Wiktionary:Feedback

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Wiktionary:FB)
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for collecting feedback from Wiktionary readers. It should be cleaned out regularly, as new comments are constantly being added. Feel free to reply to and discuss comments here, though bear in mind that the people who leave the feedback may never come back to read replies.

Links: Collected feedbackWiki Javascript (for adding to your WMF Wiki.)

Contents

July 2014[edit]

стать[edit]

A problem I'm noticing in general while looking up words on en.wiktionary.org is that the dropdown tables, made for verb conjugations or noun declensions such as on this page, do not always open. As a result, unfortunately the pertinent conjugations or declensions often remain hidden. Perhaps it would be simpler to present the information in a table that is automatically visible without the need for the user to click on it. For an example of this, see the version of this page on the Russian Wiktionary.

In the lefthand column under Visibility, you can click on "Show conjugation" or "Show declension" and then the tables will always be expanded for you. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

tryk This is a noun and verb in Danish and means press (as in printing) or push (as in door). It is also a surname.[edit]

peal[edit]

The bell-ringing community usually defines a peal to be (at least) 5040 changes. 5040 is 7! (factorial 7) i.e. all possible changes on 7 bells.

So would you claim that it is impossible to ring a peal on a set of six bells? (I assume you'd call that a "touch" where we have a missing sense in our entry.) Perhaps we could add a usage note for campanologists? Dbfirs 01:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

ammirata[edit]

The Italian word "ammirata" is also an adjective.

Special:Search tworek[edit]

i wish to know more on the name tworek,please thank you

Tworek comes either from the Polish root twor- (create, make), or from the given name Tworzyjan, a Polish adaptation of the first name Florian. The -ek is a diminutive suffix meaning "little Twor", or "son of Twor". Other examples of twor- in Polish names: Tworzymir (Make-peace), Tworzysław (Make-glory). —Stephen (Talk) 02:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

offside[edit]

The "Usage Notes" part of the page is nonsense:

"Precise usage varies between sports; singular offside is used more in association football, while the plural form offsides is, incorrectly, used by some in American football."

"Offsides" is not plural, and never has been. That's like saying "sideways" is plural. It's the adverbial genitive. The same dichotomy exists between "toward/towards," "afterward/afterwards," "whilst/while," "amidst/amid," and as far as I can tell Wiktionary hasn't prescribed which one of these "plural" forms is "incorrectly" used.

Also, a dictionary is not the place to use the word "incorrectly," ever. "Dialectical," "non-standard," sure, but "incorrect" is a fundamental misunderstanding of a dictionary's purpose. —This comment was unsigned.

I've modified the usage note to omit the words "singular" and "plural", side-stepping that issue altogether. I've modified "incorrectly" to "perhaps erroneously", but someone who actually understands American football should probably specify the nature of the usage and what's "incorrect" about it. - -sche (discuss) 16:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Glossary of collective nouns by subject[edit]

I would like to request the more popular fantasy collective noun for Dwarves, namely a "Delve" i.e. "A Delve of Dwarves" be added to this list.

ēst[edit]

In the colloquial translation from Latvian into English an animate object can nag/harass, but inanimate objects such as pot cannot. Inanimate and animate objects can irk/annoy/bother/chafe, thus one of these words would be a better translation, otherwise it would not really make sense to a native speaker of English that a pot nags a person.

Yes, you are correct. In colloquial UK English "got on his wick" would be a good translation in that particular example (but maybe not in general). Dbfirs 00:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Indian surnames (Khatri)[edit]

the list is utter non-sense. unsigned comment by User:117.205.54.204 10:02, 13 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Do you know anything about Khatri surnames? Declaring the page "utter" nonsense calls into question your competence in the matter. It would be more believable and useful if you specified precisely what you objected to and detailed how you would fix it. —Stephen (Talk) 07:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

svolte[edit]

The Italian word "svolte" is also the past participle of the Italian word "svolgere". An example is "L'imperfetto -> imperfetto è usato per descrivere azioni che si sono svolte in modo parallelo."

svolte[edit]

Come to think of it, in the example "L'imperfetto -> imperfetto è usato per descrivere azioni che si sono svolte in modo parallelo" the Italian word "svolte" perhaps is being used as an adjective. In any event, my references indicate that the word "svolte" is also an adjective and a past participle.

svolto also indicates that you are correct, so I've added "feminine plural of svolto", hopefully formatted correctly. Siuenti (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

bjartur[edit]

Inaccuracies in weak inflection of Icelandic adjectives even when compared from the English page to the Icelandic page of Wiktionary itself... In need for grammatical expert to clean up

τειχίζω[edit]

while reported in paradigm, the attic future is missing (among others)

decente[edit]

The italian adjective 'decente', in its present use, should be translated as 'proper', or 'suitable', or as a mix of the two english words, and not as 'decent' as first issue.

sedmák[edit]

Besides "a seventh grader," there must be another meaning for the Czech word "sedmák." Wiktionary should include that is can be a surname. Also, it is used in an art piece by the Czech artist, Joseph Lada. It appears in the following Joseph Lada caption: Sedlák seká v lese, hajnýho vlk nese: “Počkej ty, sedlák, musíš dát sedmák!”

LEGO[edit]

I had been thinking about how I'd never heard the use of "Legos" as the plural of "Lego" except in American TV and suspected the term is not used here in New Zealand. This Wiktionary page gives Legos as the only plural, and I feel a note on localised usage could be added. I did a little looking around for articles on Lego exhibitions so I could get some proof.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/christchurch-life/art-and-stage/10257774/Legos-Brick-Show-comes-to-Christchurch has a photo of Lego bricks laid out loosely, with the caption "A Sea of Lego". This is clearly a reference to the plural of the bricks and not a reference to the product as a building material (in the same way as "building in brick" or "building in stone" is used), a distinction that made me think that finding an article that referred to "models built in Lego" would not be good enough proof. (I think that if New Zealanders want a term that is unequivocally a plural, "Lego bricks" is what we use. This pluralisation is actually used on the website of a U.S.-based but internationally-exposed Lego artist, http://brickartist.com/exhibitions/: "This New York-based artist has multiple unique exhibitions created solely from standard LEGO bricks" which suggests this use is widespread)

In contrast, http://fox59.com/2014/03/09/love-legos-check-out-the-brickworld-expo/ says right there in the headline that the exhibition is for people who "love Legos".

How the matter relates to New Zealand English vs. North American English is all that I've found evidence of, so I don't know whether it's actually a British English vs. North American English matter.

  • Yes, it's the same plural in Britain and Australia too. The "s" plural seems to be an Americanism. I've added the singular as an alternative plural to LEGO, Lego and lego. Nossidge (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I've never heard the -s plural here in the UK. It sounds like sheeps. Should we have a usage note mentioning that the usual plurals are lego bricks or lego sets? Dbfirs 06:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

minuteman[edit]

Pronunciations are missing. --66.190.99.112 21:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Puerto Rican slang[edit]

there are some wrong definitions like for example "capea" it really means to go buy weed and not a blow job. "A las millas de chaflan" means someone is going super fast. "carajito" = little fucker "china" is an orange "chavos" not "chavo" is money, "chavó" (used like "se chavó")means things tuned out really wrong "guillao" can be used in many ways like when you are describing something good or totally awesome you can say "te guillas" "melon" is the watermelon fruit but it means the head, like for example "me duele el melon" means my head hurts "palo" hard liquor drink hope this helps!

Special:Search[edit]

Could you please the expression "Du bist ein Huettig" for me. I think it might be an old expression, used in Thueringen about 90 years ago.

Category:English prepositional phrases[edit]

"On the piss" [Slang] In building or construction terms, this refers to something not level or plumb which ought to be. It has a connection to the more general meaning because it has connections with the unsteadiness resulting from consumption of too much alcohol. This is not currently in the Oxford Dictionary but perhaps should be because it is in common use and well understood in the building industry.

que#Pronunciation_4[edit]

Don't Portagees pronounce this as /kə/? --66.190.99.112 15:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

kickplate[edit]

It also applies to home apparatus. Apparati?

peplum[edit]

A peplum is also the skirt or below-the-waist part of a women's fitted jacket.

stressato[edit]

The inflections of the Italian adjective "stressato" should be "stressata", "stressati", and "stressate".

cornhole Needs to be some acknowledgment that there is a relationship between the cornhole game and the sexual activity.[edit]

ঢ়[edit]

I pressed it by accident, please forgive me

Who else thinks we should update/rewrite the feedback gadget? Also, am I the only person capable of doing that? Because I am sick of JavaScript. Keφr 16:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I definitely think we should either get rid of it (since apparently no one ever looks at the feedback that's actually left) or update/rewrite it so that feedback is left on some page here at Wiktionary that people can keep on their watchlists. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Turns out the Toolserver account has expired. So the feedback is not even collected now. I have some idea how to write a replacement, but I am just too tired to get it done. Keφr 17:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you too tired to simply remove the feedback gadget until such time as it's rewritten? I would, but I haven't the faintest idea how. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, we occasionally do get useful feedback on this very page, so I would hesitate to just remove it. But if you want to do it, the code which loads the feedback script is at MediaWiki:Gadget-legacy.js. Just put two slashes before the importScript line. Keφr 19:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Ideally, we'd keep the part that allows feedback on this page, and only eliminate (or fix) the part that used to be done at the toolserver. That would mean eliminating all the links under "Submit anonymous feedback about Wiktionary:" except "If you have time, leave us a note." But I don't see those links at MediaWiki:Gadget-legacy.js anywhere. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I did just that. And the actual script is at User:Conrad.Irwin/feedback.js. This is just the loading part. Keφr 19:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Special:Cite[edit]

am very mush interested in this area

Special:Search ideation[edit]

The word ideation in medicine it does not give a definition

My email address is <email redacted>, i would like to know what you find out for that word.

ideation means having troubling thoughts about something, or an unusual preoccupation with something, such as suicide ideation. —Stephen (Talk) 12:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Wiktionary:Word of the day/August 1[edit]

Can you please tell me the names of Catholic Bishop's attires along with pictures of those attires. Looking forward to your reply.

                                       Yours sicenerly
                                          Nicholas L.T
Category:en:Clerical vestments may be of some help. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

rapist[edit]

I had no idea that being a rapist was an occupation! Thanks, Wiktionary! --66.190.99.112 03:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

We have our share of vandalism. The notion is now removed. Thanks for pointing it out. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep, and in this case the vandalism was performed by Wiktionary's own in-house vandal, who's also an admin. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
To be exact, by one of the in-house admin vandals. I spotted that a while ago BTW, and thought it most purile. --Type56op9 (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Word of the day: dolorous[edit]

soddisfatta[edit]

The Italian word "soddisfatta" is also an adjective.

Wiktionary:Feedback[edit]

please devolep a downloadable version of wiktionary.

Appendix:Glossary of baseball jargon (S)[edit]

please I can't find any dictionary of baseball jargon

Why don’t you just use ours: Appendix:Glossary of baseball. —Stephen (Talk) 12:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

vestita[edit]

The definition of the Italian verb "vestita" needs fixing.

sbagli[edit]

The Italian word "sbagli" is also a verb.

resti[edit]

The header "Anagrams" for the Italian word "resti" needs fixing.

Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV has fixed it. Thank you for pointing it out. Dbfirs 08:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Main Page[edit]

Your logo sucks. The letter blocks logo used by the other languages of Wiktionary doesn't perfectly match the style of other Wikimedia projects, but it's still a hell of a lot better than your text-based one.

Request[edit]

Sometimes I fell very much need for antonyms of adjectives. Please, could you provide antonyms of words?

skol[edit]

For me it would be helpful to have audio as well as visual definitions of this word or words, skol. Kay Kivley Lillie

Would be useful, but the amount of work involved is absolutely impractical. JamesjiaoTC

pila[edit]

In Latin, "pila" also means 'ball' (to play).

It’s there, under etymology 3. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Feedback[edit]

u guyz have done a wonderful job..on every topic under the sun..im 14 and im from INDIA i get a lot of projects to be done from school but u guys have made it really easy

thank you[edit]

Helps me alot in my project. Thank you

sig[edit]

I have never, ever seen this used to mean ‘victory.’ Are you sure that this isn’t archaic? --66.190.99.112 19:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

To judge from the quotations, it's used only in Germanic Neo-Paganism. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

scarab[edit]

Nothing here actually gives us the definition. Make something that kids can understand, please.

  • Perhaps you need new glasses. I can see three separate definitions. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The definitions are numbered (1., 2., 3.). If any of the words in the definitions are difficult for you to understand, they are blue-linked so you can look up the definitions of those words. It is not possible to write different definitions for people of different ages and educational background. We write the definitions for adults, and if they are difficult for you to understand because of your age, you just have to try harder to understand the definitions. —Stephen (Talk) 15:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

prix fixe[edit]

I did not sign up for this please remove this software. Thank you!

Sorry, but we can't help you. Some software applications link to us, but we're not connected to them in any way. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

caricare[edit]

I can't find the stressed sylable in this entry, so I can't use it to oraly conjugate the verb... it's just a writing aid not a language aid

Caricàre. Note that some forms have irregular stress (càrico, càrichi). — Ungoliant (falai) 16:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Grease pit[edit]

Ι'm learning Ancient Greek at the moment and i was wondering if there was a way you could make the entries less accent-sensitive. it recognizes πᾶς but not πας as a word, and it's a real pain the neck to have to type and remember every single accent for every word, that's often why i often need a dictionary anyway. For words where accent is crucial, you can always have a disambiguation page or a "not to be confused with" headnote.

My 2 cents.

The search box automatically redirects if you don’t add accents (i.e. if you type geracao it takes you to geração). Apparently this is not working for the Greek alphabet. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

kiiruhtaa[edit]

Kiiruhtaa means to hurry or perhaps JOG in English, but definitely not JOT. Amendment required.

Fixed. —Stephen (Talk) 14:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Do we have an erroneous definition for jot? It reads now (verb sense #2):
To go quickly.
Just jot over there to the US Space and Rocket Center and give it a look. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps not erroneous, but it certainly seems to be rare. I searched b.g.c for "jot over" and found nothing relevant. Then I searched for "jotted over" and found only two relevant hits. "Jotted over" most commonly seems to mean the same as "dotted over", e.g. "He had strolled away to a little headland, jotted over with rocks and aged tree-trunks" and "Here also the groups representing the passages included in this portion of sacred history are jotted over the field, often interfering with one another." Then I searched for "jotting over" and found only hits meaning "jutting over", i.e. protruding over. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I RFV'ed the sense. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

faith; but really about two different words, 'Hyponym' & 'hyponym', & capitalizing of headings[edit]

'Hyponym' is mentioned in this English text regarding 'faith', but Wiktionary defines 'Hyponym' as being solely a German word. —This unsigned comment was added by 2604:2000:efc0:108:a9e4:2684:710b:269c (talkcontribs).

You have to look at the lower-case entry hyponym. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
That secret shd not be a secret; the text shd specify that, with a lower-case 'h'. —This unsigned comment was added by 2604:2000:efc0:108:a9e4:2684:710b:269c (talkcontribs).
There is no secret; it's just that like many things Wiktionary capitalises section headers so the header is
====Hyponyms====
not
====hyponyms====
Furthermore, if you go to the Hyponym entry you can see it has See also hyponym written at the top, which will take you to the English entry. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 15:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I stand by what i wrote above. Further, Wiktionary should not capitalize section headers, because doing so is pointless, and in fact harmful -- it hides meanings, as in this case. 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 15:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry to say I doubt many will agree with you...to find the meaning all you have to do is have a decent understanding of a little basic English grammar; you will never find an English word capitalised in a dictionary unless it's a proper noun or a derivation of one. Wiktionary makes the distinction between say, Hyponym and hyponym (case difference), because it is linguistically significant; in German, nouns are always capitalised no matter where in the sentence they come so you will never see hyponym in German. It is effectively not a German word, while Hyponym is. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 15:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, capitalizing section headers is a tradition that many follow, without thinking. It is pointless and in fact harmful, as in this case. 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 15:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but repeating yourself over and over again doesn't make your argument valid. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but repeating myself 'over and over again', if any, was not offered for the purpose you imply. 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 18:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Folks, DFTT. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I suppose that's reasonable advice, but I guess typically I like to remain optimistic in the belief that more civilised discussions like these don't include trolling...not that it hasn't happened before *cough* SC-merger drama *cough* Either way Mr/Ms.2604, whether your goal is trolling or not I am sure Wiktionary will not be decapitalising headers any time soon. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 18:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I responded in my posting below. 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 02:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's nice to be able to copypaste a section header into the search box to find out what it means, but there are also lots of people who prefer to have our entries follow the rules of written English- if they want to see everything in lower case, they'll read an e e cummings poem. are you suggesting we put everything in lower case so that anyone who copypastes the first word from one of our sentences won't be fooled by the capitalization into searching for the German entry? I would like to believe that the vast majority of our readers would be able to figure out that a section header might not have the same capitalization as the same word in running text.
As I see it, you made an understandable mistake based on not knowing that our entry names are case-sensitive. Most people would either say "oh, I see- you're right", or perhaps call us to task for being rude in the way we answered the question. You, on the other hand, seem to be insisting that it's our responsibility to prevent you from ever making a mistake while visiting our site, and that we're negligent because we haven't arranged our 3-million-plus entries to be compatible with your rather unusual way of looking at things. There are no doubt innumerable ways we could improve our site- but I don't think that counts as one of them. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
shrug. You all can do what you want to Wiktionary. I'm just telling you all the truth that you all are: putting style above substance; forcing yourselves to use the wrong word (the capitalized one rather than the lowercase, different one that you admit you mean); thus writing poorly, especially for a dictionary (the goal of which should be to communicate as clearly as possible, to many readers who are not strong in this language or any language); then lying to yourselves and others that such conduct is correct, good, or not consequential; then blaming, name-calling, insulting, evading, and other bad acts, when you are told the truth. So be it. 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 22:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
+1 to Chuck's comment. The vast majority of people get past the capitalisation issue you are raising using common sense. Those that don't be it due to their age or anything else...well that's what {{also}} as I described is for, so once again, your bizarre agenda carries no weight here. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 22:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
No, you don't know how many readers do or don't 'get past' the systematic error; many readers blocked by the error might not have the ability or willingness to try to make you grasp the error. To you, Wiktionary's admitted systematic erroneous choice of words (the capitalized word rather than the lowercase, different word that you admit is meant) is not bad writing but rather bad reading committed by readers who are 'bizarre', 'trolls', lacking in sense, perpetrating an 'agenda', too young, too old, and/or other things that are meant to be negative. No, it's bad writing, especially in a dictionary, especially if Wiktionary is meant for all readers. I regret that the truth hurts you, and makes you lash out to avoid correcting the error. Do what you want to Wiktionary; there is no need to reply. 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 02:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Lashing out? Pffttt, please, get over yourself. I've got better things to be doing in my life (including sometimes on Wiktionary). User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 16:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It would be easy to link every heading to the lower-case English entry if we have evidence that other people get confused by the usual English convention of using capital letters for headings. At present, we have evidence of only one confused user. Are there others? Dbfirs 15:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
We could link them to the glossary instead. —CodeCat 15:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
To comment on your question: the error's effect on dictionary readers of varying levels of literacy was discussed at the start of my posting immediately above, and can helpfully be discussed more if you want. But there is a simpler analysis: the proposal is simply to follow the most fundamental writing principles taught at every level all over the world: simply, write properly; when there is a choice between a word that is substantively the wrong word and one that is right, choose the right. Or, maintain the error, in which case there is no need to reply. 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 12:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Which is just begging the question: you haven't established that an upper-case header is "substantively the wrong word", or that a lower-case header is one that's "right". You yourself capitalize the first words in sentences, which is no different from capitalizing headers. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
No. The topic is different from that; it's this: An upper-case word that starts a header is substantively the wrong word only when there is a lower-case, different-meaning word (spelled the same except for the capitalization difference), and only the second word is intended, as in this case. (aside: Regarding your second point, No, sentences are different from headers, which are almost always sentence fragments, single words, etc.) To maintain the capitalization error and substantive word-choice error there is no need to reply. 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 14:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't assume that users are 100% stupid. English speakers are well aware that words in a heading are usually capitalized. May I suggest if they can't work that out, they're not intelligent enough to put something into the search box and hit enter, so they wouldn't be using this website at all. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree 100% with this. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 16:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The substantive error's effect on Wiktionary readers of varying levels of intelligence, literacy, youth, busy-ness, confidence in Wiktionary's quality, etc was touched on previously, and can helpfully be discussed more if you want. But there is a simpler analysis: the proposal is simply to follow the most fundamental writing principles taught at every level all over the world: simply, write properly; when there is a choice between a word that is substantively the wrong word and one that is right, choose the right. Or, maintain the error, in which case there is no need to reply. 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 16:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I think for the most part now you are just talking in circles about this. You have expressed your points enough already. No need to reply. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 21:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Your thinking remains wrong. I have responded properly in each instance, even to your consistently erroneous positions and accusations. In general, new postings call for new responses. But now you get to continue the Wiktionary error, which you desire for some reason, by means of not replying. You shd be happy about that. Or, if you have some agenda beyond that substance, then feel free to continue posting, because there are a number of further substantive sub-issues on this topic (that i was otherwise going to let slide, so as not to torment the Palkia person even further). 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 23:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
"New postings call for new responses"? How about endless variations on old responses? So far, I haven't seen much from you but argument by assertion and loaded, but unsupported mischaracterizations: "you're responsible for all illiteracy, Dutch elm disease and bad breath. No need to reply". BZZZT!!! Time's up. Thank you for playing! Bye bye! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Be sober. Be specific. For example, in my prior response to you i was forced to again explain the topic to you because you were unable or unwilling to properly state the topic. (My words were, 'An upper-case word that starts a header is substantively the wrong word only when ... .') You had no reply. If you now have a sober, specific objection to that, or anything, i will address it. 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 01:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Specifically, headings in English have been capitalised for many hundreds of years. Your campaign to change this will fail. I agree with your point about linking. I wonder if there is any way that we could do this globally if capitalisation confuses new users. Dbfirs 07:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Is there a way to make one posting have multiple paragraphs but without the use of paragraph numbering as i have resorted to here?
  2. regarding first-letter capitalization of headings that are not full sentences: No, i have no 'campaign' to change that. I do have the suggestion to change that. Because i have no such campaign, i have previously barely touched on reasons behind that suggestion, and your posting leads me to do so now. (Also, i suggest below a remedy other than such capitalizing.) The sole reason you give for your view in favor of such capitalizing is that it's been that way in English for many many years (i would like to read any other conceivable reason). But there are the following counter-thoughts:
    1. Various negative things were a particular way in English and other areas for many many years and they died out or are dying out.
    2. There are many thousands of Wiktionary headings that are not capitalized, e.g. the defined words, e.g. essentially all of the headings on this webpage.
    3. The only purported rationale for the capitalizing of headings that i and others ever found in a diligent survey of numerous writing-style texts, or that we ever heard about, is that such capitalizing helps communication, which is indeed a primary point of writing, by helping the readers to scan the text and find the various headings. But if that's the purported rationale, it's wrong, because the technique is triply redundant with the other techniques used for such purpose in Wiktionary: each heading is: preceded by a line break and blank vertical space; bolded; and often in a different size font.
    4. Rigid capitalizing of headings creates substantive error, as in this case, in which Wiktionary's style rule forces Wiktionary to use the word 'Hyponym' where Wiktionary intended to use the completely different word, 'hyponym'. Using the wrong word violates fundamental rules of proper writing, especially for a dictionary. (That analysis by me was called by the Entz person, erroneously, an argument by assertion, which is indeed an invalid type of argument, but instead that analysis is obviously an argument by deduction, analysis, logic, or the like, in that the elements necessitate the conclusion. And each of the elements can be checked for truthfulness.)
  3. regarding potential remedies for the substantive error summarized immediately above:
    1. One solution would be initial-letter lower-casing of headers, but that is currently only appropriate for the most rational organizations, and will not take worldwide effect for many years. (But when you try it with an open mind / honesty, it's quickly more comfortable, more attractive, and more substantively useful.)
    2. Another near-remedy would be your good idea of linking the heading 'Hyponym' to the definition of the completely different word 'hyponym'. You wrote further above that that would be easy.
    3. Another possible solution was helpfully given by CodeCat further above -- one could link the problematic section heading to the glossary. I've never seen the glossary, but i appreciate CodeCat's open-mindedness/honesty, and their constructive thinking.
    4. Another solution would be to change the 'Hyponyms' section heading to some similar word, such as 'Subsets', 'Subcategories', 'Examples', or the like, so long as the replacement word has no lower-case, different-meaning word (spelled the same except for the capitalization difference). A mild downside of that change would be to lose the parallelism between the headings 'Hyponyms', 'Antonyms', 'Synonyms'. A strong upside of that change would be the use of a generally familiar word, rather than a rarely used word like 'Hyponyms' -- an important rule of proper writing is to make that type of substitution, because a major point of writing, especially for a dictionary, is to try to communicate to all people, of varying levels of intelligence, literacy, youth, busy-ness, confidence in Wiktionary's quality, etc.
  4. To avoid all remedies and maintain the substantive error, there is no need to reply. 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 15:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no substantive error, you're just plain wrong. You're showing off your unfamiliarity with the English language, that's all. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Your mere conclusion lacks the necessary specifics. I'm open-minded: which link in the following logical chain is broken in your view, and how so?: "Wiktionary uses the word 'Hyponym' where Wiktionary intends to use the completely different word, 'hyponym'. Using the wrong word violates fundamental rules of proper writing, especially for a dictionary." 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 16:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
In reply to 1: I think simply finishing one paragraph and then leaving the next line blank, then for your next paragraph typing the same amount of colons e.g. ::: if your comment is 3 "levels" in should suffice, as I am doing with this reply. Also, take note of the formatting changes I took the liberty of making to your previous post; I think I achieved what you wanted as regards formatting...with points 2 & 3 their various subpoints are now appropriately indented as subpoints. As you see, the "subpointing" is achieved using something like :::##.
In reply to 2: Campaign, suggestion or whatever you wish to call it, it is what it is. Sure, I can't reliably tell at this very moment how likely it is some other person will have pretty much the exact same problem you had when trying to find a definition for hyponym, but I think seeing the comments of everyone else here gives me confidence that the set (mathematical sense) "People who would fail to find the proper English definition of hyponym when searching Wiktionary" is an extreme minority. Perhaps we should devise some way to poll thousands, even millions of people to see how many (if any) would run into the same problem as you?
In reply to 2.2: Defined words? Do you mean like, how in the entry apples under the Noun header you see apples? Well that isn't exactly a header in a way, that's the "headword".
In reply to 3, really only 3.4: The problem with leaving it capitalised but changing the word to Subsets, or whatever else is... you absolutely cannot predict without a shadow of a doubt how languages might evolve or how new languages might emerge. My point is, suppose a) Subsets or whatever term became a word, a noun, in German somehow at some time or b) another language has this word Subsets or <insert term of choice here> and whatever it means in that language, for some reason it is always capitalised. Perhaps these are edge cases indeed but no matter how unlikely they may be they still are possibilities. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 19:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
regarding 1, ie the numbered paragraphs, such as what one might call 2.1, 2.2, etc: That's useful for all readers. Thx4tht.
regarding 2, the number of people affected by the problem: If you want to 'poll thousands ... of people', then i welcome you doing that, because that's what you need to do to get out of the fallacy you are in: it's sometimes called Appeal To Ignorance (see e.g. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ignorance>). The applicable subcategory is: 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', ie absence of evidence of the numbers of people misled by the problem is not evidence of the absence of such numbers. That is enormously more so the case when one has good reasons for thinking that such people won't be vocal: varying levels of intelligence, literacy, youth, busy-ness, confidence in Wiktionary's quality, etc. If you or anyone wants to do the work, great. If one wants to avoid that work it's easy to do so, because there is a simpler analysis: the proposal is simply to follow the most fundamental writing principles taught at every level all over the world: when there is a choice between a word that is substantively the wrong word and one that is right, choose the right. (The point of fundamental writing principles is to avoid misleading readers.)
regarding 2.2, the thousands of headings in Wiktionary that are lower-cased: Yes to your question; i now do include the 'apple' appearance you cite. But i was previously referring to the heading 'apple' at the top of the webpage you cite. Both such appearances of 'apple' qualify as headings, defined in Wiktionary as '1. The title ... of a ... chapter, or of a section ... .'
regarding 3.4, the remedy comprised of substituting the word 'Subsets' or the like for 'Hyponym': Your point about a conceivable change in meaning of 'Subsets' is theoretically valid, but remote, as you mention. But the meaning of 'Hyponym' can conceivably change too. Whichever is the chosen word, then in the unlikely event of a meaning change, one could use another synonym.
2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 20:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


Finally we can deal with a technical aside, now that the deep wrongness, and deep rudeness, of Wiktionary regulars has tailed off and now that there has been some positive conduct adjustment by some.
So far the analysis has been, properly:
"In the sections at issue, Wiktionary uses the heading 'Hyponyms' where Wiktionary intends to use the completely different word, 'hyponyms'.
Choosing what is, to be precise, the wrong word violates fundamental rules of proper writing, especially for a dictionary."
But there is a more hermeneutic, apologist-ic analysis. The Wiktionary regulars have never articulated that analysis precisely and fully, among all their agitation, wrongness, and rudeness. I will now write that analysis for them:
"In the sections at issue, Wiktionary uses the heading 'hyponyms' but puts style over substance at least in this instance and thus applies a style rule to initial-capitalize most types of headings, so the resulting heading is 'Hyponyms', which Wiktionary defines as being solely a German word.
Creating what is, to be precise, a paradox violates fundamental rules of proper writing, especially for a dictionary."
By either analysis, Wiktionary is in substantive error.
To remedy the error, follow any of 3.1 to 3.4 further above.
To maintain the error, there is no need to reply.
2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 15:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
You know you're starting sentences with capital letters right? Surely by your own standards, that's a substantive error leading to a paradox, absolute wrongness, absolute rudeness, violating the fundamental of correctness. May I suggest you owe yourself a very long and very sincere apology. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
to deal with your posting as if it were substantive: Capitalizing the first letter of a full sentence is a conscious style and i'm eager to read about a single negative consequence. 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 17:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm saying you're unwilling to follow your own rules (yes I understand you're not being serious, but for the sake of it let's pretend you are). Renard Migrant (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
yet again: Be specific. Show connection to reality. 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 23:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no English word Your and yet you started a sentence with it. How can we take you seriously if you can't even use English words when speaking English? Renard Migrant (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

all my eye and Betty Martin[edit]

Supposedly from St. Martin. See here: http://archive.org/stream/passingenglishof00wareuoft#page/4/mode/2up 76.117.247.55 17:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

tore[edit]

Do not understand geometry definition.

Same as w:torus, which see. —Stephen (Talk) 13:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

go[edit]

For some reason I cannot edit the section at [1], but I still dispute some of these supposedly transitive examples.

We've only gone twenty miles today. -- "twenty miles" is adverbial
Let's go this way for a while. -- "this way" is adverbial
She was going that way anyway. -- "that way" is adverbial
Cats go "meow". -- doubtful that this is transitive
Let's go halves on this. -- "halves" is probably adverbial
That's as high as I can go. -- definitely not transitive

Agreed. All these uses are pseudo-transitive. There similar descriptions of pseudo-transitivity in a known work of Andrey Zaliznyak for Russian verbs. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I've copied the above comments to the Tea Room and replied there. (The page isn't protected, so if you still have trouble editing it, it seems there's a technical problem somewhere along the line that will need to be investigated.) - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

indeterminable[edit]

Antonyms are listed. Thus synonyms should be listed, like 'undeterminable'. —This unsigned comment was added by 2604:2000:efc0:108:a9e4:2684:710b:269c (talkcontribs).

You know, editing here isn't very hard. :> Especially in the case of simple additions like this. I will post the standard ip welcome message to your talk page, it has many links you will find helpful if you wish to start contributing here. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 15:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
You know, saying a simple Thanks is easiest. 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 15:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Right, right, I get it, some people are creators some are consumers. Nothing new I suppose. Each to their own. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 15:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I think you are over-complicating things. No need to reply. 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 15:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Are these meanings really distinct? If so, how? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
no 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 16:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:doplic[edit]

I've also heard "dopic" used in Berks County. I have not heard "doplic" used in Berks County.

Appendix:English toilet slang[edit]

How about " shootin dirt " read in a Stephen King book the wolves of calla. <email redacted>

Word of the day: nowise[edit]

nowise, is a perfect replacement for no in any case of negating a sentence; etc. tokenwise..... I nowise wish to speak with you, I can nowise help thee she is nowise mine friend, for no wise means the same thing as not which is forward from naught which in turn is nothing which means not at all.  !

You do have to pay attention to the associations that terms have beyond their literal meaning: mine (as you're using it here) and thee are archaic- they're only used when someone is trying to imitate speech or writing from another era. Nowise isn't really used much in regular speech or writing anymore, except to give a more formal, poetic or "elevated" feel. If a native speaker were to start talking like that in normal conversation, the assumption would be that they were joking, and people might laugh. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

staticity[edit]

Maybe there shd be pronunciation info on this page. —This unsigned comment was added by 2604:2000:efc0:108:a9e4:2684:710b:269c (talkcontribs).

You can request pronunciation info using {{rfp}} as I just did. Also consider signing your comments with ~~~~ even if you are not going to create an account. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 15:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like to leave learning, memorization, &/or noting of such coding or techniques to others. 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 15:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm agnostic, but I still like to think the proverb heaven helps those who help themselves is appropriate here...is it really going to take such effort to remember how to add {{rfp|lang=en}} where you feel it's needed? It's very short and intuitive template code; r-f-p: 3 letter template name, simple, no? Only one required parameter: "lang" uses ISO 639 language codes and "en", quite intuitively, is English. I'm not saying you have to do it but it would be much more beneficial to those who would like to work on adding pronunciations because while this feedback page is not ignored I feel that if some editor comes along and decides to add a lot of missing pronunciations they would be far likelier to look at Category:Requests for pronunciation (English), which proper use of {{rfp}} will add without you having to worry about it, than they would be to look at the feedback here since this is page is for all feedback. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 17:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll pass, if that's ok. 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 18:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's OK. PalkiaX50 put in the {{rfp}} for you, then Stephen and Angr put in the pronunciation very soon afterwards. If you are going to ask for lots of pronunciations, then PalkiaX50's method will be quicker, but listing them here will also get results. Dbfirs 15:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Asking for lots of pronunciations here at Feedback, especially after someone's asked you to use {{rfp}} instead, will get results, but they may not be the results you intended. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I have served Wiktionary a bit by noting that 'maybe there shd be pronunciation info', in one case as far as i recall, regarding the word 'staticity'. For that, the Angr user has warned me (above) that, if the situation were to occur in the future that i serve Wiktionary in that way 'a lot', then it wd be proper to block me from serving Wiktionary in any way. I understand that the Angr user's conduct is supported by Wiktionary rules, according to frequenters of this page (other than Dbfirs above). No need to reply. 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 15:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I think Angr didn't want you to list hundreds of words here, because it would be much better service to Wiktionary to copy and paste the request into each entry, as suggested by PalkiaX50. Please continue to suggest improvements. Why not create an account? Dbfirs 07:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I will reply in future. When will this section be removed, roughly? 2604:2000:EFC0:108:A9E4:2684:710B:269C 20:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Never "removed", just archived some time in September. Dbfirs 07:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Word of the day: social contract[edit]

oh my goodness. I so appreciate how wonderful the site is. My favorite book is the dictionary I'm 57 years old and make sure I learned at least five new words a day. I made sure I could use them in sentences.I also use them and every day speaking. I find myself sometimes, having to tune it down so others understand me.I try not to come across as knowing a lot but I am very proud of what I know and do not to come across as a know it all. Some people build model airplanes, I read the dictionary. it is what I do. Thank you for having this site available for everyone. Knowledge is power. long live Wiktionary!!

Enjoy! —Stephen (Talk) 20:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The origin of accent[edit]

The origin of accent (Phoneticians are deaf and blind)

When a child begins to speak, he/she sets its articulatory base on that of the people surrounding him/her. Different languages have different normal movements of the parts of articulatory base in the time of talking. For that reason the speech effect in the vocal tract is different. When the tissues there are still young and yield to speech actions, permanent changes take place on the pharynx wall. A mechanical speech apparatus is formed in the vocal tract, which is serviceable until the death of the owner. After a certain critical period all new acquired languages are spoken with that instrument. As the native language has a limited number of sounds and their characteristics are only for that language, all the others are pronounced incorrectly.

A person can have more than one talking instrument in his/her vocal tract - for instance, when a child is born in a bilingual family.

For comparison: a person has a melody in his/her head and he/she can make it audible with the help of musical instruments, whereas each of them has its own “accent”. But the melody can be right with all instruments. Leonhard Klaar

excessivamente[edit]

Does excessivamente de mean too many? --66.190.99.112 04:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it means "excessively of" or "excessively from": se sofre excessivamente de vómitos ou diarreia (if you suffer from excessive vomiting or diarrhea). The word for "too many" is demasiados. —Stephen (Talk) 13:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Does excesivamente de mean the exact same thing in Spanish? --66.190.99.112 15:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It means the same, but there are differences in usage. For example, Portuguese "se sofre excessivamente de vómitos ou diarreia" is perfectly understandable in Spanish, but it is not the way one would say it is Spanish. In Spanish, you might say "si experimenta vómitos o diarreas graves." The thing to remember is that "excessivamente de" (or "excesivamente de") is not a set phrase ... excessivamente is completely independent from de. excessivamente is an adverb, and de is a preposition that is connected to a preceding verb. In depender de (to depend on), you can modify it by adding excesivamente: "depender excesivamente de" (to depend excessively on). —Stephen (Talk) 15:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

ice cream man[edit]

Hey, is ice cream man idiomatic or is the meaning quite obvious? --66.190.99.112 21:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Not idiomatic, just a sum of parts. It could be a man who sells ice cream, or a man who makes ice cream, or even a man made of ice cream. Dbfirs 06:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

brought[edit]

can u try to put prefixes and suffixes plz

Which prefixes and suffixes? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Word of the day/Recycled pages/September[edit]

Thankyou for the interesting information.

Wiktionary:Contact us[edit]

How to cite <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary_of_traumatology> in MLA? and how to cite it in the text? Thank you very much.

I imagine that MLA has its own policies and standards for citing references, etc. I think you should check with MLA about it. —Stephen (Talk) 20:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

New word[edit]

Etymology[edit] From Middle French farticule, and its source, Latin farticula (“small fart, farticle”) Pronunciation[edit] • (UK) : /ˈfɑːtɪk(ə)l/ • (US) : /ˈfɑːɹdəkəl/ •

• Rhymes: -ɑː(r)tɪkəl

Noun[edit] farticle (plural farticles) 1. A very small piece of a fart. 2. (physics) Any of various physical objects making up the constituent parts of a fart; possibly subatomic.

Farticule/a is neither Middle French nor Latin. Fart is Germanic. What you’re doing is creating a protologism (but your etymology is just nonsense). We do not accept protologisms here. —Stephen (Talk) 20:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
But we do accept them here. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)