Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2013/Unresolved requests

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

January 2013[edit]

Special:Contributions/Hlmswn[edit]

This user has been incorrectly ref-formatting both example sentences and wikipedia links for some time. I've contacted the user, who refuses to correct the problems as doing so would be a "waste of time". I've cleaned up all the problems dated 4 Jan, but all the previous edits need to be fixed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

liquidus[edit]

Tagged since June 2011; seemingly never dealt with. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, is it always a line on a graph or can it represent the actual real life conditions as well? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
No idea; I just brought the entry here because I saw that it was tagged and had not been altered significantly since. Perhaps, as the tagging editor, DCDuring can tell us what it is about the entry that needs to be cleaned up. I'll post a message on his talk page. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
AFAICT, its only meaning is "a line on a graph [] ". I've made a few non-central changes. It wouldn't hurt if someone better than I at chemistry or physics took a look. DCDuring TALK 19:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I still have a nagging feeling that the definition needs to take account of the possibility of a gaseous state, not just liquid and solid. I'm not sure what the distinction between liquidus and solidus would be.
Also, the definition just seems wrong. It is most likely true that the line(s) themselves represent loci of equilibria, on one side of which the material is liquid and the other solid, and not "A line, in a phase diagram, above which a given substance is a stable liquid and below which solid and liquid are in equilibrium." Other dictionaries seem to say that the line is where liquid and solid are in equilibrium. DCDuring TALK 19:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

M-business[edit]

Barely comprehensible marketroid jargon. What is M-business, actually? Equinox 23:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a way to sell useless stuff to gullible people over their smartphones. —Angr 00:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Place name appendices[edit]

As it stands now, the category is a little bit of a mess. You would expect that these appendices are concerned with place names as they are used locally. But Appendix:Place names in Russia contains transliterated names, so it's not actually Russian. Some of the pages like Appendix:Korean toponyms are clearly tied to a language, while others seem to be more about the English treatment of foreign names. I think that all of these pages should have names that state what language they are in, but I'm not sure on all the details yet. Does anyone else have ideas? —CodeCat 01:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

inversion[edit]

The music definitions were tagged {{rft}} (sic) and never listed here, AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 06:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would they be listed here if tagged {{rft}}?​—msh210 (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Because the tagger requested that the senses be cleaned up, despite using the wrong template. - -sche (discuss) 08:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

desire[edit]

Sense 1: "More formal or stronger word for want." Sense 3: "Another word for want, connoting emotion." These definitions are terrible: "desire" doesn't mean "another word for want", it is another word for "want", just as "cat" doesn't mean "noun", it is a noun. They also seem redundant to one another. - -sche (discuss) 10:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "another word for" is wrong so much as much it's pointless and bad style. It would be like starting definitions with "defined as" or "may be defined as". Mglovesfun (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Or "used to refer to", like "used to refer to a breed of domestic cat native to the Isle of Man" (Manx cat, hypothetical example). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

English Carrier[edit]

An excellent specimen of an encyclopedic entry. The entry has lots of redlinks which should either be filled with alternative forms or deleted or something. DCDuring TALK 17:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

fjellabe#Noun[edit]

Obvious. --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

February 2013[edit]

Template:ko-hanja (e.g. at 犬#Korean)[edit]

Previous discussion: Template talk:ko-hanja.

This template is a total mess:

  • It's inconsistent with Wiktionary formatting conventions: our headword-line templates are supposed to generate one line, not four.
  • The word "Eumhun" is just thrown in there in a place where it can only be described as "wrong". (The fourth line, labeled "name", is the eumhun, but the "Eumhun" appears on the second line.) (Edited to add: Actually, this comment wasn't really right. The eumhun is both the meaning and the pronunciation taken together. So the presentation is not really wrong, merely incredibly confusing. 17:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC))
  • It generates stray parentheses in some cases, and probably stray commas in others.

I suspect that some (much?) of the template's content should simply be removed.

RuakhTALK 05:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see some bold editing in this case. Bold editing not recommended for widely used templates in general, but in this case I think it's appropriate. Maybe use {{ko-hanja/new}} to make changes then move it on top of ko-hanja (that is, deleting the current version of ko-hanja and replacing it with ko-hanja/new). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

agathology[edit]

Needs Ancient Greek etymology and Greek script--Tobby (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Chuck Entz (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

indlamu[edit]

The definition seems to be taken from that at w:Indlamu, which in turn was apparently copied word-for-word from this passage. It needs to be restated in more original language. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

vielen[edit]

A bit... too long? —CodeCat 14:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks correct to me -- Liliana 14:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Better now? I've used {{inflected form of}} at vielen and added a declension table to viel so the reader isn't overwhelmed with a hard-to-read list but can still find the information he's looking for. —Angr 15:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey, who decides if the list in inflected forms is too long? The list was completely correct, so why should someone decimate it? I want to redo the old version. --Bigbossfarin (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand why you're unhappy with this: you put a lot of work into the list of forms that got eliminated, there are no rules that I know of that prohibit making such a list, and I'm sure every single item on that list is correct. Still, there are some occasions when the sheer volume of information makes it too difficult to use. The declension table at viel has the same information, but structured in such a way that you don't have to go through the list item-by-item to find a given combination of strong-vs.weak, case, gender, etc.
There are lots of things that are allowed by the rules that aren't a good idea, such as adding example sentences to the entry for every possible form in the declension table, or having a "see also" list with all the nouns that the adjective could be used with. One has to look not just at whether something is permissible and correct, but also whether it would be of any use to those who are trying to find information about the word. Too much relatively unstructured information in one place increases the work needed to find any one piece of it. The quantity of items on the list provides an odd sort of illustration of the definition, but it would be an even better illustration for zu viel... Chuck Entz (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, Bigbossfarin's comprehensive entry was the kind of entry de.Wikt has, and indeed the kind of entry en.Wikt has for languages like Latin where individual forms have smaller numbers of senses (see e.g. portibus). I'm on the fence about which diff ([1], [2]) is better in cases like this, where forms have large numbers of senses. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no problem with listing the senses of a syncretic inflected form separately, up to about five or six. After that, one starts losing the ability to keep track of them all. If other people feel it's preferable to list all the senses of vielen separately, then I would at the very least recommend removing the "mixed" forms, since there isn't really a "mixed" adjective declension in German: it's just that some forms of ein and kein are followed by strong adjectives and other forms are followed by weak adjectives, so the so-called "mixed" declension is always identical to either the strong form or the weak form. In the case of vielen, the "mixed" forms are always the same as the weak forms. But generally, I do think that if the entry of an inflected form is going to have more than five or six senses, it's preferable to just say {{inflected form of}} and let a declension table at the lemma entry do the work. —Angr 16:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I oppose the removal of information. A better solution, IMO, would be merging some of them, for example:
Mixed masculine, feminine and neuter singular genitive of viel.
Mixed masculine, feminine and neuter singular dative of viel.
Instead of:
mixed masculine singular genitive form of viel.
mixed masculine singular dative form of viel.
mixed masculine singular accusative form of viel.
mixed feminine singular genitive form of viel.
mixed feminine singular dative form of viel.
mixed neuter singular genitive form of viel.
mixed neuter singular dative form of viel.
I don’t see how a list showing the various uses of viele overwhelms the user with information, while forcing them to pick out the vielens in a conjugation table doesn’t. — Ungoliant (Falai) 15:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
If we do want to list them all rather than just using {{inflected form of}}, then I'd recommend merging the whole shebang to:
strong masculine and neuter singular genitive form of viel.
strong, weak, and mixed masculine singular accusative form of viel.
strong, weak, and mixed weak plural dative form of viel.
weak and mixed masculine, feminine and neuter singular genitive form of viel.
weak and mixed masculine, feminine and neuter singular dative form of viel.
That leaves only five lines, which is much easier for the reader to parse than 20 lines. —Angr 15:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Later: I edited the above to indicate that the masculine singular accusative and dative plural forms are strong, weak, and mixed rather than just strong and weak. —Angr 13:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm down with that. It's in line with how we combine the "Simple past tense and past participle of" of English verbs for which those forms are homographic. - -sche (discuss) 01:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

dialyzable and related terms[edit]

This entry was added as an unformatted mess. I cleaned it up, then checked to see if it was redundant to a UK-spelled entry. It is, but clicking through the linked terms led to an annoying game of find-the-definition:

  1. dialysable is defined as "Able to be dialysed".
  2. dialysed is defined as "Simple past tense and past participle of dialyse
  3. dialyse is defined as "Alternative spelling of dialyze"
  4. dialyze is defined as "To subject something (or someone) to dialysis
  5. dialysis (finally!) has useful definitions.

Can someone simplify this maze of links so it doesn't take so many clicks? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

dialyzable said "(of a substance) Able to be removed by dialysis", so I just copied that definition over to dialysable. Now it just takes one click to get to the useful definitions at dialysis. —Angr 21:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
So far, so good. That solves one of the inefficiencies. There's still the other entries that link to alt-forms and derived forms. I also have the nagging feeling that we may be missing something: dialyze actually has two senses: one referring to the substances, and the other referring to patients undergoing dialysis. It's possible that one could talk about whether a patient is dialyzable/dialysable. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Let the fact that dialyzable and dialysable were out of sync show that attempting to duplicate content across entries is a bad idea which invariably ends with entries going out of sync. I've made "dialyzable" an alt form of "dialysable", having arbitrarily decided to standardise in that direction rather than in the other direction. - -sche (discuss) 01:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
dialyzable significantly more common than dialysable per Google n-Gram, so swapped. DCDuring TALK 02:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: I don't see any usage in the first 60 Google Books hits that dialyz/sable is used of people or of blood. And no hits at all on books for "dialyzable patient" or "dialyzable blood". DCDuring TALK 02:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

catracho[edit]

This is apparently a real sense, but it has no PoS or even a language. I hope someone with better English or Spanish knowledge can fix it up? —CodeCat 21:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I used the Spanish Wikipedia, and then checked it's attestable in print too. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

alternative[edit]

Definition "other". Hard to be more vague than that. Was wondering which of our senses covers the meaning of alternative in {{alternative form of}}, and my conclusion is that we don't have one. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

@Mglovesfun: to your question, "other". --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

恭喜發財[edit]

This entry has grouped various languages under a single "Mandarin" heading. They should be split into separate languages, but I don't know enough about it to do it myself. —CodeCat 14:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing the pronunciations for the other languages would 'fix' the problem, but not fix the problem of missing languages. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Fixed Cantonese, User:A-cai can fix Min Nan or someone with interest. We have entries to use as a sample. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Kirilboyanov[edit]

This user has been adding badly formatted entries in the Shopski (Western) dialect of Bulgarian. The content itself seems ok, but it treats Shopski as a distinct language, which is not how we treat it on Wiktionary. Not surprising considering it resembles Eastern Macedonian, and we can't even get people to agree whether Macedonian is a language! I've tried to convert some of them to a better format, considering them as alternative forms of standard Bulgarian words. But I don't know enough to make these decisions well, and in the case of питување, внимање, једин and дејаним it's impossible because њ and ј are not used in Bulgarian, they are Macedonian letters. So what should we do? —CodeCat 18:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete entries with non-standard letters, add {{attention|bg}} for others, reformat if not too much trouble. We have native Bulgarian speakers, although they are biased against Macedonian as a language. User:Bogorm is native Bulgarian, very knowledgeable (but not very productive, LOL), native Macedonian User:Bjankuloski06en seems to be back in business as well. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the dubious entries for now. I don't think the issue can be resolved quickly. If we decide to keep Šopski dialect entries, they can be restored. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
храбрина is marked as neuter, but it looks like it might be neuter plural judging by the ending, and the meaning? —CodeCat 22:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it's feminine singular but it's hard to verify. The meaning is likely to be correct, cf. Russian: храбрость (xrábrostʹ, bravery), храбрый (xrábryj, brave). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ɪmaha[edit]

As pointed out on the talk page last year, the headword does not match the pagename, and I also wonder if the initial letter of the pagename is correct as-is (i.e. if Shabo indeed uses the IPA-esque small-caps I) or should be ı (dotless i). - -sche (discuss) 01:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The bad news: there is basically only one linguist in the world who has studied Shabo. The good news: I have his email. I am not very good at communication, so can I email the address to you? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure! :) I'll look over our other Shabo words before I e-mail him, to see if there's anything else we need guidance on. (And I'll ask for the word for "water", for Liliana, lol.) - -sche (discuss) 02:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I got your e-mail with his address. Also, I noticed [[ɛmenan]]: I suspect ɪmaha's content was simply copy-paste-o-ed from there, like c'eka was from ciime... which makes me worry if the other pairs of 'synonyms' (ʃeŋgi/cofolkoh, sukuma/jukuma, kaʔal/kaan, kayan/zefa) also contain one error each. - -sche (discuss) 08:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
From w:Shabo language#Sample sentences I deduce that the Shabo word for water is mawo. I also notice that neither dotless ı nor IPA-style ɪ appears on that page, though several other IPA characters (such as ɗ, ɛ, ŋ, ʃ) do appear to be used in the orthography. —Angr 08:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess it's one of those African languages that use the IPA in its alphabet. - -sche (discuss) 08:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Did this ever work out at all? Any responses? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
ɪ is not a valid letter in any alphabet out there. A few obscure African languages use Ɩɩ, but that is different. -- Liliana 09:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
w:ɪ says ɪ is a letter in the African reference alphabet. - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Dido#Latin[edit]

As I cleaned up a separate problem, I noticed the attention tag: can this be templatised? - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. I notice that the template differs in showing plural forms, but there are other proper nouns using the same template, and also having plural forms. Still, I haven't done too many of these in Latin, so it wouldn't hurt for a more experienced Latin editor to check it. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I did a search of the whole PHI Latin corpus and it doesn't bring up any uses of Dido in the plural in any case (I can't think why she'd appear in the plural, either). My assumption would be that someone just used the regular 3rd declension table because they didn't know how to use a declension table for proper noun (I'm not deprecating them at all, if that's the case - I freak out every time I encounter a template andd it is certainly what I would do) 01:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
That's actually something that's been bothering me for a while, but unfortunately many Latin names do pluralise. I'm not surprised this one doesn't, mainly because it's not Roman. I don't really think it's a big problem, in large part because it would be hell to change now that it's common practice to give plurals for basically everything that isn't a geographical feature. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
We could always add a switch to the template to suppress plural forms, couldn't we? - -sche (discuss) 04:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but SB would also need to recode his bot, and he doesn't seem to care about Latin much right now. Oh, and somebody (not me, because I can't say I really want to) would theoretically need to go through and check the attestability of plural forms for tons of proper nouns, which is tedious. Just doing it to one entry doesn't solve anything. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

metocha[edit]

This had the definitions

  1. {{context|Combination of Spanish words|lang=es}} nosy to obtain information to then gossip
  2. She wants to know what was said in the board meeting, to inform all the employees.

I removed the bogus context and second "definition", but I think it'd be good if a Spanish-speaker checked that no other problems remain. PS, judging by Google Books, this might also be an English word. - -sche (discuss) 04:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

up[edit]

After working on this a while, it's getting harder to tell the prepositional from the adverbial from the nominal from the adjectival in all of the different sections (I may have actually made things worse). In addition, the role of the term in phrasal verbs doesn't seem to be explicitly addressed at all, which has to be confusing to people trying to look up the phrasal verbs by way of the parts. I realize such problems are rampant among entries for the ubiquitous "little words", but we might as well start somewhere. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "up to New York" (adverb #3), could we say that "up" is a preposition? I think that it goes like "I'm going [PP up [PP to New York ] ]" and not "I'm going [AdvP up ] [PP to New York ]" because we can say "It's up to New York that I'm going" and not *"It's to New York that I'm going up". Same as into which is just in + to. —Internoob 02:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
But consider: "We went up in the balloon for a one hour tour." Other prepositions that can follow up include on ("He climbed up on the roof." != "He climbed upon the roof." !!!), with, and over. The following prepositional phrase can be replaced by some locative expressions (eg, here, there, yonder). DCDuring TALK 13:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
A way forward for this may be to explicitly include (under the Adverb PoS, I think) non-gloss definitions for usage in phrasal-verb constructions, possibly as subsenses for any corresponding purely adverbial sense. We could then remove phrasal verb usage examples, ie, probably all usage examples involving the most common verbs and replaced them with less colloquial examples using multisyllable verbs that unambiguously do not make phrasal verbs [my hypothesis]. Also, all the usage example that involve synonyms of become need to me moved to the adjective section. DCDuring TALK 11:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:en:Mineralogy[edit]

Many of the terms in this category are minerals. They should be in Category:en:Minerals instead. All it needs is for them to be identified, and the {{mineralogy}} template to be changed to {{mineral}}. I haven't checked if the same problem arises in other languages. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is already listed at WT:TODO. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

March 2013[edit]

pistol[edit]

One of the senses is tagged with the 'context' "Shakespeare". Does this mean only the bard used the sense in question? - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If the sense in question is the character in Henry V named Pistol, then yes, but then it shouldn't be listed as a meaning of pistol. I don't know whether Shakespeare—or anyone else, for that matter—also uses it as a common noun. —Angr 21:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Widespread use in the US, as if a euphemism for pisser. "She's a real pistol". Shakespeare is, of course, not a context. DCDuring TALK 13:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Etymologically, it is probably from the simile hot as a pistol. MWOnline has "a notably sharp, spirited, or energetic person", which different but not dissimilar from our definition, but, then again, it isn't straining to make a Shakespearean connection. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

concentration[edit]

I wasn't sure where to start on this one. (1) Layout is non-standard. (2) Some senses/translations are too specific - others need writing in simpler English. (3) Translations probably need pooling for re-checking. — Saltmarshαπάντηση 05:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The use of subsections for definitions (using the syntax ##) isn't common but I wouldn't say it's 'non-standard' either. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't come across it, but stating that the term means ppm is incorrect - its just an example — Saltmarshαπάντηση 12:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Insanely, there's nothing to cover the mental state of being concentrated. I've added a French entry for it, but the English definition it refers to doesn't exist yet. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Concentrated doesn't list it either... but concentrate does. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
But it isn't clear whether "the act or process of concentrating" (all the subsections refer to the amounts of one material in another) includes mental concentration. (1) does "mental concentration" get a 3rd subsection or a new section of its own. And (2) does the relevant translation sense include both mental and physical concentration when some languages will have separate terms? — Saltmarshαπάντηση 12:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
How much do other languages use different words for translating this as a process, an act, an ability, a result? What about the distinction between a reflexive/intransitive sense ("the concentration of the particles in the lower portion of of the fractioning apparatus", ie, the particles could be viewed as concentrating themselves) and a transitive sense {"the concentration apparatus proved effective", ie, the apparatus concentrates something else)? DCDuring TALK 20:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Or a state for that matter?

segregation[edit]

RFC-sense "The Mendelian Law of Segregation related to genetic transmission or geographical segregation of various species." For starters, could someone clean it up so that it doesn't define "segregation" as, basically, "segregation related to segregation"? - -sche (discuss) 19:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Latin inflected forms which contain definitions[edit]

The inflected forms of iacio (iaciebamus, iaciebatis, iecerimus...) and iaceo currently repeat all of the definition information from iacio/iaceo. This is a uniquely terrible idea and I can only hope there are already policies against it. The inflected forms need to be stripped of this duplicated content before they fall further out of sync with the lemma and with each other. (I uncovered this mess by checking the Whatlinkshere of Template:la-conj-form-gloss/iacio/context6 and Template:la-conj-form-gloss/iacio/context5, two templates which also need to be deleted...) - -sche (discuss) 01:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably relatively rare, as I'm pretty sure SB never pulled this kind of shenanigan. I don't know how to clean it up; we might ask AugPi (talkcontribs) for help, but as he championed this ill-fated method, I doubt he would be of great utility. Any botting solution has my support. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes I dislike these as really hard to read. I think we need at WT:RFDO for these, although I suppose we don't need an RFDO to remove the templates from the entries - that would just be normal editing. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind if inflected forms have one brief gloss like "we were throwing" for the sake of those who are intimidated by descriptions like "first-person plural imperfect active indicative", but we should certainly not be including the entire spectrum of translations for polysemous words like this. —Angr 21:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I've cleaned up most of the entries. - -sche (discuss) 23:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
What about all the other entries that use {{la-conj-form-gloss}}? Should they be kept? —CodeCat 23:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
No. And there are a lot of templates listed on User:Eiggge which it may be appropriate to RFD once they have been orphaned pursuant to this RFC. Note that not all entries use la-conj-form-gloss in conjunction with our usual short "x-form-of" glosses, some (especially participles) use only la-conj-form-gloss... which makes it less than straightforward to remove by bot. But the sheer number makes it impractical to do by hand. - -sche (discuss) 23:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Middle English entries from User:AmericanLeMans[edit]

These all lack headwords. Some of them are also lacking ===part of speech=== sections. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Done? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Nope. They keep on coming. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I think he should be warned that if he doesn't fix his entries, he will be blocked. —CodeCat 14:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
He's not even a newbie; he's been around for three years and really ought to know better. —Angr 14:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

abstract verb[edit]

Tagged but not listed. What exactly is the problem here? Abstract and concrete verbs are a feature of some verbs in Slavic languages, verbs of movement - go, run, swim, roll, fly, etc.

For example, in Russian бежать (bežátʹ, to run) is a concrete verb and бегать (bégatʹ, to run) is an abstract verb. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"Abstract verb refers to a verbal aspect in verbs of motion"? Are we defining it, or mentioning it while talking about something else? I would reword it, but I haven't been able to untangle it enough, yet, to figure out what it actually means. By the way: "Abstract verb" should be in quotes- assuming it should be there at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've untangled it, but it's still pretty wordy, and would probably be better if split up into smaller sentences. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
(before edit conflict)I see you have changed the definition just now. Is this satisfactory?
The user examples given are in English, not sure if the notion of "abstract verb" and "concrete verb" are applicable to English verbs. I only know this concept in terms of Slavic languages, no other. As shown above abstract and concrete verbs differ in forms and cause difficulty to foreign learners, e.g. "I'm flying"", "I will go" in translations may use one or the other verb type or both may be acceptable in some contexts.
(after edit conflict). The concept is complicated, I will search for better definitions. Still don't see how this can explained using English verbs. Any help is appreciated. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
BTW, abstract and concrete verbs are not too many. It's not a complete list but you can have a look at: Category:Russian concrete verbs and Category:Russian abstract verbs. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I didn't address the issue of Slavic languages vs. English. I would say that English is good for explaining the concepts to English speakers, even though there's nothing in the morphology to reflect the difference. I suppose, though, that it might give the false impression that English has this as part of its grammar. As for language-specificity: there seem to me to be enough idiosyncratic details in the concept to make it unlikely to be found elsewhere in the same form, but I could be wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The concept of abstract/concrete with English verbs doesn't make sense, since the verbs don't differ depending on the situation, IMHO. Take verbs плыть (plytʹ) (concrete) vs плавать (plávatʹ) (abstract). Note that the verb tense (present simple or present continuous) is irrelevant here, "плавать (plavatʹ)" is a "generic" verb but not in terms of time but direction)
  1. Я плыву к берегу (Ja plyvú k béregu) (concrete, unidirectional). - "I'm swimming to the shore".
  2. Я плаваю по субботам (Ja plávaju po subbótam) (abstract, multidirectional) - "I swim on Saturdays".
  3. Я плаваюплыву (Ja plávaju/Ja plyvú) (abstract/concrete - either type is OK). - "I'm swimming". The former means "swim around", the latter "swim in a direction". The difference in meaning is blurred but the forms are very distinct. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, if there's that much missing from the concept in the English examples, I guess there's no reason to use them. It's generally helpful to explain the unfamiliar in terms of the familiar, but not if it means leaving things out. I won't be much help in that area, though: I was only able to squeeze in one quarter of Russian as I was getting ready to graduate from UCLA- and I was taking Armenian and second-year German at the same time. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I think of adding user examples like I did for "tone sandhi", a concept only applicable to tonal languages. Although I find that box on the right is hard to read now. My original version was this. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
As commonly used in English the expression is almost certainly SoP. I think the scope of non-SoP usage in language needs to be better delineated. For example, David Crystal's Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (5th ed) does not include abstract verb, though it has abstract in a sense that might cover this. The English usage examples could fit under the SoP sense ({{&lit}}). Perhaps the scope needs to be limited to the languages for which the abstract/concrete distinction is morphological. It would also help if there were citations in the entry. The would be suggestive of in what usage contexts the term was used in a non-SoP way. DCDuring TALK 09:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
This is not an RFD or RFV page and "abstract verb" is a grammatical term, like collective numeral or comparative degree, etc., not a SoP. Only this term has little to do with the English grammar, like instrumental case. The examples and explanation match exactly how Slavic abstract and concrete verbs are defined. I'm not surprised that English dictionaries don't include this term or words like "measure word", which is used to describe grammar in other languages, not English. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Citations and usage examples (not just conceptual examples, which are like images) are supposed to be part of every entry and would help here to show the scope of coverage of the word. As the term is used almost exclusively in a very SoP ways and as there is no dictionary coverage, we really need to show usage. DCDuring TALK 10:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I could add user examples (translations from Russian grammar books) but I'll have trouble with citations from the web. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The only cites that CFI requires are for the term "abstract verb" itself. I could be wrong, but I would think that any explanation of it in an English-language grammar about a Slavic language would be a use, rather than a mention: it's a grammatical term, and the book would be using it to explain a grammatical subject. As long as the book is durably archived, somewhere, it doesn't have to be online. Of course, it would have to be in English, since this is all about the English term. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Three cites need to be of a single non-SoP sense. Usually that means that the wording shouldn't by too specific to make sure that enough authors use it with the definition, but the needs to be more than a transformation of abstract + verb. For some reason we seem to be really good at seeing the idiomaticity of terms in the areas of linguistics and computing, so it shouldn't be too hard. DCDuring TALK 04:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

إنكليزي[edit]

Defined as a noun. Does it mean "relating to the English language"? DCDuring TALK 21:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the term has a similar range of meanings to English. If you pick up an English-Arabic/Arabic-English dictionary to check, you'll probably see the term printed on the cover. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The Arabic script, especially with diacritics, looks horrible and harder to read lately but that's not my fault. I don't know when the default font was changed and why. It also looks bad in the Arabic Wiktionary. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Does it mean Englishman, Englishwoman, Englishmen? Or just Englishman. {{ar-noun}} allows feminine forms, right? It definitely allows plurals. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Oops, fixed that as well. Just "Englishman". --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I haven't added feminine and plural forms directly into {{ar-noun}} because fhead and plhead didn't seem to work when I tried. It should be f=إنكليزية, fhead=إنْكِلِيزِيّةٌ, p=إنكليزِين, plhead=إنْكِلِيزِيِّن. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Contributions of User:Bipalabras[edit]

This is looking more and more like LW/GTroy, and they keep adding sexual terms that are attestable- but not with those definitions. I know that such things are needed for Wiktionary to be truly complete, but I really don't care to spend my time salvaging entries I personally dislike. Maybe someone else could deal with this. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Consider Special:Nuke. Yeah it would be a shame if we lost some valid stuff, but we're only human here, we have limited time and mental resources to deal with this sort of thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Asturian verbs[edit]

I spot-checked 4–5 entries from each batch (each verb) of entries User:Scottish friend created today; most checked out, but the forms of the verbs ciarrar, amasuñar, humildar and esnalar (which also needs other clarification, see its talk page) got very few or no hits on Google. It's possible the individual forms I checked are just not attested on the internet yet, but it'd be good if someone could check that the conjugation tables are right. - -sche (discuss) 02:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

April 2013[edit]

pug[edit]

Etymological material confounded with definitions. DCDuring TALK 11:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

dearth[edit]

Marked, not listed. Quotations need sorting out. H. (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

onium[edit]

Merge noun sections or split by etymology. Is the suffix really derived from the plural? — Pingkudimmi 06:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots[edit]

This page and its subpages don't contain just roots, but a rather unorganised mix of roots, stems and even full words. It also seems rather redundant to Category:Proto-Indo-European roots. And the idea of listing all descendants on those pages seems doomed from the start, because there will be far more descendants than we could comfortably list in a table in many circumstances. I would prefer deleting this page outright but maybe someone else knows what to do with it. —CodeCat 18:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

elusive[edit]

"Difficult to describe", usage example A precise definition of diarrhea is elusive (Robbin's pathology, 8th ed). Not sure that it means 'difficult to describe' in this example, but rather 'tending to elude'. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

buster[edit]

Two etymologies listed. Each sense should be assigned to one or another if possible; if that's impossible (etymology is uncertain), then the etymology section should clarify which (if any) are known to be of each etymology and which are unknown.​—msh210 (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

itinerant worker[edit]

"In context, either a politically correct term for unemployed, or a racial slur for the homeless". This seems like it should be in with the definitions, but of course there's no such thing as a racial slur for the homeless, the homeless aren't a race no more than cat owners are a race. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I changed "racial slur" to "derogatory term", but I can't say I've ever heard it used this way. I only know the definition currently labeled "colloquial, Southern California" (and I strongly doubt it's restricted in either of those ways) and would consider it a near-perfect synonym of migrant worker. —Angr 09:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Contributions of User:Hesternopothia[edit]

They've been adding words starting with z, with definitions that seem to be copied verbatim from some list that's been going around the web. Not sure whether we should delete them, or come up with our own definitions. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with Special:Nuke if there's sufficient evidence that these definitions aren't original. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
3 of the definitions:
  • zenocentric Measured with reference to the planet Jupiter
  • zendalet Large black woollen shawl worn over the head or shoulders
  • zemni blind mole-rat
Google search on every word of the above: [3]
This diff shows the lack of original thought in their edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why these haven't been nuked yet. Seems clear cut. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I was going to give him a warning, but forgot about it over breakfast. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

routing[edit]

Pron.#1, noun#2. cutting a channel in a material such as wood using a router. This should be pronunciation#2 surely, and cutting is a verb, not a noun, which makes it the same as the pron.#2, verb#1 entry. SpinningSpark 18:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Forms of the verb and noun route may have either pronunciation (ie, rhyming with root or with out).
If a plural of an -ing-form is attestable, then we often have a noun PoS section for the singular, in addition to the verb PoS section. It would be a somewhat tedious exercise of modest benefit to most users to determine which senses of routing have the plural attestable, but I wonder whether routings in the sense from rout#Verb is attestable. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but the root word for this meaning is rout, not route, which always has the "rowt" pronunciation as far as I am aware. The plural noun probably does exist (cf. turnings, castings etc) and shouldn't be too difficult to find. But the current definition is not worded as a noun. SpinningSpark 23:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I've split routing up by etymology rather than pronunciation to make things a bit clearer. —Angr 00:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I moved the woodworking noun sense into the second (rout) etymology.
The entry for route says that route has two pronunciations for all senses in the US and one pronunciation for all senses in the UK. I think that is right for the US. Is it true that there is only one UK pronunciation? DCDuring TALK 01:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. I'd removed the tag. Done? DCDuring TALK 08:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
There is still the matter of a noun with a verb definition. I have edited it to A channel cut in a material such as wood with a router or gouge. SpinningSpark 09:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it just a gerund with a gerund definition? "Routing" and "cutting" are the same part of speech. —Angr 19:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
We treat it as a noun if it attestably forms a plural. The definition might not be right for said plural. It might be limited to the results of the gerund. DCDuring TALK 20:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

名正言順[edit]

Shouldn't this have a literal as well as a figurative definition? The formatting isn't standard either. DCDuring TALK 20:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

champian[edit]

The noun portion of the entry has seven senses, which do not seem very distinct. I cannot find more than two senses in other dictionaries (Century). The entry does, however, reference the OED. Can someone verify that the OED has all the senses. Even if the OED has all seven senses, I wonder if three cites can be found to clearly support each distinct sense. DCDuring TALK 23:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"A species of landscape that is flat and open." seems too poor to be included. Some of these seem very much distinct, for example someone who farms open land is clearly distinct from the land itself. A field of study seems to be like field (expert in one's field, for example). Mglovesfun (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

strategy[edit]

rfc-sense: "The art of using similar techniques in politics or business." Similar to which sense, sense #1 or sense #2? Or neither, perhaps it means the art of using techniques which are similar in politics or business (I don't think it means this, but it's the most literal interpretation from where I stand). I think maybe it's trying to suggest that strategy can be a mass noun, which I think it can, in which case it's not limited to business and politics, in sports you can use strategy (mass noun) and not only a strategy or strategies (count nouns). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

MWOnline has six senses, none of which fit the uncountable sense, which I agree exists and is not uncommon:
  • 2001, Ronald S. Swift, Accelerating Customer Relationships: Using CRM and Relationship ..., page 319:
    Much strategy prevails over little strategy, so those with no strategy can only be defeated.
I think there are two kinds of meanings: more or less neutral: "strategizing, the activity of developing an implementable strategy"; more or less favorable: "good, clever planning". I generally don't think we should have definitions like the second if they are arguably included in a neutral sense.
The MWOnline senses are for: 1.a.1 - national grand strategy, 1.a.2 - military strategy, 1.b - a type or instance of the above, 2.a - a careful plan, 2.b - the art of devising such plans, 3 - something to capture what is imputed to a species for its successful evolution.
Obviously, our definitions combine some of these, but they also seem to omit some components completely. DCDuring TALK 22:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

uyruklu[edit]

tabiyetli[edit]

These are supposedly adjectives meaning "citizen of". I'm not sure how that works. Adjectives modify nouns, but "citizen of" would seem to require that the noun following it not be the one modified (e.g. in "citizen of Germany", "citizen of" is describing Angela Merkel, not "Germany"). - -sche (discuss) 20:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

boda[edit]

Material in etymology needs to be redistributed. DCDuring TALK 14:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. Couldn't hurt to have someone who knows Rohingya (or had even heard of it before this thread, unlike me) to look it over, though. —Angr 14:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sameer[edit]

Split by etymology and otherwise fill in the gaps. DCDuring TALK 17:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Turkish word lists[edit]

These pages are far too long and they are triggering script errors halfway through because of that. They should be split up further if possible. But I wonder why we need such lists at all..? —CodeCat 21:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Would the script errors stop if they used {{l/tr}} instead of {{l|tr}}? —Angr 22:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
It's worth trying... —CodeCat 22:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
As for why we need such lists at all, a lot of people find frequency lists helpful for a wide variety of applications. I certainly wouldn't want us to get rid of them. —Angr 09:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't get in to edit them; I just get the Wikimedia Error green screen of death. —Angr 20:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I can edit them, but when I save them it times out, even if I use {{l/tr}}. —CodeCat 11:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)