Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2011

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

November 2008[edit]

religious naturalism[edit]

Encyclopedic. By the same editor as neo-Pantheism. —RuakhTALK 23:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up. - -sche (discuss) 00:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

spiritual naturalism[edit]

Note: the title of this section was previously [[Spiritual Naturalism]].

Same editor as neo-Pantheism and religious naturalism. —RuakhTALK 20:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  • This, together with ALL the contributions of User:Jlrobertson need attention. Nouns defined as proper nouns, capitalization chosen at random, encyclopedic, strange section names etc. Is it worth the bother or shall we just delete them? SemperBlotto 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Just moved it to spiritual naturalism; the capitals aren't part of the phrase, and it's not a proper noun. I don't feel very qualified to do cleanup though! Equinox 23:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed caps but they are proper names of religions, added refs. Hay, I'm learningJlrobertson 17:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Some of the claims in this overly encyclopedic definition are paradoxical to say the least. I don't see how a world view can be devoid of supernatural assumptions while simultaneously allowing religious interpretation and a concept of god. This strikes me as borderline gibberish. -- WikiPedant 05:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Clean at this point, IMO; striking. - -sche (discuss) 00:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

December 2008[edit]


Any Chinese folks have any idea how to do this? I'm rather lost here. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I formatted it like the other Zhuyin fuhao alphabet letters. - -sche (discuss) 00:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Aboriginal American[edit]

I don't know how we handle demonyms. Is this one SoP? Is the more common capitalisation of the collocation ("aboriginal American") SoP? The adjective PoS seems not always to be attributive use. DCDuring TALK 00:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the first-'a'-lowercase version is SoP, to answer your second question. The first-'A'-uppercase version I think is not SoP: although it has the same referent as Aboriginal + American, it gets at that referent via a different reference (if that makes any sense).—msh210 19:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Striking as clean. - -sche (discuss) 00:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


Help! Supposed to be Kikongo (a macrolanguage according to w:Kikongo); given definition is not particularly intelligible and difficult to verify. -- Visviva 12:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Struck because it has failed a RFV, and has therefore been tagged {{delete}}. - -sche (discuss) 00:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


Synonyms section needs splitting by senses, and hyponyms need to be spun off into their own (also split-by-sense) section. —RuakhTALK 09:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Has been cleaned. - -sche (discuss) 23:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

January 2009[edit]


RuakhTALK 02:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Striking. The contributions of Esin0420 are these, created in 2009 and 2010: 曲奇, 習性, 囉哩囉嗦, 塑料, 簡稱, 特化, 招牌, 松鼠, 嚙齒目動物, 驗光師, 傳染, 生化, 至多, 煩惱, 收集, 卡通, 雜食性, 兩者, 萊姆, 哀傷. They had some formatting issues, but these have been fixed by Stephen G. Brown in July 2009, as in diff. They look okay now. --Dan Polansky 14:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


Tagged, but not listed: overlong usage notes; ety includes alt form? usexes uninformative as to meaning (I suppose usexes = usage examples) H. (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned it up partially. The usage notes section is still a bit unruly, but less so. —Internoob (DiscCont) 02:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Any further "cleaning up" is wholly uncalled for. All the content is relevant. Why whine about length when we're not paying for the paper to print it on? —This comment was unsigned.
Striking as cleaned. - -sche (discuss) 01:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


Needs more information. Currently it sounds as if this is a general term for any Tarot card, which I don't think is the case. (Also, should this be at Tower?) —RuakhTALK 23:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Has been cleaned. - -sche (discuss) 23:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


Has been tagged for a long time. What is the status of that Shorthand header? Can’t we simply put that under Trivia or some such? The relevant reference I could find was Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2007/October#Shorthand, seems like it got abandoned. I do think it is useful information to have, though. Maybe just get rid of the L4 header, as suggested in the archive? H. (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be possible to change all the "Shorthand" headers to "Alternative forms" and handle them that way. --EncycloPetey 05:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
That's for alternative forms in en-Latn. Shorthand is a specialist notation – does our mandate include it? If so, how many different shorthand notations are going to eventually show up in English entries? Are we also going to include Morse code, semaphore, pig Latin, etc? Michael Z. 2009-03-05 15:43 z
Shorthand seems as quaint as a mimeograph machine, doesn't it? Somebody once wanted to do it, won some level of consent, started, then abandoned the effort. It's an interesting relic and an object lesson in how projects can turn out.
You don't have any actual experience that would suggest that we run the risk that some antiquarian could decide to add all kinds of obsolete formats beyond the reach of search engines and the interests of users, do you? DCDuring TALK 19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I made the shorthand into a usage note. - -sche (discuss) 01:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

May 2009[edit]


There are now five definitions, entered in this series of edits. Is this wanted? --Dan Polansky 13:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OED has one computing sense. It would take an expert to say whether there are any real distinguishable technical senses here, but they all look the same to me. Michael Z. 2009-05-17 17:24 z
Done I think. I would appreciate a second opinion on my changes. Conrad.Irwin 08:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Struck. - -sche (discuss) 00:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

June 2009[edit]


Tagged but not listed.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Striking. Added by an anon back in 2007. The entry looks okay. The anon has provided no specification of what should be cleaned up. --Dan Polansky 12:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

July 2009[edit]


As stated, is this English, French or both? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly this is French, at least. --Volants 14:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Striking. this revision shows no problems: one French section and no English one. fr:pinard has the word as a French one, just like en:pinard. --Dan Polansky 12:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

could one be any more[edit]

Useless entry as is. This archived RfD of May-June 2008 was never implemented. There were supposed to be a "boatload" of redirects to make the entry findable, of which none were added, no one accepting responsibility therefor. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Struck, because it has been deleted. - -sche (discuss) 00:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2009[edit]

Appendix:Glossary of chess[edit]

Partial cleanup John Cross 18:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Striking. No specification of what should be cleaned up. The glossary looks okay. --Dan Polansky 12:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

capital of the world[edit]

partial cleanup has now been done John Cross 18:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Striking. The entry looks basically okay. One possible improvement would be tagging the def as non-gloss one. No specification of what should be cleaned up has been given. --Dan Polansky 12:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

gravitational convection[edit]

See Talk:gravitational convection for the RfD discussion.

done -- Prince Kassad 15:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

September 2009[edit]


This entry’s quotations need page numbers and links.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Striking. Neither hyperlinks nor page numbers are obligatory parts of quotations. All quotations have sufficient information for their identification: year, author, and title of the work. Not suitable for RFC IMHO. --Dan Polansky 12:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


Mglovesfun (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Striking. Looks okay now; some cleanup has been done by Widsidth on 10 February 2010. --Dan Polansky 13:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


Something is wrong here. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How about now? —RuakhTALK 20:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
So the -e- doesn't get elided (broguing)? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Striking. The entry looks okay. No specification of what should be cleaned up has been given. Ruakh has rephased the def a bit back in 2009VER. The term "brogueing" sems attestable: google books:"brogueing"; google books:"broguing". In case of doubt, this can be sent to RFV. --Dan Polansky 13:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

pseudomacedonism [edit]

Hello. What is the problem with the article as it stands now? —This comment was unsigned.

  • There is no headword template - therefore the term is not in any category.
  • The definition entry contains what should be in an ===Etymology=== section, but does not define the term. SemperBlotto 11:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Also I don't think it needs a capital letter, does it? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Renamed, using span to link here. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Striking. I have formatted the quotations, and the page looks okay as regards formatting. A RFV may be in order, as the quotations appear spurious and not durably archived. --Dan Polansky 13:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)



By the same author. Looks genuine but the head word in the article and the page names aren't the same. Mglovesfun (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Striking. Nothing to clean up in "lepnin"; "brameline" has been cleaned up by Nbarth. I'll look into whether the entries should be sent to RFV. --Dan Polansky 10:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

October 2009[edit]

technological singularity[edit]

Mglovesfun (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Striking. I see no formatting problems. There are no usage notes to be made shorter or revised. The def seems short enough. No specification of what should be cleaned up has been given. As regards the existence of the term: google books:"technological singularity" gives over 400 hits, some capitalized as "Technological Singularity", but some capitalized as "technological singularity". --Dan Polansky 10:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

November 2009[edit]


Looks like it might exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Striking. Cleanup completed in diff in September 2010. A RFV could be in order. --Dan Polansky 10:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Part of speech, plural, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Striking. In this revision, I see no problems. The part of speech is marked as noun, which seems okay unless you insist that initialisms should be marked as "Initialism". The plural "LTMs" seems attestable, and is present in the entry. --Dan Polansky 10:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

December 2009[edit]


Could our Czech and Polish contributors help with this entry? We have an anon who keeps shifting IP and needs assistance with basic Wiktionary entry formatting. The Czech section has no definition, only an etymology. The Polish section has several oddities, including Wikipedia style footnoting of references. --EncycloPetey 04:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

My provider doesn't give static IPs. Can You give link to example or instruction about format of footnotes in wiktionary - I usually contribute to Wikipedia.-- 05:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
We tend to avoid footnotes. When we include Citations to show the use of a word, we use a format that you can see examples of at the entry for listen, or you can see a non-English quote (with translation) at biceps#Polish, biceps#Latin, or biceps#French. We support our entries with direct examples of use from published literature, rather than citing other dictionaries, whenever we can. For example, if the gender of a noun is variable, then it helps to have citations showing use of the noun in each gender. This is much better than adding a footnote, and makes the footnote unnecessary. --EncycloPetey 05:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
about Polish section: reasons of large number of references, (word in fact is "odd", and thus this entry will always contain "oddities"):
  • the word is very formal, but at the same time has vulgar [or slang] meaning
  • the word has different genres for different meanings
  • the word is region (or even village)-depended, has local modifications, and thus hard to global defining (it's simple folk instrument)
  • referenced Polish dictionary gives only etymology for one entry [not meaning]. -- 05:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The question then is: Can the additional senses that you want to add be supported with Quotations? Our Criteria for Inclusion policy requires that a sense be attestable with three citations. You might start by gathering published citations, and work from there. If there a folk usages in villages that have never been published, then those senses will not be attestable, and will not meet our policy for inclusion. --EncycloPetey 05:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that current definition is quite good - to catch all meanings in one definition Polish dictionaries use terms: often, usually, typically, etc. I agree that formating is bad and needs cleaning but word is not typical. References were added because of demand of wiktionarian.-- 05:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The person who "demanded" a reference has only four edits on Wiktionary, averaging about one edit every six months. Most of the active Wiktionarians do not use the {{unreferenced}} template. --EncycloPetey 05:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
IMHO References are important here because one should not take responsibility for vulgar [or slang] meanings and at the same time very formal meanings for example in citations of Catholic priests-- 06:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
But the References don't help if Citations/Quotations can't be found. Our key policy of WT:CFI requires that a word be attestable. Even with lots of references, an entry definition with no citations would end up being removed. --EncycloPetey 15:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Attestation criteria looks met, also citations are provided more of them are easy to find for example using Google with commands "site: .pl" [, or better http://google.pl ] for Polish language (WARNING explicit [or even ILLEGAL] material [not always catched by SafeSearch filter] is possible [as result] because of vulgar [or slang] sense) or "site: .cz" [or http://google.cz] for Czech.-- 14:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed the Czech as there was no definition. Feel free to add it back with a definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This is probably also an English word --Volants 15:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Striking. Looks okay in this revision. A cleanup has been made. The entry now has Czech, Polish, and Slovak sections, each of them with a at least one definition. --Dan Polansky 13:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Grand Slam[edit]

Questions of accuracy, notability and correct wording of definitions surround this entry. This, that and the other (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Striking. No specific concern about accuracy and wording of the definitions has been raised: if some questions "surround this entry", they have to be spelled out. Notability is a non-criterion in Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky 11:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


AFAICT this does mean something, but I can't vouch for the defintion. At best, it's much too vague. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Striking. Found in Webster 1913. I have marked it as obsolete. This is an obsolete synonym of "union". The term can be found in Google books in the requisite sense, so is attestable: google books:"unition". --Dan Polansky 11:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Verb section needs a total rewrite. --Ivan Štambuk 07:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've revised the tennis definition and added a quote. If everybody could tackle just one sense like that, this would be much easier for all concerned. --EncycloPetey 21:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I've inserted trans/intrans tags, 1 context, 2-3 obsolete/archaic; split 1-2 senses; moved their "usage examples" to separate lines, added a couple of wikilinks and added some verb type information for each sense as comments. All of this requires relatively little effort and not too much knowledge or judgment. Some of it might be wrong. Is it a help to others? I find it helps give me some signposts when I get to doing the real work.
Other preliminary steps might be to:
  1. extract synonyms in the entry;
  2. identify optional (or disallowed) complement types (PPs, to or bare infinitives, that or wh- clauses, participles, gerunds, adverbs); and
  3. identify synonyms not in the entry.
Again, nothing too hard. A next step might then be to find a modern dictionary strong on grammar, like Longmans DCE, or on modern senses like Encarta, or just comprehensive/definitive like OED to verify what's in and to find what might be missing. Adding obviously or apparently missing modern senses might clarify what is really wrong with the Websters 1913 senses. By this point it should be possible to make real progress. It should not be necessary for one person to do all of it.
I wonder whether this kind of decomposition of the tasks would make it possible for more folks to participate in improving this kind of entry. Obviously, someone with particular knowledge about a specialized sense (or any other reason for confidence in addressing part of the job) could skip the preliminaries and get on with it. Any thoughts on other preliminary steps that might make the actual definition writing easier would be appreciated. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 23:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Rewrote everything, although the translations sections need some tidying still. Ƿidsiþ 09:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


It looks pretty, but it lacks senses, especially at the verb senses. (See all etymologies. Not sure they should be distinguished.) DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 12:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Fused two redundant etyms. --Jerome Potts 21:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Striking. Missing senses are IMHO not a reason for cleanup. --Dan Polansky 10:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

January 2010[edit]


Portuguese: needs templates and structure. I'll do it myself later if necessary. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Now tagged the whole article, English, Italian and Portuguese need clean up. Translations, templates, also, why does {{pt-noun}} not accept f= for feminine forms? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Can the clean-up tag now be removed? —JakeybeanTALK 04:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The entry for "negro" is not sound, it's semperblotto's personal political statement. Negro is not an offensive term, it is being portrayed as offensive as part of a deliberate political act to co-opt the word "African" to mean negroid. This is truly offensive as there are Africans of various ethnicities. Semperblotto is acting on his personal politics and not in the best interest of knowledge. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 18:01, 17 February 2011. (diff)

Utter bollocks. Negro can be offensive, it's not always offensive a bit like queer and nigger where the context determines it. But we shouldn't remove all the 'offensive' tags. SemperBlotto has only edited this page twice in its last 100 edits which is less than you. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Striking. First tagged in this revision, in the Portuguese section. Then, the Portuguese section was cleaned up while the English section was tagged (diff). In this revision, I see nothing that needs clenaup, except that the usage note could be made shorter, but that is not very clear. The usage notes were extended by Nbarth on 18 January 2010 in diff. --Dan Polansky 12:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Totally wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Striking. Looks okay and seems to match fr:Richelieu. Mglovesfun has done a clean up in the entry on 16 May 2011 (diff). --Dan Polansky 14:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)