Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2010/Unresolved requests

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

Contents

January 2010[edit]

butt[edit]

A long list of definitions with no structure. Perhaps it should split by etymology? Chambers lists five. Pingku 19:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Dutch nouns with incomplete gender[edit]

An awful mess, sadly. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mg, if you are referring to the bulk of 'introductory text' in the beginning (, middle and part of the end :-)), then I think I agree with you. This is simply a (temporary) category for nouns that don't currently have a gender assigned to them; ergo, there is no need to introduce people, especially editors like me, to a lesson in the Dutch gender system, before getting to the relevant content.
I think, however, that this whole essay is in fact invaluble information for learners of Dutch. Maybe we could consider moving it to wikibooks while removing it from the category? JamesjiaoT C 05:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

lette[edit]

French section, seems to be a feminine only adjective. Is that right? It also needs the sense missing at fr:lette. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

vitam impendere vero[edit]

The Latin is sum of parts, but giving the citations it could be considered translingual. Plus of course, impendere is an infinitive. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I created this for the sake of this policy discussion. Please do not edit the entry without commenting in the Beer Parlour.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

February 2010[edit]

idée[edit]

The definition is only occurring in set phrases, which of course, isn't a definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

honte[edit]

Esperanto. It gives the header honte al and the translation shame on. Should this be moved, or just cleaned up? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

হাঁ[edit]

I changed rfv to rfc, as this seems to exist, but there's a debate over the part of speech. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

pole[edit]

Definitions need to be correctly assigned to etymologies and reviewed. DCDuring TALK 02:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Separate rfc-sense tag (separate from page rfc tag) on complex analysis definition has been cleaned up, please verify the new definition. 134.134.139.70 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(As far as the page rfc goes, it looks a lot different from a year ago, it probably just needs a good review at this point.) 134.134.139.70 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

nakupenda[edit]

Can't really be a phrase can it? Maybe a contraction? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding ninakupenda. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
These are verbs with attached subject and object pronouns. Definitely not contractions. —Stephen 01:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

lippen[edit]

I've formatted the English, but it might be a hoax (or just wrong) plus the Scots was previously at RFC under Lippen, which is now only German. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Scots is right. I'm not sure if the archaic tag should be there, actually, but neither am I sure that I'm qualified to remove it; as a non-native speaker, it's easy for me to conflate literary usage (which is especially out of date when it comes to Scots) with everyday usage. Is it possible that the English should be tagged as Scottish English? embryomystic 01:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The English is correct as well. It's used in NE dialect, and Scottish English. Added to it. Leasnam 20:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2010[edit]

Act of Parliament[edit]

Is this a common noun, if so is it redundant to the lowercase spelling? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

antic[edit]

Rfc-sense: To make grotesque? Sole known use is in Antony and Cleopatra. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It now says to make a fool of. I can't see a problem with it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

compacity[edit]

I can't understand the current definition. By any chance, is this a rare synonym for compactness? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, it seems pretty clear to me. If you picture a jar of sand, the grains aren't all nice perfect cubes, so a significant portion of the jar is filled with air. The compacity is the volume of the grains of sand divided by the total volume of the space they take up. —RuakhTALK 14:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Your definition (well, explanation) is clear, the entry is not. But now I know what it is, I should be able to do it myself. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

arctic front[edit]

Arctic front or arctic front? Head words do not match page name. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Megiddo[edit]

The entry needs basic Wiktionary format. --EncycloPetey 23:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

bokep[edit]

The entire article. Is Transformation a valid header? Is that an etymology in the definition? -- 124.171.169.189 05:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

shorty[edit]

RFC-sense: (slang, hip-hop) An attractive young female, especially: a girl who is "down", who is counted among close male friends and sometimes loose sexually; or, one's "girl", one's "boo"; or, a girl that a male does not know but wishes to meet.--Rising Sun talk? contributions 20:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:eo-conj[edit]

In two regards this template is gracelessly executed:

  1. The greenish color departs from the usual, drawing attention in the style of advertising to Esperanto vs. other languages. Surprisingly, an anon even complained on the talk page about it.
  2. The show-hide bar does not play well with others, greedily appropriating the full width of the screen, thereby not working well with right-hand elements such as the optional rhs ToC, sister project boxes, images, and rhs example boxes. DCDuring TALK 14:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Making it more like {{fr-conj}} or {{es-conj}} (these two are just about identical) would be good. Having said that, I like the green color, but I suppose that's not the point. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010[edit]

Zograf[edit]

Hmm. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wha...? In normal words, what problems do you see here? Dzied Bulbash
Fair question. Thanks for not removing the rfc tag. Personal noun is not a valid header, should be proper noun. It's not in any categories (English proper nouns) and the etymology goes under the header ===Etymology===. That bit I can do myself, but I'm also unsure about the definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

cooperation[edit]

No consensus at RFD for more than a year now. I think if someone had a go at this it would be ok. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

respire[edit]

We have four verb senses for this. Some of them seem redundant or at the very least unclear. I wasn't sure whether to RFD or RFV, or even which senses to RFD and RFV, so I brought it here. How many definitions are dictionaries Oxford and Websters giving this? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Only the 1st and 4th have any real connection, with the difference being whether or not an object is used. The second definition refers to metabolic (chemical) respiration, not mechanical respiration. I'm not familiar with the 3rd sense currently listed, and so can't address it without seeing citations that use that meaning. My Collegiate Webster's has four deifinitions, but they don't match up with ours. They're missing the chemical process sense, and list (in summary) v.i. "breathe in and out", "breathe freely", v.t. "breathe", "breathe out", which seems far more redundant than what we have. --EncycloPetey 18:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Xenophanes[edit]

Says: "By extension, a profound or transformative religious thinker", but no context for the extension is provided. There is a definition in the previous section about the philosopher, but it is under a different POS header and is marked for deletion. --EncycloPetey 19:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The three citations seem to support this sense. If the first sense fails RFD, this should be kept with the three definitions, and that second definition moved to the etymology. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

tuga[edit]

Portuguese entry. Inflection template doesn't exist, and is nominally for an adjective. Is this lowercase? Is it a noun?​—msh210 18:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Needs citations to determine the meaning, there is no pt:tuga so we're left with Google Books and other such resources. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Serb[edit]

English section. Noun sense means "a person of Serb descent", referring to the adj sense, which is "pertaining to the culture of the Serbs" which (should be "pertaining to the Serbs", but which in any event) begs the question.​—msh210 18:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

fosfor[edit]

I find the given etymology rather suspect, as the earliest publications on the topic were in Latin. see e.g.. Please don't tell me that the Dutch republic did not have enough scientists able to read Latin in the later 17th century.... Jcwf 23:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Those publication use "phosphorus". According to http://etymologie.nl/ (subscription site; probably also in ISBN 978 90 5356 746 3) Dutch "phosphor-" is only attested in 1814, "fosfor" in 1846, to quote "De vernederlandste vorm zonder -us is pas jong, en wellicht ontstaan onder invloed van Duits Phosphor.". 19th century Dutch scientists could read German. --Erik Warmelink 00:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit]

headings / POS / templates / categories Mutante 06:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Silicone Valley[edit]

This can't make its mind up what it is. Is it erroneous, archaic, or both? If it is a misspelling, how common is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010[edit]

-er[edit]

Etymology 1 seems to say that the Old English source word comes from proto-Germanic, which in turn comes from Latin, which in turn is a form of an Old English word... what?!? --EncycloPetey 05:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

  • This is User:Leasnam, who is well-meaning, and clearly has a stack of reference books, but is not very good at writing succinct summaries of what he's read. I've cleaned it up and drastically simplified it. Ƿidsiþ 06:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • His etymologies really go on a bit. I mean they're good, or seem to be, but not what you'd call easy on the eye. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

séant[edit]

Rfc-sense: French "fundament, human bottom". Huh? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

  • What's the problem exactly? Seems like a good translation to me. Ƿidsiþ 06:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Index:Interlingua/aa[edit]

Apparently these (14, so far) are just copied from Wikia, which in turn are copied from somewhere else. What should we do? Delete them? Clean them up, or just leave them to rot? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok he's the author. Still. I fancy just deleting them, they're an awful mess and a lot of the terms wouldn't meet our CFI, they're more like sentences than idioms. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Perhaps the could be moved to Appendix:Interlingua. Conrad.Irwin 14:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Or WT:Requested entries (Interlingua). We already have a similar list of (mainly) red links for French. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

hit the ball twice[edit]

Isn't this an adverb? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

huaso[edit]

Format. Definitions unintelligible to me. I think this means something like "country boy". Two adjective definitions seem to be of positive- and negative-valence attributive use, AFAICT. Is attributive use of nouns not as universal in Spanish as in English? I would not expect that mere valence differences warrant separate definitions. DCDuring TALK 18:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

s[edit]

There is a Translingual pronunciation section for an IPA symbol.

  1. Is the name of an IPA symbol its pronunciation?
  2. Did the contributor intend to provide an example rather than a pronunciation?
  3. I thought that the pronunciation of an IPA symbol differed a bit according to the language being represented.
  4. How do symbol and letter entries don't seem to fit into WT:ELE? Should they be deleted?
  5. If they are to be kept, are such entries to be opportunities for formatting experimentation?

Help! DCDuring TALK 18:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Place names[edit]

There's a very random mix of place names placed directly in this category. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

leno[edit]

A type of weave. Not a very helpful def. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This appears to have been resolved. — Pingkudimmi 11:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

活発[edit]

Let's sort out if "quasi adjective" (or quasi-adjective ?) is a valid heading now and if the category should be created etc, how to treat them in general. Mutante 16:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer these to just be adjectives - that is certainly what the definition reads as in English - but I have no knowledge of Japanese grammar. For reference, all the words with this header are Japanese:
We have an English defintion for this term that fits this use. I say keep 'em all. Maybe the header should link to the common noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
A bit late, but by way of further reference, Wiktionary:About Japanese does include quasi-adjective as a POS. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 02:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, it also says "Use L3 or L4 header Adjective". -- Prince Kassad 17:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Haplology reclassified this as a noun in a bid at cleaning up the entry; problem is, 活発 is never classified as a noun in Japanese, nor used as such -- it only ever has a な or に afterwards (unless used in compounds), making it that dreaded quasi adjective in English (a category I quite dislike, but that's a different matter; and shouldn't that be hyphenated?), or a 形容動詞 in Japanese.

I've therefore re-added the RFC tag, and am starting a related discussion over at Wiktionary_talk:About_Japanese. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Not much traffic over there of late, and after talking with Haplology, I restated that post over at WT:BEER#Preferred forms for Japanese lemmata. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

黄砂[edit]

Conrad's edit summary says it all really. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me to be about as cleaned up as it's going to get. Strike? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

CAVOK[edit]

Mglovesfun (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010[edit]

reason[edit]

Get rid of the cause subdivision. Can’t we remove the webster tag by now? Split up derived terms and translation sections. H. (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All Webster tags should be considered tantamount to rfc tags, IMHO. When I am ambitious, I tackle one. (I tried at accident. Does the new version seem better?) It is quite time-consuming. The wording is usually stilted and using words and wording likely to communicate effectively to few users. Modernizing the formatting only or removing {{Webster}} only serves to make such problematic entries harder to find and correct and perpetuates the illusion that we have a satisfactory monolingual dictionary.
If I were translating, I would avoid such entries as a matter of course and add them to this list if they are important to you. Correcting them may take time. I would be happy to make any entries that appear here as having {{Webster}} a matter of priority for my efforts. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, all webster entries need modernising. Exactly the reason why I don't want a great batch of similar entries generated from the old medical dictionaries (see Grease Pit). SemperBlotto 15:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
And some of the Webster tags have been removed prematurely. The medical dictionary entries would probably languish unless we recruit and train (!) some medical types. Perhaps other templates and a process for updating would give us some hope of eventually getting such entries right. DCDuring TALK 16:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
If anyone is simply dumping definitions from the medical dictionaries, I'll be happy to join in the collective administration of a cluestick. So far, with just us regulars working through the list, I haven't seen any evidence of that. -- Visviva 17:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

quid pro quo[edit]

A well-meaning user has merged several definitions and translations, one of which was a legal definition. This can't be easily undone because he's also added a lot of other content. --EncycloPetey 03:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

PVP[edit]

the alternative spellings are only for certain senses. How to handle this? the first two senses are actually nouns and should be under a noun header, I think. But the games sense is more difficult. H. (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd use {{sense}} on the alternative forms. We have player versus player listed as a noun, fwiw.​—msh210 (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

cluestick[edit]

citations here and at clue stick, make one secondary on the other. H. (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

One page cites he term with a space, the other without. We haven't decided AFAIK on whether to do it that way or to combine, but I don't see this as needing cleanup (maybe as needing a decision). Move to close.​—msh210 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

tort[edit]

rfc-sense: (plural) The area of law dealing with such wrongful acts.

Does it mean torts or that tort is treated as a plural noun? Clearly, the definition for torts should be at torts. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It means torts. The definition should be s.v. torts only, but with a prominent link from [[tort]]. Arguably, though, this is not distinct from the plural torts.​—msh210 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010[edit]

outside[edit]

Adverb sense "On or towards the outside" and preposition sense "On the outside of" both make use of the noun outside without specifying which noun sense is meant, and should be reworded (or use {{gloss}}) and possibly split.​—msh210 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

any[edit]

Determiner section. The usexes "I haven't got any money. It won't do you any good." don't match the definition "A guaranteed selection from (a set). At least one, sometimes more (of a set)" and might belong under a (currently nonexistent) adjective section instead (though I don't know, as I honestly don't know what a determiner is exactly).​—msh210 (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thebaic[edit]

needs templates, also maybe is lowercas, One adjective definition looks like a noun definition. --Volants 12:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

tough luck[edit]

This needs more information than "(idiomatic) bad luck" --Volants 17:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

amphitheatrical[edit]

Needs various formatting and dates for quotations. --EncycloPetey 03:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Good now?​—msh210 (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

around[edit]

There's some weird history for this entry. I don't know exactly what's going on. But the translation tables don't match the senses, at least not for the adverb.​—msh210 (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Paleocene[edit]

maybe adjective and noun are the wrong headers. --Volants 19:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

dhimmi[edit]

The definition isn;t clear about what the word means. Is it a person, an abstraction, a form of government? --EncycloPetey 04:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A status of a person and a person with such status. DCDuring TALK 19:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've heard it being used to describe a person. Kampy (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

cut out[edit]

Encarta has 11 senses; we have three. Also, is the adjective sense separate from the verb senses we should have? Is it a true adjective? DCDuring TALK 19:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

mete[edit]

Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

CEDAC[edit]

Major surgery required - looks like it could have been lifted from Wikipedia or somewhere else so check for copyvio or transwiki. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Drago[edit]

I'm currently working on converting the redirects in this list into full entries, or deleting them. Almost the entire contents of Wiktionary:Todo/Redirects with macrons were created by Drago. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Also, many of his definitions and translations are just plain wrong - they all need to be checked! SemperBlotto 10:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

loyalty[edit]

Five definitions, one of which is for an adjective, and three of which seems to be the same (faithfulness to X, where X varies a bit). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just as we have full entries for adverbs, where many dictionaries just have run-ins, so also this contributor has expanded "the quality or state or an instance of being loyal" to show the senses and subsenses, based on the senses/subsenses of loyal. I think we would find different synonyms were appropriate for the senses/subsenses. DCDuring TALK 11:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Are synonyms reason enough to keep these senses? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
They suggest distinctions in meaning, don't they? DCDuring TALK 11:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I get it now, a normal dictionary will just says 'the property of being loyal' no matter how many entries there are for loyal. So, the real question is how many distinct meanings loyal has, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

plume[edit]

Senses "An upwelling of molten material from the Earth's mantle." and "An arc of glowing material erupting from the surface of a star." Aren't these actually two different uses of the same sense? If not, how do they differ? When it's not in an arc shape, is there a different word for it, or is the fact it's an arc just incidental? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

park[edit]

Sense: "A space occupied by the animals, wagons, pontoons, and materials of all kinds, as ammunition, ordnance stores, hospital stores, provisions, etc., when brought together; also, the objects themselves; as, a park of wagons, a park of artillery; by extension, an inventory of such materiél, such as a country's tank park or artillery park (rare in US)." I'm guessing this is something to do with military or war? Is it current? historical? Does it need a context label? It certainly needs adjusting as it doesn't quite make sense as it stands. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010[edit]

ain't[edit]

I think the usage notes need work; for example, they include the word "racist", but the syntax is so poor that it's not clear who's being accused of racism. (I imagine the intent is something like, "This Wiktionarian thinks some of the attitude toward ain't is due to racist attitudes toward AAVE", but it's really not clear.) There are no references, so I'm half-tempted to just remove them, but I think there's something useful to be said here, and the current notes may be a start in that direction. —RuakhTALK 19:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

playability[edit]

Rfc-sense. This is probably tosh (or redundant to the first sense), but I can't tell, as I can't understand what it's talking about.​—msh210 (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the noun for playable: "of a game, able to be played and enjoyed"; therefore it's covered by sense 1 and I have removed it. Equinox 08:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

boof[edit]

Definition needs rewording: seems encyclopedic (especially its second sentence) and is hard to understand (links and {{gloss}} might help). Also, definition says it's a method — but it has a plural. While that's possible, it seems unlikely.​—msh210 (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

spijten[edit]

The following block-quoted text has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification. —RuakhTALK 23:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know this is an impersonal verb, i.e. it only occurs as het spijt me just like "it rain" with an indefinite pronoun. Can the template be altered not to produce non-existant we rain and they rained forms? Also the translation is rather imprecise. "It causes me regret" is closer. Jcwf 23:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So it's a cleanup rather than a verification job. Maybe ask AugPi (talkcontribs). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Few if any impersonal verbs in Dutch are strictly impersonal. A construct such as zijn daden speten hem (he regretted his deeds), with an explicit subject, is possible. I've made some changes now, to clarify. —CodeCat 14:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

rein[edit]

rfc-sense: To stop or restrain a horse. Also used figuratively

Should this be at rein in. Also can you rein/rein in a horse without reins? Because if so, that sense should me merged into the sense above (which says just that). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

drive-by media[edit]

Tone is too informal and aggressive. Equinox 13:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

donga[edit]

Where do I start? The entry's a bloody mess.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Better? —RuakhTALK 19:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
It appears to be good now. - -sche 02:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

crap[edit]

Isn't this mostly or entirely uncountable in main etymology. The senses and glosses are mostly not so worded. DCDuring TALK 11:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Also Derived terms and Synonyms don't seem properly matched to etymologies and properly located. DCDuring TALK 11:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonstandard Middle English verbs[edit]

Should end in -en, right, should be accounten, not "to account". Mglovesfun (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding swyfe, there may be more. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
There seem to be quite a few of these, I won't list them all here but withing looks hard to fix, unless it's easily citable as a verb, it'd want to delete it as unattestable and/or wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

metaevolution[edit]

Definition needs trimming. I suspect that we can just cut off the last few sentences, but I figure some of y'all are probably familiar with the topic and can do a better job? —RuakhTALK 15:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I did some work cleaning this one up and found another sense, but my research suggests that the original sense should just be deleted. I added an rfd-sense. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 17:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Closing. Ƿidsiþ 20:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

September 2010[edit]

got it going on[edit]

Some of the defs are for adjectives; and several of the cites have various forms of "have got it going on". I'm not sure how best this should be handled. —RuakhTALK 18:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

jener[edit]

German. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

lento[edit]

Two separate issues; the English "adjective" is defined as (music) Slowly, which is an adverb, while the Finnish noun is defined as lento, but there's no noun section for the English. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed the English section by splitting adjective and adverb into separate sections. —RuakhTALK 14:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

jamjar[edit]

A good old fashioned mess. I deleted jam jar and jam-jar which redirected here. Under what basis is jamjar a misspelling? Shouldn't it be a (not very common) alternative spelling, and of which one? Are all three readily attestable? Also should the car sense use {{trans-see}}? IMO no because car is standard English, and jamjar isn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the last thing we want are translations of the car sense of jamjar. How would you propose to discourage them? DCDuring TALK 16:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
As long as they were colloquial they'd be fine, like French bagnole. Perhaps trans-see, but to another synonym of car that's more colloquial. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha. DCDuring TALK 16:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

sword[edit]

Overstuffed ety section. Needs proto appendices to offload cognate lists to. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I sometimes remove cognates. FWIW the RFC tag now takes up more place than the cognates. Codecat might be able to help with the Proto-Germanic link. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure it will be promptly removed by our crack squad of etymologists, once the entry is clean up. If not, then deletion of the cognates seems appropriate. DCDuring TALK 16:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Created Appendix:Proto-Germanic *swerdan, and added all the descendants I could find to that (anyone happen to know the West Frisian and Afrikaans words?). Do with the original what you wish. :) —CodeCat 16:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Now all we need is PIE. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

wrench[edit]

rfc-sense: "Sad feeling when leaving something or someone loved". The citation doesn't really back this up. Perhaps it just means 'a sad feeling', though I'd go for something more like 'a trying, difficult experience'. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. A few physical-movement words have this kind of figurative use relative to emotion (eg, pull, tug, rend, jerk, twist). gut-wrenching makes this metaphor explicit. DCDuring TALK 11:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

-ity[edit]

Many of the items in the list of "synonyms" are at least misleading, if not outright wrong. Some need to link to specific Etymology sections at the target suffix entries to avoid wasting users' time and confirm the claimed synonymy. DCDuring TALK 11:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

whom[edit]

I did a cleanup on the whom page, whose template was RFCed in 2009 but didn't seem to get added here, so I'm not sure whether to use that date or the current one. In any case, for the moment I changed the whom page to not use the template and cleaned it all up, more on Talk:whom. Sabretoof 11:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

vocal[edit]

Tagged but not listed. I notice among other problems, we don't have a definition relating to being vocal about something. "Being vocal on the issue of abortion" for example. Looks a lot like a bot import that's never been checked. Also, when we sort out which definitions this entry needs, we need translation tables, which I deliberately avoided adding because the definitions don't look right to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mara [edit]

Needs multiple etymologies, etc. Probably not only such instance among given names. DCDuring TALK 13:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This one really needs needed multiple etymologies, but many given names have several possible derivations, and if the names are used the same way, it would look stupid to have a separate etymology and definition for each possibility. Better list them all in the etymology. --Makaokalani 12:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Striking, since this discussion page needs a clean-up.--Makaokalani 16:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Dravidian[edit]

I'm not sure what the definitions all mean. Sense #2 in particular ("Any of several aboriginal peoples of India and Sri Lanka thought to have spread in India before and after [Aryan] migration") seems unlikely, at least as a proper noun. I suspect that the entry needs to be split into three POS sections: ===Adjective===, ===Noun===, and ===Proper noun===. Some senses may be missing. Representative citations or decent example sentences would help clarify the issues. —RuakhTALK 14:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010[edit]

Moor[edit]

Etymology. Needs templates, economy, research, judgment. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:en-categoryTOC[edit]

Template talk:en-categoryTOC[edit]

This template discriminates against any with impaired vision or fine-motor skills. For the rest of us it is just hard to use. In addition, in many applications, the capital letters are simply unnecessary. If it cannot be repaired, it should be replaced in most applications with an all upper- or all lower-case TOC. See Category:English prefixes to compare. The second ToC is even "compact". Imagine what a well-designed TOC would be like.

If this isn't the right forum, what is? DCDuring TALK 18:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You can just increase the font size in your browser. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Starfighter[edit]

Not sure about caps on sense 1, or inclusion of sense 2 at all. Equinox 23:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hundreds of Esperanto adjective forms mislabeled as verbs[edit]

If you’ve been using subst:new eo form to generate adjectival participles [-inta(j)(n)/-anta(j)(n)/-onta(j)(n)], bad news: the script was generating Verb part-of-speech headers for those endings instead of Adjective. (The good news is, I’ve fixed the bug.)

What’s worse, it seems that some time ago, Darkicebot mass produced a metric boatload of these pages, all marked with the wrong part of speech.

To fix this mess, we're gonna need a bigger bot. — Robin 01:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What exactly makes Esperanto participles count as adjectives but participles from other language count as verbs? --Yair rand (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
That's what I was gonna say. Convince us you're right. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
In Esperanto the final letter(s) of the word unambiguously determine the part of speech. Adjectives always end in -a, and a word ending in -a is always an adjective. So there can be no confusion. —CodeCat 15:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, for non-Esperantists, the participle markers in Esperanto are -int- (past), -ant- (present), and -ont- (future), which are then followed by a part of speech ending, -a (adjective), -o (noun), -e (adverb). An example of each sort of participle, with suffixes indicated:
  • vojaĝ·i = to travel
    vojaĝ·ant·a famili·o = a family that is traveling
    vojaĝ·ant·o = one who is traveling
    vojaĝ·ant·e mi serĉ·as bov·in·o·j·n = travelingly (while traveling), I look for cows.
They are formed from verbs, but their part of speech is explicit; they are not verbs. - Robin 15:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be the same case as English. "traveling" (like "vojaĝanta") is a participle that functions like an adjective, yet it is labeled as a verb. How are Esperanto participles different? (I actually don't understand at all why all participles are labeled as verbs, but if we're going to have them labeled like that we might as well be consistent about it...) --Yair rand (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
"Verbs functioning as adjectives", that’s an English mindset where verbs can't lose their verbness even when they turn into adjectives.
Esperanto is like a world of roots which only gain a part of speech from an ending:
Unlike English, if you know the word for "sight", you also know the word for "visual" and "see"; the root "vid" can become any part of speech. It’s entirely determined by that last letter.
So vojaĝ·ant·o isn't a verb acting like a noun, it is a noun, -o turns whatever you attach it to into a fully-fledged noun. — Robin 07:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Still a problem. There are tons of adjective forms with a "Noun" L3 header. -- Prince Kassad 18:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

account[edit]

Definition 4 & 5 looks the same to me. In general, 21st Century wording would be a fine thing. The entry looks like it was written 200 years ago in some respects. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

maqaf[edit]

Total mess. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the OED records several valid spellings for this including makaph, makuph, maccaph, maqqeph and makaf – but not maqaf. So possibly RFV? Ƿidsiþ 13:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:ml-decl-noun[edit]

This and the entries that use it are absolutely awful. I doubt I can sort all (any?) the entries out without knowing any Malayalam at all. I can probably fix up the template, though. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don’t see what you mean. What is wrong with the template and the entries? —Stephen (Talk) 18:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

agentic[edit]

Non-encyclopedic rephrasing of the defs needed. H. (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

draught and draft[edit]

Either the senses need to all be at one entry, or all duplicated at both. Right now it's kinda messy. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 01:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

top[edit]

rfc-sense: "That part of an object furthest away in the opposite direction from that in which an unsupported object would fall. " tagged by someone, seemingly two different users, with the following invisible comment: <!-- This is gibberish. What does it mean? Answer: this definiton works for any celstial body, be it the earth, moon or mars, etc. because of the direction of gravity! Excellent definition.-->. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, I tagged this years ago with <!-- This is gibberish. What does it mean?--> It is still gibberish to me. If I stand a pencil on one end and watch it fall, the opposite direction from the way it falls is not the top. In orbit around a celestial body, a water bottle has a top and a bottom in spite of the fact that there is no gravity to cause it to fall in any direction. —Stephen (Talk) 04:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
On earth, if you lay a cereal box on its side, you can talk about "the side of which is currently its top", as well as of "the top of the box, which is now on the side facing you". These are two senses of top: one, the side currently facing away from the pull of gravity, and the other, the side which is usually facing away from the pull of gravity (or some better definition than that, most likely). The first corresponds to our tagged sense.​—msh210 (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it does, but wording could be better. In fact I've read this about ten times, I still don't get it. "Furthest away in the opposite direction" looks bad to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it's worded opaquely; I was commenting only on SGB's implication that the definition is wrong. As to the opacity, perhaps "That part or end of an object which is farthest from the source of gravity"? (But physicists will cringe.) By the way, we're missing the other sense I used in my cereal-box example: the usually-farthest-from-the-'source'-of-gravity sense. And I think our currently second sense (The part viewed, or intended to be viewed, nearest the edge of the visual field normally occupied by the uppermost visible objects: Headings appear at the tops of pages; Further weather information can be found at the top of your television screen) is nonexistent, or redundant to our first.​—msh210 (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's not forget that the top of a box is still the top if you turn it upside down. Certain things just naturally have a top side, which is the easiest-to-open side, the side where the writing is the right side up, etc. —CodeCat 00:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You're right that there are two senses of top, it's got nothing to do with gravity though. Whoever wrote this just meant "uppermost" or "highest". Ƿidsiþ 10:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010[edit]

call[edit]

rfc-sense: "(medicine) A work shift which requires one to be available when requested (see on call)." Includes the now-customary invisible comment <!--Any service profession, right? Should be at [[on-call]]?-->. Per the entry itself, is this actually called a 'call'? You can be on-call, no doubt, but the call doesn't refer to shift but being contacted (called). I'd post this at RFV but perhaps I just don't know the sense and other people too. Oh and it's certainly not restricted to medicine, again, per the entry itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

couvade[edit]

Definition number 2:

  1. sympathetic pregnancy: the involuntary sympathetic experience of the husband of symptoms of his wife's pregnancy, such as weight gain or morning sickness.

should either be on it's own page or be listed at Couvade syndrome I think, not at couvade. - TheDaveRoss 00:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

yahoo[edit]

The etymology, and the entry structure in general — lexicógrafa | háblame — 16:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

accouter[edit]

According to a recent edit to this page, there is no such French verb as accouter. If this is correct, then the conjugated forms of the verb (visible from older edits) need to be deleted. --EncycloPetey 02:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

جُزَڻُ[edit]

tagged but not listed. Not only does it need proper formatting, but it needs its vowel marks stripped. -- Prince Kassad 11:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sindhi spells some words with the vowel marks included, unlike Arabic. Only someone who know the language can decide if the vowel marks are needed or not. —Stephen (Talk) 18:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I've formatted the page and reworded the rfc tag's comment to match this discussion.​—msh210 (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

that's a wrap[edit]

needs a better definition line Mutante 01:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Visitor[edit]

I don't know this one; is it really usually capitalized? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9[edit]

This may have been discussed before, but I don't see it on this page or the talk pages of those entries: we are inconsistent in our treatment of the digits 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9:

  1. In the translingual section, we give 0 the header "symbol" and define it as (1) a cardinal number, (2) a digit, and mathematical things; in the English section, we give it the header "noun" (and adjective), and the senses "cardinal number" and "numeral".
  2. In the translingual section, we give 1 the header "symbol" and define it as (1) a cardinal number, (2) a digit, and mathematical things; in the English section, we give it the header "symbol" (and adjective), and the senses "cardinal number" and "numeral".
  3. In the translingual section, we give 2 the header "symbol" and English example sentences, and define it as (1) a cardinal number, (3) a digit, (2) a numeral, and mathematical things; in the English section, we do not treat it except as a representation of to or too.
  4. In the translingual section, we give 3 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number, and we have no English section.
  5. In the translingual section, we give 4 the header "symbol" and an English example sentence, and define it as a number (but not a cardinal number); in the English section, we do not treat it except as a representation of for. There is also a note on the talk page about a Russian sense we should consider.
  6. In the translingual section, we give 5 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; in the English section, we do not treat it except as a (doubted) representation of MI5.
  7. In the translingual section, we give 6 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; in the English section, we do not treat it except as a (not-doubted) representation of MI6. We also have an Italian sense that should be checked.
  8. In the translingual section, we give 7 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; we have no English section.
  9. In the translingual section, we give 8 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; and we have no English section, although we could note that it is sometimes a representation of ate.
  10. In the translingual section, we give 9 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; we have no English section.
  11. (NB, we give 10 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number, but also give it the sense "perfect, on a scale of 1-10", although we don't have corresponding senses at the other numbers.)

So... what should we standardise on? What senses should the translingual sections have (numeral, cardinal number, both, etc)? Should we have English sections for the numbers? If so, what headers (symbol vs noun, vs eg numeral) and senses (numeral, cardinal number, etc) should they have? Should the translingual sections have English example sentences? Note that 0 and 1 have translingual example sentences. — Beobach 21:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

NB also Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2010#Entries_for_cardinal_numbers. I will standardise all of these soon. — Beobach 06:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I have for the most part standardised 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. I now turn to zero, one, etc. — Beobach 01:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I have now for the most part also standardised zero, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten. I have yet to look at higher numbers. — Beobach 02:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010[edit]

2007 entries which still need attention[edit]

I am archiving the 2007 discussions. Most are resolved. The few that are not resolved are unlikely to get attention unless they are re-listed here, at the bottom of the page, as new requests. Therefore: — Beobach 02:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

kurang[edit]

— Beobach 02:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:badness[edit]

— Beobach 02:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

bollocks[edit]

It was said that "The noun and verb senses need standardising" and sorting, "particularly the noun sense which is almost exclusively used in plural". — Beobach 22:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

French, Basque, Irish, …[edit]

The comments were "These words can be used for ‘the X people collectively’. However, most of the translations for these definitions mention singular persons." and "Practically all our entries that are language names need to be redone thoroughly." — Beobach 06:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

one[edit]

— Beobach 06:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe, that this entry has been sufficiently improved. - -sche 18:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

-form[edit]

— Beobach 08:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

aandeg[edit]

— Beobach 08:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

-able[edit]

It was noted that "Someone with easier access to OED" should check whether "the 'references' simply repeat verbatim". — Beobach 08:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

august[edit]

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)

Category:Cuneiform[edit]

Almost everything in Category:Cuneiform needs substantial cleanup. — Beobach 18:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

... or deletion on the grounds that there is "no usable content given". — Beobach 18:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Nemzag[edit]

We have attracted users with strange etymological and other theories before, like KYPark (most of his entries have been corrected or verified, but NB these few remain to be checked by someone knowledgeable: , bal, 불라, bakke, 헤이그, hof, ). User:Nemzag[1] is not new — Stephen commented above in 2008 — but I am now making a unified list (as was made for KYPark) of those of Nemzag's entries which need the attention of someone knowledgeable, due to nonstandard formatting or questionable content: coerator, hipje, hypje, hipi, خواجه, truni, נחש, lirë, njeri, ملكائيل(!). I am double-checking to see that I have not missed anything, but I believe that the remainder of his main-namespace contributions from 12:28, 3 November 2008 or later (up to 3 December 2010) have either been corrected or verified. (I have not yet checked his pre-3-November-2008 contributions.) — Beobach 03:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The following entries from before 3 November 2008 also need to be checked: پری, njer, זונה, أن, and الكون الاعلى(!), and شیطانه. The rest, as far as I can tell, have been verified or corrected. (I repeat that I have checked only main-namespace contributions.) — Beobach 03:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have dealt with the following things which were previously listed above: hypi (I restored the last good version of the page, by Jyril), Перун (I restored the last good version of the page, by Ivan Štambuk), אלהים, kuti (I restored the last good version of the page, by Conrad.Bot and Hekaheka), ملائكة (restored last good version by Interwicket and Hakeem.gadi), pret (restored the last good version by Conrad.Bot and Opiaterein); (mpret, mret); חשמן; الارفع (I have restored the last good version by Stephen). — Beobach 23:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the Pulaar section of ملاك (the Pulaar section: is it displaying improperly for me, or do we really have an Arabic-script singular and a Latin-script plural as the headword line?). — Beobach 03:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Vahag and I have cleaned mbret. — Beobach 03:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Stephen has cleaned curator. — Beobach 23:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
NB this discussion. — Beobach 03:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

vaso[edit]

Neapolitan, the head word is vàso so I'd imagine that's the correct page name. Since I don't speak any Neapolitan, I don't know if I'm right. Who added this? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

User:E. abu Filumena, apparently. Pingku 02:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Ditto cucino. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

carrot cruncher[edit]

"Usage notes" are terrible. Tidy or remove? Equinox 12:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup[edit]

The page is almost 300 000 bytes long (at its worst, it was some 450 000), with unresolved issues from as far back as 2008. It's going to need a lot of cleanup... — Beobach 22:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please add Wiktionary:Requests for verification and Wiktionary:Requests for deletion as well. -- Prince Kassad 22:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not this page that needs cleanup; in all honest I could list way more stuff here than I actually do, but it doesn't often get dealt with. What needs clean up is the entries listed on this page... Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

summa cum laude[edit]

Latin section. I don't know how this fits as a Latin entry. I have added an English L2 section. DCDuring TALK 19:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

risk appetite[edit]

risk tolerance[edit]

Volunteers? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

They look to be encyclopedic if accurate, SoP if defined at dictionary length. But I look forward to being surprised. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

paganry[edit]

Pronunciation is nonstandard and defintions are well, weird. Mglovesfun (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Weird? Yes check.svg Done. DCDuring TALK 12:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Cablegate[edit]

Needs actual definition. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

erupt[edit]

Definition "to spontaneously release pressure or tension" needs improvement --Downunder 20:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

-istic[edit]

The table of derived terms needs merging into the category Category:English words suffixed with -istic. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 21:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)