend implies that the subject is taking a more active role than the object in building the mutual relationship. It does not exclude the possibility of manipulation and deceit. A subsense is probably "to win the trust of", which suggests the manipulation potential.
- The latter sense that you suggest, for A to connect B and C in friendship, is not in any current English I know. If it is found, I'd suspect an improper translation. A could introduce B and C to each other. In a romantic context, A could set B and C up or set B up with C. DCDuring TALK 01:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm happy with my request (first sense) but the second sense wasn't tagged by me. Will standardise, fix and add translations later on, or export and {{trans-see}} to make friends. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
-
- The problem right now is that the definition of make friends with is "to befriend", so it is useless to include make friends with as the definition of befriend. It should instead be listed as a synonym. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Def: "A gadget or unspecified device as used in various industries." See Dictionary.com for six definitions. Also see go-devil at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 21:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Says "From the Luganda language. Used about the way things are done by the Baganda." Is this etymology in the defn line? Meaning not clear, format needs updating too --81.9.217.33 11:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC) - Kiganda, Luganda and Baganda seem to all be the same word, but with different noun-class prefixes (Bantu languages use prefixes a lot like European languages use endings). That suggests that this may be a Luganda entry posing as English. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The inflection is badly formatted --81.9.217.33 13:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Dodgy quotes - Awful definition- must have been written by a theologian. I replaced it with my best go at an NPOV, clearer definition and got rid of the quote. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Dodgy quotes Dodgy quotes Someone called Holland added a quote. Which Holland? --81.9.217.33 21:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC) You'd think we could make a decent fist of this sort of really important entry, but no, we can't. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC) - I've simplified it, and added a couple of random quotes from a translation of Dracula (not properly sourced). SemperBlotto (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe the quelque chose d'important (etc.) bit should be usage notes, I don't think it's a separate definition per se. It's just that in English we don't say something of important, we say something important. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, could've done it myself, not had enough caffeine yet today. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Etymology 1, noun section. Definitions don't match translation tables. Usage notes formatted as usage examples and possibly not just about the usage of the word. Would take a bit of time and multilingual knowledge. DCDuring TALK 14:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC) - The changes introduced by "GatorGirl" need to be examined carefully. Some seem good, some OK, some poor. In any event, the relationship to the translation table needs to be checked. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Could somebody please clean this up? More information you'll find on the template's talk page Greetings HeliosX (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC) - Looking at it, a good first step would be to blank it and start again. It's not used anyway so such a blanking wouldn't do any harm. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- The main problem I'm having is for some reason the Egyptian is being shown in Italics, which is really bad for Egyptian fonts. I can't see what's causing that. Can you please add back the inflected endings, as I couldn't understand them, so I left them out. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- It looks to be using actual hieroglyphs rather than transliteration, which is not, in my view, the best way to present inflection information - Aside from the fact that there are a very large number of variant writings of both dual and plural forms, the hieroglyph font used there doesn't stack characters, so the end result looks nothing like the actual writings. Furius (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Some weird formatting in all the quotes --81.9.217.33 09:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC) -
- Fixed both. When you put an empty line between items in a list, everything resets. I also removed a quote in Latin from lecanomancy, since it was in an English entry and it used lecanomantia. The cites in both entries aren't all that good, either- they're definitions, not actual uses. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Tagged in 2009, but never posted here, this interwiki isn't just encyclopedic, it's an encyclopedia of its own! It needs pruning, and it needs lots of material in the definitions moved to etymology sections and usage notes, or maybe spun off into a BBC documentary mini-series... Chuck Entz (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC) "A meaningless word"; "risky products". Needs trimming for conciseness, and needs to be made neutral instead of biased. Equinox ◑ 01:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC) - I took a run at it. I did not yet touch the references. Please inspect. DCDuring TALK 01:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
This template generates gratuitously large output; see e.g. 한국어#Pronunciation. —RuakhTALK 18:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC) The format is all wrong... - -sche (discuss) 00:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC) - Thanks, DCDuring, for cleaning it up. - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Synonyms to sort by meaning, Portuguese TTBCs, definitions to split, definitions to improve, etymology seems far too simple, pronunciation format non-standard - (Done: Portuguese TTBCs, splitting defs, sorting synonyms by meaning). Some synonyms seem not to be equivalent enough to be listed as synonyms. Pronunciation format is OK, but the first stress marker doesn't look right. Etymology is unlikely to be more complex than that. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- I took a run at the etymology. DCDuring TALK 01:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
This looks ridiculous. There's got to be a better, more concise way to show that information, right? What do other German entries do? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC) - See [[neuen#Adjective]] for a much pithier approach. —Angr 09:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- It would be better if {{inflected form of}} could take a lang parameter, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
-
- I find myself agreeing with Metaknowledge. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Me too. The alternative pointed to by Angr could use improvement, but it's still better than a page of dry grammatical terms. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- And I agree that {{inflected form of}} needs to be edited to take a lang parameter, and then a bot needs to go through all its instantiations and add the lang parameter as appropriate. —Angr 23:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Going about in circles. Sny, etym 4, says it is an alternative spelling of snye which, in turn, is given as: Eighteenth-century spelling of sny (abound, swarm, teem, be infested) ... from etym 2 of sny. I believe that both snye and sny, etym 4, should be: a small channel of water (see the quotes given). --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Under the English header, there's a paragraph in the etymology explaining what it means in Spanish. The English section as a whole has problems with blurring boundaries between English and Spanish. It's true that it's partly a reflection of the nebulous character of Spanglish itself, but it's still a mess. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Hey wiktionary staff how are you all doing? I must say that the tarot cards are absolutly nothing to do with death, spiritually or phsyically. This website is supposed to conceptualize truth. The real truth is tarot cards are absolutly nothing to do with death, they were created for the purpose of the teachings of mysticism, for recieving divine or other worldly messages, or prophecies ect. This has nothing to do with death. Some super orthodox christians think that tarot cards are demonic and therefore we all know that in christian mythology anything demonic leads to hell or death. But the real truth is I myself have experienced many beautiful forms of positive, divine enlightenment through tarot cards, i've experienced beautiful prophecies through them and almost all of them have come true and I myself am christian. So i see this as an extream injustice to catigorize such a beautiful practice in such a negitive way. If wiktionary really represents the definition of truth, you will remove "tarot card" as a definition of death, bacause this may discourage others from such a beautiful practice that causes no harm, and absolutly not death! Thank you for your time :) - It meant that "Death" (the reaper) is one particular tarot card. But I've removed it because it's not a sense of the word "death" and should be at capital "Death" if anywhere. Equinox ◑ 13:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Anyone know how an entry like this should be formatted, or if it is OK as-is? There are several entries like it in Category:Entries with non-standard headers. - -sche (discuss) 21:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Is "Transliteration" or "Transliterations" a valid header? Autoformat tagged both as nonstandard (the singular in this entry, plural in another). - -sche (discuss) 22:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC) - See also Talk:канадієць. - -sche (discuss) 18:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Are these words paronyms? If so, is "Paronyms" a standard header? If not, should it be? Kassadbot tagged the header as nonstandard. - -sche (discuss) 22:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC) - Paronym is not a standard header (WT:ELE has a list of "allowable -nyms"). I suppose the fact that one is inherited directly from PIE, while the other is borrowed from a Latin descendant of the same root, would mean that they're paronyms according to our definition, though our definition doesn't quite agree with the ones on my Mac's dictionary app (New Oxford American Dictionary, if I remember correctly): the Mac has "a word that is a derivative of another and has a related meaning" and "a word formed by adaptation of a foreign word", while our definition is: "A word derived from the same root, or with the same sound, as another word". Chuck Entz (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- ELE has an inexhaustive list of allowed headers, though now that I've found the supplementary list (WT:POS), I see it concerns POS headers only, so ELE's list of -onyms is exhaustive. I suppose these paronyms should be related terms? - -sche (discuss) 23:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- One means "lamb", one means "yearling lamb", right? I'd either call them synonyms of each other, or a hyponym and hypernym. They're not paronyms by our definition since they're not derived from the same root. —Angr 14:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Done. - -sche (discuss) 01:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
What POS headers are these supposed to have? Brivla? The ones they have are nonstandard. - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC) - Under our practice of language autonomy, we have PoS headers for some languages that are not part of ELE. Lojban has at least brivla and cmavo, which have entries in English, based on usage in Lojban grammars and language-learning books. There are distinctive headings for Chinese, Japanese, and Latin and CodeCat, for example, has recently brought up a case from an African language.
- In this case, I would think we would prefer to force a more conventional PoS on the entries, if at all possible, and use usage labels, usage notes, and categorization to support whatever distinctions need to be made. DCDuring TALK 13:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Also gismu and lujvo. What distinguished these from most of the other headers is that the words themselves are borrowed from the language to which the term is applied, making the task of language learning and comparison harder. DCDuring TALK 13:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
-
- I certainly wouldn't mind switching the Lobjan entries to use 'English' parts of speech, but all the entries should be switched, not just these three. - -sche (discuss) 18:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at Category:User jbo, User:Robin Lionheart and User:PierreAbbat are members whose names I recognize. w:Lojban makes it look as if some of the grammar terms are hypernyms of the familiar PoS categories and the familiar ones don't have any corresponding terms, so we would need to be inventive, which seems an unwise course. DCDuring TALK 19:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
An encyclopedia article, IMO. DCDuring TALK 02:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC) - An encyclopedia article would be more concise. This is an article, the notes section and the bibliography from the back of the book, all dumped on the same page. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have moved the Latin material to [[repraesentamen]], which leaves the excessively long definition, which is solely based on the usage by Charles Sanders Peirce. We could use other citations, which seem abundant enough in the literature of semiotics to warrant Collins having a definition. I personally don't speak or read semiotics. DCDuring TALK 13:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The sense that starts "An item or technology ..." might be trying to capture attributive use, but I don't know. The other sense seems to extend the period to the present, whereas I thought the "space age" would be more restricted to the time when it caught people's imagination. DCDuring TALK 17:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC) - It does look really, really wrong to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Space age, whether used as a nominal or attributively, is not an "item or technology", it is a period of time. DCDuring TALK 18:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think it might have been intended to be an adjective. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- And it is not implausible that there be a sense that behaves like an adjective. See Google "very space age" —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs).
- This seems to have been dealt with. Closing. Ƿidsiþ 08:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The headers are totally nonstandard and I have no idea what they should be changed to. - -sche (discuss) 01:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Most of the entries in this category have the wrong pagename: m should be m-, one of the ki-s should perhaps be -ki, etc. - -sche (discuss) 01:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Senses 1 and 2 are certainly not nouns. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC) - I just changed it to alternative form of et cetera. Et cetera may need reviewing of course. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I guess sense #3 needs to be re-added as a noun on [[et cetera]]. It's easily attestable and there seems to also be an adjective sense. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- You can fish the meanings out of the history here. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The wording of some of the definitions does not communicate meaning well, especially in the absence of usage examples, usage contexts, or citations. Some of the definitions seem to be attempting some kind of technical accuracy, but achieve it only at the expense of intelligibility. I have made some changes, but more is needed. A tip of the hat to the anon who commented at Wiktionary:Feedback#space. DCDuring TALK 03:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC) - I have had a go at sense#5. It was,
- (uncountable) The volume beyond the atmosphere of planets that consists of a relative vacuum.
- and is now,
- (uncountable) The near-vacuum between planets and stars.
- The satellite was launched into space in August
- The Hubble telescope was a major advance in the exploration of deep space
- In my opinion, sense#6 is the same meaning and should be combined. It is tne technical definition used by NASA, but refers to the same thing. Or even removed as encyclopaedic.
- I have also amended sense#1 which was,
- (uncountable) The intervening contents of a volume.
- and is now,
- (countable) A volume, or an empty volume.
- It is not possible to stack eggs without spaces between them whereas it is possible to stack bricks without spaces
- However, my definition is clearly not uncountable, as originally stated, so I might be missing something here.
- The geometry sense also needs some work. SpinningSpark 11:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sense#4 and sense#13 also seem to be identical. SpinningSpark 11:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Lots of work has been done on this one, and I'm going to call it closed now. (I did my best to match up the old translation tables to the newly-defined senses; hopefully not too much got lost in transfer.) Ƿidsiþ 08:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Really bad definitions. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC) The header is "verb", but the definition is of a noun or gerund. Anyone know Hamer-Banna? - -sche (discuss) 23:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC) - According to w:Mingi, it seems to be an adjective. What's more, the original IP contributor used the header "Ethiopian", with "Hamer-Banna" being chosen for the language as a guess by someone trying to clean the entry. It looks very much like the original contributor saw the mingi entry and vaguely remembered that it was used in connection with an Ethopia custom involving the killing of certain children. I would just delete the whole Hamer-Banna section as "no usable content given". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've done as you suggest. - -sche (discuss) 07:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC) The usage note describes a different orthography than the one the entry actually uses. Should the entry be moved, or should the usage note be changed? - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC) - ʻǁnāhu a̰a, ǃqhàa gǀqhùã a̰a, kxʻāo a̰a, ǁkxʻân a̰a, !ʻûĩ ǂnṵn and several other entries have the same issue. - -sche (discuss) 00:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think the usage note is describing "ǃɢā̰n-ǃɢá̰n", and that they weren't sure whether they could/should represent both diacritics on the same vowel. So the answer is: c) neither. Just change the display form and remove the usage note. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- The usage note says grave accent, not acute accent, on the second a. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, then it's "ǃɢā̰n-ǃɢà̰n". Good catch. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- But why only change the display form, why not move the entry? ǃqhàa gǀqhùã a̰a has accents over its letters, so if they aren't part of the language, they should be stripped from that entry, whereas if they are, they should be added to ǃɢa̰n-ǃɢa̰n. - -sche (discuss) 17:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
These aren't abbreviations. I think they're symbols, but I'd like other input. Also, we're missing XXY, ZW and many of the other chromosomes. - -sche (discuss) 22:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC) - I actually think these aren't words, so should be deleted. X and Y should have the relevant senses. Not different to rhyme formats like AABA which we don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Mglovesfun. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree, but because of the way sex chromosomes work, it would be tricky to come up with a description of X and Y that could easily explain what XX and XY do (never mind rarer variants). Possibly that's a matter for an encyclopedia anyway. That said, XX and XY both seem to be attestable as English nouns ("the XXs"), and possibly as incomparable adjectives ("an XY individual"). Presumably it's the same in any other language with a sizeable scientific literature, and those cases it makes sense to keep these entries. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- A simple definition for "X" and "Y" would be "one of two chromosomes typically found in pairs in pairs in humans and many other creatures: individuals with XX are female, individuals with XY are male". "Z" and "W" could be defined likewise, with usage notes explaining that X and Y are used of humans' chromosomes, and those of most other mammals and some insects, while Z and W are used of birds' and reptiles' chromosomes. That said, I would definitely vote to keep these because, as Smurray writes, things like "the XXs" are attested. - -sche (discuss) 09:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have had a try at cleaning these up and have added cites for adjectival senses. There may be a noun sense in there as well, I don't know, but I haven't cited it. It is definitely not an abbreviation and I have added etymology to show that (and at X chromosome and Y chromosome. SpinningSpark 00:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's not YX so I do think there is merit to the full title. Having XX and XY is also simpler than explaining how XX and XY are constructed on the pages X and Y. DAVilla 03:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
...and ʻ!nò̰ho. What does "honorific term of address for the both antelope (both the springbok and the hartebeest)" mean? - -sche (discuss) 02:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC) - I think it means its an "honorific term of address for both springbok and hartebeest" (as a side note, should the plurals of springbok and hartebeest be changed because I feel like they should have invariable plurals?). --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- The plurals with -s are well attested, but they could certainly show both plurals, like [[antelope]]. - -sche (discuss) 06:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've reworded the definition as you suggested. - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
These are listed as synonyms, but I suspect they're really alternative forms of one another, in which case one of them should probably use {{alternative form of}}. (There are many more Kung pairs like this one.) - -sche (discuss) 05:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC) I cleaned up the formatting, but someone may want to look over the senses and add, subtract or merge some. - -sche (discuss) 08:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Tagged but not listed. Japanese (and Nauruan). - -sche (discuss) 09:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC) - Nauruan is not verifiable. Send to RFV. -- Liliana • 09:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
These aren't 'terrible' per se, and KassadBot should fix some of the formatting issues, I'm more wondering about sum of parts issues, such as bad patch as you can have other kinds of patches, good patch for example. Would like another editor or editors to review please. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC) - Ruakh deleted/reverted all of his/her edits for copyright violation. May we know which copyright is being violated? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure; all I know is that Googling one of the phrases turned up a copy of our example sentence from a pre-existing Web-site, and when I tried some others, I found that they, too, were identical to examples elsewhere on the Web. For example, his/her example for [[bad books]] appears in a 1992 book, in a blog post from last November, and so on, the only difference being that they spelled "tomorrow" correctly. —RuakhTALK 00:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi All,
I've got two definitions of a verb with multiple defintions, which require a particle to take a certain meaning, and I am unsure how to format that.
Sense 4 of mḥ (verb: etymology 1) is "seize" - It uses the structure mḥ n X, where n is the particle meaning in/at/with/to, and X is the thing seized. How do I include that in the definition?
Similar questions apply to sense 5 & 6 of etymology 2.
Sorry for the bother - I'm still learning the ropes Furius (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC) - You can add 'always/sometimes/usually followed by foo, bar or whatnot' to the context tag. — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, this is another manifestation of the same repeatedy-blocked IP user who's contributed a ton of bad edits centered on the themes of Japanese language, magic and mythology. I notice that many of their edits are still unpatrolled, since they tend toward esoteric subjects and the editors who know Japanese seem to be busy elsewhere, so I would propose that those who know something about the subjects in question take a closer look at these edits. If this is who I think it is, and they're doing the same bad edits, action should be taken to prevent a lot of work later on. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Moved from RFV:
In order to give our users accurate information, we need to know which sports use this nomenclature. The existing context sport is inaccurate AFAICT. It applies outside sports, eg, chess, and doesn't apply to all sports, eg, US football or basketball. DCDuring TALK 08:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC) - For the sake of accuracy, you're not disputing existence are you? This sort of thing should be dealt with on WT:RFC or Talk:last sixteen. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's a matter of meaning, which warrants more effort at attestation than goes into RfC. Obviously RfD didn't lead to improving the quality of the entry. As with any term that is not covered in other dictionaries, we need to attest to its meaning. These are the entries that differentiate and justify Wiktionary relative to its competitors. They should be among our best. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- I would have thought that a list of all sports which use the term is becoming encyclopaedic. On the matter of the (sports) context template, that could be replaced with Template:competition, but that's a redlink. Not also that last eight and last four both use the same template. SpinningSpark 16:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
-
- @DCDuring yes it is an RFC issue per your own comment. No rule against adding citations to a term listed at RFC. This looks to me like a backdoor way to get it deleted, by hoping nobody bothers to add citations for 30 days then this can get illegitimately deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Per the preceding discussion, I have moved said discussion here from WT:RFV. - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC) This one should be easy, mostly shift-down and delete, but there might be something worth saving. DAVilla 20:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Middle English. It looks like it was once an English section that was converted into Middle English. But it wasn't quite fixed, there are still some things like the pronunciation and usage examples that look more like modern English to me. —CodeCat 17:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC) This is not an alternative form of give someone the creeps as it says. This is also not how we normally present transitive verbs either. DCDuring TALK 18:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Someone with a chemistry textbook handy should format this and check the definition (note the edit history). - -sche (discuss) 08:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC) - Done (without the aid of a net). But there may be related entries that need the same treatment. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Seven definitions, they don't seem to be distinct, but just different ways of describing Satan. I think there might be all of two different definitions in here which are real. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC) - I propose that we delete 2 through 6 and move 7 to a noun section. — Ungoliant (Falai) 12:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with deleting 2-6, but I think 7 is still a proper noun (based on how it is used). Also we could expand the definition to include something like "one who has qualities of Satan". --WikiTiki89 12:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed that most of those are the same thing in various varieties of purple prose. However, I'm wondering whether "Satan" as used by Satanists has a meaning distinct from the Abrahamic meaning? Furius (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think those differences are encyclopedic. As a dictionary definition, Satan is the same thing in Satanism and Abrahamism(is that a word?). Just like the meaning of zombie changes from one zombie movie to the next, but we don't have to have a separate definition of zombie for each of them. --WikiTiki89 00:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Satan is the same in Abrahamic religions and Theistic Satanism. Satan in LaVeyan Satanism might be worth its own definition, but I'm not familiar with it. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, do we have any LaVeyan Satanist editors who can help out with this? Maybe at Wikipedia? --WikiTiki89 09:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've combined the senses and removed a number of quotations which did not use the term "Satan"(!). - -sche (discuss) 20:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The etymology section is starting to look like it should be transwikied to Wikipedia (or banished to Urban Dictionary) Chuck Entz (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC) - There's no point in transwikiing it to Wikipedia; it would either be deleted or transwikied back here. I say we just delete it and cut out the middle man. —Angr 17:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've trimmed the etymology, but I think the part of speech is wrong... "going balls to the wall" suggests it's an adverb meaning "at full throttle", rather than a noun meaning "full throttle". - -sche (discuss) 19:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- But it also appears after a copula. "It was BttW." "We were BttW." I think the adverbial use could be viewed as "(with) balls to the wall" or "balls (being) to the wall". What we don't need are two largely redundant PoS sections to allow for all the possibilities. I'm not enamored of the "ellipsis" deus ex machina, but it might be useful. Usage examples could cover the range of possibilities.
- The etymology just looks like folk etymology. Sports could generate more with a similar level of plausibility.
- The expressions back to the wall and go to the wall, together with this, make it seem that the core is just to the wall, but that seems nearly SoP. The prosody of this expression and the existence of the folk etymologies suggest more idiomaticity for this than its relatives. DCDuring TALK 21:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The translations use indents, specifically ** or *: for usage qualifiers instead of by language or by script such as *: Mandarin and *: Cyrillic (both of these two examples are standard). Also, we do just want the word for 'cousin' in these translations, languages which have specific words for maternal cousin and paternal cousin but also just have a word for cousin, that sort of extra information should go in the language's entry itself. The reason is usability. Yes, we sometimes act like our users aren't human beings, but they are! Adding tonnes of qualifiers and extra information makes translation tables much harder to use, which is why I sometimes remove such information and put it in the language itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC) - I've fixed the nesting issue. We could move some info to entries like paternal cousin, maternal cousin (and link to those entries via trans-see), but many of the translations and glosses (e.g. Ewe's) are best presented the way they currently are presented, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 02:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Does Nostradamus' use of the term deserve its own sense? Given his style, is there even any chance the definition is anything but speculation? Also, reference to "us" should be avoided. - -sche (discuss) 02:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Multiple formatting issues in all of them. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC) The latest manifestation of Wonderfool. Lots of entries that probably don't meet CFI, others could do with cleaning up if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC) The French entry is basically an encyclopedia article. --WikiTiki89 11:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC) - Seem cleaned now. Ƿidsiþ 08:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
"Dinner" seems like a rather confusing gloss/definition for the Anglo-Norman and Old French words, given that the etymology suggests the word originally meant "breakfast, the morning meal", but "dinner" in English means either "the midday meal" or "the evening meal". Which meal do the Anglo-Norman and Old French words refer to? Can we tell? - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC) - Fair point. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Per WT:CFI, it does seem in Anglo-Norman to mean evening meal:
- "Feim ad e sei e freit au soir e au disner" (modern French: faim a et soif et froid au soir et au dîner. English, approximate: hungry, thirsty and cold they were during the evening and at dinner).
- There's an argument to be made for breakfast as well:
- "Jeo vorroi ore qe cest nuyt feust ja passee, qe jeo feusse a disner si comme je serrai bien matyn" (modern French: je voudrais maintenant que cette nuit déjà passée, et que je sois au petit déjeuner [?] comme s'il était bien le matin. English: I would like now that this night have already passed, and that I be at breakfast as if it were morning).
- Mglovesfun (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have to break a fast in the morning? Religious fasts, especially Lentan ones, often restricted the faithful to a single meal per day - I don't know whether that was in the evening, though. I saw a presentation on the Holy Calendar at Tours in the seventh century, which showed that at that time, roughly half the year was assigned to one fast or other. The other question I'd have is whether assigning names to meals based primarily on the time that they are eaten is a universal practice, or a result of the regimented timekeeping that has come with modernity. Furius (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- [17] says "the main meal of the day". The verb and the noun seem to be both well attested. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
In the sense "having existed or lived for the specified time", the translation format is absolutely awful. Aside from the highly invalid red links, the amount of information and how it's presented makes it hard to read. I know it's a bit of a toughie to translate, but surely we can do better than this. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC) - I don't think this is a separate sense from the main sense. How is "three years old" different from "three feet tall" or "three gallons full"? --WikiTiki89 10:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Typology The current definitions don't seem to consider all the present uses of the word typology. Northrup Frye in the Great Code, p.83, and elsewhere, pps. 78-138, uses it in an evolutionary sense, as, when referencing Nietzsche's Superman he says, ..."anogher of the diachronic conceptions suggested by evolution. But because of his preference for the synchronic deity Dionysus, Nietzsche was compelled to incorporate his Superman into a cyclical framework..."., p. 86. —This comment was unsigned. - That quotation doesn't seem to use the word typology anywhere. :/ - -sche (discuss) 21:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed. Agree with the nominator that the definition is dodgy. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 08:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC) - Changed def from "The action of the verb to like", which doesn't fit either citation, to "a like", which does. See also disliking (noun). Equinox ◑ 19:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thank you. Taking out rfc. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This can be very confusing, since there are two trees with the same name (but very different etymologies) in English: the flowering tree in the genus Tilia, which is also known as linden, and the fruit tree in the genus Citrus. As an IP noted, Serbo-Croatian lipa can be found in both the Tilia and the Citrus (tree) translation tables, and the Citrus (tree) table also includes Polish lipa and Icelandic lind. Following the link back to the Polish and Serbo-Croatian entries (both Cyrillic and Roman), they have separate senses for "linden tree" and "lime tree". I don't speak Polish or Serbo-Croatian, but I sincerely doubt that they both have the same accidental pairing of the inherited Tilia name and the introduced Citrus name that English has. It looks to me like we need to check not just the translations in the table, but also the non-English entries themselves. We should change all definitions in every language we know that consist of the single word lime or the two-word phrase lime tree to either linden/linden tree or something like lime (citrus)/lime tree (citrus) (assuming they're not using one of the other senses of lime. I'm not sure how we can keep this error from creeping back, because I'm sure there are lots of bilingual dictionaries out there that don't distinguish between the Tilia and Citrus senses of lime in their definitions. Thanks, Chuck Entz (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC) - For some languages, we can see what the corresponding language's Wikipedia says. w:pl:Lipa, w:hr:Lipa (biljka), and w:sr:Липа are all about Tilia, and w:is:Linditré is about Tilia cordata. —Angr 19:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I saw that, but if there were a minor secondary sense, it might not show up in an article devoted to the primary sense. It really needs reference to a very good bilingual dictionary or to a monolingual one to be sure- something that's fairly comprehensive with secondary senses. Or the knowledge of someone familiar with the usage would be good, as well. I have little doubt that lipa refers only to Tilia, but I don't want to mess with a language I don't know unless I'm 100-percent sure. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- If there are minor secondary senses, they can still be added by someone who knows the language. Better to have accurate but incomplete information than inaccurate or misleading information. —Angr 23:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia could be a good starting source. --WikiTiki89 07:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the sense "consisting of Nazis" (as opposed to "pertaining to Nazism") is an effort to distinguish "Nazi" as in "a Nazi group" from "Nazi" as in "his Nazi ideals"... but if that distinction is worthwhile, and I'm not sure it is, there must be a better way of wording the sense. - -sche (discuss) 05:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC) - For me, it's a delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- As a noun, English has Nazi and Nazism (National Socialist and National Socialism). It is quite possible that other languages have that distinction in adjectives, and then the distinction would be worthwhile. --129.125.102.126 22:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've combined the senses. - -sche (discuss) 08:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The following is from WT:RFV#art: The current configuration of main definitions, on which the translation tables are built, has been there since 2005. But I find the definitions variously hard to understand, tendentious, or duplicative, especially in the absence of usage examples of citations. I'm also not sure about completeness. This would be a candidate for some kind of advanced cleanup. DCDuring TALK 14:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Yes we do surprisingly badly on very common English words, probably for this reason, definition written back in 2005 or even before in some cases, and never reviewed, as we seem to focus too much in my opinion on adding new words, not improving the one's we have. We have ten definitions, some long wrong, silly or meaningless like "Activity intended to make something special". #2 looks good to me (might need a very slight reword) but I'd favor removing everything else and starting from scratch. It would cause chaos with the translations, and the rfv-sense should remain until (or if) it fails. Would do it myself were it not for the translations. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC) This template has a somewhat amateurish appearance, at least in FF with Monobook with my browser-option large text size. There is a line on the bottom of what appears and the menu button runs onto the white space. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC) The template doesn't work on anacrusi. It doesn't work on the documentation when displayed at Template:Audio, but works on Template:audio/doc. Hyacinth (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC) The etymology section is longer than the rest of the entry combined Chuck Entz (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC) - The CSS Shenandoah part is not corroborated by the Wikipedia article on the ship, so I've removed it. I think what remains is fine. - -sche (discuss) 22:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Works for me. Detagged. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Tagged, not listed. Equinox ◑ 23:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC) This has a noun header, but many of the senses are adjective-like. —CodeCat 17:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Ideally, one entry should cover both definitions and also include all the translations already in both entries. One should also be a soft redirect of the other. I would do it myself but I'm a bit preoccupied at the moment - can anyone help? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Paleo- / palaeo- words are a bit of a mess. Many words have definitions under one spelling and alternative forms under the other (and vice versa); some have ===Alternative forms=== sections but many have not; some have definitions under both spellings; many have etymology sections that specify the prefix, but not all. It would be great if someone was bold, decided which should be the main entry and which the alternative form - then implemented this across all affected words, creating the missing forms as appropriate (you need to look at "All pages with prefix" to find them all). Perhaps a quick look on Google should be used to decide which is the form to use (but it really needs to be consistent across all of them). Good luck. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC) - Does it need to be the same for all of them? Not sure if that is feasible, or even desirable. Ƿidsiþ 09:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The current templatisation misclassifies this as a term from Oscan and Umbrian, which is false. And the cognates use ellipses instead of the actual words. --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC) - When you say it's false, how do you know? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- 'Related' terms are not necessarily descended from one another. I thought that that was pretty obvious… --Æ&Œ (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- While true, it relies on someone paying close attention to the details of your wording- so it's not necessarily obvious. Fortunately, this brought the problems to to the attention of people who could identify and correct the problems while the rest of us were preoccupied by other things, so it was a success. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- The ellipses are a modest innovation, providing a visual clue that something is missing, thereby supplementing {{rfscript|Ital}}. Would that be a desirable change to {{term}}, ie, displaying '...' when the first and second parameters are omitted? DCDuring TALK 15:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've changed {{etyl|osc|en}} to {{etyl|osc|-}} (ditto xum), since the blurb claims only possibly related.— Pingkudimmi 15:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Since these terms need verification, cleanup / a move and possibly deletion, I wasn't sure where to list this, but: - Are these terms attested with this capitalization? If so, is this capitalization essential, or should they still just be lemmatised with lowercase letters? Keep in mind that all important Nouns and begin with big Letters in old Texts and when Writers want to attach Emphasis to them.
- Are these terms attested with this meaning, or are they just descriptive phrases which are taken to refer to Satan, but which are not actually any more idiomatic as terms for Satan than "the previous American president" is as a term for George W. Bush?
- -sche (discuss) 19:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Should this be moved to [[the Dragon]] or given a note saying "used with the"? Or can you say "I try to follow God, but Dragon tempts me"? Likewise for Adversary and several of the other synonyms listed in the problematic entry [[Satan]]. - -sche (discuss) 19:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC) The definition is moronic because it implies that atheism is a faith. Does this pisshead learn from The Way of the Master? --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC) - I disagree, not moronic. It might be the best possible wording in fact. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Many argue that atheism is a faith, in contrast to agnosticism, which is more of a conditional disbelief.
- In any event, we are a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. The word is clearly used in the sense given. DCDuring TALK 12:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, anybody who isn't dense can identify what this website is, you don't need to insult my intelligence like everyone else does.
Whilst some atheisms could be based on faith, it does not follow that all of them are. Are all disbeliefs based on a lack of evidence based ultimately on faith? --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Never heard that one before. In my local atheist group's meetings, we generally like to say people "deconvert" to atheism.
- Anyhow, Æ, do try to assume good faith. You could've politely pointed out the problem without baselessly calling a fellow editor a drunkard. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Baselessly?
He already admitted that he was being a drunken idiot at one point.
And then you oblige me to follow a fake rule. Pathetic. --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC) - @Robin: I would expect that this would be used by those view atheism as a kind of faith as a kind of a mild put-down. Thus the last I would expect to use it to be atheists. DCDuring TALK 17:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- @Æ&Œ: Your objection to a rather well-worded entry suggests that you must have some standard other than the lexicographic one of conformity of the definition to usage. The wording of your objection to this term did not reflect any awareness of the implications of this being a dictionary. Your dismissiveness further confirms it.
- Finally, your gratuitous insult is simply uncalled for. There is hardly a long-term contributor here who hasn't had some behavioral lapse. Your current behavior seems to indicate that you are no exception. DCDuring TALK 17:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Everybody on Wiktionary is allowed to be a prick except for Æ&Œ. History confirms this. And if you are going to scorn me instead of addressing my point, then I'm sorry that I wasted time making this topic. --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Oh, and I am not a 'long‐term contributor,' nor shall I ever be. --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see what is or was wrong with it. Is long-term contributor Pilcrow objecting to "convert to atheism"? That doesn't imply that atheism is a religion, only a belief. You could convert someone to nihilism, or utilitarianism. (P.S. I'm an atheist!) Equinox ◑ 20:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
-
- Why are you calling me 'Pilcrow' and why are you calling me a 'long‐term contributor?' Is it revenge for my insulting you? Did you not care to read the entry for convert that says 'To induce (someone) to adopt a particular religion, faith, or belief[,]' the latter noun which also has religious implications?
(P.S. I'm an atheist!)
I don't care. --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC) - I'd like to see you try to define atheism without using religion, faith, or belief. --WikiTiki89 21:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- How about 'The absence of a mental acceptance in any deities?' --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I changed the definition of convert to "To induce (someone) to adopt a particular religion, faith, ideology or belief." — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 |  |
