User talk:Eclecticology/archive

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion with Długosz[edit]

I noticed on your user page, Tracking, integrating and adapting the Webster 1913 material to suit our purposes.

I threw together a little Perl program that I've been using to help me start entries from the w1913 material. I copy the definition to the clipboard, then run the script, which reads the clipboard and puts the results back on the clipboard. Then I paste that into the new wiki page, and take it from there. It doesn't have to be always right since it is meant to be interactive. But it handles most of the common things just fine, and takes the tedium out of supplying the template boilerplate stuff.

I'm happy to share, if anyone is interested. Naturally, I'm interested in any better tools, too. Since the w1913 material has not been converted in bulk, I'm guessing no acceptable bot exists.

Długosz

reply on his page

I've been getting the entries from <http://www.bennetyee.org/http_webster.cgi> but would not mind a better source. I'm unsure of some of the notations for non-ASCII characters, and some stuff just came through as ?'s. I'd be interested in whole pages only to get the Legend and other material that's missing in the processed copies! Splitting up is not a problem as my script is not automatic in the first place; I start by selecting the relevent part of the definition.

Re quotes: I don't like a lot of the quotes there, being without context it just shows the part of speech, rather than illustrating the meaning. Also the bible quotes and shakespere quotes are too archaic to understand. I've been replacing them with more modern literary quotes, and using more extended blockquotes to give some context.

Długosz

reply on his page

Re ASCII is limiting: I use the following when processing the entries. I add them as I see them, rather than just doing it algorihmically, in case there are any more surprises.

$input =~ s/\[eth\]/\x{f0}/g;
$input =~ s/\['e\]/é/g;
$input =~ s/\[(?:\^e)|(?:e\^)\]/ê/g;
$input =~ s/\['o\]/ó/g;
$input =~ s/\[a\^\]/â/g;
$input =~ s/\[u\^\]|\[\^u\]/û/g;
$input =~ s/\[`a\]/à/g;
$input =~ s/\[.a\]/a/g; # not sure what that should be
$input =~ s/\["e\]/ë/g;
$input =~ s/\["i\]/ï/g;
$input =~ s/\["o\]/ö/g;
$input =~ s/\[\^o\]/ô/g;
$input =~ s/\[ae\]/æ/g;
$input =~ s/\[=o\]/ō/g;
$input =~ s/\[=a\]/ā/g; 
$input =~ s/\[=i\]/ī/g; 
$input =~ s/\[=e\]/ē/g; 
$input =~ s/ -- /—/g;
$input =~ s/\[R.\]/(R.)/g;

Any idea what the dot-a should be?

For typing accented characters, I just pick them from the Character Map applet. For IPA characters, I can type them directly, except for secondary-accent whose key sequence conflicts with Mozilla's input window, and ʤ which is annoyingly missing. I type those by using the character map in SC Unipad.

re quotes: OK, I'll leave the old ones. As for Doyle, I like it because it's public domain and even though it's old it's still readable, understandable, and interesting. Many of the words are used in a paragraph with sufficient redundancy that it's easy to understand them from context. I started my vocabulary list from Doyle, so that's what I have handy. I suppose there are other books in public domain that meet the same criteria; maybe someone should make a list.

Długosz


I don't need to know what the code numbers are for any character. I was wondering what .a meant at all in the Webster scan. You are saying it's an a with a dot over? It also worries me that some marks come before the letter and some after: do they mean different things?

It looks like the site you showed me has most of the marks shown properly, so maybe I can learn them more reliably from there.

The code U+0227 isn't in the Code2000 font, and that's supposed to have everything. It's not in the Unicode 2.0 book. The Latin Extended B block (0180-024F) was added later.

I must say I don't quite understand the list above (what it's used for), but the ".a" I would guess means the swedish letter "å" (no idea about how to encode it though...) \Mike 10:21, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vocabulary Project[edit]

Hi, I have written a program for learning vocabulary. Since you are interested in different languages I wondered if you might be interested. The program is based on the belief that it is best to learn foreign words by learning typical sentences. It can also be used for learning other stuff that works with the question/answer scheme, e.g. the theory for the driving licence or anatomy. Unfortunately I wrote in qbasic, which can be downloaded here. It also uses images and sound files for alternation and in order to work on the pronunciation. Let me know what you think about it. I currently have files in English, French (with sound), and Spanish. Catalan and Portuguese are in the planning. Corrections or additions are very welcome. The easiest thing to start with for improvements would be adding new vocabulary, sound files or images. A guide to the program will follow soon, although I think it is rather self-explanatory. Get-back-world-respect 16:16, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Hi Eclecticology,

I don't know if we really are in need of more sysops, but I would like to nominate Hippietrail. He seems to have developed a real addiction, uh, I mean he makes good quality contributions to Wiktionary on a day by day basis. He also lives in a totally different time zone than the rest of us. What do you think? The question is not only directed to you. Everybody can chime in. Also, if others feel they would like to become sysop, please speak up. (I don't know if Eclecticology's talk page is the best place to do this, but since he is the bureaucrat...) I also don't know if Hippietrail wants to become a sysop. Polyglot 09:12, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Eclecticology,
It seems a bit odd to ask somebody if he wants to become a sysop, before discussing it first. Suppose we ask somebody and then it's decided it's not necessary. On the other hand on a public forum like this, telling you about it, is almost as good as telling him about it.
I will still spend quite a bit of time here on WiktionaryEN, but I don't have the time to check every single message during this period. It is like you predicted it: WiktionaryNL has started and I am trying to get it started in the right direction. This takes quite a bit of my the time I can manage to consacrate to this project.

Since Hippietrail is on here on a daily basis and he makes good contributions, I thought he would make a good sysop.

I'll post a message on his talk page, to ask whether he feels like becoming a sysop. It could very well be he prefers to concentrate on adding content instead of administrative tasks. Polyglot 06:28, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Hi guys. Thanks for the nomination. I really don't know what's involved in being a sysop here but if it's not too demanding I'd be glad to help out in that way. — Hippietrail 07:04, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Romanian Wiktionary problems[edit]

Hi! This is Ronline from the Romanian Wiktionary. I would like to let you know that there is a problem with the counter on the Romanian, and other new language, Wiktionaries since, instead of counting and showing the number of articles there are, it simply shows -1. Would you know how to fix this, or what the problem is? Thanks, Ronline 01:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Eclecticology is a nice user.

Hi, I started a little project on Wikibooks, for people learning English: annotated books in which every word links to Wiktionary. Just wanted to keep you posted about that. See http://wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Raven Danny 21:01, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Deleting User[edit]

I would like to delete my account from wiktionary, I think you are and administrator. Is there anyway to do that? Or can an administrator do it?

I've deleted your user page as requested. Removing the record of the account would require developer help, but it has never had much activity so it shouldn't make a big difference. Ec

Page Protection?[edit]

Hello, I'm Mero. I'm a sysop on three Wikipedias, but I'm relatively new to Wiktionary. Can an admin on a Wiktionary protect a page? If so, can you protect the Main Page? I think this should be protected because it's the "Welcome Mat" for this community. Thanks. --MeroTalk 20:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the note. --MeroTalk 21:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Soprano speak?[edit]

I'm not 100% sure (maybe 90%, though) that deleting pussyistic was the right thing to do (I ran across it on the "nonsense and bad jokes" page). I'm pretty sure I've heard it in speech, and it might even have been enshrined in a Sopranos script -- it sounds like something Chrissie or Paulie would come up with. On the other hand, this is a sure candidate for false memory syndrome. It seems like something one ought to have heard. I'll keep an eye out for a legitimate cite, but otherwise I'm sure it won't be greatly missed. -dmh 04:41, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New User Questions[edit]

Hi Eclecticology, I'm new to the wikitionary, and I've got some questions. I've noticed that you access the site regularly, and are a sysadmin. If you'd be willing to take a few minutes and read the "Wiktionary" section of my user page, I'd appreciate it. It's a little bit long, but it raises 3 or 4 issues I haven't seen discussed yet in the beer parlour or elsewhere on the site. I'm still working through those messages and found another big batch I haven't read yet a few minutes ago. As a new user the infrastructure information seems a bit disorganized, and I didn't want to start another conversation in the wrong place. In summary, should I just copy a big chunk of my Wiktionary section to the beer parlour, and see what happens? Have any of these issues already been discussed ad nauseam, and I just haven't found them yet? Should I just wait for people to talk on my talk page? Thanks! -- CoryCohen 02:57, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About the Butterfly entry[edit]

Excuse me... what have you done with the Butterfly entry?

  1. Since when doesn't Wiktionary use the standardized language templates anymore?
  2. Why did you delete my contributions and corrections (of the translations)?
  3. Has it become a standard to use those (in my opinion ugly) yellow chart for, like, every entry? I've seen articles with merely 3 or 4 translations that were crammed in such a chart (2 translations on the left, one on the right). What purpose serves this? Such a chart would seldom have their translations equally listed on both sites, I guess.

I don't want to simply revert the article to "my" version, that's why I'm asking you to do that, or to allow me do it (I have actually added quite some corrections and translations to it, as well as a lot of effort of templatifying the languages.

Greetings — N-true 20:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

P.S.: In case you wonder why I deleted some translations like "Arabic (Morocco)" or "Armenian (Western)"; don't worry. I know what I'm doing, I know the difference between languages, dialects and so on. I also removed the linking brackets of some 'translations' that were merely transcriptions (probably because someone didn't know how to write some Indian alphabets on their computer). Hope to read from you soon.


Google[edit]

Can we stop wrangling over Google hits? From the continual "Google hits don't count" comments I'm seeing, I suspect you may misunderstand what I'm doing. I do not just put a phrase into Google and say "Hmm, a few hundred hits. Must be a word." I actually look at the contents of several, until I can satisfy myself that either

  • They all seem to be from the same source, or otherwise spurious
  • There seem to be a number of separate usages in a variety of contexts

The second item may be the main source of contention. If there are several different usages of the same word or phrase, it is highly unlikely that the phrase is just a meaningless coincidence (provided you've taken into acount the relative frequencies of the constituents, etc. — I wouldn't argue that "into Vancouver" is worth an entry, though gets has over 9,000 hits). Trust me. I have a math degree :-).

In most cases, I will also have searched for variations of a term. To cite an infamous example, "monkeys humping a footbal", "monkeys humping", "humping a football" and "monkeys humping a baseball", "monkeys humping a beachball", "monkey humping a football" and probably others.

I realize that finding hits on Google does not answer every possible lexicographical question about a term. It can, however, quickly establish a prima facie case that the term carries distinct meaning. That's enough to create an article and let the Wiki process do its magic.

In short, if I make some remark in a discussion page or wherever that "Google indicates" something, it means I've actually perused the content of at least a representative sample of those hits and not merely noted a number. Conversely, if I put in an rfd with a note like "no support" it generally means that Google (and BNC where appropriate) turned up nothing at all, or turned up only trivial usages. Please take this into account when replying.

-dmh 19:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Quotations vs. Examples[edit]

(I may move this to my User page. There is also some discussion on CoreyCohen's page).

There seems to be some contention over the use of direct quotations from published sources, as opposed to constructed examples. In my opinion, neither is inherently correct or incorrect. They simply serve different purposes.

Lexicography is founded in usage. Usage tells us that decimate no longer means "kill every tenth soldier in a legion" and hacker no longer exclusively means "person intensely interested in technical details". Given that usage is fundamental, one could argue that only well-documented quotations have any place in a dictionary.

This would be fallacious. Not even the OED follows this rule. In point of fact, quotations are often of more use to the lexicographer than to the reader. Indeed, the whole point of lexicography is to distill the essence of words out of an undifferentiated mass of quotations. It is only in rare cases that there is little to add beyond the original source material. The entry for hierophant might be such a case, but even there the later usages are not particularly helpful.

Occasionally a quotation will provide a particularly apt example or definition. One example would be the one given for hapax legomenon, which not only nicely defines the word but helps dispel the curious misconception that a hapax is unique in a language, however one may define that. Again, this is the exception. In the real world, people use words in sentences precisely becuase they expect them to be understood without definition.

One of the major uses of quotations is to establish that a word or phrase has seen use at all. Such a supporting quotation may well be useless in constructing a definition, but no matter. That's not its job.

In many cases, it is best to separate the concerns of supporting a definition and explicating it, and this is where contructed (read, "made-up" :-) examples come into play. Examples can be constructed to illustrate fine points of usage. For example, many words can be used in both noun and verb senses, and the similarity can easily be illustrated by example

Do you support this product?
Do you offer support for this product?

Finding two such minimally differing usages in the wild seems like much more trouble than it's worth.

Examples can also illustrate subtle grammatical points:

I am only one religious among many religious in my church.

compactly reinforces that the apparent adjective functions as a noun while also illustrating the invariant form.

The process of constructing examples also helps flush out idioms. If you can't construct a novel example, the non-novel construction is an idiom.

Finally, constructed examples tend to be more legible as they lack the surrounding citation of date, author and source. They also tend to be more concise, as they are constructed for the sole purpose of illustration.

This is not meant to imply that all constructed examples are perfect, or even adequate, or in all cases better than direct quotations. A concise direct quotation that also fulfils the illustrative role of an example and lends authority to a definition is better than a constructed example. Unfortunately, these take considerably longer to find, when they exist at all, which is one reason the OED was produced significantly more slowly than Wiktionary. -dmh 20:31, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 18:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)> I was actually just thinking about this very issue. It seems to me that quotations provide some use to readers for a couple of reasons. Quotations are generally able to give a reader a better sense of what contexts in which one might find a word. Consider a word like "ambulate". Since this word is primarily used in medicine or by fairly wordy people, you might get the sense from a numbero of quotations with it that it is not the normal word to describe the action provided in its definition. You would certainly see that it is appropriate in those contexts quoted, however.
As it is not in the nature of context-providing quotations to be concise, and the value of quotations are somewhat in their abundance, it might be worthwhile to establish a separate page for them, so that people can feel free to provide new and illuminating quotations the help flush out appopriate contexts for a word in ways that a simple definition cannot. This way the example sentences and the quotations will not be at odds or seem particularly redundant. The quotations section will simply be a supplement to the entry. Also, while I think this will be quite useful for English speakers looking up English-language words, I think it will be incredibly useful for both people learning English, and English speakers learning foreign languages (if you've ever learned one, think of how inadequate most dictionaries are at providing context for words. For them this is mostly a space limitation. We have no such limitation).
It could look something like this: Forget_-quotations (Forget_-quotations). Any thoughts?</Jun-Dai>

Not sure who to turn to[edit]

I am usually on wikipedia, so I'm not sure who is who over here.

Please refer this to whomever is appropriate: When I (just now) created my account here on wiktionary, it allowed me to create an account with just a username, and no password. (I've added a password now, so that part's not an issue) It seems it is not intended for a user to have an acct. w/ no password.(?) thanks. let me know if I can be of any help with anything.Pedant 00:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Supercalifragilisticexpealidoscious[edit]

how can I delete this page? the article itself was deleted and the talk page was left behind...Pedant 05:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Node was doing some translations into O'odhma when he came across the following problem. It appears that they use the colon to indicate vowel length, so that the have a word ca:engwa or something like that for monkey. He cannot link that because it goes directly to Catalan. Do you have any ideas? Danny 22:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi! I have been spending a couple of days getting to know Wiktionary better and hopefully win the project more attention. It certainly is deserving. You have done a great job here. About the quotes, I was torn. On the one hand, I wanted to keep them; on the other hand, like you pointed out, some of the sources are a bit obscure. I will do my best to help find the ones I wasn't sure of and keep them in. Any more suggestions from you will be greatly appreciated. Danny 21:42, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IRC[edit]

Hi there Eclecticology. Do you ever use IRC? I'm logged on at the moment and wouldn't mind talking about bot-related stuff if you're interested. — Hippietrail 02:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


oo-breve/macron[edit]

Hi Eclecticology,

It was either you or Hippietrail who told me the Unicode for oo-breve and oo-macron. I am looking for the former in particular to use in the rhymes pages that use this phoneme (as rendered in AHD). If you know them, please could you let me know on my user page. Thank you. — Paul G 14:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pinkfud's response[edit]

Hi, Eclecticology,

I responded within the hour on my user page, but I suspect you haven't noticed. Talk to me? Pinkfud 18:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay then, I'll give it some thought and see if I can come up with a new plan. Thanks. Pinkfud 19:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Temporary Space[edit]

Thanks for the help on Preferences--Richardb 01:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Talk:Impeccable[edit]

Please see talk:impeccable and talk:Immaculate, I'm not about to get in an edit war with an op. :) --Eean 08:09, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moving Main Page without discussion[edit]

Hi Eclecticology.

I'm wondering why you moved the Main page back to the old title without discussing it at all. I opened a discussion and invited comments on IRC and in the Beer parlour both before and after moving "Main Page" to "Wiktionary:Main page". Now without participating in that thread at all you have moved it back to "Main Page". I'd like to know your reasoning for a) Moving it. b) Moving it without discussing it. What were the issues you had with "Wiktionary:Main page"? Did it cause some problems? If so, why didn't you tell us what they were? Did you not understand why I moved it in the first place? Do you not see the logic of the move?

Please reply in the original Beer parlour thread rather than here, so that others may participate.

I aplogize for not also mentioning moving the page on the mailing list but I've seen in other threads that you yourself prefer Wiktionary policy decisions to be discussed on the Beer parlour rather than the mailing list.

I probably also should have mentioned it in Talk:Main Page, but since the topic came up in the beer parlour I thought it would be more noticable there.

Hippietrail 09:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Richardb questions and comments[edit]

I noticed the "protect" and "delete" tabs, and the extra pages listed on "Special Pages". but before I try stretching my wings as an administrator, are there any instructions, guidleines, whatever ?

Or, is it like everything else in Wiktionary - learn by trial and error ? Jus that I'm nervous the erros could be a bit more damaging !--Richardb 12:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some WikiPedia administrator helped me out, by pointing me to the WikiPedia adminstrators info pages. I assume this project doesn't have it's own separate set of policies etc.--Richardb 11:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Do I have the right to run SQL queries. I want to search for all Template: pages. But the special:asksql page does not seem to be available to me.--Richardb 11:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


It's OK to be a bit wary of over enthusiastic users. Hopefully my many years of business analysis and project management will temper my enthusiasm with some care and attention ! but, occasionally, I will push an issue. As it says in various parts of various Wiki's - "BE BOLD".--Richardb 11:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Entry[edit]

Hi, sorry to ask you personally, but I can't find the equivalents of the various Wikipedia pages for getting admin things done, and you seem to be one of the more active admins here. I went to set up the page for Entry, but I screwed up and didn't realize (having not seen m:Transwiki yet) that I should move Transwiki:Entry there, and then edit it. So instead I created a new page. I have now moved this to User:Jnc/Entry, and would move Transwiki:Entry to Entry, but there's now a redirect left behind at Entry. If you could please zap the redirect, I'll finish fixing things up (including putting the edit history on Wikipedia in the entry, which the person who did the trans-wiki didn't do, per instructions). Thanks! Jnc 18:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, "Never mind!" I just found Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Jnc 20:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Project to get basic words defined[edit]

User:Richardb/Project - Basic English Word Cleanup.

Active Participants[edit]

The following people have contributed to the project so far. Can you help too ?

  • dmh- enthusiastically running with it
  • Eclecticology - This seems like a useful idea.

thanks[edit]

thanks for cleaning up the mess recently, I'm officially going to start browsing wiktionary with images off. --Eean 07:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Je Goolsby, Calvin W. et al[edit]

Eclecticology, I'd like to apologize to you and the entire Wiktionary community for baiting (well, not intentionally, but still) the "professor" into his latest psychological episode. If something similar happens in the future, I'll be sure to wait a day or two before reverting, max one revert per article per day. I'm sorry for the extra aggravation this has caused you also. I think I'll do the "other" American thing and pray for the "professor." Connel MacKenzie 20:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

country[edit]

I did not intentionally touch the translations of country, except to reinsert a single translation that I thought had slipped in, in the middle of the round of nonsense. Later, I was not sure that entering that one translation (Thai?) was correct. --Connel MacKenzie 20:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie 02:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

your note on Wiktionary:Requests for deletion[edit]

I'm assuming level three headings are with three ='s. But the "make a new nomination" gives two. This is how I usually add my nominations instead of scrolling to the bottom or editing the whole page. Should I just add one on each side? Or is this in the process of being fixed?--Alia H 06:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the response and your monitoring of the {rfd}'s, I now realize that the whole-page edit is not the ordeal I had thought it might be, so will probably be doing it that way in the future.--Alia H 06:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: Admin[edit]

Thanks. I see some extra tabs and options (I haven't tried any of them yet). Do I get any help or advice, or shall I just go for it. SemperBlotto 08:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

Hi there. I just had a play with the rollback function (I used my own User Page) and it reverted to an old version, not the previous one. See log at 14:57. The previous edit was by me, not by Guano Boy. Is that what is meant to happen?SemperBlotto 15:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maveric149[edit]

I nominated him because he does not seem to have the ability to edit MediaWiki:Sitenotice, ref: MediaWiki Talk:Sitenotice. --Connel MacKenzie 06:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, OK. --Connel MacKenzie 06:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
User:Maveric149 does not appear on http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Listadmins so I wonder if there is something I'm missing. As a steward, is he supposed to give himeself Admin privs? --Connel MacKenzie 22:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Newbie questions[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions on the Beer Parlour. I'm not really familiar with words and I don't really know what a combined form is, but I would like to learn more so I won't be so clueless when making definitions, or participating in discussions. Unfortunately, since I don't know what this stuff is called (grammar? lexicology?), it's hard to find decent results with a search engine. Do you have any online references that could explain some of this to me? Even the proper terminology would help me. Thanks for your help :) --Jag123 23:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Errm; a question[edit]

Hi! in [Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/First_letter_capitalization] you moved part of my opinion to the discussion subpage; I'd be grateful for info what was your aim, especially as you left the colon (I suppose you haven't noticed it, but then I'm a little confused whether you read it) in the end. Greetz --Akavel 21:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

rfd page protection[edit]

Hi Ec,

Yes, of course the page is left open to edits. I used the "protect from moves only" checkbox. I thought that appears in the protection log, but apparently not. --Connel MacKenzie 07:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dictionaries[edit]

Wow, you say in the beer parlour in the discussion on binomial names that you have around 50 dictionaries. I haven't counted mine lately, but I don't suppose I have more than a couple of dozen, or maybe three dozen or so if you include specialist works. I'm curious - what do you have? — Paul G 15:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It didn't sound boastful at all to me - just impressive. It looks like you are a serious lexicobibliophile (to coin a word). Mine are mainly standard English dictionaries (Chambers and the second edition of the OED), a single monolingual dictionary (French), maybe a dozen bilingual dictionaries, many crossword and Scrabble reference dictionaries, and a couple of mathematical dictionaries. On top of that there is Brewers 20th Century and no doubt a few others that I don't recall right now.

Heritage of vandals[edit]

On this page is seems to me there is a rather unruly category lying about. A red one that is empty. And I dunno how one would get rid of that from said page. Any chance u could use your magic to eradicate the obviously unnecessary category from that page? --Wonderfool 09:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bold Letter Language Names in "Translations" Section[edit]

Should we really give language names in bold letters in the "translations" section? There is now reason to emphasize every single element in a list (here of languages, but holds in general), especially one which doesn't convey any entry-specific information. Bold letters always catch the readers attention and hence should be used carefully. Ncik 07 Apr 2005

A wider and more general discussion on layout is needed indeed. However, bold language names in the translation section annoy me so much that I will remove the word "bold" from the layout guidelines again. If you object, please do so in the thread I started about this issue on Wiktionary_talk:Entry_layout_explained. Ncik 09 Apr 2005

No comment?[edit]

Would you like to comment your edits sometimes when undoing other's work please? — Hippietrail 11:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New sense for meaningless?[edit]

I see you've removed the category Category:Nonstandard Wiktionary format from Aotearoa once again. I am very happy that you were able to leave a comment this time but I am afraid I do not understand it. Which part of "Nonstandard Wiktionary format" is meaningless? Or is it the sum of the parts? Perhaps you were unable to find an accurate adjective and settled for "meaningless" instead because you don't like the category or think the format of the article is standard. Either way an explanation would be both helpful and nice.

There is ample place for discussion on the talk pages of both the category and the word if you are able to find the time to be constructive. — Hippietrail 06:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)