Wiktionary talk:Requested entries (English)

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Where is the graphical representation of how this area relates to the Neologism, Protologisms, and their respective talk pages?[edit]

Just wondering, -Selah 02:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old talk[edit]

Shouldn't this page have a link on the main page? — Hippietrail 10:28, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I've just realized today that we actually a page like this for each language. In fact, besides the indices and rhymes, there may be a small category of special pages which need to exist for each language. Should we come up with a standard set of names for these?

What we have currently:

  1. Wiktionary:Requested articles - English only
  2. Wiktionary:XXX_index - XXX is the language name in English
  3. Rhymes:English:-ɑːb
  4. (Others?)

What we probably need is something like:

  1. Wiktionary:XX:Requested articles
  2. Wiktionary:XX:Index
  3. Wiktionary:XX:Rhymes:ɑːb
  4. Wiktionary:XX:(Others)

XX could be the language's name in English or the language code. There are a few issues to consider for and against:

The benefits are a more logical and expandable structure, the down-side is that a lot of index pages and rhyme pages would have to be moved.

I'm about to start copies of this page for French and Spanish in an awful temporary place: Wiktionary:Requested articles:French and Wiktionary:Requested articles:Spanish — Please leave comments here. — Hippietrail 07:27, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A couple of things:
(1) Now that we have requests pages for several languages, "Wiktionary:Requested articles" should probably be moved to "Wiktionary:Requested articles:English" (taking care to update the links in the pages that link to the page - there are about ten).
(2): There is a requests page for Chinese (Pinyin?), but it is not linked to by any of the pages other than the English one. To save having to update an increasing number of pages every time a new requests page is added, could someone please set up a message that could be put on every page and kept up to date as and when new pages are added? I would do this myself but don't know how to. — Paul G 12:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Keep it simple[edit]

Is there some reason we need the format 

 Wiktionary:XX:Index   ??  (where 'XX' is the language name)

Why not just 

 XX:Index     ??

RSvK 15:16, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Basically because I don't know enough about wiki namespace standards. I was under the impression that only a few special top-level namespaces are supposed to exist. This would lead to a few hundred or more existing at the top-level. But if there is no such standard and it's not a problem then I agree that starting with a language code would be better, I'd be more hesitant if there were to start with language names. — Hippietrail 23:58, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid that XX:index might interfere with interlanguage links (which are, right now, confusing enough I think). \Mike 18:31, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Date-stamping requests?[edit]

Hello all, Would it be advisable to date-stamp these requests? Right now the easiest way to see which is the oldest entry is to brute-plow through the History. Can anyone think of a better way to determine which is "next" in line? --Connel MacKenzie 04:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MOVED from Template:Wanted Articles[edit]

What was this stuff doing on a template page ??--Richardb 01:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) Regarding the question: Should we be prioritizing common words before obscure ones? I personally vote "YES." I threw entries into this list from Special:Wantedpages starting from the end - the "most linked" undefined articles. The number of times a word is linked seems synonymous with it's priority, at least for this quick-list. I'm not at all sure how often Special:Wantedpages is updated - it looks like a weekly automatic run. That's why rush is still listed on it.

Absolutely. This list is specifically and only for terms linked many times within Wiktionary yet lacking definitions. — Hippietrail 01:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anyone like the idea of adding one or two foreign language words? Or even a whole mess of them, starting from #2000 linked 383 times? (What is that, Japanese for can?) --Connel MacKenzie 00:26, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We already have a few such pages - they are largely neglected however. I don't think it's time to start pushing these in highly visible places like these templated lists until the English dictionary is considered well fleshed out. After that it will become a much higher priority to get more foreign words and translations in. — Hippietrail 01:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK. I just figured one Japanese, one Russian word being visible might encourage more foreign input. C'est la vie! --Connel MacKenzie 01:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thinking about it since my last reply, you might have a good point. Maybe if we give one line to words in various languages which are recognizable enough that passing strangers might be able to add them. But how to choose such words so that they won't just sit and gather dust...? — Hippietrail 02:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking more of letting just one word work it's way onto the list. If it drifts all the way to the left and no one touches it, then it goes round-robbin to the end of the queue. Then drop in one from a different language. If a Japanese word gets defined in two seconds flat, then try and queue up a bunch. If a Russian name slides by, then avoid Russian for a week or two. My biggest problem is that I'm so American, I usually can't tell what language a given foriegn term is in. Most of the time they appear as either "??", "???" or "????" on my browser.
Looks like Jun-Dai queued up oriental on this list...I can't think of anyone better qualified than he, to throw a definition at it. Since he took it from the list out of order...<puts-on-tin-foil-hat>A-Ha! It is a conspiracy to pour more racist fuel on the fire of the flame-war thread on anti-semitism!</tin-foil-hat>. OK, maybe not, but the timing is rather odd. Maybe he innocently wants to see how someone else would word it. Or perhaps even not trusting himself to be NPOV? I still think the timing is odd. He is a very bright guy. Hmmmm. I think I'd better just ask him on his talk page.
Back on topic, I found the Wanted list to be really nice, as the words there are linked by lots of different things; I would characterise them as fairly common words. To select appropriate foriegn words, I'd just start from entry #2000 and work my way backwards as I did for English words. Taking the time to research them individually, then deciding which ones are "easy" would be very time consuming. --Connel MacKenzie 14:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


<Jun-Dai 18:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)> As I mentioned to Connel, I didn't really put it "out of order" (except in the strictest sense), since the words that I put it before were ones that I had just added myself. I am curious to see what other people come up with, though mostly it's just a mechanism to ensure that I get around to thinking and possibly (likely) writing a definition of the word. Since I have been caught red-handed, however, I think I will go ahead and write the damn thing. </Jun-Dai>
Thank you.
Minor clarification: When I said out of order, I didn't mean you put it in this list in the wrong place in the queue, I meant it is listed as being linked only 15 times, while there are still a lot that are 16, 17, 18, 19 times linked that haven't made it onto the list at all yet. (A hundred or so? 200?)
The lesson *I* need to learn from this, is that I need to let wiki alone to do its magical thing. My suggestion was adapted onto the recent changes page - DUH - that means it is not *mine*. (Not that it ever was, once it had been posted here on wiktionary.) Whatever conventions evolve for populating this page are not under my control. I like the idea of taking the next most-linked word from the tail end of the most-linked-undefined list, but that is only my suggestion.
--Connel MacKenzie 22:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
<Jun-Dai 22:24, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)> Ah. I see. Yeah, I felt like as long as it was on that end of the list (i.e., in the last--or first, depending on how you think about it--500) it was fair game. Initially, however, I entered in a bunch of words with 8 or so links, since I didn't realize the list was, er, little-endian. </Jun-Dai>
Right, the Wantedpages list goes to 2000. And when entries come from towards the end of that list, they get appended onto the end of this list. Seems like a simple, yet fair, method to me. --Connel MacKenzie 05:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that since this template has been worldly accessable, it's been about 1/2 vandalism. That's a bit higher than most pages, I'd guess. I'd even guess it is close to fuck in terms of vandalism to content ratio. --Connel MacKenzie 05:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ugly centre justification[edit]

The edit by Connel MacKenzie (Revision as of 15:39, 19 Feb 2005) has changed the formatting of this page to make it very ugly and difficult to read. My guess is that a macro introduced a centre-justification tag which was not closed and is now affecting the entire page. — Hippietrail 00:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did what? It wasn't this ugly when I did it. I don't recall using center justification on it, at any rate. Investigating... --Connel MacKenzie 07:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
12-Mar-2005 Vandalism to witionary project template left the CENTER directive intact. Vandalism had been reverted by a helpful anonymous IP.
Perhaps this is an opportune time to remove both template references? I don't particularly see them as useful here, even though it seemed appropriate at one time. --Connel MacKenzie 08:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

vinomadefied[edit]

After a small ammount of research vinomadefied appears to be at best a neologism, at worst a one-timer word from some blog... Unless someone feels the need to add it, I am going to strike it from the list. TheDaveRoss 07:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OED:

vinomadefied, a.
[f. L. vīn-um wine + madefīerī to be soaked.]
rare.
Soaked with wine.
1652 URQUHART Jewel Wks. (1834) 239 He, with his vinomadefied retinue, resolved to press in upon the page
So, would it be fair to add that vinomadefied is a euphemism for dead drunk, or not? Dick Kimball 18:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Rubber Meets the Road[edit]

This relatively common phrase, at least in the American dialect of English, was used on the radio and a Russian immigrant who was listening with me (in my car) asked me what it meant. I gave it my best shot, something about brass tacks, then tried to look it up in Wikipedia; no luck. Then I tried Wiktionary with the same result. Even a general Internet search using AltaVista only turned up instances where the phrase was used, but nothing helpful as to how to interpret it for anyone not already fluent in idiomatic American. Since Wiktionary does include such phrases as "coals to Newcastle" and "owls to Athens," I thought this might be a good place to suggest its inclusion. Dick Kimball 18:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This must a term in use only since the automobile because rubber was not much used before that time (bicycles a little before perhaps). Of all the elements in making a car useful why is this singled out for this phrase. Perhaps it is causally the "last" step in getting the car to move, to take us where we want to go. All the fancy machinery can be defeated by a failure at this more mundane point. The fact that it is also more or less the on the ground emphasizes the nitty-gritty nature, the implementation step. "where the rubber meets the road" is perhaps where the exotic meets the mundane to actually accomplish useful results. I'm not sure how to make a good definition for it, but someone will come up with something. Now, if I counld only reconstruct what brass tacks was about. DCDuring TALK 20:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard-Charg[e|er|ing][edit]

This phrase was coined for the online video blog of [Zefrank]. The wiki definition can be found [here]. --Speed8ump from 207.235.66.3 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs regulars[edit]

It has been a while since I've visited this page. OH MY! This has grown. I'm not sure if that is good or bad. --Connel MacKenzie 04:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I consider myself a regular to this page. I like the fact that it doesn't try to be comprehensive, so the task of writing definitions isn't as daunting as it is on some of the longer list pages. There seems to be a group of dedicated regulars visiting this page, too. As to the length, I try to define lots of the words here, particularly in biology, though I also add lots of new words to the page. Sometimes I'll find some words that I'm shocked at not finding (eg shamrock, whaling) and add them to the list, but I tend not to add many words under letters that already have a hefty list. --EncycloPetey 09:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4-column format[edit]

I don't dislike the new format but it's hella difficult to keep balanced now. Also the way this browser (Mozilla) does its tabs doesn't help. — Hippietrail 01:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols for "because" and "therefore"[edit]

Here are the symbols:

  • because - Hex = 2235 • HTML No. = &#8757; • HTML entity = &becaus;
  • therefore - Hex = 2234 • HTML No. = &#8756; • HTML entity = &there4;

You may have already found them by now, if so, just ignore this message. If not, I hope this helps. Anyway… Cheers! --Strabismus 05:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming this page[edit]

If there are no objections, I shall rename Wiktionary:Requested articles and all its subpages, such as Wiktionary:Requested articles:English, by replacing "Requested articles" with "Article requests" in a bid to increase user-friendliness. Ncik 14:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Requested articles" reads much more naturally than "Article requests". How would this change increase user-friendliness, and why do you feel it is necessary? — Paul G 14:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The name requested articles is better, but I would like to see the other pages moved to real subpages e.g. Wiktionary:Requested articles/English. Gerard Foley 15:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The past participle requested in "Requested articles" merely tells you that the page contains a list of articles that were requested at some point in the past. This does not imply it is the right place to request articles. "Article requests" doesn't imply this either (although it sounds much more like it), but even if you are very sceptical it at least convinces you that the page will inform you where to request articles. The whole thing is just another case of a wiki written by contributors (obviously) for contributors, rather than the general user, who is not necessarily a contributor. That's what I mean by increasing user-friendliness. Ncik 16:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mammary mecca[edit]

I read the term mammary mecca in an article about Sting and David Bowie's new strip club, but I ignore the meaning. Is that like a strip club focused on nipples? I'm not much into strip clubs, I find the term curious.--201.152.157.118 04:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: request sources[edit]

Should we ask for word-requestors (sp) to include some sort topic during which they heard the word (if it was heard)? Nothing much, just like, "while talking about dogs".

The main reason for this is that more often than not, the words are only heard and hence prone to misspellings that might confuse a potential article-creator.

This would only be for words that were heard and not articles someone wants but, for various reasons, isn't creating the article him/herself. Foxjwill 02:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always put something useful in my edit comment when adding words. But there are two kinds of words I add: a) words i know that i see don't have an article yet, and b) words i don't know. The former don't really need a comment in-list whereas the latter certainly would. The same goes for what look like common words but which are used as an unusual sense or part of speech or spelling variant etc. — Hippietrail 02:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree totally with what you're saying; however, should there be/is there some sort of place where someone can request expanding an article to include uncommon usages? I don't think it would be really benificial to have that here. Foxjwill 18:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative vs. Superlative[edit]

We don't seem to like the adjectives that end in 'y':

So are we or are we not creating entries for comparative and superlative forms? We either need to delete some (faster, fastest, looniest, etc.) or add the missing ones.

We want all words in all languages. The missing ones should be added. Jonathan Webley 12:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benefit of alphabetical order?[edit]

Is there a benefit to having this page organized alphabetically? If not, I think we should arrange it chronologically, with newer requests at the bottom. (I don't think it's worthwhile to reorder all the existing requests; but we can start adding new requests to the end. After a while, the entries will mostly be in chronological order.) This would solve the problem pointed out above by Connel MacKenzie. —RuakhTALK 21:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. That would be a great help. (Or are people more used to adding at the top?) SemperBlotto 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an old discussion, and the format we have currently is effective, but the reason for using alphabetical order here is the same as for using it anywhere — it means entries are easy to find and helps prevent entries being duplicated. — Paul G 09:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blue links[edit]

Most of the letters have blue links at the moment, but all are in the 2007 sections. Are they being left there for a reason (like further edits, etc.), or can I remove them? I would think that if it is a blue link, the request has been filled and therefore can be removed from the list. --Cromwellt|Talk|Contribs 22:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A blue link usually means the request has been fulfilled, but its fulfiller hasn't gotten around to removing it from this page yet; in such cases, you should feel free to remove it yourself. That said, sometimes blue links don't actually fulfill requests; sometimes the entry will only cover a foreign-language use, or sometimes the request is for a specific sense that the entry doesn't cover yet. So, to be on the safe side, it's best to check out the entry before removing the request from this page. —RuakhTALK 05:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch, Ruakh. I'll keep your wise counsel in mind, but will boldly remove blue links that actually fulfill the request. --Cromwellt|Talk|Contribs 01:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese index[edit]

I would like Index:Japanese total strokes or Index:Kanji total strokes to be created, like Index:Chinese total strokes, because I can't find what I search for. --200.193.224.129 20:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preamble spelling mistake[edit]

Wish to alert you to misspelling/typo in preamble to this page: standarized => standardized --BrenOnt 22:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was part of a template. I've just fixed it. 86.153.15.186 22:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —RuakhTALK 05:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buck naked vs butt naked[edit]

  • buck naked "Butt naked" is a modern mis-interpretation of this early European-immigrant North American description of native American (Indian) young men whose summertime habit it was to eschew clothing. Young Indian men were referred to, with a begrudging respect, as "bucks", being as wild and free as their deer and elk compatriots.
butt naked may be common enough to be in here. It's etymology is probably what you say though. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add these[edit]

from my spelling dictionary:

ahistoricity alienness Analects aporetic attunement beginningless Brillo Buddhology co-owner commonsensically conventionalistic culturewide desperations Dialetheism discursion Dostoevsky doxastically Duchamp effluences Eleatics eliminativism essentialize existentiality explicandum explicans feminisms fetishized genidentical genidentity haniwa Heraclitean hiraku historiological Hobbesian Hypoxia imbalancing immanentize incognizable Indiscernibility indubitability ineliminable Irresolvability kakekotoba Kierkegaard kireji Leibniz Leibnizian liberatory Mādhyamaka nihility nihilo noematic Occam outstared Ozymandias Panopticon Parmenidean Parmenides personhood plotlines Pontius Porphyrius presocratic Presocratics psychologizing Pythagoreans Rawlsian relationality significating soteriological soteriologically substantialist substantialists syllogize Takaoka unconfirmable underdetermination undisclosable unlamentable unperceivable unperceivables unschematized Weltanschauungen Wittgensteinian

I know several people must have pointed this out already but...[edit]

Many of the lemmata in the list seem to be either nonce words created by semi-analphabets to try to look edgy and win a free BJ* (I'm thinking UrbanDictionary) or cutesy Sniglets† which reading group members spout out / coin for social purposes (I'm thinking Susie Dent). If a word in the list has not been added for certain reasons should it be stated as such and then removed, just removed with no prior notice, or are we really going to include (say) fredgasm and fredgazim and what have you?
*And I don't mean "bush jacket"...
†Sniglets by themselves were okay...
—Strabismus 03:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blends[edit]

All of these "blends" are from [1]

Oxbridge Camford galumph chortle mimsy anecdotage squirl snivelization squdge bash clash electrocute prissy brunch travelogue mingy scientifiction motel sexpert sexational ambisextrous Jacobethan guesstimate sexploitation blaxploitation faction motorcade Franglais Spanglish Japlish Swedlish Anglicaans Wenglish mockney Texican slanguage Aquarobics Callanetics Jazzercise aquacise dancercise sexercise slimnastics parascending surfari sportsational swimsational advertorial docutainment infomercial infotainment magalogue televangelist animatronics camcorder rockumentary squarial glitterati digerati ligerati Clintonomics Reaganomics and Rogernomics stagflation slumpflation beerage Californicate transistor Chunnel smog nucleonics transputer amphetamine zidovudine ranitidine

Wiktionary:Requested entries:English/philias[edit]

This was the only use I could find for this Transwiki, as we define all entries separately. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dominātrīx ghoughpteighbteau [edit]

Thank You,

List of (English) uncomparable adverbs?[edit]

I apologize.

This isn't exactly a request for a new entry, but I'm curious as to why there is a both a list of uncomparable adjectives and a list of uncountable nouns in Wiktionary, but no list of uncomparable adverbs.

If somebody would make such a list of absolute adverbs (eg. always, forever) I'd really appreciate it!

Such a list need not be very long, since most adverbs in English are derived from adjectives. (So for ones such as equally and uniquely, somebody could just look up equal and unique in the list of absolute adjectives.)

--Thank You! Twinpinesmall 00:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out: bugs![edit]

A case on Opera[edit]

No, this is not a night at the opera — I'm not a blind guardian;)
I was editing a section and, fortunately or not, clicked first "preview". There loaded a page containing no text in either the preview field or the edit box. I stepped back and tried again — it was o'k now.

People, be careful! My Opera version is 10.63. Now it seems to be just one-off such an incident here on the Project. But watch out, people!

Josh L. 09:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reordering the years[edit]

For some time it has seemed dumb to me that we have the year sections ordered as we do. Clicking on a letter in the index takes a user to the oldest year retained for that letter. If a new user is adding an item the logical thing is to add them where they land. At best, they need to page down one or more times, possibly overshooting and then paging up. Flipping the order so the most recent year appears first would address this. Perhaps there is some alteration of the index code that could achieve the same result. Should this wait until the 2012 sections are added? Is it not worth the effort? Does it violate user expectations? DCDuring TALK 21:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree but why wait? S a g a C i t y 22:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1., Laziness. 2., Perhaps someone has a better idea. 3., Perhaps some dislike this. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see #Benefit of alphabetical order?. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This still seems like a good idea. This year can we do this? DCDuring TALK 14:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe next year, D. --106 for now (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fictioneering[edit]

the page "fictioneering" does not exist can someone fix this? from the big man upstairs

For boomstick[edit]

For boomstick: http://smythlumbermill.com/logbooms.pdf-- it is a logging term. Lriley47 16:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page Refresh?[edit]

Would it be possible to get this page up-to-date? It hasn't been used in quite some time, and I feel that there is a lot of activity on the project page, so why not have an active talk page too? Thoughts? -- AnonymousDDoS (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{l|en}}[edit]

Does anyone mind if I change all {{l}}s into normal wikilinks? There is no English section in 99% of the words here and the page is taking ages to load. — Ungoliant (Falai) 15:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly encourage it. I just removed {{l}} from Wiktionary:Requested entries (Scientific names) and was gratified that my suspicions about its dramatic effect of performance when used in the hundreds were confirmed. Until its performance is dramatically improved, it should be used only where it actually serves a useful purpose, not by default, let alone added as a clean-up task. DCDuring TALK 10:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. This page is hell to load lately, and I never realised this was the cause. (I don't use that template.) Equinox ◑ 12:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. It really pops now. Thanks, Ruakh. DCDuring TALK 15:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm betting the problem started around August 8. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, I had totally forgotten about this! It helped much more than I expected. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Peterian[edit]

Good Peterian- A person who commits specific and targeted acts of kindness with no regard to reciprocal benefits. Similar to "Good Samaritan" but more targeted instead of random. 1jeffclark (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but we don't add new inventions until they have gained some real-world usage. Equinox ◑ 14:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English to Middle English[edit]

Please include Middle English reference entries from noted linguist JRR Tolkien available in public domain Project Gutenberg. "A Middle English Vocabulary" by John Ronald Reuel Tolkien available at Project Gutenberg. — This comment was unsigned.

Guidance, please[edit]

No sure how to do this, but could we take the preamble phrase "Add the part of speech, preferably using a standardized template." and make the words "standardized template" a link to Wiktionary:Entry_templates, please? HLHJ (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I hope it helps. DCDuring TALK 15:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odd link to random Wikipedia article[edit]

When I view "Wiktionary:Requested entries (English)", I see an odd link in the menu on the left side of the page: "In other projects / Wikipedia:Pinacocyte". Is this just a changing link to a random English Wikipedia article? If so, how is that useful? Smuconlaw (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - it was meant to be an inline link against the request for exopinacocyte. Keith the Koala (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. {{Pedia}} is an odd template, I have to say. Smuconlaw (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

I have added a word ("lofer) to the "Requested Items" list. In the process, I noticed a request for what I would consider a ridiculous, disruptive entry: "lick one's balls". I am being bold and deleting this request. If I am acting improperly, please notify me of such, or suggest an alternative action I might've taken. Thank you. Ragityman (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ragityman Wiktionary includes vulgar terms, so I don't think that entry would be either ridiculous or disruptive. --Einstein2 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the definition would have to have meaning not the sum of its parts (SoP). If that meaning is not at least suggested in the request, I'd let it stay on the list for at least a month before deleting it, in case someone is aware of an idiomatic (not SoP) meaning. DCDuring TALK 20:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone the deletion. The quote in the request provided evidence of a non-SoP meaning. Whether it is attested is another matter. DCDuring TALK 20:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Order of entries[edit]

As the whole page is ordered chronologically by year, it seems logical that the individual sections (the letter sections within the individual year sections) should also be ordered chronologically, with new entries added at the bottom of the section. But while some of the sections are ordered chronologically, others are ordered alphabetically, and I noticed that sections have just recently been re-ordered according to the alphabet. I propose we add a fat notice at the top, stating something like Sections are ordered chronologically. Please add new entries at the bottom of the appropiate section. --JaS (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"rare or non-existant"[edit]

The phrase "rare or non-existant" occurs throughout Wiktionary, but templated (see, for example, under "Conjugation" in here. I've gone to what seems to be the main culprit (Template:el-conj-1-switch), but the text doesn't appear there -- so I'm at a loss. It's an embarrassing mistake in a dictionary site... --87.112.244.29 10:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: the problem is a misspelling (should be non-existent). Equinox ◑ 18:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Template:el-conj-table-a was the problem. Germyb (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Öræfi[edit]

Need the word Öræfi listed with a bit more information. It means desert in Norse and Icelandic. Found it as a translation here https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wasteland because it also means wasteland but you'd never know because it's hidden. Here is a link to a site which explains it's meaning

http://www.environmentandsociety.org/exhibitions/wilderness/viderni-and-oeraefi-icelandic

The desert-like character of the highland is highlighted in the synonym used to describe it, i.e. the Icelandic noun öræfi, which refers to a region of no use and a hostile environment for humans and animals.

Transwiki:RAF Speak[edit]

There´s a cool list at Transwiki:RAF Speak. It could be easily merged hereinto --106 for now (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Equinox ◑ 04:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing requests after entry creation - after how long?[edit]

Suggest "Please remove entries from this list once they have been written (i.e. the link is “live”, shown in blue, and has a section for the correct language)." be changed to "Entries should be marked as Created 2021 June (creation month) once they have been written (i.e. the link is “live”, shown in blue, and has a section for the correct language), and then removed from the list after one year." This would give the requester and others time to see that it was done (and boost morale of requesters?). Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ass burgers[edit]

Should this be included as an entry? It is an intentional and comedic and/or derogatory mispronunciation of Asperger. 184.19.98.82 22:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already got Assburgers. Equinox ◑ 22:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are intentional and comedic and/or derogatory mispronunciations forbidden in the Wiktionary? Apokrif (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad move[edit]

It is not helpful that week-old, or even month-old, entries have been moved to a sub-page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing has happened again. Even a suggestion I posted in January 2023 has already been moved to the 2022 sub-page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it’s not great for very recent requests to be moved to a subpage, but what should we do instead? Leaving all requests on a single page doesn’t seem very reasonable, given how many there are. But moving older requests to a subpage while leaving newer ones would be very time-consuming, as it’s necessary to go through the history to work out which are old and which are new.
I think we should move the 2023 requests (1-16 January) back to the main page, and I doubt anyone would object to that, as they clearly belong there. If we do it systematically, starting from 16 January and working back, it shouldn’t take too long. I may make a start on this later today. --Zundark (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve now moved all the 2023 requests to the main page. --Zundark (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Words already in previous years[edit]

I notice a major revision by User:Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais as of 02:18, 17 January 2023. "OK, all this is in the 2022 subpage, even though a few are from 2023. You're gonna hate me for this..."

I perceive two issues an issue.

  • How is a user expected to know that the word was requested before? As far as I can tell, it relies on users
    • being aware of the 'archived' requests, and
    • proactively hunting through them ('manually').
Or is the idea to just let users add whatever they want, and admin's will 'clean up' afterward if needed?
  • Although the request may be a duplicate, edits that remove all of the new content may (I guess) also end up removing quite interesting and relevant discussion. For instance, the deleted request for columnation included an extended discussion that (I expect) wouldn't be duplicated in the 2022 subpage, and so is now effectively 'lost' ..., I was wrong, it is there. Ooops.
    • Would it be better (or worse!) to have this annual archiving handled by a bot?

—DIV 1.145.125.137 08:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Monty Burns Jr/New OED June 2012[edit]

There are some useful red links on that page. Monty Burns Jr might have been Wonderfool, though P. Sovjunk (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary_talk:Requested_entries_(English)&oldid=76459760"