User talk:Metaknowledge

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
  1. Jan-Jun 2012
  2. Jul-Dec 2012
  3. Jan-Jun 2013
  4. Jul-Dec 2013
  5. Jan-Jun 2014
  6. Jul 2014-Jun 2015

User:Visviva/Pais 20150704[edit]

Hey. Visvia has got a tool to find missing Spanish words, if you feel like helping out create some more entries. --A230rjfowe (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"Anything interesting happen whilst I was away?"[edit]

Haven't you heard? We finished Wiktionary. --WikiTiki89 19:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh good. That'll make learning every language ever considerably easier for me now. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back! No sooner are you back than you're back to blocking vandals — nice! Let me know if you agree or disagree with what I did at WT:RFM#Kiyaka_language. - -sche (discuss) 19:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Lol I can't believe you say whilst — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 20:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
An old habit; I tend to write in a different dialect than the one I speak. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Rollback or Undoing[edit]

Hey! This edit was not vandalism. You should not have used rollback, because it has been meant to vandalism. You should have used the normal undoing.-- 10:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia, and administrators are not expected to notify people when the crap they've added to an entry is summarily removed. We don't have enough people patrolling recent edits to take the extra time to undo an edit that isn't strictly vandalism. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Rollback to histi- and histo-[edit]

Hello! I saw that you reverted my addition of the English prefix histi-. It is listed as a combining form in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary online. Just wondering?

Aryamanarora (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It looked to me that what you were adding was, if anything, an example of histio-, not histi-. However, it looks like you're right that histi- is a real prefix, so I'll un-revert and format those. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, you made a lot of formatting mistakes, so please see my changes at histi-. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm just getting started so I'm still learning formatting. Aryamanarora (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


Did you mean to put the plural as gamétogenesis? --A230rjfowe (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that; I was retyping those by hand. By the way, also unsure about the plural for céfalon and BGC isn't helping. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it is one of those words in Spanish where the stress changes in the plural, like espécimen, carácter , régimen, and others. --A230rjfowe (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure céfalon is attestable? DTLHS (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@DTLHS: Very sure. Just look at BGC; easily citable in the singular. I tried cefálones, however, to no avail. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @A230rjfowe, DTLHS: I added a bunch more to User:Metaknowledge/Español; what I added comes from ~50 pages' worth of Borges, so we clearly have much work left to do in terms of adequately covering literary Spanish. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep, we certainly do. However, it's not so bad seeing as the majority of those are "form-ofs" - plurals, conjugated forms, feminine forms, which can be readily added by means of a friendly bot. --A230rjfowe (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yiddish מײַן[edit]

There are two problems with this entry (and the other possessive forms):

(1.) In the example Er iz mayn bruder, the word is not a pronoun but a determiner (according to the terminology that is predominant among Anglophone grammarians).

But my actual point is that (2.) I think the declension table is not quite correct. It says that the masculine nominative is mayner and that mayn is the "neuter indefinite". Obviously, mayn is (also?) a masculine nominative, as can be seen from the example sentence above. I personally don't speak Yiddish, but I think the bare form mayn is much more widely used, too. It can also be feminine: mayn mame instead of mayne mame, if I'm not mistaken. -- Long story short: There must be some kind of change. If you know what kind, and if you have the time, I would kindly ask you to make these changes. Thanks! Kolmiel (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

If you don't speak Yiddish how do you know there "must" be a change? Yiddish isn't German.
Some kind of appendix describing which forms are used where would be useful, but the Yiddish adjective template does not need to resemble the German one. — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 15:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
[Technically speaking, in the old-fashioned Yiddish that constitutes most of this Wiktionary's coverage of Yiddish, "mayne mame" would be incorrect. Possessive pronouns before singular nouns always use the neuter indefinite form and the inflected forms (mayner, maynem etc) are used pronominally. I can't remember whether those forms are used predicatively; the predicate might also use the neuter indefinite.] — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 15:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
At least how I speak, those forms are indeed used predicatively as well. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with the page per se; what we really need is a usage note for the personal pronouns or a link to a grammatical appendix that does not yet exist. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) What do you mean by "old-fashioned Yiddish"? The inflected ones are also used post-nominally: מאַמע מײַנע איז ... ‎(mame mayne iz ...). --WikiTiki89 16:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Basically that most people who speak Yiddish as their literal mameloshn don't speak the Yiddish that's taught in colleges. — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 16:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't have to do with oldness, but with standardness. Even at the time YIVO was created, no one spoke YIVO Yiddish, and no one has since, but the same can be said for any standard of any language. --WikiTiki89 16:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Old-fashioned was admittedly not a perfect phrase, but if more of the focus is on "fashioned" it's not completely inaccurate. I wonder how long it will be before someone does a really nice thorough description of modern Hassidic Yiddish. — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 16:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The other day, a chosid tried to explain to me how Yiddish is a more perfect and refined version of German. The problem with modern Chassidic Yiddish is that every sect has its own sectolect and every family its own familioect. --WikiTiki89 16:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Heh, interesting... German does seem rather up its own butt about terribly minute grammatical points.
I don't know that I'd call that a problem, unless describing it as a problem of working out a descriptive grammar. There's another language I studied that has no real practical standard but is more of a continuum of rather distinct dialects. I can't remember what language it is. Maybe Pashto. — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 17:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that there is too much data to be gathered and not enough places to gather it from. --WikiTiki89 17:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Nah, not in this age of big data. It would just take a consummate zealot. :) — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 17:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record: I didn't even say a single word about German. I said that I didn't speak Yiddish because I don't. I said that there needed to be a change in the template, because I knew that mayn was used differently from what the template said. The template is still wrong, obviously. But, whatever. Kolmiel (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kolmiel: The point was that German and Yiddish work differently in this regard, and the template is correct; the entry could just use some clarification. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. I got that. But I didn't say that it works like German. I know it doesn't. -- The template has mayn as a "neuter indefinite". How can it be a neuter indefinite if you say mayn bruder (masculine) and mayn mame (feminine). If mayn is the general determiner form, then I don't see why it is correct to call it a "neuter indefinite". Kolmiel (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Btw, the fact that I said I'd heard mayn mame already proves that I didn't mix up German and Yiddish, because German always keeps the -e before feminine nouns. Kolmiel (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Lithuanian doesn't have neuter-gender nouns, but it still has a "neuter" adjective form. The template isn't wrong. The template doesn't "say" anything about the way any form of the word is used. It's a label. Labels might not always meet your standard of "correctness." — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 04:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, fine. The least you can say is that it's utterly confusing. If Lithuania doesn't have neuter-gender nouns, then a "neuter" adjective form is less confusing in that language than calling a form for all genders neuter in a language that does have actual neuter nouns. But if you love your template so much, then leave it as it is. I don't care. Kolmiel (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Yiddish adjectives in general are confusing. Looking at a template doesn't tell you how to use every form of an adjective in every possible scenario. I can't remember ever seeing the bare adjective form called anything but 'neuter indefinite' and 'stem', but calling it "stem" in the template would be even worse, since most languages don't use "stems" as complete words. If you can find a traditional grammar of Yiddish that calls this form something else, I'd be interested in seeing what Yiddish linguists call it. Otherwise I don't see the label as being more important than an appendix describing the grammar of adjectives. — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 16:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hebrew Transcription[edit]

Hey there, quick query about Hebrew transcription on קנא#Hebrew: when you altered the transcription I put (qɑ'nnɑʔ), you replaced it with "kaná". While I can understand the q > k being based on Israeli pronunciation having lost the distinction between כ and ק, why is the gemination on the נ unmarked? To my knowledge, even formal Israeli Hebrew marks gemination in consonants (ie. **kanná), if not in the spoken vernacular (which, of course, some have argued is a different language). Can you please shed some light on this transcription system? Thanks! Benjitheijneb (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention, of course, that the word in question is almost exclusively bound to Biblical Hebrew usage, not to modern spoken Israeli Hebrew, which if I recall correctly favours קנאי over קנא. Benjitheijneb (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I shouldn't've changed it; I was just trying to templatise at first. We follow WT:HE TR here, but there's always a lot of debate on the matter. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
And suddenly it gets more confusing; that chart recognises at least two romanisation systems? According to the "scholarly romanization" sections, the first two consonants as I rendered would've been acceptable (with q for ק and doubled consonant for the dagesh/geminate), though naturally my vowels and IPA glottal stop were certainly out of place. Might I go ahead and tweak the transliteration midway to "qanná", leaving the template as you had fixed it? Again, on the basis of marking out the archaicisms of what is essentially a fossilised phrase. Benjitheijneb (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The template actually needs a bit more work until it's good; see the documentation at {{he-adj}}.
As for romanisation, I don't know, but the scholarly one might be a good choice since it's biblical vocabulary. Personally, most of the Hebrew I'm exposed to is biblical or similar with pronunciation essentially based on modern Israeli standards, but you ought to check with actual Hebrew editors about these issues rather than me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
You would be mixing transliteration schemes if you put qanná (by our "scholarly" scheme it should be qannā), but regardless, our general practice is to always use the Israeli-based scheme and only sometimes when you feel like it add the scholarly one in addition to it. Sometimes only in etymology sections of words derived from older Hebrew you can omit the Israeli-based scheme if it provides no useful information. --WikiTiki89 11:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, even the most formal Israeli Hebrew does not pronounce gemination in consonants (although a handful of very specific individuals do this). Maybe you are referring to the fact that the Academy's transliteration scheme preserves geminate consonants, but that is an entirely different matter. --WikiTiki89 11:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I was indeed inferring from the Academy's transliteration usage that gemination was prescribed but not practiced, as with a number of "correct" Hebrew phonological characteristics; this based on the fact that the formal written register retains more archaicisms which the vernacular spoken register does not. Maybe if Hebrew on Wiktionary distinguished between Biblical and Israeli Hebrew (or for that matter regional and diachronic variations between the two), it would be easier to argue for the scholarly pronunciation. But that is a matter for the larger body of editors, and for so long as that is not the case, I can't help but agree with the standardisation to Israeli pronunciation. Thanks for the clarifications! Benjitheijneb (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
If it were just Biblical vs. Israeli Hebrew, I might have supported separating them as different languages, but there is so much in between that blurs the distinction quite a bit (Mishnaic, Medieval, etc.). --WikiTiki89 16:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


Could we get a standard Babel template on your user page? I'd appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I used to have one, but it annoyed me that everyone assesses what the numbers mean differently. I reckon what I've done is actually more informative. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I think Babel is much more convenient. The numbers are approximate but they give a very quick first glance. Multiple words instead of a single number do not given that glance. And the information is much harder to locate on the page than it is with Babel. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The extra 10 seconds of reading will not harm you. — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 16:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
As input from the owner of User:Dick Laurent, which does not show any language info, it does not sound very convincing. And it is not only about 10 seconds; it is also about a sense of confusion and expectations not met.--Dan Polansky (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
A sense of confusion? The very first numbered section on Meta's page says "My languages." Each tier is clearly described in a straightforward manner. Could you explain to me precisely which part of that you find confusing?
You certainly must know this, but for the benefit of reinforcement: Meta isn't required to meet your expectations. This is Wiktionary, not the White House. — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 18:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


Re your edit summary, yeah, what you added is what I figured. I'm aware, however, that my French is fr-<1 at best, so I didn't want to get anything wrong. There could always have been an intermediate Middle or Old French etymon, after all… (Though, regarding the IPA, I can't conceive of any other way Végèce would be pronounced, given that spelling, so I should indeed have just gone ahead and added /veʒɛs/.) Thanks for answering the requests; I'll try to be a little bolder in future. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries. And there may have been an intermediate I'm unaware of, although it was probably reborrowed straight from Latin regardless (e.g. Middle English Ciceroun being replaced by Cicero). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Aye, there is that. The problem is French's tendency to adapt Latin names so extensively. In English, we'd call him "Vegetius", with the same spelling as in Latin, but "Végèce"?! Jeez… — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but they do it according to a regular formula, as it were. Just like how one can predict Italian Vegezio, Spanish Vegecio, and Portuguese Vegécio. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, but that regular formula has the effect of simulating descent via Old and Middle French, which is what makes it difficult to tell when a name entered the language without looking for dates of first attestation. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've created Vegetius — Latin and English. Are all the descendants I've added to the Latin section meant to be there? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, although I have a suspicion that they're not all citable. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I copied them from the various foreign-language Wikipedia editions' articles. Please feel free to remove any of them that you think wouldn't satisfy the CFI. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No point in bothering, really; I doubt any of them are actually wrong, just possibly made up. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. And I would say it's fairly likely that, if they were made up, they were taken from the Latin. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


Dear Metaknowledge you added me to the Whitelist what does that mean ? Adjutor101 (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It means that your edits would be automatically approved, but it doesn't change anything for you. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

“if you don't think shashimamishi is one of the best-sounding words ever, you need psychiatric help”[edit]

Enbilulugugal. Your move. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Impressive indeed. But was it as scrumptious in the original Sumerian (I suppose)? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see you're linking to Arabic words[edit]

Presumably you managed to get hold of that Swahili etymological dictionary and learn some of the Arabic script? Benwing (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The true story is not so rosy. I have a very weak grasp on Arabic script now, hardly sufficient, and the etymological dictionary turned out to be terrible, but I found another that serves the purpose. I am generally copy-pasting for the etymologies, though, so rest assured that good links to Arabic depend on good Arabic entries! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. I'd like to think the Arabic entries are generally pretty good :) ... at least, the spelling should be correct, so if you copy-paste the lemma, it should be fine. Benwing (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Most of the Arabic entries are good, although we definitely need more. But if you feel like doing cleanup work, there are unfortunately a fair-sized pile of entries like this one. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I know about those proper-noun entries (and certain common-noun entries, like the whole series of chemical elements that someone stuck in). Unfortunately in most of these cases I don't have any sources for how these words are pronounced, so I don't know how to fill in the vowels or translit. Benwing (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that one. For the rest, are there really no exhaustive dictionaries of MSA that would include them? If nothing else, and Youtube clips could probably provide the vowels for almost all of them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I've added diacritics and declension for باكستان. It's easy to find. I used Whether it's prescribed to pronounce "p", not "b", is not so important, IMHO but I'll check with Hans Wehr. I've noticed that a number of foreign place names have various pronunciations. All depends on speakers' knowledge of foreign languages and phonology. Alternative letters, borrowed from Farsi, Urdu, etc. are extremely rare in real life. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Werdna Yrneh Yarg[edit]

The following message was for the above named: Werdna Yrneh Yarg.

  • This is becoming mildly annoying. Please stop continuously posting on my talkpage. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


Your last edit there went south and I couldn't figure out what you were trying to do. Could you please fix it? Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that; I'd forgotten that I have to use the alt parameter. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for this this. Sometimes I get confused... —JohnC5 00:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm just shocked that other people edited it and didn't notice. And that apparently nobody is running any bots along the lines of Autoformat to find these machine-obvious errors. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Rollback of "umbrella"[edit]

link here

In the current version of umbrella it is written that this word is pronounced as IPA(key): /ʌmˈbɹɛlə(ɹ)/ in the UK. The R at the end is strange, I haven't heard anyone pronounce it like that. I consulted several dictionaries and they all say it's pronounced IPA(key): /ʌmˈbɹɛlə/ (which seems to be obvious). Why did you revert my edit? Zaqq (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Mainly because it was removal of content without any explanation. Your reasoning seems sound, so I'll fix the UK pronunciation accordingly. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
You are right, I should've added some explanation, my bad. Thank you for fixing though. Zaqq (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Gādēs vocative[edit]

Howdy! It's been a bit. I see you've been looking a lot at the declensions of non-native Latin words lately with META and Kenny. Where'd you find the vocative plural Gādibus for Gādēs? Is there some rule that should be implemented in the templates? Just curious! —JohnC5 04:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm in the midst of a Latin geography project around here. Place-names were pretty much the one thing where grc was definitively way ahead of la, but I'm making progress. As for the 3rd declension locative plural, yes, that needs to be changed to -ibus, as the templates are outputting the wrong form. All the classic grammars seem to agree on this, although I'd be hard pressed to cite it, due to interference from the ablative of location. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Wait a second, you meant locative, not vocative, didn't you? I was freaking out there for a second. —JohnC5 04:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
You said vocative, but I assumed you meant locative, given that I added the latter and did not touch the former. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
You must have updated the voative on Gādēs by accident in this edit, which is what started the confusion in the first place. Everything's great now! —JohnC5 04:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, you are right. I'm very sorry for having misassigned the blame to you, and am thankful that you caught it. The problem still stands, however, that the template predicts the wrong locative form. (The only other affected entries I know of are Sardīs and Sardēs.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I know how to fix the template, but I am curious why Kenny would have such an error in the first place. Have you asked? —JohnC5 04:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't gotten around to it. It's not a priority, but it could use fixing. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, Allen and Greenough agree with you, which is proof enough for me. —JohnC5 05:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
All fixed now! Tell me if you run into any more of these things. I love weirdo Latin declensions! —JohnC5 05:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
You do? Then boy, do I have work for you... If you could deal with the issues I mentioned over at Meta's page, that would be great. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll certainly take a gander tomorrow! (Also, I realize how awkward it was of me to call I.S.M.E.T.A. “META” on your page. It was terribly confusing and unthoughtful of me.)JohnC5 05:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Not at all; I am perfectly fine with us both having the same shortened moniker. You can refer to me as "MK", but there's really no option of comparable brevity for ISMETA. Anyway, thanks for the help! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, what mistake did I make? --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
No worries, John fixed it. But would it possible to add the logic of {{la-decl-1st-Greek-Ma}} to the module so it can support multiple accusatives? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

How complete do you think we are?[edit]

From the remarks you recently made at Equinox's talk page, I gather that you think the English-language portion of this project isn't fully built out. I think I disagree with you. I think nearly all the single-word English entries have been created. Purplebackpack89 04:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I've no idea, but you're so stupendously wrong that it's funny. Visviva is scraping lots of new missing single-word English terms every day, and I find them not unoften when adding terms in other languages, and then realise the word I'm linking to in the definition doesn't even have an entry yet. (It just happened with Pisidian.) If you spent your time helping out with the effort, you'd see what I mean. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
What's Visviva? Purplebackpack89 12:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
That should be "who". A longtime admin who compiles lots of useful lists. As for missing words: there are lots of them, but not many of the obvious, everyday ones. There are a good number in specialized areas like plant and animal names. If you broaden it to nouns with modifiers, there are tons of non-SOP specialized terms that we're missing- I add them all the time. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Visviva's bot is here: [1]. As stated above, it seems to find a lot of legitimate missing words almost every day. Equinox 14:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The usage frequency of the English words that we add now is rather low and many are proper names. OTOH, the inadequacy of our coverage of definitions is obvious but hard to quantify. Creating a new entry seems to be much easier and more fun than actually making sure we have good definitions in an existing entry, especially those that need multiple definitions. DCDuring TALK 13:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    BTW, Translingual entries are by no means exemplary in this regard: about 20% (~2,500/~12,500) have no definition except for rank and a hypernym. Many more have only a vernacular name as a gloss. In many cases an ordinary user wouldn't know whether the entry was for a fish or a fowl (or a mollusk or a mastodon). DCDuring TALK 14:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    DC, I see you complaining about this all the time, but why don't you go deal with it? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, ordinary, everyday words that you will come across reading a newspaper or novel - we have nearly 100% coverage, but often with crap definitions. For technical words that you will come across in scientific (and, especially, mathematical) journals - we have more that any other dictionary, but nowhere near all of them. But we are improving every day. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)