Wiktionary:Information desk

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

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Information desk

You can search in the archives of Information desk:

Welcome to the Information desk of Wiktionary, a place where users can ask questions about words and about Wiktionary, ask for help, or post miscellaneous ideas that don’t fit in any of the other rooms.

To start a new topic, clicking on the “+” tab, or click here: Start a new topic.

Sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), code which produces your signature, followed by a UTC timestamp.

For past questions, see /Archives.

Information desk archives edit
2015
2016
2017
2018


Contents

March 2018

Insular script code[edit]

Is Insular script coded as latg or latn? – Gormflaith (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't use Insular script here, since all variants of Latin script can be normalised as Latn. See WT:SCRIPTS for the exhaustive list of script codes we include and exclude. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

that's the wrong direction[edit]

About this sentence in English:

"That's the wrong direction."

Is has 395,000 Google results. But isn't it technically a mistake, unless there are exactly two directions to choose?

If I need to go North, but start walking East by mistake, that's not "the" wrong direction, that's "a" wrong direction, right?

It seems it's normal to say that sentence in English even though it's often technically a mistake. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a mistake, it's a common construction. Discussion, key point: "You use "the" when the item of discussion has somehow been identified, "a" when it is anonymous." DTLHS (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree. "The wrong direction" doesn't necessarily mean "the only wrong direction"; it means "a direction that isn't the right one". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I see. Thank you both. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
It does seem illogical. We don't say "that's the bad idea" or "that's the moot point". Why "the" with "wrong" specifically? Equinox 17:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Looking at google books:"That's the wrong", I also find "that's the wrong question", "but that's the wrong way" and the like. Something odd is going on there. Generally, predicates assigning an individual to a class usually use an indefinite article, like "He's a smart guy", not "He's the smart guy". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
We should learn from Czech and just stop all this article nonsense, eh? Equinox 18:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Apparently the English language is broken. Where can I send a bug report? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
You send a bug report by placing "proscribed" on the word in Wiktionary; done ;). --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I've grown to like English articles. They need some getting used to, sure. But once I got used to them, I sometimes need them in Czech, and emulate them using certain words or phrases.
I think I saw an article (a journal article, that is :)) reporting that men use definite articles more often than women, or at least that's what a particular study quantitatively found. What that suggests is that the article choice is not so grammatically clear-cut as one might think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
At least English doesn't have gendered articles. In Portuguese we have: "the pencil" = "O lápis", "the pen" = "A caneta".
We also use articles for uncountable nouns a lot: "love is in the air" = "O amor está no ar".
And articles for proper nouns: "Daniel is late to the party" = "O Daniel está atrasado para a festa".
So now that I think about it, article usage in English seems simpler/easier than in my mother tongue. Which seems good for English, I guess. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I suspect that you have to have a choice of options for this construction to work- it would have to be something where one could ask "which one?". There's more to it than that, but I think you have to have that, to start with. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm speculating, but maybe "the correct / right X" came first (which makes grammatical sense), and this construction transferred to "wrong / incorrect". DTLHS (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Here's a wrong direction,the wrong direction at Google Ngram Viewer; at the beginning of the 19th century, the indefinite article held sway.--Dan Polansky (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure this isn't universal, but when somebody says something like "You're going the wrong direction", I assume they specifically mean the opposite direction. Otherwise I would use, and expect to hear, the negative construction "You're not going in the right direction." --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

One of the jargon[edit]

lemming heuristic cannot be attested, and as I researched further it seems to strictly be Wiktionary jargon. It's an RFD-related term. Can someone explain this to me, and the background behind the term, etc. if you know it? Thanks! PseudoSkull (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's Dan Polansky's rewording of lemming logic. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
A "lemming" in RFD jargon is another dictionary; there's a heuristic for or test of includability that in effect says: if other lemmings (dictionaries) have jumped off a certain cliff (included a certain word), perhaps we should, too. It's documented at WT:LEMMING as one of a number of (not all binding, but informative) tests. - -sche (discuss) 17:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: The way I see it, it is Wiktionary that is the lemming, not the other dictionaries. A heuristic is a rule or method of procedure that is merely good enough, not guaranteed to yield optimal result. An advantage of a heuristic is that it is computationally or cognitively cheap. A BP discussion is at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/January#Proposal: Use Lemming principle to speed RfDs. I may have confused people by using the word "heuristic". I like the word since it points out to the merely-good-enough + cheap or fast nature, which the word "principle" does not do.
The lemming heuristic says that, in RFD, if a term is in certain dictionaries, it should be kept even if it seems to be a sum of parts. These dictionaries include Merriam-Webster, but exclude WordNet since WordNet has a general tendency to include sum of parts anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps it would make sense to say both Wiktionary and other dictionaries are lemmings. (I see DCDuring refer to other dictionaries as lemmings, in any case; as in "among the lemmings, only Webster has this".) They are lemmings that we, as a fellow member of the species, must decide whether to follow or not. - -sche (discuss) 16:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Animal commands that are also used more broadly[edit]

I am not proposing to add animal-specific senses to sit or stay or roll over, because the sense used when commanding a dog seems no different from the general use of the verb in the imperative, but should such terms nonetheless be added to Category:English animal commands due to their commonness as animal commands? - -sche (discuss) 17:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason not to, for the sake of completeness. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

English name for this hole on the street[edit]

Accattone1.jpg

What's the English name for this hole on the street? The 3rd man in the picture is sitting above it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a storm drain. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

How can I search only for Spanish words?[edit]

I am currently given a list of all the languages which happen to contain a word with the same spelling. As I am looking up a lot of words, having to scroll through to the Spanish section is cumulatively wasting a lot of time. —This unsigned comment was added by 190.146.249.72 (talk).

You can add incategory:"spanish lemmas" or "spanish lemmas" to the end of your query. —suzukaze (tc) 00:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
If you add "#Spanish" (the capitalization has to match) to your search term, it should take you to the Spanish section on the page, if there is one. That is, search for "hay#Spanish" instead of just "hay". Chuck Entz (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
You can also click on "Spanish" in the table of contents. Redboywild (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
How can I get to the table of contents (where I can then select "Spanish) from the main page (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Main_Page)? I can see how to select the Spanish language version of Wiktionary (but I'm an English speaker of course) and also the Index:Spanish, but that doesn't seem to allow me to search it. I want the functionality of adding "#Spanish", as suggested by Chuck Entz above, but without having to type "#Spanish" everytime. Thanks!
I doubt we have any built-in way to do that, but your browser might allow you to set up an address-bar shortcut which will add #Spanish automatically. See User:Equinox/How_to_be_fast#Custom_searches and your browser's documentation. Equinox 02:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
If you sign up for an account you can enable the "Tabbed Languages" gadget (language sections will be converted to language tabs) that should send you to Spanish if it was the language of the last tab you viewed. —suzukaze (tc) 04:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've enabled the "Tabbed Languages" gadget, but it's not remembering the last language I viewed. I think a better solution would be to add a drop-down box below the "Search Wiktionary" field, in which any user can select the language they want to search. The default can be "All languages". Is anyone reading this capable of making that change? And if not, do you know how I can go about getting this implemented?
No, tabbed languages no longer remember the last language you visited. They used to, but that was changed a while back so that you always go to the English section if there is one and the top of the page otherwise. That makes following links in glosses easier: if I click on [[teach]] in the entry for Irish múin, I want it take me to the English word teach, not the Irish homograph that means "house". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking[edit]

αθάνατος.   sarri.greek (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Apparently not. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

English transgender[edit]

Is it just me, or it's accented on the first syllable on the audio file? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

No, but the speaker seems to be trying to put equal stress on both syllables, which doesn't sound natural at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The audiofile appears to be by @Romanophile. I agree that it sounds very unnatural; perhaps he could reupload it? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I guess the stress differs depending on the context/person. I usually say tránsgender, but in certain contexts I'll say transgénder. Perhaps it's just idiolectal in my case though... PseudoSkull (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I say tránsgénder too (I think. I don't really understand the intricacies of English phonetics). a tránsgénder person; a tránsgéndér wóman. —suzukaze (tc) 03:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The audio clip sounds like the speaker is trying to pronounce a noun meaning "a gender that is trans", not an adjective. DTLHS (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree the particular clip was odd. I have heard it stressed on all the syllables described above, transgénder, tránsgender, and tránsgénder. Other dictionaries' transcriptions [that I saw] say it's stressed on the second-syllable, but their audio files are not so unanimous. I imagine many factors influence stress placement; someone who often contrasts transgender and cisgender, or often uses/hears trans, might stress the first syllable (as the "important"/"distinguishing" one) or stress both equally. Actually, although other dictionaries likewise say cisgender is also stressed on the second syllable, that (and their audio clips) sounds odd to me... - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The actual pronunciation and stress in the audio recording seems fine to me, but something about it seems robotic. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it's a matter of dialect. To me, the audio file sounds fine, perfectly natural. —Stephen (Talk) 15:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, the audio file that's in the entry now is a different one from what was there when the discussion started. - -sche (discuss) 17:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Citations:all-destroying[edit]

What should be done with the many citations pages which are like this one? It's in Category:English citations of undefined terms because all-destroying hasn't been created yet — but it's trivially attestable, and so could be created — but it seems SOP-y and might fail an RFD. I suggest adding a parameter to {{citations}} to allow suppressing the aforementioned category, so that the category can consist only of terms that would get entries if they had enough citations, though I expect opinions might differ on whether it was OK to add the parameter and suppress categorization of an entry without first RFDing it... - -sche (discuss) 05:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Or we could just admit that the term exists, and actually create it. Just a suggestion. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
    Obviously, but see RFD. - -sche (discuss) 22:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

жёсткий[edit]

Either the audio file is cutting earlier than it should, or it's misnamed, but I'm hearing the first syllable only ("жёст"). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The audiofile is fine. There's been a perennial issue with the ends of audiofiles cutting out for certain people, and I don't remember how it's been solved, but I think that it's always been short-lived. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
For me too, the file removed here was only the first syllable. The other file is fine. - -sche (discuss) 05:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. As far as I can tell, the old file is actually the file for жёсткость (žóstkostʹ) cut in half. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"Fade dog", "rot dog"?[edit]

In this Pink Panther cartoon episode [1], at about 4 min 30 sec, the disgraced dog is surrounded by signs. What are "fade dog" and "rot dog" supposed to mean? Is it old slang? Equinox 20:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

fade does have an adjective sense, although it is marked as archaic. Maybe some contemporary (to the show) uses could be found. DTLHS (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
"Rot[,] dog" could be a verbal imperative. The signs don't seem to be all of one type, some are insulting while others are "dogs not allowed", so I suppose that's not implausible. - -sche (discuss) 15:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I take "rot dog" to be a pun on hot dog, but I can't imagine what "fade dog" is supposed to be. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 11:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Urban dictionary's entry may be relevant: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fade Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

circumference[edit]

The second audiofile is... interesting. I've never heard this word pronounced with such passion. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the contribs, this is the user who also recorded a lot of swear-words. I suspect it's a joke. (The plot thickens: some are the female voice and some are a male voice, and the latter sounds possibly like WF.) Equinox 03:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It seems there are several male voices, actually. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Interesting... many of the files are good, although the one for clunge is also not the best quality. - -sche (discuss) 14:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@-sche: rofl --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

To follow or not to follow - what's next?[edit]

So I misspell the word as "non sequitor" and search says 'nope'. Wander around more and finally realize it is "non sequitur". Uh... why can't search be more helpful?

I peek at Help:Redirect about redirects at Wiktionary and it seems to say 'nope!' But a redirect from "non sequitor" to non sequitur seems so useful. Are redirects here so bad? Shenme (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

We should improve the search rather than add lots of bad redirects. You'd expect your spell-checker to show a red squiggly line, not to add the wrong spellings to its dictionary. Equinox 03:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Bad redirects are one of the worst things around here. We definitely don't need those. I mean it when I say they're BAD! PseudoSkull (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Google's Ngram Viewer finds "non sequitor" to be 1/100th as common as "non sequitur", a relatively common misspelling, so I've created an entry for it as a misspelling. I will note that, before I did that, when I typed "non sequitor" into the search bar, "non sequitur" was the first suggested result. - -sche (discuss) 03:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Really? When I said it said 'nope', I meant it suggested exactly nothing. Perhaps this is even more disconcerting, yes? Maybe it had a rest and a think, and decided that next time it would suggest something more useful? (I wish I was kidding) Shenme (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The search field has auto-completion that will suggest existing entries while typing, if javascript is enabled and your connection fast enough to load the suggestions. Rhyminreason (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Pronouns in idioms[edit]

Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Pronouns says the pronoun should be "one" or "one's" unless there's a specific reason not to. Appendix:English idioms used to recommend "one" or "somebody". I see entries with "someone" or "someone's" like breathe down someone's neck. I'm assuming I should make redirects from the "somebody" variant to "someone"? Should the CFI page say that "someone" is also OK to use? Is there a particular rule to decide whether to use "one" or "someone"? -- Beland (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"One" is used when the usage is reflexive, "someone" when an action is being done to someone other than the subject. So hurt someone's feelings (although there is a redirect from the variant with "one"), but get one's foot in the door. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Right. - -sche (discuss) 22:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense. I put in a request to update the policy text here. Thanks for clearing that up! -- Beland (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this. There's an important contrast between kiss someone's ass and kiss one's ass goodbye. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. - -sche (discuss) 16:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't foot in the door and hurt feelings be enough? Likewise, there is no difference between the definitions at kiss ass and kiss someone's ass (to take your examples). The CFI page mentions "For the main entry, prefer the most generic form". Rhyminreason (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

'Alt form' template vs 'alternative form of' template[edit]

I've seen both of these used in entries in the same contexts, and I assume one is an antiquated version of the other. They seem to produce the same result--which is the proper one to use? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@SanctMinimalicen: There’s actually only one template with two different names; {{alt form}} is just a redirect to {{alternative form of}}. In short, it doesn’t matter which one you use. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 01:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@Vorziblix: Ah, I'm glad to hear that. Thank you! --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Need a word for..[edit]

Suggest a usage of Wiktionary for discussion of ideas for non-extant words, where the idea is delivered without an associated trans-scribable sound, as words might exist in another language, or else need to be coined. -Inowen (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Our purpose is more about documenting real words. There are sites like Urban Dictionary for inventing new ones (which never seem to catch on in practice). Equinox 01:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Urban Dictionary is proprietary, and therefore irrelevant for creative collaborative purposes. -Inowen (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Please read our Criteria for inclusion. Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary- if it's not already in use, it's not allowed in the dictionary. Of course, your wording is rather vague and unclear, so I might be misinterpreting what you're suggesting. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
WT:Protologisms and AP:List of protologisms might be what you're looking for. Redboywild (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Or if you're wondering if there's already a word for a certain concept, you could ask in the Tea Room, as I asked about words for "an organization that provides useless jobs" and "nonsensical color". - -sche (discuss) 16:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

brightening[edit]

At cheese, I read "Proto-Germanic *kāsijaz developed into early Old English or Anglo-Frisian *kǣsi by Anglo-Frisian brightening and loss of the last syllable."

What do we mean by "brightening"? Is this worthy of a new sense in the entry? @Erutuon, Mahagaja --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam: I don't know of the full ancestry of the word and the context it grew up in, but I imagine that it means fronting or raising, and implies that front vowels are brighter in sound than back vowels. The sense should certainly be added if the word is used in this sense in other places than just this phrase. The OED doesn't have a phonetics-related sense in the entries for either bright or brightening. — Eru·tuon 22:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it's related to the concept of dark and light vowels, which our entries don't cover either. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I've never heard "brightening" to mean fronting of a vowel in any context other than that of Anglo-Frisian brightening, making me wonder whether Anglo-Frisian brightening would be a better entry than a new sense to brightening. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Italian abbreviations for all those abbreviations found in Italian DICTIONARIRES[edit]

It probably does NOT help that I do not know the common abbreviations in ENGLISH (my mother tongue) dictionaries. But I am trying to learn Italian, and I finally NEED to know the abbreviations. So, if anyone can update the Italian abbreviations page with them, I would really appreciate it. For example succo s. m. pl. -chi I can figure out as Singular Masculine and the Plural is succhi. Great. But what the heck is "ant. o lett. suco"? I can guess "antiquated or literary" but guessing. Any help would be most appreciated.

I don't speak Italian but I would assume it's something like "antico o letterario", i.e. "archaic or literary": an old form that's now only found in books. Equinox 00:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
At least in older dictionaries s. often means "substantive", which is another way of saying it's a noun. I just checked the translation table for noun, and, sure enough, the Italian is sostantivo. I would translate that as "noun, masculine, plural succhi". We have suco defined as an obsolete variant of succo. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

French audio files[edit]

A great many of the French audio files sound weird. Either they're pronounced with a somewhat nasal voice (héritage), or even worse, with a lisp (Héraclès). I find it personally annoying, but more to the point, I don't think they should be featured on a dictionary, which is a fairly normative project in essence; that's just going to confuse people.

I mean, I appreciate the effort, but these two guys just aren't made for this stuff. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:3D32:DFED:6183:8B92 23:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the audio for héritage, but I agree the audio for Héraclès sounds more like /e.ʁa.klɛɬ/ than like /e.ʁa.klɛs/. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 22:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the first one. Agreed that the second recording should be removed/replaced. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Inclement[edit]

The entry for inclement lists the definition "merciless, unrelenting" as obsolete, but I'm not sure it is obsolete. The introduction to Theories of Resistance: Anarchism, Geography, and the Spirit of Revolt, edited by Marcelo Lopes de Souza, Richard J. White and Simon Springer (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016) has the following sentence: "'And this was indeed,' as Castoriadis, one of the most radical and inclement critics of Marxism during the second half of the twentieth century, conceded himself, one of the essential intuitions of the young Marx'." (p. 2). I note that Merriam-Webster lists roughly the same definition as archaic rather than obsolete, while Dicionary.com and Collins list it as neither. I'm offering these comments here because I don't really know how Wiktionary decides these things – whether we're encouraged to simply change things like this, or whether discussion or sources are expected first – and because the editnotice on the entry talk page suggested I come here instead. All the best, Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

how do you search these topic cat?[edit]

I tried incategory and deepcat and none of them work? Will a new search parameter be added for topic cat, because they don't seem to work like regular categories. Thanks.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:en:Nautical —This unsigned comment was added by 67.68.128.148 (talk) at 14:07, 2 April 2018.

It seems like it's a bug. Theoretically, a search for incategory:"en:Nautical" should work. --WikiTiki89 19:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Strangely, the search works if I change the language code: incategory:"el:Nautical", incategory:"grc:Nautical". — Eru·tuon 22:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it has to do with the number of category members. DTLHS (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Can someone send report this bug, so that it gets fixed? It's really bugging me. —This unsigned comment was added by 67.68.128.148 (talk) at 00:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC).
This may be the same bug that causes category tree expansion of our English topical categories to fail. If I understand correctly, the parser interprets "en:" as a redundant interwiki prefix and strips it. If you click the ""►" on a subcategory that starts with "en:" (for instance "►en:Watercraft" in Category:en:Nautical), it expands to the category without the "en:" (i.e. as if it were "►Watercraft"), which contains the "►en:" category, which acts (recursively) like the outer category. You can keep opening "►en:" subcategories of "►en:" subcategories until you reach the maximum depth set by the system.
I found out about it when I tried to use {{#CATEGORYTREE:en:Fish}} on a user subpage and got {{#CATEGORYTREE:Fish}}. The bug had already been reported on Phabricator, but it never got fixed. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Link?
Can we hope that it get fixed soon? —This unsigned comment was added by 67.68.128.148 (talk) at 00:11, 4 April 2018.
You can hope all you want, but I wouldn't expect it to get done soon. --WikiTiki89 15:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, search without the "en:" works as would be expected with it? Rhyminreason (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Not at all. Without the "en:" searches Category:Nautical, not Category:en:Nautical. --WikiTiki89 15:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking for Category:All English, and help with accessing it through the API.[edit]

Hey y'all - wondering if you can help me with a personal Categories/API issue.

I'm trying to find a category in Wiktionary that includes every entry with an English header (there are a lot of foreign words with English explanations which aren't themselves English but are included in the big enwiktionary dump). There are categories for, say, every English verb, or stuff like "English phrasal verbs with particle (asunder)‏‎", but I can't find the "All English" category.

Secondly, I realize I'll have to use the API to download this category once I find it. Any help doing this using Python would be appreciated.

Thanks! —This unsigned comment was added by 50.242.51.116 (talk). Dr!ppy (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no such category. We have Category:English lemmas and Category:English non-lemma forms. As for the API, you'll want to make a query something like this: see [2]. DTLHS (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Awesome. Thank you for your help. Dr!ppy (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Turning off pinging, notifications and Wikimedia Foundation ads[edit]

Is there any way to disable all of the above? Thank you. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: To disable the notifications, go to your preferences, then to last tab. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Ideally I would like to remove the alerts and notices at the top but it's probably not possible. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
You can hide them with custom CSS. DTLHS (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Lost with my first word addition.[edit]

Can someone please help with my first (re)added word osteitis deformans. Thank you. Ineuw (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I have cleaned it up a bit. Equinox 00:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

which-of-why[edit]

Is that a real word? It's found here but nowhere else. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Strange. Perhaps it is to be parsed as "the which of (why I'm here)", i.e. the choice of man is the "which"-component or "which"-element involved in the reason he is here. (Compare sth like "I don't know the when and the where of it, but I know it happened".) Equinox 14:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

language code for Erzgebirgisch[edit]

What's the language code for Erzgebirgisch (en:w:Erzgebirgisch)?
(WT:About German#See also doesn't have it.)
A few words: Hamit/Haamit (f.) (= Heimat), Kindhaat (f.) (= Kindheit), deitsch (= deutsch), fruh (= froh), Arzgabercher (m. pl.) (= Erzgebirger), Arzgaberch (= Erzgebirge), Wald (Pl. Wälder) (= Wald), Wend (m.) (= Wind) (from GB-US and HathiTrust-US, for the former cp. [3] which has a similar text, but uses another orthography (in many cases more similar to NHG) and is not durably archived). -80.133.99.58 09:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Erzgebirgisch doesn't have an ISO code. As I see it, we have two options: (1) we can consider it a regional variety of Upper Saxon, in which case we use the code sxu and use a label like {{lb|sxu|Erzgebirgisch}} to put words into Category:Erzgebirgisch Upper Saxon, or (2) we create our own code for it, such as gmw-erz. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
It's hard to know for sure when to split and when to lump, but I've grown ever more fond of the idea of creating a code for East Central German (gmw-ecg), which you suggested in 2016: it would also take care of currently-codeless Thuringian, Lusatian, and High Prussian (although it would entail merging (the headers of) our SIlesian and Upper Saxon content), and because the lects are/were geographically contiguous and historically were all within Germany, the argument for separation isn't as strong as it is with e.g. Sathmar Swabian vs Swabian (which isn't to say the argument for keeping Sathmar Swabian separate from Swabian is necessarily strong). Unless there are objections / better ideas, I'll create such a code, and add the sub-lects' names to Module:labels. (Ping me, or beat me to it, if I forget.) - -sche (discuss) 19:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
While I can't judge what would be better, I have doubts if merging all East Central German is really good.
Possible argument for merging: There maybe isn't much dialectal literature. Wikipedia mentions 0 High Prussian authors, and its best source seem to be the Wenkersätze.
Possible argument for not merging: If merged, things could get messy. People could omit needed labels. If a word exist in multiple varieties, but is inflected differently, headers could become messy, confusing and misleading - at least, if it's handled in a bad way.
So, how should things be handled if the varieties would be merged, or as they are merged now (Category:East Central German lemmas)?
(a) If two varieties inflect a term differently, should and could there be two separate POS sections each with variety label? IMO, yes.
(b) Should words of different varieties be alternative forms of each other like Silesian iech (found in Category:Silesian German lemmas) pointing to Upper Saxon ich (from Ferdinand Döring's Gedichte in obersächsischer Bauern-Mundart) or vice versa? IMO, it would be okay to mention forms in the alternative forms section, but for different varieties (of higher rank like Upper Saxon, High Prussian) the {{alternative form of||lang=}} template shouldn't be used.
(c) Should the translation section use qualifiers or sub-forms, as e.g.
  • East Central German: ich (Upper Saxon [and possible other varieties]), iech (Silesian)
or
  • East Central German:
    [other varieties]:
    Silesian: iech
    Upper Saxon: ich
? IMO, the second form seems to be easier to comprehend and to find a certain variety.
-80.133.104.193
Now that -sche has created a code for East Central German, I definitely think it should include Erzgebirgisch. As for your questions: (a) if the lemma form of term is spelled the same in both varieties, and only the inflection is different, then I'd just give two inflection tables in the ====Inflection==== or ====Declension==== section; (b) Since ECG doesn't really have a literary standard as far as I know, I guess it's probably best to list the forms as alternative forms of each other; (c) I'd go for option 1, where they're listed in a single line. That works much better inside translation tables. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@-sche: What do you think of keeping sxu as an etymology-only code? And do you know the translation for water into (any variety of) ECG? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
And what do you think of folding Silesian German sli into gmw-ecg? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I intend to fold Silesian German into ECG, but haven't gotten to it yet; Upper Saxon was quicker to do, with only three entries to relabel. Keeping them as etymology codes seems fine; perhaps most "merged" codes at WT:LT should be etymology codes. "Water" is Wassor in Thuringian-Upper Saxon (per de.Wikt and Klaus-Dieter Ludwig, Mundartliches aus Grimmorch im Meißnischen, in Beiträge zu Linguistik und Phonetik: Festschrift für Joachim Göschel, ed. Angelika Braun, 2001, →ISBN) (older works often write it with -er instead), and Woasser in Silesian. - -sche (discuss) 18:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Should words related to a topic be put in the relevant category when no separate sense is given?[edit]

For example, the word 'varnish' is relevant to lutherie/violin making, but should it be put in that category? Obviously, there won't be a separate sense just for violin making, so should a category include relevant words even when no separate sense is given on the page? Thank you. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

With violins you can play songs and songs can be about e.g. love, so should love be in the violin category and vice versa? I don't think so.
I hope I didn't miss the question. Rhyminreason (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but your analogy is irrelevant, the varnish is part of a violin. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Occasionally, there can be a label {{lb|LANG|also|_|TOPIC}}. It makes sense for foreign terms, if the English term and the foreign term have multiple meanings but the foreign term has only a single simple definition "# [[ENG TERM]]. But that such a label doesn't seem fitting in this case.
Seeing Category:en:Lutherie, it might be okay to put varnish into the category but not adding a label. -84.161.45.23 06:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, well I think I will just do it anyway and wait to see if it is removed. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: I don't think my analogy was irrelevant. Could you explain your reason? I don't understand your argument. The very question is, whether varnish was categorically part of a violin, I guess. Therefore your argument is circular reasoning (the varnish is part of a violin.). Likewise, the IP-editor didn't answer the question from the headline.
The idea to add only those terms that could have a specific sense defined seems reasonable. Categories could then be used to find terms that have a definition specific to the category. That is the major use of categories, linking relevant pages together.
Varnish might be relevant though you didn't explain how and, importantly, the page doesn't either. Wood is also part of most string instruments. Does that warrant including it in the category? tl;dr:
  • In my eyes, an unpainted violin might not satisfy expectations, but looks are secondary to the use of a musical instrument while the sound, I guess, is not influenced by the varnish to any notable degree. Perhaps that's intended?
  • On the same note, the definition inked to from winding, from the same category seems to be encyclopedic. At least, I wonder, winding made from material other than the listed (e.g. whale bone?) can not be called lapping?
There is no specific sense for lutherie's varnish given, at the moment, but for completeness sake, the question would be whether the varnish used on string instruments is plain old varnish or not.
Another lexeme, winding, from the same category poses a similar problem. The lutherie's "winding" is a specific kind of the underspecified "winding". The definition at "lapping" raises the question whether winding (in the general sense) made of something other than the listed material would not be the winding (in this specific sense). And by extension the question should be whether the context is encyclopedic or lexical. Again, this is a tough question: On the one hand, an underspecified term, in my opinion, does not merit inclusion insofar we wouldn't add "Maria Theresa" under "she", "mother", etc., for example; On the other hand, language is inherently underspecified, so there is no way around it, context is important, and there is a fine line for what to include here and what not. So I'm hoping for some illuminating comment from an experienced user. Rhyminreason (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

English term for a Scherenfernrohr; rabbit ear?[edit]

Is there a common English term for a Scherenfernrohr? Some on the web use "rabbit-ear binoculars" or "rabbit-ear telescope", but this doesn't seem to be in official use and might be slang or jargon. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about "official use", but "rabbit-ear binoculars", "scissor binoculars", and "periscope binoculars" seem to be widely used. See also this discussion, where one person calls them "rangefinders" and "periscope rangefinders". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, it turns out that trench periscope is most commonly used (also by military organisations), but scissor binoculars does the job too. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I did a Google Images search for "trench periscope" and found that that term doesn't always refer to the binocular kind. It can also refer to the kind with just a single scope, like a submarine periscope (e.g. [4]). —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
You're right, so it obviously isn't per se stereoscopic either. Thanks. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Two differing ways of formatting English entries: which is correct please?[edit]

For example at 'overstand' the first three senses begin with a capital letter and end with a full stop (period) but then the fourth sense is different. Which should it be? Thanks. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

They should all be capitalized with a period. Other editors will tell you that there's no consensus for this but you should ignore them. DTLHS (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I have been looking at new entries since I noticed it, but there was a mixture there, too. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
There's a difference between English entries and non-English entries. Definitions of English entries should start with a capital letter and end with a full stop/period. Glosses of non-English entries should start with a lower-case letter and end with no punctuation. So cat is:
A domesticated subspecies (Felis silvestris catus) of feline animal, commonly kept as a house pet.
while Katze is simply:
cat
So there is that apparent inconsistency, but it's intentional because there's a difference between a full definition and a gloss. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 07:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, but there are definitely new entries in English every day that do not begin with a capital letter and do not end with a full stop. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't surprise me. Feel free to edit them so that they do. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
How is English versus non-English making a difference, here? English entries can be glossed, if I understand your jargon.
Ironically, "gloss" doesn't appear in Appendix:Glossary (I didn't check the help text on entry layout). There is gloss, which mentions foreign words and some other qualifiers like archaic, and it's limited to a few words, not just There is the german term Fremdwort (foreign word) denoting foreign words used in a language. So I don't see where the threshold for being foreign is. Wanderwort would qualify, but to me, as a second language learner, feline does, too, because it's from Latin (whether borrowed recently or ancient). There is no simple lakmustest for that.
The simpler judgement would be to punctuate and capitalize sentences, but not not mere phrases. Then we could still argue what qualifies a sentence. Your former example isn't one. That's a valid typographic choice. But the explanation is confusing (or missing). At any rate, capitalizing links, if the lemma isn't actually capitalized, is inconsistent and I've seen that on a single word given for an english term. Rhyminreason (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Katharevousa[edit]

Do we consider Katharevousa forms borrowed from Ancient Greek or alternate forms of Modern Greek? I'm having some trouble making descendant trees. Thanks. – Gormflaith (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Katharevousa is Modern Greek, and one term can't be the alternative form of one in another language. I think "borrowed" does quite nicely in most situations. @Saltmarsh is on hand for further questions. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I know Katharevousa is Modern Greek; I just didn't know if it was considered to be inherited or not. I could've worded my question way better though. – Gormflaith (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gormflaith: With my limited understanding of Greek (@Sarri.greek would be a good adviser) I would say that some Katharevousa terms were inherited —in the sense that there were unbroken links back to Ancient Greek— and others borrowed having fallen out of use, with perhaps Ottoman terms being used in the interim before Ancient Greek terms were resurrected to please the creators of Katharevousa. — Saltmarsh. 05:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I am no linguist, @Gormflaith:. @Saltmarsh:'s [thank you Salt] answer explains well: every word has its own itinerary. If one said today: I love thee, how would a linguist describe it: borrowing, inheriting or alternating? Kath. was synchronous to demotic Mod.Gr. Perhaps helpful: Browning's p.16 Among the loan-words of modern demotic we must count also those classical or Koine words and expressions preserved in the purist katharevousa, and borrowed thence into demotic. (Greek linguists use the terms: borrowing=for foreign loans, internal borrowing=greek ibidem p.13) sarri.greek (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Sarri.greek: If one said "I love thee" today it would be {{lb|en|archaic}}; but if one used the word in ceorl or witenagemot today one would be using a word that was borrowed, not inherited, from Old English. It's really not always easy to tell, especially in a language like Greek where the spelling didn't change very much between the 5th century BC and 1976. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: Yes, Maha! Thank you, good example. All words will die one day... We love thee! sarri.greek (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: How do you pronounce Modern English ceorl? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: Are you using sense 5 or sense 6 of you? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: Both :p --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: Sense 5 pronounces it /ˈt͡ʃeorl/. I'm not sure how sense 6 pronounces it, but probably usually as a homophone of its descendant churl. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"Bigger than Ben-Hur"[edit]

Contrary to what we (and virtually the entire online world) say, the expression was not coined after the 1959 film but goes back to the much earlier stage play.

Please see [5] for an enlightening discussion. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

If older citations with the term and the meaning can be found, the etymology in bigger than Ben Hur (misspelling or alt form of bigger than Ben-Hur?) can be changed. If there are (many somewhat reliable) sources giving another year, the wrong info could be worth mentioning though. -84.161.4.90 21:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I’ve added an older citation and updated the entry accordingly. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 09:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

cept'n, 'cept'n[edit]

Does that merit an entry? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

If attested, the answer for a single word will pretty much always be yes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't know if there are enough attestations: one for cept'n, one for 'cept'n... No wait, there are more: [6], [7], [8], [9]. That should be ok then. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

What's a misspelling[edit]

I'd like to RFV a sense given as misspelling. How is a misspelling verified as such and distinguished from a variant (not necessarily a regional variant), or other mis-, un- whathaveyou (misunderstanding perhaps)?

Previously discussion in the tea room didn't account for a common reason of the common, supposed misspelling. It was emotionalyy charged and not fruitful. Further discussion with the main opponent concluded that the burden of proof was on me, and, when I outlined an attempt at one, the conversation practically ended, two weeks ago. The course of the conversation implies that I am not being taken serikusly, and that my arguments might have been misguided.

So, to be clear, what's the reasoning that needs disproving? What's the general rule here, given that there is no ruling body of standards for English? If we are descriptive, who's opinion are we describing? How much reasoning is allowed in judging sources? Rhyminreason (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A common clue is that the word is spelled correctly elsewhere in the same source. But that's not the only criterion. --WikiTiki89 19:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Things which could make a spelling a non-misspelling:
  • An authority or dictionary having the doubtful spelling as lemma. If at least an older dictionary has it, it could just be dated, archaic, obsolete.
  • The spelling reflecting the pronunciation or (assumed) etymology in a better way.
  • Authors using the spelling multiple times and not using another spelling.
Things which could make a spelling a misspelling:
  • Authors using different spellings, especially if the doubtful spelling is rare.
  • The spelling "obviously" being a printing, typing or spelling error (printing error examples: turned letters, mixed up u and n; typing error examples: placing letters in wrong order, using a wrong letter which on a keyboard is next to the correct one).
  • Authorities stating a form is wrong or multiple dictionaries not having the spelling. But instead of being a misspelling, it could just be proscribed or "non-standard", or dated, archaic or obsolete.
-84.161.4.90 21:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The last points are not really helpful if the term is a colloquialism that could not be reasonably expected to appear in older dictionaries for other reasons than the spelling. How would that work in an RFV anyway, three quotes that don't use it? Rhyminreason (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
"could make" as there's no general rule and as there are also other labels (such as proscribed, non-standard, rare).   Some dictionaries do include colloquialismus, especially if they are common. Of course, if it's a rare colloquialism, things are different.   Determining, whether or not something is a misspelling or not, is another thing than attestation. Example for determining misspelling status by checking dicts: If checking dwds.de, duden.de, canoo.net, wissen.de (for German) and they have a term but not a certain spelling, it could be assumed that a spelling is now wrong or proscribed. None of them has de:vong, but all have von. Thus it's reasonable to assume that vong is a misspelling or proscibed. Considering that the pronunciation of the term is [fɔn] and that <ng> and [n]=<n> are different, it's reasonable to assume it's a misspelling (and, well, in some ways also non-standard and proscribed). -84.161.5.181 00:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
How can one prevent normal Categories to host mistake-words? That is, Categories with valid lemmata, from where people copy and reproduce words. Is there a |onlycat=Category Xxx misspellins/misconstructions? sarri.greek (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I've seen some people use {{head|en|misspelling}} on the headword line, with "misspelling" instead of a part of speech (but with a normal POS header, like Noun). If that is standard/desirable, it should be possible to make a list of entries that don't do that, and change them. The entry might still get categorized as British English if someone added a label to indicate that it was a misspelling that was mostly limited to British texts (for example); I suppose, in such a case, usage notes would be better than a label. Also, I think one normally speaks of preventing X from doing Y, rather than preventing X to do Y. - -sche (discuss) 01:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
param |nocat=1 or temp-less labels like just "(British)" and not "{{lb|en|British}}" would also be possible solutions. -84.161.5.181 01:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

. .[edit]

Is ". ." (as on File:Ein_kurtzweilig_lesen_von_Dyl_Vlenspiegel.djvu around a number) attestable? I'd guess so, but it's harder to find and verify...
Is it only used with numbers or also more generally with other abbreviating characters (like .⁊. for & or in Latin et)?
If attestable, what would the entry title be, Unsupported titles/Full stop full stop (cp. Unsupported titles/Full stop, en.wiktionary.org/wiki//_/ [regular link [[/ /]] doesn't work for that])?
-84.161.4.90 21:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you give a page number from that DJVU file illustrating what you mean? I don't see any examples on a quick glance-through. As for putting periods before and after things, Irish still does it with .i. (i.e., that is). As for the title, [[. .]] itself is a valid page title. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the Roman numeral XCVI is enclosed between ". ." on that picture. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The title page has it which is also transcribed in common's description (".xcvi. seiner geschichten" = 96 seiner Geschichten), that's why there was no page number or anything. An older bible (the Low German from 1533 of these from the 16th century) has it to. -84.161.5.181 23:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

bodily (adverb)[edit]

We gloss it as "in or by the body; physically". Is that all it means? The usex "He was thrown bodily out of the house.", and the sentences "Brown did not board voluntarily but was picked up by a crewman and dropped bodily into the boat as it was being lowered"; "he hauled her bodily from the van" tell me it's a bit more than that. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That expression is new to me, but it's kind of covered by "by the body". 89.204.137.227 21:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Citations for a technical term[edit]

Hi there. I'd like to create an article for the word "detrunking", the process of downgrading a trunk road to a normal highway. The word is used in various official government documents (eg [10]), and this is a discussion of the term on a popular (but unofficial) website. I'm not sure what references to include in the new article, and how they should be formatted; in particular, I'm not sure about the distinction between a "citation" and a "reference". Any help would be much appreciated. Tevildo (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

A citation is where we find text using the word (e.g. a newspaper), and quote the passage to illustrate usage. A reference (usually less desirable, being a secondary source) points to another place that defines the word, such as a print dictionary. I have created a basic entry for your word. Equinox 01:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I've added a similar entry for dual (v.t.) - I hope it's formatted correctly. Tevildo (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


Symbolism Section[edit]

Any plan for a symbolism section? I looked all over the Internet, but there's not really a good online resource for symbolism. Shouldn't we start looking into that? It makes sense to have a symbolism section since there are printed dictionary for symbolism.

Is there any rules in ordering multiple definitions for a word?[edit]

It's a little bit confusing how the definitions are ordered, chronical order, frequency, parts of speech. Is there any rule or consensus over this issue?

If there is one, is it applicable to other wiktionaries of other languages, say japanese, chiniese, korea?

Would they have independent rules?

thanks for your help. —This comment was unsigned.

We have separate headers for parts of speech. Other than that, there are opinions, but no consensus. Some like to put them in chronological order, so you can see the historical development of the term. Others would prefer to have the common terms first so most readers can find what they want quickly. There are good arguments for both, and neither approach looks like it will prevail- so we each order things our own way.
As for other Wiktionaries: each is independent, so nothing here is applicable there. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

definitions and word history.[edit]

Lord knows I am a great long ways from a scholar. but neither am I ignorant or stupid, for I have plumbed the depths of US Tax Laws and retained my sanity. Yet, when I go to Wiktionary to examine a para familiar word, ie, quantum, I am presented with a page of printed material most of which is in one or two syllable words, all of which I understand, but convey to me no useful information. Certainly not a definition. Not only am I unaware of what information the author had a mind to impart I cannot fathom where to search for the key. Oh, great and wonderful Wiktionary will you open the curtains and shed some light for me and any others that be hindered.

How bold?[edit]

At block#Translations, under "group of buildings demarcated by streets", the entry

Mandarin: 障礙物, 障碍物 (zhàng āi wù)

is almost absolutely certainly wrong. Clicking on the link gets you to 障礙物 where it says

(literally and figuratively) obstacle; hindrance; stumbling block

Google translate also has "obstacle; barrier; encumbrance; ..." And the first paper dictionary I check here has "obstacle; barrier; entanglement" So, not a group of buildings. Should I just remove that entry? (oh, and fix 'approximatey' a bit farther above) Shenme (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Surname/given name entries in Persian: punctuation and links[edit]

Who is really good with punctuation? At the moment Persian surnames and given names are formatted like this: امان‌پور, دژآگاه, but shouldn't there be a colon after 'surname' and not a comma? And should there be a full stop (period) at the end or not?

Also, what are the criteria for linking to a name in entries like this? I think I put them with no link where the name isn't common, but should each one be a red link? Or would there never be an entry for every name, in which case it would be A surname without any link? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)