Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup
Definition from Wiktionary, a free dictionary
| Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Requests for cleanup add new | history | Archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions. |
Requests for verification add new | history | archives | Index Verification and GENERAL DELETION nominations and discussion. |
Requests for deletion add new | history | archives Deletion for policy problems; request listings, questions and discussions. |
Requests for deletion/Others add new | history Special page deletion requests, questions and discussions. |
|
{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-cjkv}} - {{rfcc}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} - {{rfr}} |
|||
| All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5 |
This is a manually created and maintained list of pages requiring cleanup. There is also a Category:Requests for cleanup, which is an automated list of such pages. /pas Use the Make a new nomination link below to add your nomination to this page.
If you wish, you may include a brief explanation of your reason for nominating the page for cleanup, but please put any extensive discussion in the Talk: (Discussion) page of the article itself.
- For help on how to make a good nomination, see Help:Nominating an article for cleanup or deletion.
- For an overview of the cleanup and deletion process, including how to remove a nomination after cleanup is done, see Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion process. In general, a conversation should remain here for one week, after the {{rfc}} tag is removed, then moved to that page's talk page, from here.
- See Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion elements WT:CDE for a full list of the codes, templates, lists, categories etc involved in the cleanup and deletion process.
When the article has been cleaned, please strike the word here, and put any discussion on the talk page. This makes it easier to see what has been done and what still needs to be concentrated on.
Pages tagged with the template reference {{rfc}} are automatically placed in Category:Requests for cleanup. They are automatically withdrawn from the category when the template reference is removed (or, if the template has not been used, when [[Category:Requests for cleanup]] has been removed from the page).
- Entries in the category should have a discussion of why the entry needs cleanup within the Talk: (Discussion) page of the article itself.
[edit] 2006 miscellaneous
[edit] Letters of the alphabet
a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z
- Shouldn't these all have {{see| }} at the top?
- Yes. Go for it.
- Shouldn't these all be listed as ==English==?
- Yes. Go for it.
- Under what circumstances should they also be listed as ==Translingual==?
- Well, they are used in most European languages as well.
- Shouldn't these all be listed as ===Letter===? Or are we using ===Symbol===? (Why are they split about 50/50?)
- They should ALL be letter. But many are used as symbols as well, so should also have a symbol section. The split is probably due to different people having different ideas.
- Shouldn't these all have audio and IPA pronunciations?
- Shouldn't the vowels have long and short pronunciations?
--Connel MacKenzie T C 18:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Added some thoughts (I don't understand pronunciation though). SemperBlotto 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Perhaps we should move this to the Tea room? The idea of nominating it for cleanup is to have standard language headings for each of these alphabets; an alphabet itself is not a language. Using =Translingual= seems much better, to me. That's why I've been changing so many alphabet entry definitions. But I don't wish to go through these all (again?) if there isn't agreement on what they should look like. (Roman alphabet being only one of very many.) As it is right now, without the =Translingual= heading, many of the foreign language alphabet entries find their way back on to my various automated cleanup lists.
-
-
-
- Pronunciation: currently, [z] has the audio files listing the "ABCs" sound, not the sound the letter makes. My question is: is it too silly to ask for all 52 entries to have both soundfiles (how it sounds and how the letter is spoken individually in the "ABCs.") The vowels, of course, have long and short sounds. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] winnow
The definitions on this page seem very repetitive, and could probably be winnowed down. --EncycloPetey 02:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've "winnowed it down" some - it's now only at 6 definitions (1 was tagged for verification and I left it as is) instead of 9 .... surprised it hadn't been touched before. The cleanup tag is still on it, as the def could probably be better. L☺g☺maniac chat? 16:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] rikutsupoi
Previously tagged, not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 07:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Is this a misspelling of a phonetic transcription? --Connel MacKenzie 17:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] December 2006
[edit] Session Bean
Wikipedia doesn't seem to be able to decide whether this is capitalised or not (see the section "Stateful Session Beans", for example). Could someone who is familiar with the terminology check and modify the Wiktionary entry as need be, please. — Paul G 09:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] chubi
- Adjective - Alternative spelling of chubby.
- a type of rug
- Urban word for bitch
- Noun - pet name for a mouse originating in Australia.
- Boy's name
- place in Zambia
a brief google search didn't turn up anything matching these meanings --Versageek 04:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- As a spelling of chubby, it’s illiterate. For the mouse, I suppose it means that the term originates in Australia, not the mouse. It cannot be an Asian name because it doesn’t give the language, and almost all Asian languages are written in scripts other than Roman. Can’t be a place in Zambia, because that requires capitalization. Too many serious problems, too little of any value, delete. —Stephen 08:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Is a place in Zambia (non-capitalization was a mistake): Place in Zambia:
http://www.fallingrain.com/world/ZA/4/Chubi.html http://www.tageo.com/index-e-ir-v-16-d-m4290266.htm http://www.multimap.com/wi/293837.htm
Name:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1066950/ (an actor's name)
Urban word for bitch:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chubi —This unsigned comment was added by 211.28.201.64 (talk • contribs).
-
- The entry certainly needs to be cleaned at this point, it didn't have all of these meanings when I initially rfv'd it. I think there is enough to support a proper noun entry for Chubi (Upper case), for the two name senses & possibly the rug as a derivitave of the place name. The urban dictionary entry is tosh, and I'm still not sure about the original two.. --Versageek 13:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
To rfc. Perhaps to come back later. Andrew massyn 07:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 𒊕
Where in the Appendix does this go? --Connel MacKenzie 07:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Does belong in the main namespace, it is a single cuneiform sign. Needs some serious formatting though. (Translingulal/Akkadian/Hittite/Sumerian language sections.) Robert Ullmann 08:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, it belongs in the main namespace, just like letters of the alphabet and Japanese kana syllables. Instead of ==Translingual==, I prefer ==Cuneiform script==, with Akkadian, Hittite, and Sumerian sections. —Stephen 12:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Level 2 headers are all languages, or "Translingual". "Cuneiform sign" belongs at level 3 (in Translingual). The language sections following do belong at level 2, in alphabetical order. The references should be at L4, under the L3 Cuneform sign heading. All this is the same way we do everywhere else. Robert Ullmann 12:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Alphabets and scripts are different from words. We spent a lot of time thinking about this before doing the Cyrillic and Arabic alphabets and came to the conclusion that names of scripts and alphabets where letters are concerned were the equivalent of names of languages where words are concerned. As for "translingual", I wouldn’t consider anything to be translingual unless it was used by most major languages. Periods, commas, and numerals are translingual (used not only by all languages that use the Roman alphabet, but also the languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet and some languages that use the Arabic script, and to a large extent in languages that use Chinese ideograms and in most languages that use various syllabaries), but cuneiform glyphs, while used by several ancient languages, are not, in my opinion, translingual and are not used by any language except those few that use cuneiform. Cuneiform certainly is not equivalent to modern periods, commas and numerals. —Stephen 13:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'd rather have a consistent way of dealing with all symbols, by placing them in ==Translingual== so we know where they can be found. "Cuniform script" is a little too specific to only one alphabet. Do we need a ==Miscellaneous== language heading? I don't want to see 7,000 separate alphabets, listing only the alphabet of a rare script and nothing else. --Connel MacKenzie 17:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Symbols and letters are different. Symbols such as !@#$%^&* are translingual. Alphabets may be used by many languages (Roman), some languages (Arabic), a few languages (Cyrillic), or only one or two languages (Greek, hiragana, hangul, Tamil, Oriya, Khmer, Thai, Lao, and many, many others). It is very consistent to treat symbols as translingual (when they are, since some are not), and scripts according as done for the Cyrillic and Arabic scripts. —Stephen 17:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm not sure I followed that. Wouldn't that imply that there would be a language heading for each language that uses that character? Or should alphabets simply be kept in the Index: or Appendix: namespace, with no trace left in the main namespace? I know this has been discussed before, but I do not recall where, nor what the outcome was. --Connel MacKenzie 20:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- No, each language that uses the letter in question would be in alphabet order following a #: ==Cyrillic alphabet==, ===Letter===, Г, г, # Fourth letter of the Bulgarian Cyrillic alphabet, representing the sound ...; # Fourth letter of the Russian Cyrillic alphabet, representing the sound ...; # Fourth letter of the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, representing the sound ...; # Fourth letter of the Ukrainian alphabet, representing the sound ...; etc. Then if, besides being a letter of the alphabet, it is also a word or abbreviation, it gets the usual language headers: ---- ==Russian== ===Abbreviation===, etc. —Stephen 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Since all level two headings are considered "languages," that approach will really hose up the statistics I currently generate. I'm sorry, but I don't see the compelling reason to make the exception to the "Translingual" language heading. That already is our one place to put stuff like that. --Connel MacKenzie 18:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Arbitrary section break
Where is your place to put all the letters and syllabary syllables that are used by only a single language, such as most of the Asian scripts (both alphabets and syllabaries) as well as some African and American scripts (such as the Cherokee syllabary). Headings like ==Cuneiform script== and ==Cyrillic alphabet== seems much more useful and practical to me than statistics. —Stephen 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- My understanding is that they go under ==Translingual== because even in English, we refer to those symbols as "An alphabet character of the xxx script." --Connel MacKenzie 23:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- My understanding of translingual is that, like !@#$%^&*(), it can be used in numerous languages. Many scripts and alphabets are used by only one language, and most other scripts contain several or many glyphs that are used by only one language. A letter such as the Ӳ ӳ of Chuvash. While it is a Cyrillic letter, it is not translingual since no other language uses that Cyrillic letter. Actually, I think the symbol № should be listed as Cyrillic rather than translingual, because it is only used by languages such as Russian that use the Cyrillic alphabet, due to the fact that these languages have no N on their keyboards. Languages that use the Roman alphabet, such as English, do not use that symbol, but write No. instead (or nº, etc., depending on the language). —Stephen 06:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- That still seems unsatisfactory (inconsistent) to me. What other approaches haven't we tried yet, or mistakenly rejected in the past, that would work better? --Connel MacKenzie 21:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
-
It seems like we rather simply have to think about another word for ‘Translingual’, such that letters also fit under it, since I really think they belong there. What difference does it make whether a symbol is used in only one language or more than one? We want an entry for it, and we want that entry to explain what kind of symbol it is and how it is used in which languages. It is generally agreed that this should not be put under the header for the languages in question, so a general header is needed. This is Translingual, but due to the ‘trans’ some people are not happy with it. How about just Symbol? (And have those that are now ==Translingual== ===Symbol=== be ==Symbol== ===More specific type of symbol=== (i.e. punctuation or IPA or ...)) Re: ‘We spent a lot of time thinking about this before doing the Cyrillic and Arabic alphabets’: who is we here? I already planned to ‘clean up’ those entries after I finished the Greek alphabet (in the far future, that is ;-)) H. (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't yet perfect (still needs some cuneiform script, but has been tagged with a script request), but has been greatly improved. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] lv
Most should be removed or moved to English abbreviations? --Connel MacKenzie 16:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] January 2007
[edit] ǽwiscnes
Rather long list of synonyms. Even if valid (unlike Wikisaurus type synonyms), the formatting is quite messed up. --Connel MacKenzie 11:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:100 English basic words
First of all, there are 101 words in there. Secondly, I often see a word that ranks somewhere over a Hundred in Gutenberg, but is in this category. Third, there are so much of those lists around, I do not know which one to choose. henne 17:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- This was a list of words created and designated by THEM, and is not based on what words are most common. It's a "starter vocabulary", and the equivalents of these words are deemed to be a good starting point for a new Wiktionary project. --EncycloPetey 06:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- My analysis of Project Gutenberg (as a corpus) has no relation to this person's project. I find them interesting in comparison to each other, as well as to the other Frequency lists we have.
- Perhaps if I actually had compared them in earnest, I would have noticed (before now) that it links to a copyright site, that has a no-commercial reuse clause. So this should move from WT:RFC to WT:RFDO. :-(
- --Connel MacKenzie 06:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- But I will not move it to RFDO myself, as that would possibly look like I'm favoring Project Gutenberg unfairly, or some-such. --Connel MacKenzie 08:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] tidal wave
Needs to be trimmed, consolidated, and examined for POV. -dmh 17:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] !
Not sure if this represents a weakness in our translingual scheme, or just an error. This obviously isn't used in Spanish (alone) to indicate emphasis. Also, the e-mail separator is a protocol-level indication (that I'm not certain is valid) but does not apply to application-layer use (i.e. in your e-mail program of choice.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] fleche
We really need a better way of tagging words that are sometimes spelled with diacritics, but normally not, like this. --Connel MacKenzie 20:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] February 2007
[edit] Appendix:List of dialect-dependent homophones
Spot checking several sections of this, I can't see how any of these assertions are made. As many parts overlap my NY accent, it seems odd that so very much does not correspond.
So, do we have a way to label this as "controversial" or "disputed" or something?
--Connel MacKenzie 05:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- It certainly needs a bit of a clean up. It could also use references. Though, I'm not 100% sure, Connel, what you mean. Parts also overlap with my Sydney accent and parts don't. Is this odd, considering that it's a list of dialect-dependent homophones? I must be missing something. Jimp 07:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] thanks for nothing
My definition is not that good - could someone provide a better one, please? — Paul G 10:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Cleaned up. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] nice has extra translations
When adding Hebrew translations for 'nice' I noticed that there is an extra translation section, not corresponding to any of the definitions: showing or requiring great precision or sensitive discernment. I personally don't think that this is a meaning of nice (although I'll accept different opinions if such exist), and (based on the translations), this actually belongs in the definitions of 'fine'. Does it seem reasonable to remove it? AggyLlama 01:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- It would appear that the translations section is all jacked up. Personally, I think that only two of the definitions are valid (1 & 3). We should try and figure out exactly how many definitions we want, and then we can start working on the translation tables. Atelaes 08:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] conspiracy
Has Wikipedia-esque links. --Gobbler 09:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I cleaned it up bvut can someone check this def: conspiracy- the ability to have the material means and a motive to commit an act against the law.
probably said by some official, in purpose to give anyone with a real wiev of the goverment a hard hitting name.
[edit] sentinel
Computer science entry needs to be trimmed and formatted. — Paul G 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] carnival
Some of the definitions don't seem to make sense:
- comic good times marked by special events
- a parade group masquerading, especially when overstepping the bounds of decorum
— Paul G 12:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Patricknoddy's Contibutions
Patricknoddy is a new user and has been adding place names in Alaska. All well and good, except he's been giving them plurals and what have you. I've cleaned up a few (such as Valdez) and let him know what he is doing wrong, but there are quite a few more. — Paul G 14:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks OK to me. --Jackofclubs 10:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] ware
There is a word pronounced /ˈwɒri/ that has "ware" as one of its spellings. This pronunciation has crept on to the page for ware without a definition being given because "ware" is listed on the rhymes page for -ɒri. Please could someone add this word. Alternative spellings are "warree", "whare", "wharre" and "wharry". — Paul G 16:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] tactical air command center
And others, same contributor. Could someone else please try to explain this to this contributor. The idea that we have a standard format is not getting through ... Robert Ullmann 11:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that you can't tell this contributor anything - he's military and doesn't take orders from people like us. SemperBlotto 09:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] March 2007
[edit] something
Too many definitions.
Please see discussion page in order not to duplicate the discussion.
[edit] sol
There are no less than five distinct words (that is, five different etymologies) in the entry sol, all with only one floating pronuciation section at the top. I've added the pronunciation which applies to the musical term, but does anybody else care to figure out to which of the senses that floating pronunciation applies? -- Beobach972 22:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would add a request for clarification on capitalization. Is the period of time capitalized (as here) or not (as on wp)? May the name of the star (our star) be written in either capitalization? \Mike 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] -ae
-- Beobach972 21:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted; not a suffix but an inflectional ending. --EncycloPetey 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- But what was the entry? It’s a plural suffix in English. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- The entry was only for the Latin language, and I had created the entry long ago. If you think an English entry under that name is desirable, then you can create the entry without worrying about edit history (since it was only as Latin). --EncycloPetey 13:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Aah, OK. Still, don’t you reckon it’d be useful to have the Latin entry, too? We needn’t call it a suffix, if you deem that inaccurate (though I’m at a loss to decide what we should call it instead); the English etymology for many of these suffixes will just be “From Latin [inflexional ending].”, and the lack of a Latin-language referent would make that problematic. I’d quite like to have all these case and other endings treated on here in isolation from their usual paradigmata (like bellum for neuter nouns of the second declension, amō for much of the first conjugation, &c.); being a learner of Latin myself, I’d find that very useful — especially if our entries could elucidate the origins and historical development of the various endings. Since you “created the entry long ago”, you must have thought that to be appropriate at some point; what made you change your mind? † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Well, if neither of us has a proposal for how to label them, then that makes the issue of keeping the entry moot, doesn't it? It's really difficult to keep such an entry if it has no header name.
-
-
-
- Which English suffixes are you talking about? I don't know of any English suffixes that derive from Latin inflectional endings. They all seem to come from Latin suffixes. In any event, the origins and historical development of most of those endings (and even Latin suffixes) is not known or very obscure.
-
-
-
- What made me change my mind was a better understanding of the difference between a suffix and inflectional ending. A suffix (as we use the term here) is used to form a new word, while an inflectional ending is used within a word. A word that has an inflection table will already have all the necessary forms listed. Not so for various suffixes. --EncycloPetey 13:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
-
[edit] Bogdan
English, but with Cyrillic spellings? Are we sure this isn't Russian/Polish/Bosnian and not English? -- Beobach972 04:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose that when a Serbian Bogdan emigrates and becomes a citizen of Britain or the U.S., then his name will be English. Certainly the Russian/Bulgarian/Ukrainian is Богдан. —Stephen 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] starburst
Is the 'virginity' sense a noun or a verb? It is given the Verb POS header, but defined as 'The act of [...]'. -- Beobach972 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] dumpster diving
The synonyms look regional; for example, "skip" is the UK (Commonwealth?) term for the Americanism "dumpster", so "skipping" is probably a UK (or Commonwealth) term. The regionality of these terms needs to be researched and suitable labels added. — Paul G 09:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? Do we add labels in the synonyms section? DAVilla 07:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- In Australia we use the word "skip" for the very large rubbish bins. I've never heard the verb "skipping" but I am familiar with the term "dumpster diving" but perhaps only from American sources/influence. I couldn't say "dumpster diving" is or isn't used in Australia but I can say that "dumpster" alone is not used there. It could be similar for the word "closet" which we don't used but we do used expressions such as "to come out of the closet" etc. — Hippietrail 00:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] mama
Why is there a section Mandarin there? AFAIK, that is not written in roman alphabet. If it is Pinyin, then it should be marked as such. Also, the pronunciation contains a double ˥, which seems nonsense to me, but I have no experience with tonal languages. H. (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Should be first tone first tone or first and neutral, but I don't know exactly how to mark that. And is it actually informal? Just because there's a more formal way to say it doesn't make this informal. DAVilla 18:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] attribute
The computing noun sense contains typos, uses jargon, making it unclear, and has an example that seems to be for an attributive usage ("attribute set", if there is such a term). — Paul G 14:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] tribelet
Surely this could be more concise? --EncycloPetey 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Done I think...? it may still need some work. :) At least it's better. L☺g☺maniac chat? 20:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Index:LIS
"LIS" is not a language; these seem to be Laboratory IS terms that might fit somewhere in the Appendix: namespace? Translations for each belongs on the entries, not in this tiny table (too small of a subset, anyhow.) So the non-English terms should just be removed from the table. --Connel MacKenzie 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] август
Marked Roman spelling unknown/invalid header. There are many of these, but I have seen no suggestions for a different solution. A few languages such as Serbian are currently written in either the Roman or the Cyrillic alphabet at the writer’s whim, so every Serbian word has a Cyrillic spelling and an equally valid Roman spelling. (Russian, by contrast, is only written in Cyrillic, and any romanizations are due to equipment or software limitations or as an aid to people who are simply at sea with the Cyrillic alphabet.) Before these headers can be changed, another solution must first be decided on. —Stephen 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- But romanizations, whether used (e.g. romaji, pinyin, etc.) or just transliterations, are always given right on the inflection line. And then linked if they are used, and have their own entries.
- Things like "Devanagari spelling" are a bit different, they clearly should be Alternative spellings (whether tagged as Devanagari or just treated as obvious ;-). Robert Ullmann 18:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- What I meant was that with Serbian, the Roman spelling is not a romanization, it is an alternative spelling. Serbian written in Roman or Cyrillic is like Urdu written in Arabic or Devanagari. Many people write Serbian exclusively in Cyrillic, and many others write it in the Roman alphabet instead. —Stephen 13:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- What about a level 3 version of the "Alternative spellings" header, which is already in use? --EncycloPetey 07:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I am all for a new method of listing these terms. But, I'm not in favor of using "Alternative spellings" header. Alternative spellings suggests that the word is pronunciated the same way (or very similarly) as another, but it is written just a bit differently. That is the case in English and how the header is used here. In this case, it is written in a different script. That deserves a completely different section. Making it a level 3 does not change anything and might even cause others to "fix" it. --Dijan 18:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well they are alternative spellings so they would not be misnamed. Fewer kinds of headings is good - we don't really need specially named ones for each language which has been written in more than one script. We shouldn't worry about what the brief wording in headings or any other part of the user interface "suggests" because we can document them fully. This is already the case with the alternative spellings heading which has been contentious for years for "suggesting" it means something other than what it is. We can't put lengthy sentences in headings and labels and category names so we put the best concise term we can and then we explain it in lengthy sentences in the documentation. I don't see any problem with putting a (Cyrillic), (Urdu spelling) or somesuch for these under the one-size-fits-all "alternative spellings" heading. We already attach notes to many alt spelling entries to explain what countries it's used in, dates the spelling was standard, etc. — Hippietrail 00:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Latin spelling now on inflection line. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] proof
Unformatted quotations, a bunch of funny Cf.'s, derived terms defined on page. DAVilla 18:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cleaned up. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] 𒉀
--Connel MacKenzie 00:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] April 2007
[edit] γ
Robert’s AutoFormat bot added this, however I think the L4 header ‘Names in other languages’ is appropriate here. ‘Translations’ is not appropriate, since there is no source language. Maybe it should handle Translingual entries with special care? H. (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- If we agree on the header, is there a way to set a mark for the bot to ignore certain things? H. (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The header handling is all controlled by User:AutoFormat/Headers (like the documentation says ;-). It is listed as "non-standard" so it is recognized and not tagged. (for now, then we can decide what to do) There are other headers it is discovering along the way; this one was new (not in my previous reports on L3/4 headers). Robert Ullmann 17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- While I very much appreciate all the work you're doing on the Greek letters, this has rather larger ramifications, I think. I propose that a BP discussion be started on the formatting for letters. There are a number of issues regarding grapheme entries which need to be addressed (for example, see the previous entry and some of the other cuneiform entries and the back and forth which has gone on between Stephen and Connel). These need to be settled properly. Also, I think it would be a good idea to set out a sort of standard format for letter entries, so that they don't all become so hodge-podge. Atelaes 11:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- A thought: wouldn't this "Names in other languages" be better as the Translations table at gamma. Wouldn't they be duplicates? I think this entry might just refer there? Robert Ullmann 11:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Translations moved to gamma. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] eigenvalue
I've read the def. I still have no idea what this word means. Widsith 17:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've had linear algebra at the university level, and did well, and still have no idea what an eigenvalue is. DAVilla 22:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- That was largely my experience as well. I can work with the given definition to determine (on a case by case basis) whether a particular scalar is (or is not) an eigenvalue, so the definition is practical to a trained mathematician. However, I wouldn't want to try to explain the term eigenvalue to someone who didn't already understand the terms matrix, scalar, and determinant. --EncycloPetey 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- The amount one must add or subtract from each element in a square matrix to reduce the determinant to zero. ;-) Robert Ullmann 11:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Not quite. To tweak your definition: The amount one must subtract from each element of the main diagonal of a square matrix to reduce the determinant to zero. I think adding that to the definition might very well make it clearer. --EncycloPetey 16:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I entered the original definition, but I was not as verbose as this. The thing is, you simply can't define words in higher mathematics without using non-technical language. If you want to understand what an eigenvalue is, then, as EncycloPetey says, you must already understand what matrices, scalars and determinants are. It's a bit like explaining to Galileo what the Internet is knowing that he doesn't understand what a computer is, or even what electricity is. — Paul G 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Eigenvalues needn't be associated with matrices. For example, the stationary solutions to the elementary wave equation in a bound medium, such as a column of air in a pipe or a stretched string clamped at both ends, are standing waves with associated discrete frequencies. Those frequencies are the eigenvalues of the problem/system and the corresponding waves are the eigenfunctions. — iharoldz 09:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Eh,yes iharoldz, but that is a special one-dimensional case, and yes a one-dimensional matrix is simply a number. I suppose a simplified definition could be "the number by which a vector is multiplied if a rotation does not affect its direction". Jcwf 17:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Category:English verbs which are their own past participle
Is this a good title? -- Beobach972 18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not to my ears. --Connel MacKenzie 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- A past particple is a verb (form), no? It's not clear. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, it's a bad title. A verb can't be its own past participle. The participle of a verb can, however, be the same as its infinitive. A better title might be "Verbs whose past participles have the same form as their infinitives". (One example is set.)
- See Appendix:English verbs with base form identical to past participle, which allows more flexible arrangement, which facilitates discovery of others derived from the base irregular verbs that account for these. What are the advantages of having this kind of thing as a category instead of an appendix? DCDuring TALK 23:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's a bad title. A verb can't be its own past participle. The participle of a verb can, however, be the same as its infinitive. A better title might be "Verbs whose past participles have the same form as their infinitives". (One example is set.)
- Suggest Category:English verbs with past participle identical to base form, to be populated solely by {{en-verb}}. -- Visviva 03:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- So far, I've had more luck finding errors in the use of en-verb (forfeit didn't have forfeited as PP when that consistitutes >98% of current uage, fit only had fitted) The manual list missed a few stem verbs, not just derivatives. It seems to me that we need an Appendix to error-check. Quality improvement seems to need redundancy. The approach of using ad hoc or annual runs against dumps that are designed to check for specific problems seems way better than narrow-purpose categories. I'm inclined to have this one deleted in favor of an Appendix. Is it worth filling up space at the bottom of the screen. For the short stem verbs (fit, bit, bet, etc) the Category can be a few clicks below the landing screen. In contrast, the inflection line presents the fact of form-identity. I don't know why a user would look to the category for others. DCDuring TALK 12:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Transwiki:List of German words and phrases
This was transwikied a while ago, and quite a few of its definitions seem to be red links. It would be nice to have some editors go through and copy-and-paste those into formatted articles where appropriate. Dmcdevit·t 09:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Native Korean words
Is this genuine and useful, or part of User:KYPark's effort to link English and Korean? The differentiation of "native Korean" words from "Euro-Korean" makes me suspicious. — Beobach972 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is part of KYPark’s delusion about Korean being genetically related to the Indo-European languages. Besides his steadfast refusal to use our approved Korean transcription system, he insists that he has the right to use Wiktionary to promote his unpopular linguistic theories. —Stephen 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Alright then, let's move this discussion to WT:RFDO. — Beobach972 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Impersonal verbs
This category has articles from more than one language. Needs tidying up.--Williamsayers79 09:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] May 2007
[edit] Category:Imitative Korean words
...and...
[edit] Korean entries with etymological nonsense
I'm going through and cleaning up the etymological nonsense, but I'd appreciate any help. Here are a bunch of entries that need cleanup : 울, 칼, 등대, 살, 바르다, 까까, 과자, 설탕, 단, 바다코끼리, 두껍다, 엄마, 박, 부레, 문, bakke, 무, 턱, 가다, 골, 솔기, 불라 (linked to Arabic! I'm impressed!), 두다, 땅, bal, 왼, 도끼 (again, impressive!), 썰다, 방아, 울안, 오른, 써리다. — Beobach972 03:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- See also 갭 and 재. — Beobach972 03:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- For some background on this subject, take a look at User talk:KYPark. A number of editors have attempted to deal with this (myself included), but it is a pickle, no doubt about it. Atelaes 03:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Oh, I've read through all that... that's why I didn't bother adding (what would just be yet another) section on this subject to the page. — Beobach972 19:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] line
This monster of a word has 42 definitions. Surely some of them can be taken together no? Anyway, it needs some love. H. (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've made some progress. I've made this a project of mine (but obviously, any help is welcome), I'll try to clean it up and group the ones that are related but cannot be combined. — Beobach972 15:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Why are the links in the definitions showing up in a different color on this page? --EncycloPetey 15:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The request-for-date template has some yellow text. For a while, links on this page to previously-visited pages mysteriously turned from blue to black instead of purple. Is that it? — Beobach972 14:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Do you mean that hundreds of senses need to be added? I see only 40 or so senses (at most) on the page. — Beobach972 20:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] re-surveillance
needs the works. Andrew massyn 20:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] so
One small section of this looks to be a mistake. Anyone more learned than me care to take a look. ===Adverb=== '''so''' # [[very|Very]]. #: ''He is '''so''' good!'' #: ''It’s not '''so''' bad.''
To me, ignorant as I am, this looks more like adjective use than adverb use.--Richardb 12:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- So in "so good" and "so bad" is an adverb. Try translating them into some languages that differentiate adjectives and adverbs more clearly and you will see. —Stephen 13:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ripe
Redundant senses, ambiguous translation section. --Connel MacKenzie 12:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] knaggie
This entry is labelled "Scottish". Is it Scottish Gaelic, Scots, or Scottish English? --EncycloPetey 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It is in the OED so must be English. They give its etymology as "Sc." - I think that means Scots. (And it was my mistake in the first place) SemperBlotto 08:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] their
The grammatical notes in the translation tables are too discursive to fit comfortably. These need to be moved to the pages for the translations themselves. (I'd do this myself but I don't have time right now.) — Paul G 12:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- In fact all the pronouns need a serious going-over. This is planned as one of my major summer projects when I'll have more time (in about two or three weeks). --EncycloPetey 15:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] they
Needs formatting; in particular, needs the italbrac template. (I'd do this myself but I don't have time to right now.) — Paul G 12:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Cardinal numbers
Which category naming scheme should be used, Category:German cardinal numbers or Category:de:Cardinal numbers? The subcategories need to be cleaned up. If, as I suspect, the Category:de:Cardinal numbers-style names are prefered, there is a lot of recategorising that we'll need to do. — Beobach972 20:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Numbers should have the respective language name, as in "German cardinal numbers", since they are actually German cardinal numbers (eins, zwei, drei, vier, fünf, etc., are German cardinal numbers). Since German cardinal number is a logical term, the "de:" format is not needed. —Stephen 13:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- The community uses prefixes like de: for topical categories and language names like German for part of speech categories. Stephen dissents in this matter. For cardinal numbers, I use Category:de:Cardinal numbers and the like because it's a topical rather than a grammatical category. That is, there are words that may be defined as cardinal numbers for mathematics but which do not function grammatically as numerals. The cardinal number aleph-null is my standard example for this. It represents the number of items in a particular kind of infinite set. However, since most cardinal numbers function in a particualr grammatical way, I would include Category:de:Cardinal numbers within a grammatical category like Category:German numerals (or Category:German numbers, since the vote reached no consensus). This way they may be found by looking through a grammatical over-category.
- You are correct that we have been very inconsistent in categorizing Numbers/Numerals, with different editors and languages using different terminology and approaches. As I noted above, I ran to vote to standardize them. The result was two small strongly-opinionated (and opposed) points of view with a large group of apathetic abstentions. --EncycloPetey 20:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- That’s probably because you probably held the vote on a "new" voting page which does not appear in people’s Watchlists. The dearth of votes isn’t due to apathy, but because the vote is effectively secret. —Stephen 13:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? I didn't say there was a dearth of votes, I said that there was a large group of abstentions. They voted to abstain, so they obviously found the page and voted. The vote was announced in the Beer Parlour as well, though not everyone announces new votes that way. However, all votes are linked through a single coordinating page, so if you are having trouble keeping track of new votes then I suggest you put Wiktionary:Votes on your Watchlist. --EncycloPetey 15:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- That’s probably because you probably held the vote on a "new" voting page which does not appear in people’s Watchlists. The dearth of votes isn’t due to apathy, but because the vote is effectively secret. —Stephen 13:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ah, alright. I've started to recategorise them. — Beobach972 02:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Wait a minute... we divide by POS... 'cardinal number' is a POS and is accepted as a header. What's the distinction here? — Beobach972 02:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Wiktionary:Concordances
if anything, this page should be a Template: page, not a Wiktionary: page, if necessary at all? --Richardb 07:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think ideally it should be a help page or style guideline for concordances. But concordances are still a very underdeveloped area of Wiktionary at the moment. Dmcdevit·t 08:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] anarchy
the heat is now off. Time to clean up and unprotect
Hopefully our visiting autocratic anarchist has done his dash and moved on to other parts. So time to clean up this horribly compromised entry. I've added my small suggestion at the end of the discussion page. --Richardb 14:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Unprotected. —Stephen 20:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] poll
(from RFV)
The sense "hair" - this has a citation so seems OK, but is it under the right etymology? — Paul G 10:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's not a simple question to answer. The OED etymologies for poll are convoluted in the extreme. Appparently there were once several words spelled "poll" in various senses and origins; these led to several derived terms; these then collapsed back into the form poll, but the details are complicated. We're also missing many, many definitions of this word. Note that the Poll page is currently a redirect to poll. --EncycloPetey 16:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- The poll tax article at Wikipedia mentions that "poll" once meant "head". It seems like a bit of a stretch to say that Stephenson meant "head" in this cite, but to me it clouds the "hair" definition a bit. Afiler 16:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] HALO and HAHO
- POS is "Abbreviation", but are these acronyms or just initialisms?
- The expanded forms are given with initial capitals, which is probably incorrect. (The fact that an abbreviation is made up of capitals says nothing about the capitalisation of the expanded form.)
- No meaning is given for the full phrase (although it can be guessed at).
— Paul G 12:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] правило
Why is a nonstandard numbered POS heading used here? Just to mess up bots? Or just to be incomprehensible? --Connel MacKenzie 16:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, it's because the entry has two homographs, each of which has a different declension. Our structure has no other way to match declensions when we have homographs that belong to the same part of speech but decline differently. I've handled levo (for Latin) by assuming that there are two different etymologies for the two words, though I don't know what those etymologies are, and they may not in fact be different. --EncycloPetey 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- That seems to be a non-sequitur...if they have the same etymology, then they are the same word (with the same declination.) If they are separate words (homographs) then something in their origin is different. --Connel MacKenzie 17:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The lemma form is a homograph, but there are two different inflection lines because the other forms are different. It is possible for two words to share an etymological origin, but inflect differently. The point is that outside of English, we seldom have etymologies entered. For many languages, no good etymological research exists. We have to be able to cope with this fact. --EncycloPetey 17:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Entering "Unknown" for an etymology section is perfectly valid (when accurate.) Why should an exception be made for other languages? Etymology is equally counter-intuitive for definitions of English words. To be less ambiguous about what I said earlier: each lemma homograph is a separate word, with a separate etymology (even if they all say simply "unknown.") --Connel MacKenzie 03:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- In the same way that English sometimes has more than one plural to accommodate different senses (antennas, antennae), even though they have exactly the same etymology, Russian often will pronounce a word that has one spelling two different ways, with two different declensions, though they have the same etymology. Likewise, Arabic nouns frequently have different plurals for different senses of a word, sometimes even different genders, even though they share the same etymology. The same thing occurs in many different languages, and while there are occasionally different etymologies, usually the homographs share the same etymology. —Stephen 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, antenna is a good example of what I mean: the things sticking up on an insect's head are not the same word (lemma?) as the electronic devices used to relay radio waves. Certainly, the etymology of the electronic device should not be the same, as that word's origin came from an imitation of the things sticking up from an insect's head. (When the Latin word for the things atop an insect's head was devised, electronics did not exist. When the term was borrowed from Latin into English, electronics did not exist. When television sets were invented with two things sticking up from the "head", Latin was already "dead.") --Connel MacKenzie 06:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- But surely they are the same, the radio devices being named after the insects' —Saltmarsh 05:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Also, the situation is generally different in the case of English, since English has borrowed the vast majority of its lexicon from other languages, especially Old French. Most languages have not done this, or at least not in historical times, and homographs are not borrowed from two similar languages, but are native vocabulary. So, the only etymological differences, if there are any at all, are the etymologies of the plural affixes. The stems of homographs usually have the same etymology. —Stephen 20:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I am not sure that my logic above is right and philologist I aint. But if θέρος has 2 genders, it is 2 words not one they both evolved from Ancient Greek when both meanings (harvest and summer) had the same n. gender. At some point the word for harvest changed gender so θέρος (n.) θέρος (m.) have different etymologies - the masculine version has a step beyond the neuter version - whether this was taken last year or 500y ago is irrelevant? —Saltmarsh 14:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] freak
Verb: still needs a rewrite. --Connel MacKenzie 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Intensifiers by language
I've rfc'ed this category for two reasons: primarily to establish its parentage as it occurs to me that intensifiers should not be considered a Parts Of Speech category. Secondly, I believe there are some items in the category which do not belong. __meco 11:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Usually, intensifiers are Adjectives, so no, I do not believe that inventing a new p-o-s classification is correct. Also, not all definitions will necessarily be identified as an intensifier, so having the ability to simply tag individual definitions is better, in my opinion. --Connel MacKenzie 16:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Intensifiers can also be adverbs, and in some languages particles. This isn't a part of speech, it's a function like negation is. --EncycloPetey 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] selbst
Is this a noun? Should it be capitalized, then? --Connel MacKenzie 16:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- It’s a pronoun. Cleaned up. —Stephen 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] luscious
The quotations need some work. H. (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Done ; ) L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] what the Sam Hill
Etymology is a mess. --Connel MacKenzie 15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have now edited this quite a bit, but I left the clean-up tag since the exact quotation is still needed. -- WikiPedant 14:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hmmm.
An American Glossary - Page 762 by Richard Hopwood Thornton - 1912 1868 1839 What in sam hill is that feller ballin' about ? ... He had bought him a little bobtailed mouse-colored mule, and was training him like Sam Hill. ...
-
- Also, I didn't find "Sam Hill" in TKAM, but it does seem to be present in the "Play" adaptation for Broadway. But searching "Sam Hill" on b.g.c. shows that it is much older than that etymology suggested. (Thank you for cleaning that up, BTW.) --Connel MacKenzie 08:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] June 2007
[edit] artificial grammar
The definition makes no sense to me. Needs attention from somebody familiar with this concept. -- WikiPedant 02:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] dork
The etymology is spread all over the article, should be brought together. H. (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Um, we had quite a run with the "whale penis" vandalism. I think it was Paul that verified it as completely untrue (just a 4chan vandalism effort or something.) --Connel MacKenzie 21:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] click wheel
--Connel MacKenzie 21:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's O.K. now, at least cleanliness-wise. Properly speaking, the term should probably be capitalized ("Click wheel" or "Click Wheel", I'm not sure which), but plenty of b.g.c. hits don't capitalize it; this might be a matter for RFV. The bigger problem as I see it is that we currently give only the iPod sense of the term, which while currently the primary sense (if Google is any indication), is presumably not going to last as long as the traditional sense. —RuakhTALK 23:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- I agree the definition could be rewritten. An iPod is merely an example, but probably shouldn't even be mentioned. --Connel MacKenzie 15:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 𒌋
Tagged, but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] heartleaf
[edit] heart-leaf
[edit] leather leaf
[edit] ragleaf
[edit] sweetleaf
What is the plural of these words? Any botanist know what the various plants referred to are? Every dictionary I look at seems to have different definitions. — Paul G 06:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it's not in Mabberley (The Plant-Book), so I couldn't guess which plant(s) is meant. Common names for plants can be highly regional. Consider that Populus alba (the white poplar) is commonly called a sugar maple in the Ozarks and Oauchitas, even though it's not even remotely a maple tree. For an animal example, consider that the robin is an entirely different bird in the US and UK. About their only similarity is a bit of red color (or colour) on the breast. My guess for the plural is that it's the same as the singular. For almost any plant, and especially grasses and shrubs, a group of individual plants uses a mass noun identical to the singular, as in: The hillside was covered in heather. An inflected form for the plural shows up when individuals are being emphasized, as in: The forest was dark under the oaks.; or for showy flowers, as in: We strolled among the roses.; or when the common name is used to refer to a suprageneric taxon such as a family, as in: The lilies have flowers with six tepals and a superior ovary, I couldn't say what form the plural would take in this case, as it might not even be used. --EncycloPetey 06:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for that. The reference works with differing definitions are the OED (two defs: heart-clover; floating heart), onelook (two defs, including "wild ginger"); and Wikipedia (Houttuynia cordata as a root vegetable). — Paul G 06:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Sadly, I don't have access to a British Flora these days. For the OED, we'd be dealing with nomenclature from over 100 years ago, subject to lots of changes. So, the species might have been split into two new ones, or it might have been subsumed into another one. I can say that most clovers are in genus Trifolium, and most have heart-shaped leaflets (in threes) at the end of each leaf. I wouldn't want to guess at "floating heart" (which does not have an OED entry!), since it could be a water lily or a member of the litle floating aquatic plant species with heart-shaped leaves (whose name escapes me at the moment). Wild ginger is usually Asarum canadense (which is in no way related to the plant used in cooking as ginger). --EncycloPetey 06:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- As for the plural, I wonder whether it is "-leafs" or "-leaves"; if this is a plant you can buy, would you ask for "two heart-leafs" or "two heart-leaves"? Comparing Google hits doesn't help much. — Paul G 06:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] lace-leaf
Calling all botanists again... What is the plural? Which binominal name is correct? The OED has Ouvirandra fenestralis but Wikipedia has Aponogeton madagascariensis and Aponogeton fenestralis. — Paul G 06:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- According to the International Plants Names Index, Ouvirandra fenestralis is now called Aponogeton fenestralis. The genus Ouvirandra was subsumed into the genus Aponogeton. --EncycloPetey 07:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks - that's very helpful. I'll update the article accordingly. — Paul G 08:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] picture
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- See Talk:picture. --Connel MacKenzie 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] abandono
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Edit summary comment: "rfc novial : shouldn't the stuff in Derivation be in a standard Etymology section?" User:Hippietrail. --Connel MacKenzie 22:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] perak
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- No POS entered. --Connel MacKenzie 22:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] bankrupt
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] leader
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have started working on this in hopes of updating it enough to remove both the rfc and the webster's warning tag. I would appreciate any advice or thoughts or evaluation here or on Talk:leader. DCDuring TALK 20:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] plea
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 丼
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] links
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Cleaned up. —Stephen 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] pyramid
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] twentieth
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mongolian
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] double
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] local
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] tapioca
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bondi
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] -ible
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] za
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] neighborhood
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] grazier
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] lance
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] flake
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] scape
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] fiscal conservative
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] power inverter
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] filk
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] sugartime
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] imagine
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] sutra
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] grá
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] shiwu
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] inflatio
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] runaway
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] euchre
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] mobility
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] anilingus
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] matte
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] anapest
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] pasha
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] trunnion
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] אבד
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Students of Hebrew and Aramaic use those terms in English. There really are no common English equivalents that someone who knew nothing about Hebrew would understand. English has some parts of speech that do not exist in some other languages, and some languages have parts of speech that are different from the English ones. Sometimes we try to use an English term, such as gerund for the Russian деепричастие, but it causes a lot of confusion since it is quite different from an English gerund. For example, an English gerund is a verbal noun, but a деепричастие is in no way a noun. Trying to force foreign languages into an English mold may work for closely related languages such as Spanish, French, and German, but the more distant the language, the more it does not fit the mold. —Stephen 16:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Stephen, we don't ONLY have our current format, so that the end result is comprehensible (unlike this current entry.) We also avoid things like "Qal construction" as headings to avoid allegations that we are taking some of our material from copyright-protected sources. While I agree that the etym/POS breakdown does not work, even for English, it is the Wiktionary way. From my perspective, there is no way that the POS heading "Participle" can be a Level-5 heading. For the "Qal construction", that is quite absolutely, undeniably "Etymological" information!
-
- This is the English Wiktionary, with articles written for ENGLISH READERS. Writing an entry in a style comprehensible only to Hebrew linguists is not appropriate. --Connel MacKenzie 09:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] racaille
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] aiiro
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] serdar
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] email split
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] bonga maso
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] truncation
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] shib
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MAR
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] gabfest
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] unilateral contract
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] carrying violation
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] inchoation
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] bent as a two bob
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] and all
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] virial
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] allocation
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] mountainous climate
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] two's company, three's a crowd
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC) done. DCDuring TALK 02:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] subodh
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] discourse marker
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with the entry seems to be how to handle the vast number of examples: on second thought, anyway, but seriously folks, .... Shouldn't this be a category or a grammatical marker for senses or even a PoS heading? The words and phrases that are used as discourse markers appear under PoS headers of idiom, phrase, interjection, adverb, and possibly others. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] O'Dare
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 刻舟求剑
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] polar cone
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] modal scale
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
If anyone is upset by me listing these 113 previously tagged, but unlisted entries, I'll be happy to move them as a list to my userpage-space, and continue adding them here only intermittently. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Aloysius
If this is a Provençal given name, then it should not be under an English language header. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- It’s English with a Provençal etymology. —Stephen 16:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Amfilohia
This is a Greek placename — albeit Romanised — not an English one, and should therefore not be under an English language header. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Amfilokhia
As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Antirio
As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Antirion
As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Antirrio
As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Antirrion
As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jaieve
Probably not English, but rather Spanish or Belizean Kriol. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] eefa
--Connel MacKenzie 08:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] humor
Should the translations all just be marked with "TTBC"? --Connel MacKenzie 08:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] tram
--Connel MacKenzie 08:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] spectator
Change to {{rfd-sense}}? --Connel MacKenzie 08:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] sap
The indentation levels are incorrect and sort out which meanings belong to which etymology. Also clean up cites (dates and markup). H. (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] rotate
What a mess. Tagged, but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 19:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] idea
The derived terms section includes terms derived from terms in the list (eg, "ideally" from "ideal") which should be moved out of this table; further, not all terms are derived from "idea": those beginning "ideo-" are certainly not; these may well be related, however.
Note that this table was mistitled "Related terms", so probably lumped all derived and related terms together. — Paul G 14:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] apprehension
The usage notes are a bit messy (I moved one from in between the definitions). Citations need dates as well. Doe we want WEAE in pronunciation sections? H. (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] amir
The language of the definition seems a little old-fashioned, and the definition doesn't correspond with emir (which lists amir) as an alternative spelling). Pistachio 08:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Improved. —Stephen 14:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. *-* Pistachio 17:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ratepayers group
- Moved from RFV.
Is this any more than the sum of its parts? SemperBlotto 07:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem any different from most of our {{legal}} terms. There is a sense missing, in the context of group benefits meaning groups of groups. I'd say yes, this is a technical definition...just jargon specific to both the legal and health insurance industries. --Connel MacKenzie 03:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Did you mean to RFD? Keep per Connel. DAVilla 17:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] kurang
POS? --Connel MacKenzie 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not an easy question to answer. I've begun learning a little Indonesian, and I'm baffled so far by the way they handle parts of speech. The definitions I can find for this word are sometimes verbs, sometimes adjetives, sometimes adverbs, and even nouns. And no, the definitions are not sorted according to these various POS as we understand them. As near as I can make out, Indonesian uses a number of base forms and the addition of affixes shades the meaning to the desired sense, grammar, and part of speech (see w:Indonesian_language#Grammar). It will take someone very familiar with both Indonesian and the study of grammar to categorize any Indonesian word we have questions about. --EncycloPetey 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 𒀸
This is a symbol, right? --Connel MacKenzie 23:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a letter, used in cuneiform languages. However, it's also a word, and so does require all the separate language sections that it has. Unfortunately Dbachmann was one of the few people on Wiktionary who knew enough about these characters to write a proper entry on them. My suggestion is to simply leave them as they are. While they are rather garbled, I believe they do contain a fair bit of good information. Hopefully, someone will come along, in time, who knows enough about cuneiform languages (and is willing to follow Wiktionary formatting policies) to create a better entry. Atelaes 23:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Cuneiform is a script used to write long-extinct languages. While research exists for these languages, most of it seems to be heavily copyright protected research. Two of the 19 references listed on w:Cuneiform seem OK, but are written in German. The notion that we should wait for a native speaker come along and flesh out these entries is not reasonable. The information that is there offhand seems highly suspect; either it is is translated from German (where it might violate NOR,) or is gleaned from copyright-protected sources. Simply leaving it alone seems precarious. I suppose the argument could be made that the information has been "common knowledge" since 1841, but I wouldn't believe that the whole body of research was, personally. The fact that the "contents" of the entry is unintelligible (codes cross-referencing modern research texts, presumably) make this more suspicious. Move to RFD? Or to WT:BP? --Connel MacKenzie 01:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikisaurus:badness
Someone User:Michelo moved this entry from "evil" to "badness". It needs to be split ito "evil" and "badness", as it is a fairly useless mish-mash as it is.
And why they moved it is beyond me. There is an evilentry in Roget's for starters. Do they think "Evil" and "badness" are the same thing ?
And then some of the words in it are completely dubious for either category - funmaker, joker, elf, bad boy, mischief ???
Which does raise a question about whther Wikisaurus will ever work if people are that s*!$@d.
I'll try to clean it up, work out what they were really trying to do. --Richardb 03:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] adalah
We have been trying to fit foreign languages into English patterns, sometimes disasterously. Maybe we should have a miscellaneous header, such as ===Other===, which could be followed with Predicative, or Predicate marker, or whatever the case may be. In adalah for example, the word is a predicate marker, and while it is in no wise a verb, it is often translated as one. Russian words such as нельзя are predicatives, words that act as a sort of verb but which are not verbs. Changing the headers to ===Other=== 'Predicative, etc., would be much better than mistakenly changing to ===Preposition=== or ===Verb===. —Stephen 16:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why not use Particle? --EncycloPetey 22:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Particle is vague enough that it could be used for this one case, but it still has to mention that it’s a predicative marker because particle is too broad. But there are a number of other cases where different languages have parts of speech not found in English and where particle can’t be used. There are some words that could be labelled "impersonal verbs", but which cannot be called simply "verbs". Since they are not verbs and the header "impersonal verb" is too exotic, something else needs to be found (I think it would be a stretch to call them particles). There are other words that may be called predicatives, but they are neither verb nor adverb. German has something vaguely similar to some of these called modals, but modals are true verbs, and predicatives are not verbs. There might be some little-known term for some of these words that I don’t know about, but that offers no help. There are some Russian words that are occasionally called gerunds, but which are nothing like English gerunds and are not verbal nouns or any other kind of noun (some people call them gerunds because there are partial parallels with the Latin gerund). If they cannot be called what they are (adverbial participles), then we need a vague term like ===Other===. I don’t think anything like particle, noun, verb, or adverb will work for them. I can add the correct term for all these words, but the correct term is frequently different from standard English grammar and so someone has to clean them up by "Anglicizing" the headers. It seems to me that the safest thing to do would be to create a catch-all header like ===Other===. That way at least, predicative markers would not get changed to ===Preposition===, and Russian gerunds would not be changed to ===Noun===. —Stephen 23:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I understand the problem. I'm partial to using ===Participle=== in Latin because calling them "verb" or "adjective" isn't adequate. Personally, I would rather see a new positive descriptive header used to tell the user what an entry is, rather than use a vague ===Other=== which simply tells the user what the entry isn't. This might mean expanding the unofficial list at WT:POS, but then we are trying to include "all words in all languages", so there are bound to be some POS headers that look unfamiliar to English speakers. In this particular case, why not use Particle and add some Usage notes to explain the entry's function a bit? --EncycloPetey 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- I would much prefer to call things what they are. Participles play major roles in Russian and Arabic, too. Russian participles are complex and "adjective" is not adequate for them. Arabic participles are sometimes used as adjectives, sometimes and nouns, but very often in place of finite verbs, and therefore they cannot be called adjectives. There are numerous other cases specific to certain languages. But there are complaints that calling things what they are has a deleterious effect on some statics and cause problems for bots. I haven’t seen these statistics and it’s difficult to imagine why they would be of more than passing importance, but I do understand the bot argument, more or less. What if we included an invisible code at the beginning of nonstandard headers, such as ==={{@}}Participle=== which would tell the bots to ignore it? I doubt that there is any reasonably good solution to this problem, especially because of the statistics concern. Right now it’s a mess, and people cleaning pages in languages they don’t understand are just messing them up. —Stephen 16:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's one of the key reasons I moved to get WT:POS started. The idea was to have a reference list for POS headers in use that bot users could compare against. If there was a need for a new header, there would be a place to list it and explain the rationale for including it. As one of the people cleaning up messy old headers, I can understand the concern. We have Pronoun, but also Personal Pronoun, Demonstrative Pronoun, Interrogative Pronoun, etc., and all of these can simply be Pronoun. At the same time I understand the issue that not all languages fit neatly into the classical mold of Latin grammarians. I suspect once most of the cruft is cleaned away and a bit more standardization is in place, there will be less concern for bot issues. In any event, having a list of headers (even if it's still unofficial) should solve much of the bot problem. Connel and Robert would be better able than I to speak on that issue. --EncycloPetey 01:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Addendum: If there are some POS headers you've been wanting to see added, a discussion on this topic has just begun in the Beer Parlour. --EncycloPetey 05:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] allumé
Is this French slang for drunk/stoned (lit?) --Connel MacKenzie 10:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I know, it’s an Anglicism. I’ve never heard allumé used to mean drunk or stoned before. —Stephen 17:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've never heard it, either; I think it might be heavily dated slang. The digitized Trésor de la Langue Française (TLFi) includes as a sub-sub-sub-sub-sense (sub-sense of the figurative sub-sense of the light-related sub-sense of the adjective sub-sense):
-
-
- Arg. [Slang], pop. [native] ,,Échauffé par le vin.`` ["Heated by wine"] (LARCH. 1880 [i.e., the def was taken from an 1880 source])
-
-
- and gives a cite from 1887.
[edit] dhirad
Should this word be under, or include, Hindi script? Pistachio 17:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] racism
The "usage notes" are longer than the dictionary entry. This is becoming an encyclopedic entry, and need to be cleaned up. —This unsigned comment was added by Littlebum2002 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
- I tried to clean it up, but there are probably NPOV problems now. More eyes welcome. —RuakhTALK 01:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't think the fact that the usage notes are longer than the entry should bother us, especially for such a term, where the usage is subject to so much debate and the term is so frequently used with a fairly precise definition. Many of the usage notes in American Heritage (at least online) are longer than the terms' definitions, and they have concerns about concision (at least in their printed editions) that we don't have.
- The usage notes as they were were not encyclopedic. People coming to a dictionary expect to understand a word's meaning and how it's used (along with pronunciation, etymology, and other things), and many dictionaries employ usage notes, quotations, and example sentences for that reason. Many terms that cannot be effectively summed up in a section shorter than the definition, and I think we should include racism among them because of the many common usages of the term that are not encapsulated in mainstream dictionaries.
- The current usage notes section is just a list of rather unclear ideas about the term, some of which don't belong on that page. For example, I don't really think reverse racism deserves more than a simple mention; the paragraph currently there belongs in some form on the reverse racism article itself and not on the article for racism. Personally I feel like the usage notes have gotten significantly worse than they were before, but I don't exactly have an unbiased opinion (even were such a thing possible). That said, they should probably just be removed until someone with more interest in citing their sources than I is willing to take a stab at them. I've always been more interested in arguing ideas than in researching (the latter of which is much more valuable and certainly more appropriate in this forum). Jun-Dai 02:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikisaurus:mountain
several words which appear not to be synonyms, and not listed under any other heading.--Richardb 13:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] splendiferous
What...the...@#$%? --Connel MacKenzie 20:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- No idea what the person was trying to do. --EncycloPetey 23:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 丁 (Vietnamese)
The Vietnamese section probably needs a L3 ('POS') header, if not other cleanup. — Beobach972 02:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] mitigation
The definition is in term of verbs, while the word is a noun. Wikipedia gives something else to interpret. H. (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] skittling
This entry needs cleaning up and formatting better, but I'm not certain how to go about it. Thryduulf 17:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] July 2007
[edit] bollocks
The noun and verb senses need standardising. I'm not certain how to sort it, particularly the noun sense which is almost exclusively used in plural (some senses are plural only) but the singular does exist. Thryduulf 21:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] buck
The noun senses refer to numbered senses of other definitions which are no-longer accurate. For exmaple definition 6 starts "by extension of (6)... ". Thryduulf 11:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] economy class syndrome
Needs wikilove. --Connel MacKenzie 19:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] vertical bar
Tagged but not listed. The definition needs to be split and probably made not quite so technical (and that’s coming from me!). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] look like
The two senses seem to be an avalent and a copula sense of "look" with the preposition "like". Do they belong at "look"? Rod (A. Smith) 19:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I think this deserves its own entry, though I'm not sure that the first sense currently on the page is worth retaining here. It looks like it's only a particular use of "like", and is synonymous with "look as though". However, the second definition isn't synonymous with the same set of uses. Rather, the second definition is synonymous with "resemble", so its meaning is equicalent to that of other words-in-their-own-right. There's also a third sense, as evidenced by the construction: "It looks like rain," which isn't covered by either of the existing definitions. That puts two solid definitions on this one contstruction (if we discount the existing first one), neither of which shares the same set of synonymous expressions as the other. --EncycloPetey 19:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I probably didn't express myself clearly. I wasn't RFD'ing the entry, but rather RFC-ing it because I think the definitions belong at "look" noting their use with "like". The idiomatic sense seems part of the verb "look" with a normal sense of the word "like". Consider the following:
- It looks like I'm stuck with you.
- It looks as though I'm stuck with you.
- Ostriches look like emus to some people, but they are only distantly related.
- Ostriches look similar to emus to some people, but they are only distantly related.
- Rod (A. Smith) 16:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I probably didn't express myself clearly. I wasn't RFD'ing the entry, but rather RFC-ing it because I think the definitions belong at "look" noting their use with "like". The idiomatic sense seems part of the verb "look" with a normal sense of the word "like". Consider the following:
[edit] look alike
Like "look like", "look alike" probably belongs on "look". Consider these two sentences:
- They look alike.
- They look identical.
Rod (A. Smith) 18:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, a look alike should be listed as a noun as well. But "look like" seems to be sum-of-parts. --Connel MacKenzie 18:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- For example, "The Dodge Shadow was more than a look alike of the Plymouth Sundance; they actually were the same car with only a nameplate change." --Connel MacKenzie 18:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] air display
Random combination of words, or a regional equivalent of air show? --Connel MacKenzie 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- To me an air display is a performance of aerobatics, etc. (more than just a fly-past) at an event that is not an air show. For example I went to the British Grand Prix (Formula One) a few years back, and there were air displays by the w:Red Arrows (Sunday) and the w:Blue Eagles (Saturday). An airshow being an event where aircraft are the primary focus - e.g the w:Royal International Air Tattoo. Thryduulf 21:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- That's pretty much my understanding too. Although the term might sometimes be used synonymously with "air show", that doesn't seem to fully capture the meaning. For example, as you say, a performance at a Grand Prix would normally be called an "air display", not an "air show". In the UK anyway. Matt 00:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC).
-
-
- Alrighty then, moving to WT:RFC instead. --Connel MacKenzie 05:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Peenu
--Connel MacKenzie 01:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Have you checked whether this is a copyvio? Thryduulf 08:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Address of record
Could someone decrypt this into English please? :-) I have no idea what it means to say. Dmcdevit·t 03:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- The link to here uses PAGENAME, not FULLPAGENAME, so I've masked the "Transwiki:" portion.
- RFC 3251 is about telephone-over-ip "Session Initiation Protocol". Their definition is:
Address-of-Record: An address-of-record (AOR) is a SIP or SIPS URI that points to a domain with a location service that can map the URI to another URI where the user might be available. Typically, the location service is populated through registrations. An AOR is frequently thought of as the "public address" of the user.
- and although similar to the definition given in the transwiki, doesn't convey that that it is the reported address you'd connect to, to establish connection with someone over a bridge or through a NAT firewall, etc. --Connel MacKenzie 04:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] serjeanty
Is this a noun? --Connel MacKenzie 18:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- From the example sentence I'd have said it was an adjective, but The Chambers Dictionary (1998) has it as a noun. Thryduulf 20:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] milk it
Move to "milk"? Rod (A. Smith) 20:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. --EncycloPetey 21:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Moving to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#milk it. Mglovesfun 11:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] yūki
This Japanese Romaji entry needs formatting and cleanup. --EncycloPetey 22:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Made it look like a normal romaji entry Cynewulf 03:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] envy
The order of entries needs correcting, a translation table needs constructing and the definition wouldn't harm from condensing. Thryduulf 23:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- "Nounal sense"? What is the preoccupation with unfamiliar terms, when actual English words suffice so much better? --Connel MacKenzie 04:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Noun and verb are nouns; nounal and verbal are adjectives. I am merely being grammatical. (Connel, just what exactly is your esoteric definition of an “actual English word”?) † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 07:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Firstly, the normal adjective form of noun would be nominal, and while perhaps verbal has an adjective sense definable as "of or pertaining to a verb", its main sense is quite different. Secondly, there's nothing ungrammatical about using a noun attributively, as in "noun sense" and "verb sense". Thirdly, seeing as the translation sections appear within the part-of-speech section to which they apply, immediately after the definitions, I don't think including the part of speech in the table header is helpful or useful. Fourthly, there's a convention here of giving glosses in the translation table header — essential if another sense is later added. —RuakhTALK 16:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] staple
Definitions overlap etc. Native speaker needed. H. (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. The "separate" definitions (all) under etymology 2 and 3 should be one single definition. The (very, very rare) stitching tightness is just a figurative use from same definition, certainly not a separate etymology. Bizarre that someone split it up so much. --Connel MacKenzie 15:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] sieltan
The numerous unnecessary headers need cleanup. --EncycloPetey 05:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Needs to be made into a table. —Stephen 12:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] tamil
This needs controlling by native (better) speakers of Spanish and Swedish, copied over from Tamil. H. (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've fixed the Spanish section. --EncycloPetey 08:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Swedish section is ok. Striking this. \Mike 10:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] weed
All but two senses seem bogus or non-sensibly over-precise. For example, marijuana and tobacco are both weeds, but the slang usually refers only to marijuana. Rather than list the senses on RFD/RFV, I tagged them so it is clear (clearer) what my complaints are, directly in the entry. After cleanup, if any remain I guess they can be nominated on RFD or RFV.
The translations seem to depend on the Polish language's distinction of lots of sub-senses. The English meanings shouldn't be split out to accommodate that, rather, the translation tables where it applies should list the three variants and what restrictions apply (one or two words, with usage notes or full glosses given as explanation on the target Polish entries.)
--Connel MacKenzie 02:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comments on some of the senses to be discussed:
- I can cite usage of weed to mean tobacco from Tolkien (and it's in the OED). I remember the Peter Jackson film sticking to the original line from the first book of "Finest weed in the South Farthing", which caused unintended laughter amongst the Berkeley audience I saw it with. We should keep the "tobacco" sense, however, we should probably mark it as archaic or obsolete, given that it's no longer understood to mean that by most English speakers.
- The sense of "cigar" is listed and cited in the OED (likely obsolete now), so is the "animal unfit to breed from" although the OED specifically applies it to horses and says that it pertains to a mangy straggly sort of appearance.
- The "underbrush" sense is not redundant. Look closely and you'll see it's (uncountable), and is therefore not truly combinable with sense 1.
- I don't find any evidence of "sudden illness" or "somthing unprofitable" as possible definitions.
- --EncycloPetey 06:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Thank you. I've made some of those changes, and reordered the current meanings to come before the obsolete meanings, and the rfv-senses to come after that. --Connel MacKenzie 18:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] media whore
I'm not sure media whore is an appropriate word for a dictionary , it's more an insult than something else and it should at least get the appropriate definition(not the one it has now, as it is a term to refer ppl using their popularity). Anyway, the better thing to do remains to be to delete the word's page on wiktionary right now. —This unsigned comment was added by 81.220.189.248 (talk • contribs).
- Firstly, as a real word in a real language it is suitable for inclusion in Wiktionary. I have added a second definition based on my understanding and a suggestion at talk:media whore, and marked both definitions as (derogatory) to better convey how the word is used. If you feel the definition is still lacking, please either improve it yourself or let us know specifically how you feel it can be improved. Thryduulf 16:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is merelt a specific use of the general word whore with a modifier, so it does not require a separate entry. --EncycloPetey 19:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] August 2007
[edit] poedel
The etymology for this Dutch word seems to be for another Dutch word, or am I mistaken? --EncycloPetey 06:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- It should be under Derived terms rather than Etymology. —Stephen 14:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK, that makes sense. I think the User who created this entry is regularly confusing Etymology with Derived terms. Thanks for figuring this out. --EncycloPetey 18:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] time-span reduction
Definition given:
- "the relative structural importance of events as heard within contextually established rhythmic units" takes place over the time-span segmentation
It's apparently from the referenced source: Lerdahl, Fred (1992). Cognitive Constraints on Compositional Systems, Contemporary Music Review 6 (2), pp. 97-121.
I can't make much sense of the given definition, but it needs to be written anew from a copyright standpoint, anyway. Rod (A. Smith) 06:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DeLone copyright definitions
[edit] aggregate
[edit] all-interval set
[edit] beat level
[edit] combinatoriality
[edit] contrametric
[edit] division level
[edit] durational pattern
[edit] equal-interval chord
[edit] extrametric
[edit] hexachord
[edit] interpolation
[edit] intrametric
[edit] inversion
[edit] metric
[edit] metric level
[edit] mixed-interval chord
[edit] multiple level
[edit] permutation
[edit] pulse
[edit] rhythmic gesture
[edit] rhythmic unit
[edit] syncopation
[edit] Lerdahl copyright definitions
[edit] artificial grammar
[edit] grouping structure
[edit] metrical structure
[edit] musical grammar
[edit] natural grammar
[edit] preference rules
[edit] prolongational reduction
[edit] stability conditions
[edit] time-span reduction
[edit] time-span segmentation
[edit] transformational rules
[edit] well-formedness rules
As noted in WT:BP#DeLone copyvios?, the music definitions for the above entries contain definitions for which DeLone and Lerdahl hold the copyright. Rod (A. Smith) 05:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Zollverein
--Connel MacKenzie 13:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think the English form should be moved to lowercase. —Stephen 12:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] blockquote
The Portuguese translation translates the definition, not the headword. It needs to be replaced with a proper definition or, if none exists, trimmed into a brief gloss (the current one is far too wordy). — Paul G 13:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] net sales
I think this could maybe have a good entry some day, but right now has no content and should really be cleaned up and have a decent def and format put in. Neskaya 22:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] double negative
[edit] litotes
These two entries need cleaning up in conjunction with each other. They each imply that a double negation to imply a weak positive (e.g. "not bad" meaning "alright", "so so"; "not unhappy" meaning neither particularly happy nor unhappy) is the other. Thryduulf 15:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know whether this has been changed yet, but based on the current definitions, I disagree:
- Firstly, neither of them necessarily mean a "weak positive"; Double Negatives can just be considered bad english, and Litotes quite often imply a strong positive.
- Secondly, the overall opinion of the two differ widely; Litotes are used deliberately, and intended for emphasis, whereas Double Negatives are generally frowned upon, and considered a mistake.
- P.S. This is my first comment; I hope I'm not out of place! Dave
- —This unsigned comment was added by 62.164.251.32 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC).
-
- We may disagree, but they are not out of place.
- An entry is not supposed to be written as if we were a grammar, usage, or style guide. We have a "lexical" focus, about words as words. We usually hint at such matters, perhaps illustrating the phenomenon with examples, as we would other entries with a photo or drawing, and pass the user on to Wikipedia or an Appendix. DCDuring TALK 14:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Also, the "usage notes" don't really belong there, because they aren't describing how to use the phrase double negative. Equinox ◑ 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have reworded the first sentence at double negative to make it more like a real usage note, while still hinting at the "correctness" matter. The other material is commented out or moved to an Examples box. Is the Examples box useful? DCDuring TALK 14:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have moved the examples at litotes to an Examples box and added a double negative example.
- Many linguistic and rhetorical entries exhibit inappropriate modality. The location that should be for usage examples of the word is instead used for illustrations of the phenomenon. Ruakh's recent {{Examples-right}} provides a format for such things that eliminates, I think, the modal confusion. Many similar linguistic and rhetorical entries need to be appropriately modified. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also, the "usage notes" don't really belong there, because they aren't describing how to use the phrase double negative. Equinox ◑ 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Ardi Gasna
Lowercase? --Connel MacKenzie 22:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Seemingly like the names of most cheeses, the capitalisation of the name is not fixed (e.g. cheddar and Cheddar are used interchangeably to refer to the cheese, although the toponym is universally capitalised). In this instance, there are too few b.g.c hits in English to form a representative sample, but about 70-80% of the google web hits are capitalised.
- According to the google web hits, "Ardi Gasana" is not a toponym, but is Basque for "sheep's cheese" (or "ewe's cheese"). My knowledge of capitalisation in Basque is non-existent, but the name of the cheese should get a Basque entry at whichever is correct (similarly also French and German and possibly other languages, based on the b.g.c hits). The individual words should also get Basque entries if they haven't already (I haven't checked). Thryduulf 22:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] absent
Quotes need dates etc. One definition is a bit strange, native speaker needed. H. (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree about that definition, I've marked it for RFV. Thryduulf 11:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] almanac
I think the etymology for this is wrong... It's from the Arabic المناخ (al-manaakh) rather than the Greek, I'm sure. We might've got the word through Greek, but it probably came from the Arabic to start with. المناخ means "the climate" Sorry if I'm wrong Jakeybean 18:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually this word has a confusing origin. It is likely that it went from Coptic to Late Greek to Hispano-Arabic, and then from there into Arabic المناخ as well as to Latin or French. Arabic المناخ has two distinct meanings, climate and way station, presumably both from نوخ (náwwaxa, to stop for a rest)...since the meaning of climate is quite a stretch, it is possible that this meaning of المناخ is unrelated to the other, but was borrowed from Hispano-Arabic and associated with نوخ by backformation. —Stephen 12:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] allopathic
This definitions for allopathic and allopathy are no good. The origins of the word and its current usage differ significantly. See Talk:allopathic for examples of its usage. There is wide regional variation in how the term is used, and in the connotations it carries: U.S v U.K. v India. Can someone with some Wiktionary expertise take a look. Thanks. —This unsigned comment was added by 75.195.50.227 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC).
- Here in the US, I've never heard either. Very interesting, though. Google news is suggestive, that it may be an India-only set-phrase. If that is so, then it should have {{India}} at the start of the definitions. (Note the Connecticut news item had to define it in parenthesis.) The allopathic definition should explain what allopathy is and perhaps give an example that uses 'homeopathic medicine' (its antonym) as a counter-option. --Connel MacKenzie 05:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- In my region of the US, I've only heard “allopathy” in discussions about homeopathy. Specifically, I've heard people in chiropractor's offices refer with disdain to the American Medical Association and, seemingly by association, to allopathy in general. I don't specifically remember hearing “allopathic”, but I'm sure it's part of the vocabulary of those who say “allopathy”. Rod (A. Smith) 05:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: lots of reading material on talk:allopathic. --Connel MacKenzie 04:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Our current definition of allopathy is "traditional medicine" but the wikipedia article it linsk to defines it as "Allopathic medicine or allopathy, a term for scientific, research-based orthodox medicine". I'm not convinced this is the first use of traditional I'd think of. RJFJR 12:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a transcript of recent congressional testimony where the word is used frequently:
- Salsberg, Edward.Testimony to United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. Association of American Medical Colleges. 74.72.70.247 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:allopathic for some sources. 74.72.70.247 20:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC) [Copied from Allopathy/Allopathic below DCDuring 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]
[edit] sexual intercourse
Circular definition. --Connel MacKenzie 17:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] information technology
Redundant defs (translations obviously only to one encompassing definition.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I merged the first two defs. The remaining unmerged one (“the computing department of an organization”) seems distinct to me, so I didn't merge it. Opinions? Rod (A. Smith) 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Agree/but - it would be shorthand for "IT Section", "IT Dept", etc? BUT then we have Engineering for "Engineering Dept", English for "English Dept" - so I'm not so sure. —Saltmarsh 14:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Should probably go to RFV if not removed outright. This is familiar enough in uppercase (although I concur with Saltmarsh that it seems like part of a general pattern of department-naming) and especially in the abbreviation "IT"...but using the lowercase spelled-out form seems quite odd. -- Visviva 17:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] mopy
I nedd help with formatting. I'm not sure how to set up etymology for the verb form. And the noun is a problem: the noun is actually mopy fish, which should actually have the odd capitalization MOPy fish, but I can see people trying to look up mopy if they saw the term mopy fish somewhere. (Sorry about the mess). RJFJR 13:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Template:nl-verb
{{subst:notenglish}}: ik; wij; jij/u; jullie; hij/zij; zij. --Connel MacKenzie 19:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what cleanup you're asking for. The list you've given are the Dutch pronouns "I, we, you/you (formal), you (pl), etc." Each pronoun should proceed the corresponding verb inflection. I don't see anything to clean up. --EncycloPetey 23:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- That would make the table very messy. Instead of saying "jij/u", we would have to say "second person singular familiar preceded by pronoun and third person singular formal preceded or followed by pronoun". Dutch has two second person familiar verb forms that differ depending on which second person pronoun is used; one (jij) precedes the verb while the other (je) follows the verb when it appears in a question. --EncycloPetey 02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The table is already messy, but that aside: it is described in Dutch, not English. At least link the things to a special appendix, or do something to describe them in English. My preference, would be to see "I, we, you/you (formal), you (pl), etc." instead of the Dutch currently there. A less acceptable compromise would be "I (ik); we (wij); you (jij); you (formal; jiju); you (plural; jullie); etc." But listing only in Dutch belongs on nl.wikt, not here. --Connel MacKenzie 23:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Do not forget to also fix the derived templates {{nl-verb-refl}} and {{nl-verb-sep}}. H. (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] All the cats added by User:WritersCramp
Remove bad Italian translations. Remove links to nonexistant Commons entries. Format headword properly. Add brief description. Remove word "cat" from article name where appropriate. SemperBlotto 07:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] nkhukutemwa
Nkhukutemwa is not a ===Phrase===, it’s a single word. —Stephen 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Misc. templates
Apologies if this belongs in WT:GP, not here...
The following templates seem to be incorrectly plural (the labels should be singular, the categories plural):
{{dogs}}, {{particles}}, {{proteins}}, {{steroids}}, {{vehicles}}.
I think vehicles should be a redirect to automotive. Anyone feel like fixing these?
--Connel MacKenzie 17:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the first one should even be a context label. Vehicles is okay because it defines a narrower category within automotive. DAVilla 15:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note that the label in {{particles}} is physics, and the category Category:Elementary particles. There could be a redirect from {particle} to {particles}. Right now {Particle} redirects to {particle}, which contains "Particle" and isn't used anywhere at all ...
- In general, there are sub-cat templates that label for the parent classification. There is a Category:Dogs Robert Ullmann 09:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- The Category:Elementary particles and its templates are a bit of a problem, since some of the particles listed aren't actually elementary. A new user has suggested we rename the category Category:Particle physics, which I agree with. --EncycloPetey 05:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] gunsel
I'd clean it up myself but don't know whether it's accurate. Rod (A. Smith) 00:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Both sound unlikely. Move to RFV? --Connel MacKenzie 16:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- The first sense has been used by Ellery Queen and Dashiel Hammett; it is in the Oxford Thesaurus. The second sense checks out too, but might a bit harder to find citations of use. Robert Ullmann 09:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] September 2007
[edit] French, Basque, Irish, …
These words can be used for ‘the X people collectively’. However, most of the translations for these definitions mention singular persons. H. (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Practically all our entries that are language names need to be redone thoroughly. --EncycloPetey 04:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikisaurus:vomit (regurgitate)
Completely wrong syntax for Wikisaurus title. --Connel MacKenzie 16:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Done Moved, not by me. I don't think the title has a "completely wrong syntax", though. --Dan Polansky 21:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] pandeiro
Many of the language entries seem to be spelled pandiero (incorrectly?). SemperBlotto 07:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] fascia
Two pronunciations, one embedded in the text - definitions improperly split. SemperBlotto 09:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] accompany
There are indications of quotes that are nowhere to be found. Some definitions are repeated. Obsolete definitions are given before common ones. The only confirmed translations are Dutch and German.
[edit] -eous
This suffix entry has a huge list of hundreds of ostensibly derived terms. Some are clearly not as they do not even end in -eous (!), and others’ entries’ etymology sections (such as those for heterogeneous, hideous, and homogeneous) conflict with the assertion they are thence derived. It appears that the list was automatically compiled from a blanket search of the online Oxford English Dictionary, thus not only erroneously adding underived terms (as the search was for a word ending, not a common suffix), but also adding terms whose only probable relation to -eous is that their entries refer to the suffix, or make use of an -eous-terminal word. Lastly, a minor point — such a huge list ought most certainly to be enclosed in a rel-table (as translations are in trans-tables). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 22:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] pinch and a punch for the first of the month
The entry has dubious claims and is not formatted per WT:CFI. Rod (A. Smith) 04:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- The claims seem fair enough to me, but I think maybe it should be resited as an encylopedia article, expanded and given a bit of a tidy-up. (S. Dorrell) 11:28, 1 March 2008 (GMT)
[edit] faroès
Wrong language, copied from another wikt. Robert Ullmann 08:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Right language, wrong spelling. Fixed while patrolling Category:ca:Languages and moved to correct spelling, feroès, finding this RFC when I checked for broken links after the move. — Carolina wren discussió 00:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Wade-Giles
The "examples" thing needs a more creative approach. Or not. --Connel MacKenzie 04:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Appendix:European Computer Science Dictionary
--Connel MacKenzie 04:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- English, Polish, German, Spanish. Placed in Category:Glossaries. Still some redlinks in all languages, even English. DCDuring TALK 20:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] 𨳒
vi? --Connel MacKenzie 08:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Vietnam, like other countries in China's sphere of influence, used to use Classical Chinese for a lot of writing, and also to use Chinese characters for native writing. "Han tu" are characters that weren't used for native writing, but we probably still want to include them because different countries pronounced these characters differently, so Classical Chinese words have Vietnamese pronunciations, Japanese pronunciations, and so on. (These fall into a larger umbrella called "readings", and it can be quite complicated; in modern Japanese the same "kanji" — Chinese character for Japanese — will often have a "Chinese reading" and a "Japanese reading", with some expressions using the one and some using the other.) In the case of "han tu" I'm not sure if it makes more sense to list the character as Vietnamese, though, or to give its Vietnamese reading somewhere in one of the other language sections. —RuakhTALK 15:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] qilachxizax
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Do you feel qualified to start Wiktionary:About Aleut and set about gathering input from Aleut-speaking editors and formalizing policies as to what POS headers would be appropriate? (I don't think we have a language considerations page for any agglutinative language yet, so you'd be treading new territory. For one thing, these languages will definitely test how serious we are about including "all words in all languages". From what I understand, an entire English sentence can often be cast as a single, grammatical word in Aleut; will we therefore require that Aleut sentences be attested wholesale in order to merit inclusion?) Until we have a header for such things, listing these entries here seems pointless. —RuakhTALK 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I know a little about Aleut, but more about Yup’ik, which is a related language. I think these languages may be too exotic for Wiktionary at the present time. Yes, Aleut is polysynthetic, which means that suffixes can be piled on apparently without limit to build very complex words that mean an entire sentence or more in English. Still, there are some simple words, such as Aleut kartuufilax̂ (potato), kurix̂ (cigarette), suupax̂ (soup), paltux̂ (coat), braatax̂ (brother) (note the similarity with Russian картофель, курить, суп, пальто, and брат); or native Aleut ulax̂ (house]], angalix̂ (day). Aleut nouns are declined for three numbers, and the verb morphology is complex: asx̂alakax̂txidix (those two did not kill someone); ayugikux̂txichin (they went out in their boat); dux̂taasaĝilakatxichi (you don’t have a guest). Unfortunately, these languages require the use of some unusual grammatical terms such as postbases, relational case, aequalis, vialis, terminalis, and so on, and I am not able to make it palatable to a reader who knows little about grammar and cares less. I can’t even figure out how to do relatively easy languages such as Russian and Arabic, or even how to format the letters or syllables of scripts such as Cyrillic and Burmese. Right now I limit myself to easily described words such as nouns, basic adjectives and adverbs. Words that call for difficult or odd headers like "expression" or "impersonal verb" will have to wait for another time (and this includes Ojibwe, Aleut and Yup’ik and any other polysynthetic languages). —Stephen 16:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Very cute POV ranting, but the problem isn't the system; it is the desired end result. The target audience here is English readers, with familiarity of English. It is hard because it is very hard, not because of systemic restrictions (as you assert.) Fitting unexpected structures into a comprehensible scheme is very difficult. It seems obvious to me, that you are currently pushing in some ways, to undermine the little coherency and consistency we do have.
- How many "sentence words" does Aleut actually use? Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words? If so, then our consideration for Aleut words cannot be "space delimited" as that would not apply. If it is instead, a small (or finite) collection of terms, they of course should have individual entries. Do you know which it is, or are you ranting for the sake of ranting?
- --Connel MacKenzie 17:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Very cute personal attack, but my comment was brief, calm, and sincere; not a "rant" at all. It did reflect my own POV, obviously, but that's inevitable; obviously your comments reflect your POV. I am by no means criticizing the system, besides to state the obvious: it was originally designed with English in mind. Some things are easy to extend; the languages that I speak all fit nicely into this system, as do many others (granted, one editor has objected to Hebrew having a "Root" POS section with a "Forms" subsection, but that's not a consequence of the system itself). However, with polysynthetic languages it's more difficult, because they don't all have "words" in exactly the same way we do, and it's hard to figure out how to incorporate them into our system in a coherent, consistent way (which is something that both you and I prize).
- Believe it or not, it actually seems like you and I mostly agree about this. (Our main disagreement seems to be that whereas you think it's more important to fit other languages into the mold of English so that English-speakers will feel like they understand whether or not they actually do, I think it's more important to try to extend the mold in coherent, consistent ways so that our entries are accurate while still being maximally useful.)
- Regarding your specific questions:
- Re: "How many 'sentence words' does Aleut actually use?": From what I understand, an unlimited number. That's the way the language is normally structured, with everything kind of being rolled into the verb. (Caveat lector: I don't actually speak Aleut, and my understanding may be wrong.)
- Re: "Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words?": I didn't assert that. Please look up the word "often".
- Re: "Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words? If so, then our consideration for Aleut words cannot be 'space delimited' as that would not apply. If it is instead, a small (or finite) collection of terms, they of course should have individual entries.": Aleut does have things that can be considered "words", but I don't think the boundaries are always well-defined. From what I understand, there are a lot (or perhaps arbitrarily many?) of what are called "portmanteau affixes" that blend different kinds of tense/mood/aspect and agreement information into single forms, that then interact with adjacent affixes in different ways … but I really don't know how it works, exactly: hence my suggestion that people who do speak the language start a Wiktionary:About Aleut and set about figuring out how to fit Aleut into our system -slash- extend our system in a coherent, consistent way so that we can cover Aleut.
- Re: "Do you know which it is, or are you ranting for the sake of ranting?": Neither.
- —RuakhTALK 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I am sorry if I incorrectly attributed malice to your tone; other posts of yours at the time were directed at me and rather scathing. In that light, it is hard to see your comments as having been neutral. Yet, I still did not make a personal attack; I'm sorry you feel that way. But, perhaps we can move past all this, anyhow?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You seem to have missed the crux: the system isn't designed with English in mind causing these restrictions. We've had foreign language entries from very early on here on en.wiktionary.org. The system is designed to cater to English readers. Aleut having trouble fitting into a coherent mold is understandably difficult, but I don't think that implies (as you seem to imply) that the structure as designed can't accommodate Aleut. The en.wiktionary.org entries for Aleut terms may not end up taking the same approach as other English-to-Aleut and Aleut-to-English dictionaries. But then, en.wiktionary.org doesn't take the same approach for defining English words (and especially word forms) as other English dictionaries.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It doesn't mean that we can't have Aleut entries. It does mean we need to think about how we incorporate knowledge about Aleut words into Wiktionary. I would not be at all surprised to learn that we can't use any other Aleut-to-English dictionary's format. Unlike you, I don't think that is any great travesty. If anything, it will reduce (if not effectively eliminate) the possibility of copyright violations creeping in.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- --Connel MacKenzie 03:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Re: "But, perhaps we can move past all this, anyhow?": I'd like that, yes. :-)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I completely agree with your last paragraph, except that part that implies I think that's a travesty. :-) I'm not saying that we need to do things the way other Aleut dictionaries do; I'm just saying that we need the Aleut-speakers here to figure out a way to do it that presents Aleut accurately and jibes with our system here. It's my opinion that this will require bending the system a wee bit, but we'll never know until they try. ;-)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Re: "You seem to have missed the crux: the system isn't designed with English in mind causing these restrictions. We've had foreign language entries from very early on here on en.wiktionary.org.": I suppose so. It looks to me like most discussions here still take place with mostly English in mind, and we simply transfer these results into other languages, having specialized discussions when necessary. Heck, the "narrow community" clauses in CFI seem to exclude entire languages that are only spoken in narrow communities (not that such an interpretation would find any support).
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] lengen-aka
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Very good. Is it a verb, then? --Connel MacKenzie 23:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes, this particular one could be called a verb, an expression, or a sentence. Aleut is a polysynthetic language and the parts that go to make up expressions usually cannot stand independently as words. Polysynthetic languages don’t have many of the simple words that Indo-European languages have, and the smallest unit is often a sentence or clause (but not a phrase, since phrases are characteristic of analytical and agglutinative languages). —Stephen 07:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I still don't see how "phrase" doesn't fit. Since when does it need to be more than one word to be a phrase? Our definitions certainly imply that it does not need to be more than one. That said, if you can say with any certainty that it should be a 'verb', then by all means, please make that correction. --Connel MacKenzie 23:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] toe-skin
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. The hyphen in Aleut doesn’t separate words, it only separates phonemes, like writing "work-s" or "work-ed" in English. —Stephen 16:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow your examples of either "work-s" or "work-ed." Could you please rephrase that? --Connel MacKenzie 23:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think he meant, “hyphen in Aleut [...] only separates morphemes”. He illustated that concept by showing how the English words works and worked would look if English orthography called for separating morpheme by hyphens. Since work, -s, and -ed are English morphemes, works would be written as work-s and worked would be written as work-ed. With that in mind, if toe and skin are Aluet morphemes that combine into a single word, they would be appear as toe-skin. Does that help? Rod (A. Smith) 00:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] chuka-lutten
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] co-nan-nie
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] co-yana
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] cun-nie
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] tauk-ru
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] tia-lutten
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] tick-hue
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] beningen-rituk
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] buft-jini-toa
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] chak-enilshu
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] chie-moca
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] chu-mia
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] unsayable
Unspeakable that such a thing could be entered, not listed as an error. --Connel MacKenzie 23:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note this is not an RFV - rather a request for SOME way to list the blasphemy. Yes, I am well aware that WT:CFI is broken beyond repair...but there has to be some way this can be tagged as an illiteracy without the usual suspects going ballistic. --Connel MacKenzie 00:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This term is usually used as a noun; this can be explained as a substantive use of the adjective (since nearly all English adjectives can be used substantively), but in this case it's so pervasive that I think we should have a "noun" header. —RuakhTALK 02:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Unsayable" is neither blasphemy nor an illiteracy. It is perhaps better known to readers of philosophy than some others, but it is a perfectly valid English word. Rodasmith has now added quotations from very reputable sources to the article and I have added verified references citing other dictionaries. As for POS, I'm more comfortable classifying it as an adjective, although I agree with Ruakh that it is often (although I'm not so sure about "usually") used substantively, especially in the expression "say the unsayable." -- WikiPedant 05:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm not sure how I missed your mention of that expression previously. The expression is "speak the unspeakable" over here. --Connel MacKenzie 03:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The references cited each give a single sense. I don't agree that our two senses should be worded in a way that makes them distinct, as they (by the citations) aren't. The synonyms, likewise, list "unspeakable" for only one sense, yet the first citation of the "other sense" uses it synonymously. Where a marked difference in connotation exists, with one word that is very common, while the other is obscure, something should indicate #1) the common form (unspeakable,) #2) how this rare form differs from the common form. Trying to use "unsayable" in normal context, I maintain, is an illiteracy. Looking at http://news.google.com/news?q=unspeakable&scoring=d&num=100 and http://news.google.com/news?q=unsayable&scoring=d&num=100 it seems apparent that this is yet-another-pondian variant. (A couple odd US quotes in the US for the latter, presumably from visitors. Likewise, a handful of UK quotes for the normal word. CW countries split evenly between them?) Even if one were somehow to ignore the regional issue (as it would be understood in a poetry context in the US,) it would be quite silly to ignore the order-of-magnitude preference for the common form. [1] vs. [2]. --Connel MacKenzie 06:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I don't know how you are reading the quotations, but they certainly don't seem to give the same sense to me. The first series of quotations (e.g. “...there are limitations on what we can say—we must always attempt to say the unsayable”) use unsayable to describe something that nobody can say (everyone is incapable of saying), e.g. due to logical limitations or those of would-be speakers. The last quote—the one associated with the second definition (i.e. “He was sacked, rather, for, saying the unsayable: for telling the truth.”)—describe something that nobody may say (everyone is prohibited from saying), e.g. due to social pressures. Which sense do you seem to think is the one used with those quotations? Rod (A. Smith) 08:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I agree with Connel MacKenzie that "unspeakable" is not a suitable synonym for only one of the senses, since (among philosophers, at least) it has the same double sense as "unsayable." I'm going to modify the entry so that "unspeakable" shows as a synonym for both senses. But I agree with Rodasmith that two distinct senses of "unsayable" clearly do exist in usage, and are readily documentable with quotations, so the entry is correct to distinguish them. Connel MacKenzie is correct that other dictionaries do not show the 2 senses (although the Am. Heritage defn provided at Dictionary.com gets close), but that is just one more point on which Wiktionary is doing a better job than the competition. -- WikiPedant 14:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- To WikiPedant and Rod, it is misleading not to combine those two senses (that are not distinct) into a single, broader sense. I do not understand the mentality of misleading our readers by suggesting that the minute distinctions aren't in fact, tremendously intertwined...to the point of being only a single sense. Other dictionaries list a single sense because they have paid professionals writing their definitions, who easily can see when combining redundant senses will convey the total meaning of the word better. The hard part of writing a definition, always, is to keep it brief and succinct enough, yet still be complete. Pointlessly splitting senses into not-really-distinct sub-senses doesn't do that; it just gives our readers more cruft to sift through. But I admit, splitting is the easier (lazier, IMO) way.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- As to the addition of just a synonym, WikiPedant, I think you missed the central issue for the entire cleanup request here. The definitions themselves (well, the single definition) should clearly show that there is a preference for "unspeakable." (Confer the links given above.) The definition should then clarify what circumstances are appropriate for "unsayable" and how it ("unsayable") casts different shades of meaning. You know, genus proximum, differentiam specificam; classify then differentiate. If you aren't going to explain that much, then <joking>the entry should just say # Unspeakably rare variant of unspeakable. </joking> :-) --Connel MacKenzie 02:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Connel, do you seriously think we should create a broad definition with specific sub-definitions? (unindenting)
-
-
-
-
If we follow what you appear to be suggesting, it would look like this:
- not able or allowed to be said
- (philosophy, poetry) Not capable of being said.
- [...]
- 1938, G. E. Moore, Ethics, University of Chicago Press, page 215:
- Nonetheless, in some unsayable way, value sentences are about values and reflect the structure of values.
- [...]
- (rare) Not allowed or not fit to be said.
- 2007, "Talking points: Racism and the cult of knee-jerk outrage," The Week, iss. 605, 17 March, p. 20,
- He was sacked, rather, for, saying the unsayable: for telling the truth.
- (philosophy, poetry) Not capable of being said.
None of our style guides seem to recommend sub-senses, so I don't understand why you are suddenly advocating that format. Rod (A. Smith) 17:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't advocating that format; I was suggesting the two definitions be reworded into one broader definition. Discussing this particular entry on IRC, it was suggested that we require all Wiktionarians to read w:Definition and related articles before being allowed to edit. :-) Your usage note does address my original complaint (thank you.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- In response to points made and reiterated in a number of postings above, the only significant differences I see between "unsayable" and "unspeakable" are (1) that "unsayable" is less commonly used and (2) that "unspeakable" has the extra sense of "extremely bad" (many dictionaries give 3 senses for "unspeakable"). I do not see any substantive differences between the 2 senses of "unsayable" given in the Wiktionary entry and the 2 matching senses of "unspeakable," recognized by most dictionaries, so no comparative classificatory exposition is appropriate. Further, I am unconvinced that the second sense of "unsayable" is the extreme rarity or the un-Americanism which Connel MacKenzie believes it to be. In support of this point, I have added 2 more quotations for the 2nd sense, one from the NY Times and the other from Time magazine.
-
- And, as for Connel MacKenzie's gratuitious embedded comment above (i.e, <!--Please Lord, tell me they have heard that before...somewhere, but just forgot.-->), I shall refrain from suggesting that it sounds to me like the sort of thing a smart aleck making a personal attack would write. -- WikiPedant 05:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Your specious omission of addressing the links (evidence, counter to my expectations) that I provided above, that show this term to be undeniably specific to the UK (despite an errant NYT quote) is curious. Also, are you suggesting that I am making a personal attack against all contributors (myself included?) Yes, the comment wrapped in "<joking>" was snarky, but please.
-
-
-
- Yes, Wiktionary's criteria is broken. Thank you for providing quotations that illustrate the point admirably. Yes, I still disagree that the second "sub-sense" is, in fact, a distinct "sub-sense" at all. If the first sense were worded properly, it would encompass both aspects. Instead, someone has reworded it to emphasize a distinction that does not really exist (neither for the writer nor the reader.) Without exposition, neither "sub-sense" can be inferred. And yes, I am using the term "sub-sense" loosely, in the hope that Rod won't detect any ambiguity, this time. --Connel MacKenzie 15:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- One further point: you mention a fallacy above: You say "many dictionaries" but alas, I can't tell if you are being intentionally misleading because of some perceived hostility, or are just mistaken. Dictionary.com, indeed lists two senses, not three, while Cambridge lists zero {{notaword}}, Webster's 1913 lists zero {{notaword}}, Wordnet lists zero {{notaword}}, M-w.com lists one, Encarta lists one and even the COED lists only one. "Many" = one? By that logic, we should add erroneous "second senses" whenever any dictionary anywhere else has an error. --Connel MacKenzie 15:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Connel, might I suggest that you read comments carefully before lambasting them? WikiPedant's only use of the phrase "many dictionaries" was in mentioning how many senses they give for unspeakable, not for unsayable. I cannot believe that you're interpreting his comment differently from how I do; rather, you simply didn't read it carefully enough. (It wouldn't have been a big deal, except that your comment was unjustly mean. So I guess what I'm saying is, either read carefully, or restrain yourself.) This is exactly the sort of thing that causes needless strife. —RuakhTALK 19:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- And your incorrect butting in helps? He was making accusations and specious arguments, ignoring what Wiktionary, Wikipedia and real dictionaries say on the topic. So you, in your typical fashion, irrationally exonerate anyone in opposition to me, no matter how petty the topic is? I think you are the one adding needless strife here. WikiPedant's irrational defense of his POV (after shown to be wrong on several levels,) combined with his accusations is increasingly suspicious.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Note also that he went ahead and damaged the entry, removing Rod's "Usage notes" section. Any good intentions to suspect in that action? Any? --Connel MacKenzie 07:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- As for WikiPedant, no, his specious arguments have no merit. Changing the subject, suddenly criticizing the correct word-form is entirely beside the point. His assertion is still about what the entry unsayable and its 'usage notes' section should say. (Did you misread what he wrote?) Looking to what most other dictionaries say, we could say that unsayable is not a word in English. Looking at usage, we can instead perhaps say it is a rare poetic use, an uncommon British term, or a rare error. His irrational opposition to reasonable tags smacks of gaming the system and remains inexplicable. He again, seems to be gaming the system when choosing bizarre statistical aberrations (NYT & Time) and immediately stuffing them into the entry, as if they somehow represent typical use. If there were any way I could imagine it was a casual error on his part, I would.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You should be able to see pretty clearly in the above, how he turned friendly banter into some kind of accusation-fest. Your immediate support of that, Ruakh, can be explained, precisely how? --Connel MacKenzie 06:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Look, sorry, I didn't mean for my comment to be "butting in". I addressed one specific part of your comment that was seriously flawed; I did not criticize the rest of your comment, and I did not say anything about WikiPedant's comment except as it bore on the one part of your comment whose serious flaws I was pointing out. I have a good deal of faith in WikiPedant, and rather suspect that everything he did was eminently reasonable; but I look before I leap, and as I have not looked into all of it, I am not leaping to its defense. (Regarding your claim that "he turned friendly banter into some kind of accusation-fest", I can only say that it takes two to tango. You included an HTML comment that you didn't intend personally; he took it personally and overreacted a bit, implying it was a personal attack; you then overreacted in turn, and took his implication as carte blanche to stop assuming good faith on his part. Neither of you handled this very well, but I'm not in a position to judge; G-d only knows how many times I myself have overreacted in online discussions-cum-arguments. The beauty of a community like this is that we can all do our best to learn from our mistakes, and to help each other learn from them as well.) —RuakhTALK 21:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] one
This entry is a mess. I did what I could, but people from all possible languages have to look at this. H. (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm… I think English does distinguish the subject, object, and possessive forms of one; consider the existence of one’s and oneself, as well as the fact that the subject and object cases of it and the object and possessive cases of she (her) are homographs, yet we still say that the cases are distinct for those pronouns. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] kang-mi
This does appear to be a valid Sherpa word... It appears, however, that the Sherpa language can be written either in Tibetan or Devanagari script, not in Roman. Can someone more clueful than I please move this entry to its proper spelling in one of those scripts? -- Visviva 15:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don’t have a source for Sherpa. Apparently "kangmi" means snowman. Typing it phonetically, it would be ཀང་མི་ (kang-mi) or possibly ཁང་མི་ (khang-mi). —Stephen 17:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] admiral of the blue
who carries his flag on the main-mast is written aftert he bold heading for noun. This seems to be a non-standard format. RJFJR 15:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- See <http://www.bookrags.com/ebooks/5402/2.html>. I understand the confusion of the anon who created that entry: it's hard to tell whether "who carries his flag on the main-mast" is supposed to be part of the headword. —RuakhTALK 16:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- It certainly seems to be part of the headword; the location of the flag distinguished different ranks of admirals (only full admirals could carry their flag on the mainmast), and the wit (if any) of this coinage lies in comparing the publican to a full admiral based on the location of the flag... But personally I would not mind seeing this kind of entry deleted as uncited and unciteable. Have we not enough to do? Must we weigh ourselves down with the implausible inventions of long-dead lexicographers? -- Visviva 17:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] HOLDEN
--Connel MacKenzie 02:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Adélaïde
Should this redirect? --Connel MacKenzie 04:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, striking. Mglovesfun 10:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] tell off
Are the 2 senses given here sufficiently distinct? The example sentence for defn1 would work just fine for defn2 as well. -- WikiPedant 13:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think they are the same. I would guess that the contrib. intended to put the UK idiomatic noun telling off for nº2 - Algrif 16:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] dismiss
Junk in last translation section. --Connel MacKenzie 15:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] outreach
Redundant senses. --Connel MacKenzie 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] have to
This needs formatting. It probably should be simple but I'm too tired to do it now. Thryduulf 00:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] locator
If “LOCATOR” meets WT:CFI, it belongs at “LOCATOR”. Does it meet WT:CFI? Rod (A. Smith) 06:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] широкий
Someone doesn’t seem to know what a Derived term is. These[3] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you are correct: I do not understand how you can say that those are not derived from the headword. --Connel MacKenzie 05:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] через
These[4] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] шутка
These[5] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly seem like it. "Related" is better? --Connel MacKenzie 17:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] яблоко
These[6] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] яйцо
These[7] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ax
What's with the Usage note here? Is it a copyvio? Or is it just unnecessary information? Widsith 11:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ax [8] --Connel MacKenzie 05:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- It is an interesting aside, for those of us who find such things interesting. However, it is a verbatim Ctrl+C of the page mentioned by Connel, and, there is indeed a source given for the information. Possibly, one could put in a proper referance, or rewrite the text somehow, with sourcing? V85 22:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] proligerous
Missing a slew of derived terms (medicine and botany.) The definitions given, themselves seem sketchy. --Connel MacKenzie 04:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] kop
This is either spelled wrong or not Yiddish: Yiddish does not use the Latin alphabet.—msh210℠ 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] feld
This is either spelled wrong or not Yiddish: Yiddish does not use the Latin alphabet.—msh210℠ 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] tokhes
This is either spelled wrong or not Yiddish: Yiddish does not use the Latin alphabet.—msh210℠ 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eckveldt
This is either spelled wrong or not Yiddish: Yiddish does not use the Latin alphabet.—msh210℠ 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I supposed this should be spelt עקפֿעלד (ekfeld), but I’m not familiar with the term. It’s a noun but I don’t think it qualifies as a proper noun. —Stephen 12:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ll
It's not clear to me whether the abbreviation section refers to the abbreviation ll or the abbreviation li. Rod (A. Smith) 17:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is the lowercase of "LL". The doubling of the l indicates the plural in the same way that pp = pages, or LL.D. = Doctor of Laws. —Stephen 11:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Index:Portuguese/a
Someone decided to mark the parts of speech by using template calls to n., Template:v, Template:adv, Template:prep, etc. These all need to be removed/replaced since these templates either do not exist (and shouldn't) or else they are used for something else. --EncycloPetey 13:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- In the long run, no. However, it may have started as an import to be carved up into entries. --EncycloPetey 03:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] incorrigible
The usage notes say this:
- Incorrigible is a complex term that has antithetical denotations. In certain contexts, it may be cognate with impeccable.
The two words are certainly not cognates. Should it say, "synonymous"? Rod (A. Smith) 23:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] throw
It's not clear that noun sense 4 under etymology 1 does in fact belong under that etymology. We need either to remove this claim, or to back it up with one or more references. —RuakhTALK 05:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... to me sense 4 seems like the most natural fit of all the senses there. Throwing a pot on a wheel is nothing but an act of twisting and turning (the clay). -- Visviva 15:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] gather
Possibly too many definitions? Most of them seem to give the same definition just in different words. Maybe they can be concentrated into a few? Jakeybean
[edit] ç'
Needs a rewrite. --Connel MacKenzie 22:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- That will be problematic, since the person who wrote the article is the only Albanian speaker here. Note that this is not a prefix. It is an enclitic form of a particle or pronoun. Prefixes join with an exisitng part of speech to modify, clarify, or inflect. This does none of those things, it is a separate contracted form of another word. --EncycloPetey 22:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] diputs
If it passes rfv. H. (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] October 2007
[edit] catarrhal fever
b.g.c. indicate this is influenza for animals? --Connel MacKenzie 05:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
WP redirects it to Bovine malignant catarrhal fever. But I found an online dictionary entry that said one of several diseases of animals. Further catarrhal is a medical term meaning inflammation of the mucous membranes of the respiratory tract with discharge so any disease with fever and a cough might work for this term. RJFJR 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] necromancy
I just edited the necromancy entry. I changed quite a lot of stuff, and I'm sure the Middle English translations could be put into a better format? Feel free to change things around; I had so much to include, it got a bit confusing where to put it. Jakeybean
- The entry’s in the right order, but the transcriptions of the Ancient Greek etyma need to have the acute accents indicated, and the quotations need to be reformatted as per WT:QUOTE. You definitely don’t need to list all (eighty-eight?!) of the Middle English alternative forms in the translations section — choose the “primary” spelling (good luck!), and list the other alternative forms at the Middle English entry (in a rel-table, I suggest). Nota bene that Middle English became Early Modern English circa 1470, so some of the 15th century and all of the 16th–18th century forms will need to be listed as (Modern) English obsolete spellings. Last point: all translations should be linked, even if you just intend to leave them as red links. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sounds like the right way to go about it, I've done this before in the past with some of the other divination entries.--Williamsayers79 19:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] pono
pōnō, like many Latin verbs, has its lemma entry (the first person singular present indicative) and pōnere (the infinitive) swapped. Is there an easy way to tag them all? Rod (A. Smith) 02:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] the
There are many declensions and grammar notes in the translation table. As more languages are added, the translation table will become unwieldy. Should the declensions and grammar notes be moved into the foreign language entries? Rod (A. Smith) 17:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. As per discussion elsewhere (where?) I would advocate only listing the lemma form (usually the masculine nominative singular), or at most the set of nominative singular forms (with gender). Any more than that becomes unwieldy. --EncycloPetey 19:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. The other discussion is WT:BP#Noting lemma forms in WT:ELE. I brought this here, though, because some editors have been vocal about translating words from some parts of speech (e.g. pronouns) into all forms, so words from closed classes (e.g. articles) probably deserve individual discussion. Rod (A. Smith) 19:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] -form
Many of the derived terms listed therein are not derived thence. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 10:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ygo
Alternative spellings and cites need cleanup. Formatting is definitely not my strong point. sewnmouthsecret 16:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] you'se
Usage note on 2nd etym refers to both etyms, and also repeats some of the info in the usage note on the 1st etym. Both usage notes need copyediting. The first sense blongs at youse not at you'se.—msh210℠ 17:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] serendipity
Strange copyvio. --Connel MacKenzie 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced the "Yale" edition citation with the apparently identical text from Project Gutenberg. MW3 attributes the original idea of serendipity to a "Persian folk tale", for which I am not aware of sources. I have ascribed to Walpole the introduction into English, since multiple sources agree on that. DCDuring 00:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] abbas
I'm actually not sure what to do with this, other than to say that: the formatting is all off, languages/capitalization ought to be considered, and the etymology could use some tidying. I'm out the door myself right now; apologies! Medellia 19:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Now cleaned up, and I can confirm that אב really is the Hebrew word for "father". Unfortunately, abbas and Abbas were created by everyone's favorite long-term sysop vandal, so who knows what in there is real and what isn't? —RuakhTALK 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've done some additional cleanup and checked the listed Descendants (excluding the Dutch). The only things I see left to do are to verify the AGr. listing; verify that it came from Hebrew, and fix the 3rd-declension Latin noun declension table template, which isn't displaying macrons properly. --EncycloPetey 05:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Ordinal numbers
I'm not sure I'll ever understand the dividing line between our "topic" vs. "grammar" category trees, but should this category be called "Category:English ordinal numbers"? Rod (A. Smith) 23:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, the perennial number/numeral issue. The problem you've noticed exists for all numerals. My personal practice is to consider "Numeral" the part of speech, and use subcategories like Category:Cardinal numbers and Category:Ordinal numbers (or Category:es:Cardinal numbers, etc) for the specific words.
- The core difficulties are (1) no one can agree on whether to call the POS "Number" or "Numeral", where a vote on the matter deadlocked, and (2) not all cardinal numbers (by topic) are also cardinal numbers (by grammar). That is, there are cardinal numbers such as aleph-null that are cardinal numbers by definition, but do not function like the grammatical class of cardinal numerals. As a result, the dividing line here is very, very fuzzy.
- In my edits, I've chosen to categorize these words topically, then group the topical categories as subcategories of grammatical categories like Category:Spanish numerals. It's a compromise designed to avoid some of the difficulties. ...I hope that's clear, because this is a diffuclt issue to explain because of the inherent imprecision of the labels. --EncycloPetey 02:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Interjections
I think there are a number of terms that do not belong here.
The fact that an exclamation mark is used to end a sentence or phrase does not, in itself, make that sentence or phrase an interjection.
"Go to the dickens!" is a complete sentence (a verbal phrase in the imperative) so I don't quite see how this can be considered to be an interjection just because it ends in an exclamation mark. Similarly, although "Every man for himself!" is not a complete sentence, I wouldn't say it is an interjection. "Does a bear shit in the woods?" is another complete sentence, and is definitely does not belong in this category.
Ideally, I would like to see the part of speech "interjection" reserved for words that express an emotion and have no grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence (interjections in the purest sense), such as "oh!" and "phew!". It is not possible (or even practical) for us to be this strict, however, because there are some phrases that function like interjections, like "good riddance" and "for heaven's sake". Strictly, we would classify these as pro-sentences, but this is not a part of speech.
Certainly, however, some of the terms listed in Category:Interjections (and the corresponding category for other languages would more accurately be described as pro-sentences, verbal phrases or complete sentences.
See the Wikipedia article for more discussion. — Paul G 05:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Moved to Category talk:English interjections. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] capital of the world
Encyclopedic content of usage notes. --Connel MacKenzie 05:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] mass noun
The definition is preceded by '''(OED 1933)''', so I assume said definition was copied thence. As that source is seventy-four years old, I think copyright still applies. Ergo, copyvio. What needs to happen — does the entry need to be deleted (to make the copyright-violating material inaccessible-via-history) and then recreated, or can the definition just be rewritten, preserving the copyright violation in the history? † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- After checking the OED, it’s obvious that the original editor intended the parenthetic comment as a reference, and that the entry was not a copyvio of the OED’s. I reformatted the entry accordingly. However, the definition needs trimming — it’s three sentences long. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] aandeg
--Connel MacKenzie 23:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] -able
Someone with easier access to OED please check; looks like the "references" simply repeat verbatim. --Connel MacKenzie 07:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ﷲ
Someone asserts that this is a preposition. It is not a preposition. —Stephen 08:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] использующий
Someone asserts that this is a part of speech called a conjugation. It is not a conjugation. —Stephen 08:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ученный
I thought the header was supposed to be ===Related terms===, not ===Relative terms===. —Stephen 14:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- You are correct. --EncycloPetey 01:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done by EncycloPetey, striking. Mglovesfun 11:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] engage
17 senses? --Connel MacKenzie 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reduced to 8 senses, two of which are RFV'd. Moglex 20:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Evidently. (Arrrgggghhhh). Moglex 08:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] engagement
7 senses? --Connel MacKenzie 19:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've added sense 8, which, I hope combines senses 4-7. I'm not really happy that it accurately includes sense 4 (fencing), though as that seems subtly different. I've left the other senses. Moglex 19:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] backen
--Connel MacKenzie 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Italorum
--Connel MacKenzie 22:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] hastatorum
--Connel MacKenzie 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] hastati
--Connel MacKenzie 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] iuvenca
--Connel MacKenzie 22:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] iuvencus
--Connel MacKenzie 22:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ai
--Connel MacKenzie 23:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] nah#Old High German
Should this be nāh, as it's listed in the inflection line? There are quite a few of these created by Drago—like fuġol, ānro, ġēar, rēocan, and so on—for Old High German, Old English, and Romani. Dmcdevit·t 05:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] captation
Copyvio? —Stephen 06:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] chiita
--Connel MacKenzie 21:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] comunista
--Connel MacKenzie 21:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- To clarify: is this about the presence of multiple "noun" sections in the same parent section? —RuakhTALK 21:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes. --Connel MacKenzie 22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] гость
"В гостя́х хорошо́, а до́ма лу́чше" is not a Derived term. —Stephen 20:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] vast right-wing conspiracy
Etymology needs trimming. --Connel MacKenzie 22:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] august
Some or all translations are for August (month), not for august (adj.). DCDuring 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking about concepts, not words. It looks like the real problem is that for some languages for which the 8th month on the Gregorian calendar is written "august", there is no entry under "august", though there is a translation shown under "August" (Interlingue and Sundanese). I don't trust myself to get it right, so I'd rather someone with a firmer hold of this make the remaining changes. Someone should just look to make sure that the translations and entries are consistent. I suspect that there other kinds of inconsistencies as well as the one I mentioned above. DCDuring 15:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] slam-bang
Needs definitions, needs assignment of quotes to definitions.—msh210℠ 23:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] November 2007
[edit] méh
méh second noun section, Hungarian. Definiton is: MEHHHH also known as "Shmeh" a migration of "Meh" the "meh" face also a hit. sasjb
RJFJR 14:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like vandalism to me, so I removed it. If it's just terribly formatted, terribly worded, and full of typos, then someone can replace it.—msh210℠ 18:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] hiryu
Something is broken in template invocation but I can't fix it. RJFJR 21:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorted out and moved to Hiryū and hiryū. 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] используемое
What part of speech is "conjugation"? This is not a conjugation. —Stephen 21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- The Participle → Conjugation thing was a brief error in one of the pages that AutoFormat reads for configuration. The error has since been fixed, but that didn't undo existing damage. When you find such pages, you don't need to bring them here; you can just fix them. —RuakhTALK 22:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] jail
Tagged, not listed. —RuakhTALK 06:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wiktionary:English inflection
Should this be moved to Appendix:English inflection? Rod (A. Smith) 04:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Probably. DAVilla 06:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] hypo-
Etymology needs Ancient Greek script and antonyms, derived terms, synonyms, and translations all need categorising. The German section also needs a pronunciatory transcription. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Now all that is left to do is to correctly categorise the translations and to give the German section a pronunciatory transcription. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Added German pronunciation. —Stephen 23:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] locera
This looks like a stray would-be Spanish language entry. DCDuring 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is already listed on RfV, so it doens't need to be duplicated here. --EncycloPetey 16:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Is that the rule? Only one Rf per entry? Each Rf seems to have a different function. DCDuring 16:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] bawbels
This is redirected from bawbles which should instead have its own page. Also, there are two definitions here, which should be split. Also, they should have quotations. Also, this looks like a simple plural; if it is, then either the definition or the etymology should indicate as much.—msh210℠ 18:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- which in turn is a misspelling of baubels (singular baubel) --BigBadBen 21:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)