Wiktionary:Information desk/2018/April

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
discussion rooms: Tea roomEtym. scr.Info deskBeer parlourGrease pit ← March 2018 · April 2018 · May 2018 → · (current)

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 [1]. 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. [2] 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

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. [3]). —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 [4] 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: [5], [6], [7], [8]. 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 [9]), 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.