Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup

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

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for cleanup


Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/English
add new English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

Requests for verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for verification/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

This is a manually created and maintained list of pages that require cleanup.

Adding a request: To add a request, place the template {{rfc}} to the messy entry, and then make a new nomination here. Include an explanation of your reasons for nominating the page for cleanup, but please put any extensive discussion in the discussion page of the article itself.

Closing a request: A conversation should remain here at least for one week after the {{rfc}} tag is removed, then moved to that page's talk page from here. When the entry has been cleaned, please strike the word here, and put any discussion on the talk page of the cleaned entry.

Pages tagged with the template {{rfc}} are automatically placed in Category:Requests for cleanup. They are automatically removed from the category when the template is removed, or, if the template has not been used, when Category:Requests for cleanup has been removed from the page.

If an entry needs attention from experienced editors in a specific language, consider using {{attention}} instead of {{rfc}}.

See also Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion process, Help:Nominating an article for cleanup or deletion, and Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion elements. Category:Pages with broken file links should also be cleaned out periodically.

Tagged RFCs

Contents

August 2011[edit]

agging[edit]

Wrong PoS? Is agg and alternative dialectal form of egg#Verb? DCDuring TALK 01:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Judging by this reference, it looks like it might be. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

zincirleme ad tamlaması[edit]

The usage notes here are way too long and encyclopedic. ---> Tooironic 13:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

And the example sentence is awfully, um, provocative. —Angr 14:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Remove the, ahem, usex --Cien pies 6 (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

monitoring[edit]

Noun section has 4 encyclopedic-style definitions that look to me like instances of the verb form. IMO, they aren't even worth adding as senses to monitor#Verb, but others may disagree. DCDuring TALK 11:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem are missing definitions at the verb monitor. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

crunk[edit]

1980s slang. Needs lots of work, including prep for RfV for the several PoSes and senses. DCDuring TALK 22:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

荒魂[edit]

Definitions appear to be wrong, c.f. the JA WP article linked to from right in the entry. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 06:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

March 2012[edit]

agency[edit]

A huge mess. Not even all the entries listed on the en.wikipedia disambiguation page are covered by our meanings. -- Liliana 17:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

鬼法[edit]

Another entry from our known-suspect magic-obsessed IP user. This term appears to be cromulent, showing up in a Buddhist terminology list among other places. However, the entry is a complete mess, and I suspect that many of the synonyms and see alsos are bogus. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 15:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

One possible method of cleaning entries like these is to replace the extraneous content and questionable defs with {{rfdef}} and track down and add the valid information at leisure. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

呪縛する[edit]

April 2012[edit]

cut[edit]

All adjective senses. Which of these are a true adjective sense with a meaning distinct from that of a corresponding verb sense? Are we missing some verb senses? DCDuring TALK 17:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

July 2012[edit]

chancellor[edit]

This page is aggressively bad. Until I expanded it, the only sense was "A judicial court of chancery, which in England and in the United States is distinctively a court with equity jurisdiction.", which I have kept for now but cannot make any sense of (the court itself is not a chancellor, surely?) Most of the facts in the usage note I have been unable to verify, and most of the derived terms look like clear SOP, probably imported from 1913 Webster by mistake. Can anyone work out what the original sense means, and tidy it up a bit more? Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Unclear why the heading has been struck out. Has this been resolved? — SGconlaw (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps shouldn't have been. Lots of crap on the page still. unstriked --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

square peg into a round hole[edit]

This is defined in the way square peg in a round hole is and should be defined. I can't think of how to define this without reference to one of the several verbs commonly used with this (at COCA: fit (2), force (2), ram, pound, drive). It could be finessed by defining it as an alternative form, though that is not the narrow definition of alternative form. (We do use a broad definition of alternative form for proverbs.) Is this derived from a proverb? DCDuring TALK 17:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

set#English[edit]

The etymologies should probably be split into three sections, but I don't know which senses go where. —CodeCat 00:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is principally the noun that is the problem. Some to the senses (those having a sense of "group") belong to the ety derived from secta#Latin. After those have been separate into Ety 2 3, the assignment of the remaining noun senses should be relatively straightforward. But h[H]aving an OED handy would be very helpful essential for a split between an Etymology from a OE/ME verb and the past participle of that verb. I don't know if it would be sufficient. MWOnline provides no etymology for the noun. AHD has a single etymology for all but the "group" senses.
I have begun the process, but must stop. The entry is usable., but has the non-standard title "Etymology 1 & 2". Some of the noun senses in Ety 1 may not belong there. There are also missing senses and poorly worded senses among the nouns. I haven't looked much at the other PoSes. DCDuring TALK 02:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

August 2012[edit]

stimulus[edit]

I find all four definitions confusing. They seem to overlap a lot. The first definition is probably accurate but really hard to understand. #4 I think is #1 worded specifically for people. #2 and #3 seem really similar. In fact I think #3 and #4 might be the same definition, but one is worded as psychology, the second is in layperson's terms. So basically, help, or put forward your own opinion. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2012[edit]

ten to[edit]

Listed as a noun. Um, you're kidding right? google books:"a ten to", google books:"ten tos". Also the translations for for ten to two, why? In most if not all cases you can lift out the 'two' bit. In cases where a certain case is needed, use {{qualifier|+ accusative}} or whatever. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it can be use as object of prepositions like at, after, until, before, by, since, toward so it is a nominal. What other PoS would you recommend? Also, consider:
"Ten to is when we are leaving." (subject)
"The ten-to train left two minutes late." (attributive use of ?)
"It was nearing ten to, when we were supposed to board the train." (object of verb)
It seems to simply beg a meaningful question to declare them "Phrases" and let the user figure of that they aren't verbals or adjuncts or whatever. DCDuring TALK 02:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

patch[edit]

Etymology 1, noun section. Definitions don't match translation tables. Usage notes formatted as usage examples and possibly not just about the usage of the word. Would take a bit of time and multilingual knowledge. DCDuring TALK 14:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The changes introduced by "GatorGirl" need to be examined carefully. Some seem good, some OK, some poor. In any event, the relationship to the translation table needs to be checked. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012[edit]

representamen[edit]

An encyclopedia article, IMO. DCDuring TALK 02:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article would be more concise. This is an article, the notes section and the bibliography from the back of the book, all dumped on the same page. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I have moved the Latin material to [[repraesentamen]], which leaves the excessively long definition, which is solely based on the usage by Charles Sanders Peirce. We could use other citations, which seem abundant enough in the literature of semiotics to warrant Collins having a definition. I personally don't speak or read semiotics. DCDuring TALK 13:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

ǃɢa̰n-ǃɢa̰n[edit]

The usage note describes a different orthography than the one the entry actually uses. Should the entry be moved, or should the usage note be changed? - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

ʻǁnāhu a̰a, ǃqhàa gǀqhùã a̰a, kxʻāo a̰a, ǁkxʻân a̰a, !ʻûĩ ǂnṵn and several other entries have the same issue. - -sche (discuss) 00:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the usage note is describing "ǃɢā̰n-ǃɢá̰n", and that they weren't sure whether they could/should represent both diacritics on the same vowel. So the answer is: c) neither. Just change the display form and remove the usage note. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The usage note says grave accent, not acute accent, on the second a. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, then it's "ǃɢā̰n-ǃɢà̰n". Good catch. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
But why only change the display form, why not move the entry? ǃqhàa gǀqhùã a̰a has accents over its letters, so if they aren't part of the language, they should be stripped from that entry, whereas if they are, they should be added to ǃɢa̰n-ǃɢa̰n. - -sche (discuss) 17:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Basically, it seems like all these should be moved. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

January 2013[edit]

inversion[edit]

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

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

English Carrier[edit]

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

February 2013[edit]

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

Previous discussion: Template talk:ko-hanja.

This template is a total mess:

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

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

RuakhTALK 05:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

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

up[edit]

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

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

Category:en:Mineralogy[edit]

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

This is already listed at WT:TODO. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Done some, then got bored. --Pickyevent (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Done all of k- minerals, some z- ones, and the beginnings of l- minerals. At my rate of 2 letters per 7 months, this should be done by November 2021 and under 13 usernames. --Genecioso (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • done to li- minerals. --Genecioso (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I helped, coming backwards at you from z-p. - TheDaveRoss 22:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Done all obvious minerals down to M. Just N and O left to do. A hundred or so minerals. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • done-ish. There may be a few things in there still which ought to move, but not many. - TheDaveRoss 12:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    Unstruck. Still a bunch left to do; I finished the last few for everything up to L, but starting in M there are a bunch left (obvious ones ending in -ite, even). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: I am not an expert in the field, but as far as I can tell none of the -ite ending words from M onward belong in the minerals category. - TheDaveRoss 17:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree. We have oligosiderite, spherite, sycite, typolite, sagenite, shergottite and semifusinite in this cat, but there probably not minerals. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
It depends on whether one uses a narrow or wide definition of mineral. Or we could rely on the various mineral databases for category inclusion. DCDuring (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
For example: pararealgar isn't visibly crystalline, but is included in at least two of the major mineral databases, at least one of which gives a crystal structure for it. DCDuring (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss, DCDuring, Harmonicaplayer: The point is that they shouldn't be in en:Mineralogy. Some are obviously minerals (e.g. sagenite), some are close enough that mineralogists study them (e.g. pararealgar), and some ought to be in en:Rocks or elsewhere. (I think we probably also need Category:en:Meteorites, because there are a lot of entries that could go in there.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
So almost all the nouns are to be in the Minerals category, but the denominal adjectives will constitute the bulk of the items in Mineralology.
I note that some common materials like the various forms of asbestos are not now in the category. Some call coal and lignite minerals. Do we? What about ores? Forms of gravel? What is the difference between a rock and a mineral? DCDuring (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, there will be a PoS split. Also, *mineralogy. As for the what a rock and a mineral are, please read w:rock and w:mineral. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I have also read our [[mineral]] and [[rock]], as well as w:Organic mineral and w:Biomineralization. I think we need to stand up on our hind legs and decide which of our definitions we want to follow or what other definition or authority we want to follow. Which of the following are in: petroleum, coal, limestone, marl, chalk? What about w:Ores? We don't have Category:en:Ores. Are all ores rocks? Aren't ores worth at least a subcategory if they are all rocks? DCDuring (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
MWOnline has six arguably relevant, current definitions: 1 ore; 2 an inorganic substance; 4 something neither animal nor vegetable; 5a : [1] a solid homogeneous crystalline chemical element or compound that results from the inorganic processes of nature; [2] broadly : any of various naturally occurring homogeneous substances (such as stone, coal, salt, sulfur, sand, petroleum, water, or natural gas) obtained usually from the ground; [5]b : a synthetic substance having the chemical composition and crystalline form and properties of a naturally occurring mineral.
I could see restricting our definition to 5a [1], but that would require determining whether a given named substance had a crystal structure, possibly only visible under substantial magnification. We could put ourselves through an RfV-like process of determining whether speakers in a given language used their word for mineral applied to a given substance. With either of these options we have the further choice of whether we include ores. Or we could limit ourselves to those substances which were included in at least one, two or three mineral databases. I like the last option because it relies on prevailing practice, including grandfathering, that yields category membership that is meaningful to the group of people who most use the terms used to name the substances. DCDuring (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

March 2013[edit]

concentration[edit]

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

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

segregation[edit]

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


May 2013[edit]

champian[edit]

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

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

strategy[edit]

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

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

uyruklu[edit]

tabiyetli[edit]

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

boda[edit]

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

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

June 2013[edit]

Appendix:Japanese Swadesh list[edit]

Moved to Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Appendix:Japanese_Swadesh_list. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

entries beginning with "wouldn't"[edit]

wouldn't hurt a fly, wouldn't shout if a shark bit him and wouldn't touch with yours are currently classified as verbs. This seems awkward, because "wouldn't" doesn't seem like the lemma form of the phrase, and having it be the lemma makes the definition awkward (not subst-able). wouldn't say boo to a goose, would not throw someone out of bed (which wouldn't throw him out of bed points to) and wouldn't work in an iron lung are currently classified as phrases. That seems a bit better, although the form of their definitions still needs to be standardised. Does anyone have a better idea than reclassifying the three verbs as phrases? Should they all also be moved to "would not" rather than "wouldn't"? - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

There is an additional set starting with "couldn't" and some we lack: We only have couldn't punch one's way out of a paper bag as a redirect to way out of a paper bag. (fight could substitute for punch) The entry fails to make it clear that this only exists with could (BTW, not would).
We have Category:English predicates with nearly five hundred members and probably one or two hundred other entries that could be so classified. These should be so classified.
These do have some verb-like inflection potential, eg, wouldn't have shouted if a shark had bitten him".
These phrases really only exist idiomatically in association with some kind of subjunctive. The forms in which we have them are by far the most common. An entry for shout if a shark bit him would tempt many who just saw the headword to waste time opening the entry preparatory to challenging it with an RfV or RfD. If I were designing the entry for a machine I probably wouldn't do it this way, but our current approach seems OK for humans. DCDuring TALK 04:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW, the could predicates are a about capability, the would predicates are about character. DCDuring TALK 04:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Keep at wouldn't (more common than would not) as class as verbs. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

however[edit]

This entry has both an adverb and a conjunction POS, which seems justifiable. The senses, however, seem to be randomly added to one or the other, and there's overlap between the senses under one POS and those under the other. At the moment, it's really hard to tell what the difference is between the two POS. Can someone take the time to sort this out so the entry as a whole makes sense? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that some of the wording is similar and that one could not readily distinguish based on the wording alone. But don't the usage examples clarify the functional distinctions adequately? A functional non-gloss definition would seem likely to read as duplication of the meaning of the L2 header, but might clarify things further. DCDuring TALK 13:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the usexes agree reasonably well with the defs. The problem is that they're in the wrong POS. Substitute how for however in the sentences, and you'll see the distinction: the adverbial ones sort of work, but the conjunction doesn't. "However far he may get" would work as "How far he gets", for example. It looks to me like a clear-cut modifier of far, thus, an adverb. I'm just not sure what to do with the "conjunctive" adverb sense, which looks exactly like the one clear-cut conjunction sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been working on simple substantives too long: I've lost the ability to make fine distinction on functions words. I'd have to work my way back up to it. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

gall[edit]

definition: "A bump-like imperfection resembling a gall."

This appears in the middle of nine definitions of gall, none of which have a picture or a graphic description. DCDuring TALK 22:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks to belong in Etym 2, as presumably also do the senses about sores and a pit (the context of this last definition is somewhat unclear). — Pingkudimmi 07:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

सह[edit]

definitions: "a species of plant" and "name of various plants"

These are virtually worthless as definitions, but similar definition are common among Sanskrit entries here. Can this be improved upon at all? Similar situations in Latin and especially Greek usually generate plausible conjectures. Some of the cases where a species name is given are not much better as the species name may be used nowhere but in dictionaries or south Asian languages. DCDuring TALK 00:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There are analogous cases in Old French especially regarding plants where there's no way to be sure all the authors are talking about the same plant. I can see a lot of problems on that page, "a species of plant" seems redundant but "name of various plants" is probably as good as it can get. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
That is a typical Sanskrit page with typical problems, including no differentiation of proper nouns, except for higher prevalence of "name of" as part of the definition. The definitions look like wikiformatted copies of old Sanskrit-English dictionaries, possibly different ones combined, with the old dictionaries not being as well done as LSJ (Ancient Greek)or L&S (Latin). The definiens often use polysemic English words with no gloss to suggest which modern sense. DCDuring TALK 01:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
You haven't begun to guess at the true enormity of the problem: I've copypasted the relevant part of the Monier-Williams entry from a pdf I downloaded (enclosed in collapsible header templates for those who don't care to read through it all), and interleaved it with our definitions. The OCR severely mangled the romanized Sanskrit and it would have taken too long to fix it, so don't try to decipher that part. As you can see, our entry is simply the Monier-Williams translated into our format, stripped of the source abbreviations, and paraphrased a bit.
It seems like a combination of multiple dictionaries because Monier-Williams went through libraries-full of sources and made notes, then compressed those notes into an incredibly dense and cryptic format in order to fit everything (barely) into one very large volume. All the bulleted lines below take up what looks like a single 2 or 3 inch square in a much larger three-column page, with nothing separating them but spaces and semicolons. The amount of detail in that work is astonishing- it would take years to properly unpack all the abbreviations and taxonomic names and convert them to modern equivalents. Just one page would take days! Nobody has all the necessary reference material at hand to do it, anyway, so the best we seem to be able to do is reformat this massive lump of condensed shorthand to make it look like a Wiktionary entry, without properly decoding it.
Chuck Entz (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I had looked at some of the Dictionary pages given as references.
My interests and "expertise" are quite limited. I think I can modernize some of the taxonomic names from the 130-year-old ones that were the best he had to work with, but I have to always look at the dictionary page itself. Some of the species names I cannot find in any authoritative online source.
So our Sanskrit entries are "pretend" entries, even worse than the unchanged Webster 1913 entries (for current words). DCDuring TALK 16:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess what's worst is that many of the pages don't have the reference to the dictionary page. DCDuring TALK 16:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

DCDuring keeps repeating that we're dealing with a "130-year old dictionary" but he fails to mention that the dictionary is a synthetic result of tens of thousands of man-hours, and that it's perfectly valid today due to the simple fact that Sanskrit is an extinct language that doesn't change anymore. If the respected authorities have failed to determine what exact species of plants saha denotes in some works, then probably nobody else will. Comparing it to Webster 1913 and modern English is stupid. Regarding proper nouns - they are not recognized as a separate lexical category by Sanskrit grammarians (there is no uppercase/lowercase distinction, there are tens of thousands of deities in Hinduism representing just about any imaginable concept). I have been separating proper/common nouns in some early entries, but have stopped doing so. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a great dictionary. It's available online for free to scholars, so Wiktionary's having copied pages is simply duplicative. It's copied pages are only a first draft of a Wiktionary entry. DCDuring TALK 16:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Apart from the research done on the new interpretation of meanings of Sanskrit words in the 20th and 21th century, it's a complete entry. Sanskrit entries copied from MW dictionary are far more complete than English entries copied from Webster 1913, because the language is not productive anymore as a literary device. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I have three problems with our English entries based on MW 1913 and two with the Sanskrit entries. To me they have one problem in common.
  1. with English entries from MW 1913:
    1. it has English words whose meaning and usage context have changed in some cases, whereas we have not brought the entry up to date.
    2. it uses a dated English for all of its definitions
    3. it includes lists of synonyms in the definiens (instead of under Synonyms), a defining style we don't use.
  2. with Sanskrit entries:
    1. it does not adhere to Wiktionary format and structure eg, not having distinct L3/4 sections for proper and common nouns and non-definiens material in the definitions.
    2. it uses a dated English for all of its definitions.
Just as with MW 1913 entries: I am glad we have the Sanskrit entries. They are an excellent first draft. They need work to be up to our high standards. DCDuring TALK 01:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. I've told you already: proper nouns are not recognized as a separate lexical category by Sanskrit grammarians. This "e.g." of yours is the only objection you actually have to the structure of Sanskrit entries, and yet you keep parroting it as if it is one of many. Non-definiens material (i.e. the list of works were the set of meanings makes appearance) is essential due to the fact that Sanskrit literature stretches over three millennia, and someone reading Rgveda is not interested in the same meanings as someone reading Gita Govinda. We already include non-definiens material in all of the entries - they are called context labels. I fail to see how "this meaning is only used in UK" is any different than "this meaning is only used in the Vedas".
  2. Most of its English is perfectly fine. You're needlessly exaggerating. If you find "dated English" feel free to update it. Perhaps some terms are a bit dated, but often no clear non-dated synonyms exist, and replacing them could introduce new interpretation of some words. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
All of this makes it seem as if a user of the material would be better off to be using the complete text, not Wiktionary's half-formatted, subject-to-insufficiently-respectful-editing version. For example, see Category:Sanskrit proper nouns. Do we need 97 RfC for them?
What value are we adding if all we do is copy? One value might be that we can link to the Sanskrit from other language entries. But that is not for Sanskrit scholars who know the peculiarities of the original dictionary; it is for ordinary Wiktionarians and folks who are simply curious, even recreational users. As scholars have the free online source and should have page links in the Wiktionary entry to that source from every entry copied from it, our Sanskrit entries ought be rendered consistent with Wiktionary format to facilitate use by those other than scholars. DCDuring TALK 17:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Half-formatted subject-to-insufficiently-respectful-editing version? I'm not annoyed by your half-baked attempts of pretend-trolling. Goodbye. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The really terrible one is the neuter noun = बल (bala), because बल has 28 noun definitions. Which one of the 28, or all 28 of them? Limiting only to neuter nouns transliterated as bala, that's down to 14. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

decree[edit]

The usage notes look suspect to me. Apart from the word which I think is suboptimal, is this true of all English speaking place or just one or two in particular? Added by CORNELIUSSEON (talkcontribs) in 2007 so it's not recent or by a reliable editor. Both of these make me think it's either out-of-date, inaccurate or just plain bogus. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

bossman[edit]

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

While I (the creator of the page) did not post the rfc that is currently on the page, I have to agree that the page could do with a bit of touch-up.

I will state this, however: the definition, usage notes and synonyms are 100% correct. Keep that in mind if you change the wording on the page. It is vital to realise that this is NOT a familial term, but neither is it derogatory or rude. It's... sort of in the same category as "stranger" in the sense of "Where go ye, stranger?" Tharthan (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Anyone? Tharthan (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

SemperBlotto really should've listed this after tagging it. We try and avoid things like "used to address" because it doesn't indicate a noun, so defining it as "a man" or "a person" is better. You mean familiar not familial; familial means relating to family where familiar means colloquial (roughly). It's also written from quite a first-person perspective, as if you're saying how you use the term i.e. your opinion rather than a dictionary definition, that has to address how everyone uses the term. I'd contribute more if I could. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I actually meant neither "familiar" nor "familial." I actually meant "cordial." I was tired, my apologies. And it's not as much written from a first-person perspective as it is written from the perspective of someone who wants to make sure the term isn't confused with other similar terms. The whole reason that I have taken this precaution is because of the term's odd usage history. It's all over the place. Tharthan (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The original uasge (going back to 1934 according to the OED) of boss-man was just a synonym of boss (etymology 3), so I think we should have that sense first, with your modern colloquial usage second. Wouldn't "a term of address" be clearer than "vocative"? Dbfirs 07:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that such is just a similar coinage. "Bossman" is not "boss-man." Anybody can coin "[title] + man" as a familial use of said term. Bossman, however, is not synonymous with "boss" nor a term of endearment. This is somewhat consistent with the other use of "boss"; as a sarcastic term use when frustrated. Thus, they are indeed coined by the same two words, but not at the same time nor with the same intent. In addition, I've never seen "bossman" confused with "boss-man" in my entire life; neither in spelling nor in speech. Tharthan (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The OED considers the two to be the same word. Dbfirs 08:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Which edition of Oxford are you referring to? I can find it in neither the twelfth edition nor the eighth edition. Tharthan (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I was looking at the current (on-line with subscription) edition of the OED, not a compact version, but it doesn't have your exact interpretation. Dbfirs 20:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

BUMP Tharthan (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Wiktionary:IPA pronunciation key[edit]

This passed an RFD with no consensus, so it has kind of just been left there. Today, an editor decided to add Catalan, which makes me wonder now, how big should we make the list? It's going to be impossible to include all languages, and people are always going to think "their" language is worth including. So we really need to decide which languages should be there and exclude any others. —CodeCat 14:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I changed the English Pronunciation Keys; therefore, I was also responsible for the changes. (AT LEAST according to "main-stream medicine", THAT'S the legalese kind of matter that we may want to deal with, right?) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Each row should be made a section. This will prevent the content from growing horizontally. — Ungoliant (Falai) 08:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
MY thoughts exactly on that, Lua-Tour-Guide! I got you from this date-of-time onwards. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
If we decide to drop Catalan, why not drop Dutch? It has less than 30 million speakers, and the dialects of most of those claimed speakers have a different pronunciation (and lexicon, and even grammar). --80.114.178.7 01:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

end[edit]

This definition: "The final point of something in space or time."

The use of the word "final" is too temporal and telic. "Point" is too limiting, to an instant or an event. This definition doesn't even fit one of the usexes: "At the end of the story they fall in love".

Spatially, end can be a point, a line, an area, or a volume. As an area it could be as half of a total area ("the West End"). Temporally, it can be an instant or, usually, a period or a sequence of events, processes, or states.

Though I dislike the wording, Webster 1913 took pains with their first sense: "The extreme or last point or part of any material thing considered lengthwise (the extremity of breadth being side); hence, extremity, in general; the concluding part; termination; close; limit; as, the end of a field, line, pole, road; the end of a year, of a discourse; put an end to pain; -- opposed to beginning, when used of anything having a first part."

MWOnline breaks this apart. DCDuring TALK 23:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

весь[edit]

At весь#Russian, the pronoun and adjective senses are mixed together and need to be carefully picked apart. --WikiTiki89 15:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it would need to be changed into a Determiner anyway. "all" is not a property of something, but a reference specifier like other determiners. —CodeCat 00:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, the pronoun and determiner senses need to be picked apart. --WikiTiki89 00:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
You could ask Anatoli... he is the main Russian editor I think. —CodeCat 00:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I could also do it myself. I was just feeling lazy when I requested this. Mostly because the pronoun sense needs to be split across весь, вся, всё, and все. Additionally, I'm not sure what part of speech it is in "оно всё там", which is the exact 100% equivalent of "it's all there". --WikiTiki89 00:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can clean as per the nomination but I'm happy to take suggestions. The choice for SoP itself is not so obvious and the Russian Wiktionary uses "местоиме́нное прилага́тельное" (pronominal adjective). Perhaps providing more usexes would make the senses clearer? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not that they are unclear, just that the determiner is intermixed with the pronoun, when they really need separate headers. --WikiTiki89 01:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
You can try it yourself, if you wish. I'm not 100% sure what PoS your examples belong to. Which ones do you think are pronouns?--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Well if it's used without a noun, it's a usually pronoun. --WikiTiki89 02:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The split is required for derived/related всё and все then, not весь. It'll probably suffice to mention the two types of derivations, even if usexes use всё and все. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
"Бумажник упал в лужу и весь промок." What part of speech is that according to you? I guess you could say that it is an adverb and the second clause has a null subject, but then we'd have to add an adverb sense. Now that I think about it, I think that the adverb interpretation is more accurate because it also accounts for "Он весь промок." --WikiTiki89 04:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It's tricky, indeed. See also какая часть речи слово "всё" --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
That answer seems to agree with me that in "Бумажник упал в лужу и весь промок." and "Он весь промок.", it is an adverb. But this is a strange case of an adverb that agrees with a noun in gender, number, and case: "Я его всего высушил.", "её всю", etc. --WikiTiki89 04:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm lost in PoS here. Not sure. I will leave it as is for now. We can try Vahagn Petrosyan (talkcontribs) and Stephen G. Brown (talkcontribs). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
We can get more people to weigh in than that. As I said above, the exact same dilemma exists in English, only since English does not have gender/number/case agreement, there's less of a problem calling it an adverb: "They all went home." ("Они все пошли домой."), "I ate it all." ("Я его/её всего/всю съел."). --WikiTiki89 13:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Most Russian dictionaries call весь определительное местоимение. I don't have an opinion. --Vahag (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It just making everything horribly complex to satisfy some arcane sense of category. I don’t see anything wrong with it the way it is. This reminds me of a few years ago when Michael decided to rename a bunch of files to separate them into Wiktionary:X and Appendix:X, and then I could never find the pages that I used to use because I don’t share his sense of categories. I never again saw some of those pages. —Stephen (Talk) 20:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting getting rid of anything we have. It's just that certain senses are missing (the adjective/pronoun/whatever-they-are ones), but are present in usage examples. A sense needs to be created for them, and since it is not an adjective/determiner, we have to decide what it is. --WikiTiki89 20:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
That’s what I’m saying. To me, весь is one simple part of speech. We used to call it an adjective, and in my opinion, that is what it is. Or mark them with the Russian terminology, attributive pronoun. All this modernistic stuff about determiners and such is just so much nonsense to me. If you want to divide it up into all sorts of part of speech, you have to do it yourself. I don’t recognize those categories and I don’t see the need for them. —Stephen (Talk) 02:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
That's not my point at all. I also consider the distinction between adjectives and determiners to be quite useless, especially in Russian. What I'm saying here is that in the cases I mentioned, it is not an adjective or determiner. It's either an adverb or a pronoun, depending on how you look at it. It makes more sense as an adverb, except for the fact that it declines for gender, number, and case. --WikiTiki89 02:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

in[edit]

There are many entries for short function words that have similar problems, but we've started an off-topic discussion of this one at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#in cash, so we might as well begin with this one.

Copied from that topic:

[] The payment is done inside some sort of cash? --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I've added a sense to in (though it, and many of the other senses, could use some tweaking) that covers this usage. When you're speaking of money, you can say "in" almost anything- cash, securities, tens and twenties, even Monopoly money. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I have taken a run at a subsense structure for the definitions. I feel we are still missing some senses and have unnecessary specificity in some definitions (See the sub-subsenses.), though the usexes could stay. I find prepositions among the hardest PoS sections I have tackled, requiring a great deal of abstraction to deal with the senses that are not spatial or temporal. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Much better, though getting it perfect might be a lifetime job. Sense 3-2 seems particularly off the mark: "he met his match in her" is just another way of saying "he met his match, and she was that match". All that stuff about "a place-like form of someone's (or something's) personality, as his, her or its psychic and physical characteristics" is just unnecessary verbiage. Consider, for instance: "In boxing, he found the perfect outlet for his anger and frustration". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. I just didn't have the courage to hack away at every piece. We are certainly missing subsenses and also some senses that are hard to fit under the senses now in the entry. Having access to the OED would help make sense of the groupings, though there might be too much information not strictly relevant to current senses. I should probably put some musings on Talk:in. DCDuring TALK 21:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's also the "dressed in, wearing" sense, as in the famous quote from w:Animal Crackers: "I once shot an elephant in my pajamas- how the elephant got in my pajamas, I'll never know", not to mention the "target of an action, within a greater whole", as in "shot in the heart", or as in "they attacked the fortification in its most vulnerable section", or as in "he was shot in the fracas, which, as we all know, can be quite painful". Chuck Entz (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I had forgotten that five years ago I had created a page [[Appendix:Collocations of in]], intended to provide a factual basis for improving the entry. In principle, using that data, we could develop an approach that would apply to other prepositions, for the data is easily obtained. We need to look at other lexicographers' efforts, of course, because they will have captured some less common uses. We should make sure that any sense from a Wiktionary contributor is fully captured as our contributors may have noted a change of meaning that has eluded others. Talk:in has some useful material. DCDuring TALK 21:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

[edit]

It looks like it needs cleanup overall —umbreon126 04:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The Chinese section is done. The Japanese is kyūjitai. Ideally we should have a soft redirect to lemma at . Korean and Vietnamese are only used as components, not separate words. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Restoration[edit]

Needs to be rewritten in correct English. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I've tidied it a little, but further improvement is probably needed. Dbfirs 16:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The English is fine. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Mallory[edit]

Overlong etymology is not consistent with the following definitions. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

absolute[edit]

This article, particularly the adjectival sense is an absolute mess. The glosses on the translation tables don't clearly match up with definitions, are out of order, and many are missing. I attempted to rearrange the definitions a bit to add some clarity, but I found the mess absolutely confusing myself, so what I've done may be undone without causing me any offense, so long as the article is improved. The definitions also contain a level of vocabulary above that of the word they're defining, which will absolutely not be helpful to most people looking up the word.

I was halfway through fixing the translation section when my browser crashed, leaving me absolutely annoyed, so I'm afraid I must pass the unpleasant job off to someone else, since I feel what I tried to do ended up being an absolute waste of time. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

A[edit]

The English symbol section is a total mess and needs to be cleaned up and verified. -- Liliana 21:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

waiver[edit]

See waive. Waive has six verb senses under two etymologies, which apply? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

rainmaker[edit]

The wording of the definitions is an embarrassment to Wiktionary, IMO. At least two senses seem virtually identical. Some senses may not be attestable. DCDuring TALK 22:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

waste[edit]

Derived terms for noun and adjective are mixed up, and need sorting. Donnanz (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Done to the best of my ability. Admittedly it's hard to decide which section some words go under: I decided waste pipe is a pipe for waste, whereas waste in waste water is an adjective, but someone is bound to disagree. Donnanz (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

goblet drum[edit]

See Talk:goblet drum. Both Wiktionary and Wikipedia have, for some time, described "goblet drum" as though it is a synonym for the darbuka, which is one type of goblet drum. "Goblet drum" is a musicological term, there are lots of goblet-shaped drums. goblet drum does not mean darbuka any more than flat-backed lute means guitar. So I've added a better def at goblet drum, but the translations appear to mostly be translations of darbuka, not goblet drum. Some are not. Can someone who knows more about the applicable languages move most of the translations to darbuka? WurdSnatcher (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

potentiality[edit]

There are two senses added by our problem IP:

Unless I'm mistaken, potentiality is something associated with indeterminism and quantum indeterminacy, but not the same as indeterminism or quantum indeterminacy themselves. I was tempted to just revert the IP's edits, but that would leave this entry without any link to indeterminism or quantum indeterminacy- and this term seems to be important to both. Could someone fix this? Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how important the term is to either topic. The Wikipedia articles don't mention the word. Are there sources that say it is important? I'd just delete sense 4 and 5. Dbfirs 01:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015[edit]

black canker[edit]

  1. A disease in turnips and other crops, produced by a species of caterpillar.

As far as I can tell from a glance at Google and bgc, black canker is the caterpillar itself. I haven't seen anything indicating it's the disease (but didn't look properly). Separately, there seems to be a disease of trees, or maybe a fungus that causes such, of the same name.​—msh210 (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

In plants black canker seems to be any cankers that manifest in black disfigurement of plant tissue, including various ones affecting cherry, apple, parsnip, soursop, willow, and mango. There is a black canker caterpillar (genus Tenthredo), but modern sources refer to fungi and bacteria as the causal agents, mostly differing by affected plant. Perhaps the caterpillar is a vector for some black cankers. It seems like yet another little research project for proper disambiguation. DCDuring TALK 00:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It is fairly common that vernacular names for diseases are used as vernacular names of the causal agent (or agent thought to be causal). DCDuring TALK 01:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI, Tenthredo aren't caterpillars, they're sawfly larvae- primitive Hymenoptera. They do look a lot like caterpillars, though (sometimes it takes counting legs to tell them apart- sawflies have more pairs of legs than caterpillars do). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Here is an example of the larva being called black canker without any mention of a disease. Sawflies tend to appear in large numbers and devour everything in sight belonging to their food plant species with unnerving speed. If your entire crop is being rapidly destroyed by a huge mass of insects, you might start to think of them collectively, as a force of nature like a disease. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

بلبوش[edit]

Has two different pronunciations that don't match. Says it's a collective noun and the lemma form gender doesn't match the singular form. Already an entry at the singular form with another pronunciation. DTLHS (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

pp[edit]

Apart from the abbreviation header, this is just a bit of a mess and I couldn't decide what to do with it. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Moved Swedish to PP, combined English nouns, put Translingual as an adverb. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

mischief[edit]

Confusing entry. Jberkel (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I had trouble with the definitions, too. I hope I have not been a mischief (3.1.1) and that any mischiefs (1.3) I may have undertaken do not rise to the level of (serious) mischief (2.1). If the definitions are comprehensible then it would be easier to proceed to the specific problems that @Jberkel had.
I had the most trouble believing in the "agent of trouble" definitions (3), but found one citation for each and could probably find more. DCDuring TALK 01:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I moved some synonyms around and removed the quotations header, it's a bit better now. Jberkel (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It would benefit from some simplification, but the older uses seem quite distinct, at least in degree, from the most common current senses. DCDuring TALK 14:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think synonym lists should be removed from mainspace and moved to Wikisaurus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
In general I agree and avoid moving things to Wikisaurus but for these longs lists it makes sense, it's even specifically mentioned in WT:ELE: "Instead of listing many synonyms in each of several synonymous entries, a single reference can be made in each to a common Wikisaurus page". – Jberkel (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It is one thing to add a reference to a Wikisaurus page to an entry that had no synonyms, and it is another thing to remove lists and replace them with the references only. WT:ELE should probably be edited to clarify whether editors find such a replacement okay. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I liked this revision and found nothing confusing. By contrast, what I see now seems rather confusing, above all the subsensing, although it is probably more accurate and refined. I especially do not understand what is going on with the 3rd sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky I like oversimplifications sometimes too. We could achieve a much simpler entry that remained true to the (selected) facts if we ignored the no-longer-common definitions. DCDuring TALK 21:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why moving things around is such a controversial thing, especially given the size of these lists. Why can't entries be modified according to guidelines? Some options we have: 1) Keep synonyms in the entry and add a mechanism with a collapsible display, similar to {{der3}} and {{rel3}} which makes it feasible to include long lists 2) move long lists of synonyms to Wikisaurus + add references. 3) cap the size of lists. I personally prefer 1). – Jberkel (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky Sense 3 and its subsenses are about cause. The others about effect. DCDuring TALK 15:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
While we're here, am I the only one that pronounces it /ˈmɪstʃiːf/ (as chief in other words)? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
For me it rhymes with tiff. DCDuring TALK 17:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jberkel: Too many people oppose moving content away from the mainspace; multiple people proposed abandoning Wikisaurus and moving its content to mainspace. It is therefore wise to tread lightly and avoid harming Wikisaurus position and reputation by avoiding associating Wikisaurus project with content being moved away from the mainspace. As for the comma-separated list to be too long to display directly, I think you'll find you are in the minority of people who have any problem with them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't like long lists of anything (except definitions) unless they can be concealed by a show-hide. These particular lists seem like a hodge-podge of things which don't match the headword's various definitions very well, so they could readily be shortened, one list at a time, once the definitions were stabilized.
But in this case the lists would be made more useful if they could match some of the definitions. For example, the main current sense of mischief as something "minor trouble or annoyance" would warrant a subset of the current list which does not differentiate by degree of trouble or harm. Thus, annoyance, nuisance, and prank might belong whereas sabotage might not.
A more drastic approach would be to not have any long list of synonyms for any obsolete sense or one that is currently rare. A Wikisaurus link could still provide access to a fuller set of synonyms. One advantage in the case of this entry is that it would somewhat reduce the weight of the obsolete/less common senses in the entry.
For any of this to be worth doing we first need to stabilize the entry. OED has even more senses than we now show. I don't know whether a fuller set of definitions can usefully be brought into any sense/subsense structure that I can produce. DCDuring TALK 20:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
If the lists are deficient as for accuracy or coherence, they need to be pruned rather than dumped to Wikisaurus. If they are considered too long even after that pruning, they may get shortened to contain only the most salient or common synonyms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
BTW, could someone with access to the OED see whether they have a different, preferably shorter, list of senses and a similar delineation of which senses might be considered archaic, which countable, etc. Cambridge Advanced Learner's has only two senses, both uncountable, one for "behavior that is slightly bad", another for "damage or harm", but links to entries for do sb/yourself a mischief (we don't have any corresponding entry), ie, countable mischief, and make mischief which means about the same as stir the pot. DCDuring TALK 17:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I am informed that the OED has 13 senses and subsenses, but some of them seem to be archaic (they label them obsolete) or rare in current use. Two are legal, too finely distinguished for me to even paraphrase. DCDuring TALK 18:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Confusing word ⇒ confusing entry. DCDuring TALK 21:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Entries in Rhymes:Romanian[edit]

After last night's controversy over Rhymes:Romanian/abilitate, which Equinox thankfully deleted, I have been going through this category and discovered that the user who contributed, has made a lot of errors. E.g.:

If anyone is up to the task, please feel free to do so or let me know how I should go about making corrections. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

Roma locuta est, causa finita est[edit]

Language: English

Part of speech: Adjective

Definition:

  1. {{sense|idiom}} A statement meaning an end of a discussion.

Added by a notoriously incompetent IP who managed to get a little bit of everything wrong. There may be something worth salvaging in this, but I'm not sure if it's English or Latin, and not 100% sure that it's not SOP. They provided a link to an article on a Roman Catholic website as a reference, which suggests that this is in use among Catholics. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I've seen this phrase before, it's an old maxim that (if I recall correctly) pre-dates the RC / protestant schism, that says that in matters of canon law &c. decisions of the bishop of Rome are final. Nowadays in protestant circles mostly quoted as an example of how not to go about things. I can imagine it could metaphorically also be applied to other cases where someone's word (presumably the word of someone with authority) ends a discussion or dispute, but even so I think the lemma as quoted is confusing and unclear.

synchronization[edit]

"In an intelligence context, application of intelligence sources and methods in concert with the operation plan." Sorry I have no idea what this means. Anyone? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

accountability[edit]

Usage notes with reference (not included here): "Accountability is condemned by some as jargon of the political élite and referring to a mechanism for democratic good-governance that is unworkable in practice."

I can't quite work out what it's on about and the fact that this is mentioned in one book, without seeing the citation in question, so what? One author expresses an opinion on a word and we put in some usage notes? Also very weasely. Condemned by some? Who? I'm looking for a reason to not just delete these as nonsense. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

trackerphone[edit]

This is apparently unattested for CFI purposes as a single word (there are lots of web hits, though, so it probably needs to be moved to tracker phone. The definition gives the impression that it's used for tracking other people or things, but the usage seems to indicate that the idea is a phone that can be tracked. There were a few other problems, but they were easily removed as clearly wrong.

There's probably a real entry in there, somewhere, but it needs to be either fixed up or deleted. I don't have time for either, at the moment. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

rack[edit]

If etymology 2 is correct, some definitions need to be brought over from etymology 1. I'm not sure if this belongs here or in the Etymology Scriptorium, but at any rate, I don't have time to fix the entry myself. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

One approach is to split the noun and verb senses now in Ety 1 leaving all or most noun senses in Ety 1 and putting all or most verb senses in Ety 2. Another is to combine Ety 1 and Ety 2 on the grounds that the stems of the etyma are the same. The MED asserts that Middle English rakken (verb) is deemed to derive from rak (noun). I have the feeling that the etymology is confused by the persistent trend to Dutch etymological imperialism that characterizes many of our etymologies. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

yīng[edit]

number 9 on list Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I propose we regenerate all these pinyin pages from a better data source because the quality is shamefully bad. —suzukaze (tc) 00:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

tropæan[edit]

Should the proper noun be uppercase? Everything should probably be at the non-ligature spelling (we tend to lemmatize modern rather than archaic and ligatured spellings when possible). - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course it should be uppercase. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

argumentum ad hominem[edit]

Tagged by an IP, not listed. Equinox 23:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It could be RFV as the user is claiming it's not used in Latin (not as an idiom, anyway) but rather it's used in English, obviously a coinage based on Latin if that is indeed the case. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't make it English though. I've seen the same term used in Portuguese, German, French and Dutch texts, and I think readers are aware of the fact that this is a Latin coinage. So labelling it as English seems a bit silly and it would also require the lemma to be duplicated for pretty much every European language and even some non-European ones. And it also assumes there is no such thing as modern Latin. For what it's worth, the Latin wiki article on the topic uses this same phrase.
(And I may have found a New Latin (1708) attestation: https://books.google.nl/books?id=He9eAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA42#v=onepage&q=%22argumentum%20ad%20hominem%22 But be careful: the context may influence the meaning and I haven't read the surrounding text.) —This unsigned comment was added by 80.114.147.138 (talk) at 13:54, April 8, 2016.
I've found a text (https://books.google.nl/books?id=ZdaP5IehqFsC&pg=PA398#v=onepage&q="argumentum ad hominem") saying that around 500 AD the term was used in a different sense, namely an argument that tries to convince someone by reasoning from his own (possibly mistaken) assumptions. The example quoted is that if the other person beliefs all useful things to be good, you can convince him that something is good if you can prove its utility. (In that sense the modern use could be considered a narrower sense, since it follows the same general form: if your audience beliefs that cat people make for unreliable witnesses, you can convince your audience that someone is an unreliable witness by showing him to be a cat person. Note however that originally ‘homo’ referred to the person to be convinced or the audience and not necessarily to the person to be attacked.) —This unsigned comment was added by 80.114.147.138 (talk) at 08:55, April 10, 2016.
Thanks. I'd noticed that the older usage was as you say. Century 1911 had that older concept at the core of their definition, but referred to medieval logicians who, extending a point of Aristotle's, said ad hominem arguments were of two kinds: one against a person's positions, the other against his person as "by taunting, rayling, rendring checke for checke, or by scorning." (Thomas Blundeville c. 1575). This isn't quite the modern meaning which includes smear campaigns, IMO. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Blundeville said: ‘Confutation of person is done either by taunting, rayling, rendring checke for checke, or by scorning.’ So according to him, refutation of person means to either ridicule someone or show contempt for him. Both those meanings fall squarely into the modern category of ad hominem. (As such I'm a bit puzzled by the use of ‘thus’ in the C1911, but maybe the editor meant what I meant by ‘narrower sense’ above.)
The quotation of Wilson immediately afterwards though seems to draw the distinction between the Aristotelian straight solution and the solution tailored to the man, which is the old sense again. Or so at least it seems to me. And I think the same applies to the quote of More.
I think I may have found some more quotes from Latin texts around 1700 (give or take a century) but vetting them would take a lot of time. So I don't know if these texts use the old or new definition. Still, by now I think it somewhat probable that this phrase was indeed somewhat commonly used in Latin texts, at least newer ones.
An other interesting thing is that the old-style ad hominem can also be used to argue not from someone's actual assumptions, but from things he must assert for some other reason. —This comment was unsigned.
The modern definitions, from A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms 2nd ed, (1991):
"#Abuse of your opponent's character.
"#Basing your argument on what you know of your opponent's character."
But, perhaps more significantly for this page, per COCA, ad hominem is currently used with attack much more than with argument or argumentum. Even when used with argument or argumentum it retains the same sense of attacking the source of an argument rather than its substance (ad rem). I can find no trace in current use of the historical sense, which seemed to be standard even in the 19th century. There was, however, in the 19th century much use of the term in reference to what we now call flip-flopping, which seems to have become an attack on the sincerity of the flip-flopper, not just an observation of logical inconsistency. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The only general dictionary that includes it is Collins, as follows:
  1. fallacious argument that attacks not an opponent's beliefs but his motives or character
  2. argument that shows an opponent's statement to be inconsistent with his other beliefs
  3. an instance of either
The general classical sense is not mentioned, nor does it appear in Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg ad hominem on Wikipedia.Wikipedia . DCDuring TALK 21:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Struck out. Has been through RFV and survived, with cleaning performed in the process. Well done, everyone. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

मूल्य[edit]

I think the words ‘capital’ and ‘principal’ are too ambiguous to be used as definitions by themselves. Somebody fluent in Sanskrit should verify what exactly is meant.

The definitions for मूल्य (mūlya) at the Sanskrit Dictionary suggests that the capital sense is more specifically capital in the form of goods purchased, rather than capital in the form of the monetary amount initially invested: the principal as opposed to the interest. The latter sense is what is given for मूल (mūla) instead.
That said, I'm happy to be proven wrong: I am very much in my infancy when it comes to Sanskrit studies. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone really fluent in Sanskrit anymore? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Apparently there are plenty of Indian Sanskritists who converse to one another in fluent Sanskrit - but I suspect that perhaps none of them are Wiktionarians. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I notice a discrepancy between our definitions for मूल (mūla) and मूल्य (mūlya) and those of SanskritDictionary.com. If the latter are more reliable, then maybe some knowledgeable person could work on this.

wu2[edit]

entries 1 and 2 Johnny Shiz (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

entries like subrogation, cognovit clause[edit]

...some of which use "(Black's Law)" as a context (not formatted), and many of which say "(A Non-Copied Entry)" in the references, which is probably not necessary to note. Check the contributions of 75.69.172.246 and X8BC8x. - -sche (discuss) 19:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

These are mostly fixed (I may have missed some) and the majority of them are at RFV anyway so they can be formatted if kept. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The user has replied to me in private. He/she seems to intend to not edit anymore. Seems inexperienced with wikis as I would normally expect a reply on a talk page to go on the talk page rather than in private message. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, dear. We don't want to scare people off, but we do want them to exercise some care and ask for help if needed. Maybe we can refer the user to some places where he or she can seek advice? — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't really want to quote a private message directly (even one with no personal information in it) but I get the impression they hadn't been scared off so much as they feel like these entries would be better handled by someone with Wiktionary experience. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Донецкая Народная Республика[edit]

Hello. On that page, we list ДНР as an "alternative form" of Донецкая Народная Республика, but AFAICS it's just an initialism. Should we move it somewhere else? Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Any suggestions? Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess we usually list initialisms under Synonyms (e.g. at United States of America and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
We used to put forms such as that under the heading ====Abbreviations====, but I believe that has been discontinued. I don’t know what if anything has taken its place. —Stephen (Talk) 15:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I searched and see that there are quite a few entries with an ====Abbreviations==== section, so maybe it is still being used. For example, seee мужской род. That would be my preference. —Stephen (Talk) 15:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, we should use the header ====Abbreviations====, although some words that start out as abbreviations take on a slightly different shade of meaning or usage and then would have to be put under ====Synonyms==== or ====Related terms====. --WikiTiki89 15:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I believe it was the POS header "===Abbreviation===" that was discontinued. I don't know anything about an "====Abbreviations====" subsection header. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Unusable. —suzukaze (tc) 07:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

wut? 98.109.191.65 22:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Zoroaster[edit]

The third sense could use some attention:

Ostensible source/founder of Mithraism, the "mysteries" of the Roman Mysteriae Mithrae ("Mysteries of Mithras", "Mithraic Mysteries"), an astrology-centric, middle-platonic mystery cult of the 1st-4th century Roman Empire whose adherents worshiped in "caves" (i.e. Mithraea) in imitation of "Zoroaster". (Porphyry, De Antro Nympharum 6)

- TheDaveRoss 12:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

On this page, it says "A Korean character used in transliteration." But transliteration in which language. Chinese or Korean? TIA 21:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Definition now is "A character used phonetically; this character has no inherent meaning.". Meh, I'll take their word for it. --Gente como tú (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

Jüngste Tag[edit]

Although I understand the concerns of this anon, I don't believe that recent changes are in line with how we treat German lemmas. Any input from more seasoned German-speaking users? --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The lemma should be Jüngster Tag; likewise the lemma of Jüngste Gericht should be Jüngstes Gericht. The forms with "jüngste" could be listed as inflected forms, though I'd prefer to simply redirect them. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

-in#Tagalog[edit]

This needs fixing up to conform to our standard layout, with headword lines and such. —CodeCat 19:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

ngaa[edit]

Moved from: Wiktionary:Requests for verification#ngaa

The Pitjantjatjara word had a cleanup request from 21 February 2015 with the comment: "Almost certainly not Pitjantjatjara. It appears to be Ngaanyatjarra, but I can't be sure of that." IMHO that doesn't sound like it's a matter of RFC but of RFV. -Ikiaika (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but unattested items appearing in RfV could be deleted after just 30 days. RfVs for items in languages with very few contributors might not be seen for quite some time. RfC allows more time. DCDuring TALK 17:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
It had an RFC tag for over a year and nothing changed. I might be mistaken, but I doubt that anything would change in the nearest time and I doubt that there would be much attention for the entry. So I hope that this discussion brings some attention towards the entry and that the RFC/RFV can be resolved. As ngaa also has other entries ("Gamilaraay" and "Hiligaynon"), it wouldn't be completely deleted anyway and one could still find the 'Pitjantjatjara' entry through the version history. However, I'd be okay with changing it to RFC again and moving this discussion to Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup to raise some attention and to give the entry some more time.
Maybe @Vedac13 (he once added the Pitjantjatjara entry) or @This, that and the other (he once added the RFC tag) can help to resolve this issue? -Ikiaika (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
There is heavy overlap between Pitjantjatjara, Yankunytjatjara and Ngaanyatjarra. Some would consider them dialects of the same language. To make matters worse, texts are often misidentified as being in one language when they are actually in one of the others; a lot of reference works relating to these languages are old, use idiosyncratic orthographies, and contain inaccuracies; and Ngaanyatjarra in particular seems to have quite little material available. All this makes it very difficult to sort out the entries in these languages. We really need the assistance of an expert in Western Desert languages to sort out the situation and help organise our coverage.
It probably is a matter for RFV, but I don't think there are many users here who would be able to deal with this problem. I'd favour keeping the RFC tag in place for now. I will have to go and look up a Ngaanyatjarra word list in a library when I have time. This, that and the other (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@This, that and the other Thanks for your reply. I changed it back and moved the discussion. Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
It's certainly not Pitjantjatjara and shouldn't be labelled as such. This and many of Vedac13's other contributions to Pitjantjatjara are flagrant nonsense. BigDom 15:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:German unknown gender nouns[edit]

Many nouns in the category have a known gender: Given names of male persons are masculine, given names of female persons are feminine, names of cities are neuter. While it's easy to add the gender, it's maybe not so easy to verify it, and it's not so easy to add the genitive.
As for the gender:

  • For greater cities one should be able find examples like "das schöne Berlin", "in Berlin, das", "Berlin ... es". For smaller and less known cities it might be harder to find such examples.

Some examples for the gentive:

  • Catharina should have the genitives (der) Catharina and Catharinas, maybe also Catharina's (obsolete nowadays, though colloquially it might be written with a Deppenapostroph). Note that the proper noun genitive Catharinas is an exception of the rule that feminine nouns are invariable in the singular.
  • Kassel should have the genitives (des) Kassel and Kassels, maybe also Kassel's (obsolete nowadays, though colloquially it might be written with a Deppenapostroph).
  • Worms should have the genitives (des) Worms and Worms', maybe also Wormsens (similar to e.g. Klausens). "Wormsens Bischof" and "Bevölkerung Wormsens" can be found, but "Wormsens" is rare anyway.

When just adding the gender, the templates often automatically add a genitive which (often) is incorrect or incomplete in case of proper nouns. -Ikiaika (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I knocked out 50 of them. - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@-sche: I'm working on some more. But part of the problem is that if you mark the gender as plural (e.g. Komoren), it still throws a fit. The categorisation itself is partly at fault. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. For cases where a singular exists (or at least, a singular form of the gender-carrying part exists), I think the "intended" solution is to specify n-p, etc. But where no singular exists, the question of gender is meaningless and the template should accept "p" as a "known gender". I will change ["p"] = "unknown gender", in Module:de-headword to ["p"] = "plural", to accomplish this. That this will also populate Category:German plural nouns seems desirable or at least tolerable to me, but could of course be overridden... - -sche (discuss) 22:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@-sche: Thank you. I think I slightly support suppressing the plural category, but I don't have an articulated reason. Another issue is surnames, which are a major remaining component in the category. I'm not really sure how those work, as they seem essentially to be genderless, in that they take the referent's gender. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

heterotypic[edit]

Second "definition" needs rewriting as an actual definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

  • It looks like a separate entry is needed for heterotypic synonym (and a Derived terms section in this one). There is information here which may not conflict with the "definition," but does seem to indicate a connection with type species.— Pingkudimmi 16:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Κωνσταντῖνος[edit]

I think most of the descendants listed are loaned or inherited directly from Latin. Another shady one is English Gus. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Both Κωνσταντῖνος and Constantinus#Latin listed "German: Konstantin" as a descendant.
I don't know how one could prood either of these statements, but German should have it the name from Latin. The older German spellings Constantin and Constantinopel (now Konstantinopel) are evidences for this. In older German texts one maybe can even find the Latin names and maybe even declined the Latin way.
"Finnish: Konstantinus" looks like it even has the Latin ending -us, not a Greek os. I don't know how Finnish borrowed Latin and Greek words, but the entry Konstantinus says it's from Latin. Similary "Icelandic: Konstantínus", "Estonian: Constantinus" and "Turkish: Constantinus" (all in -us and not in -os) could be from Latin.
According to Gus, the English name has another etymology and is unrelated to Constantin. -Ikiaika (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Messy. If it's the same as 糗, {{alternative form of}} should be used, and the usage of in Cantonese seems to be restricted to 本字 circles (and is read as gau6). —suzukaze (tc) 05:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

Contributions of User:24.5.143.190[edit]

This user has been contributing quite a variety of new entries in good faith, but without a good understanding of what they were doing. Some cleanup has already been done, but at epithelially I ran into the definition "In a epithelial manner", and realized how much like an assembly line their definition-writing was. I think we need to take a second look at their edits with an eye for other examples of glib meaninglessness that might have slipped under the radar while we've been focusing on vandalism and serious incompetence. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • And some of the entries are listed as adjectives rather than adverbs. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

province[edit]

In the French section, one of the definitions is "the regions (provincial France)", plural sic. What does this mean? Does province refer to "one of the regions of provincial France", perhaps? Or to provincial France as a whole? Side note, the English definitions could also use some work, e.g. "The most common subdivision of Canada, but exclusive of its territories" makes it sound like a province is one thing, the way death is "The cessation of life"; a better definition might be along the lines of "One of the subdivisions of Canada that is not a territory", but perhaps someone can come up with even better. - -sche (discuss) 03:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

  • In French you say en province meaning not much more than "elsewhere than in Paris", so yes, I would say that French province often corresponds with the English plural "regions, provinces". Ƿidsiþ 11:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thomas[edit]

The accusative is also "Thomam" besides "Thoman". Same might be true for many other Latin nouns in as.

As for the vowel length, maybe it's

  1. Thōmās, Thōmām keeping the length
  2. Thōmās, Thōmam with Greek nominative but Latin accusative (which fits to Latin genitive and dative)
  3. Thōmas, Thōmam - though maybe Late, Middle or New Latin, compare with German Thomas [ˈtoːmas] and Lucas/Lukas [ˈluːkas] which (a) should have their length from Latin or (b) could have been used in New Latin but with German vowel length.

-Watabib (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

drama[edit]

An IP has stuffed the Catalan section full of content formatted in ways that WT:EL never could have imagined. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It's probably quicker to roll back and re-add with formatting than to just format. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

voide[edit]

This entry uses both fr and fro. It also has the label Gascon which is a dialect of Old Provençal or Occitan. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be copied from fr:void (NOT fr:voide which has a different regional label) and for some reason, changed from Occitan to Old French. Possibly one of those things where you've got two windows open and you edit the wrong one. FWIW FEW lists vuech and voig as the Old Provençal and voide does seem to be Old and/or Middle French, either as a feminine form or as a masculine and feminine form. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

've, 'm, -'s[edit]

Those three entries are in Category:English clitics. 'd, linked to from 've, is not listed as a clitic but as a suffix. -'s (note the hyphen) has a verb part of speech with the headword line "-'s ‎(clitic)" and then other parties of speech with the headword line "’s" (should that be moved to 's, with prominent cross-links between the two entries, or should the headword lines be updated to include the hyphen?). Can someone check that the entries are in the right category, check whether other entries like 'd belong in the clitic category, and check whether some of the POS sections of -'s should be moved or have their headword-lines updated? Some of the mess in -'s is probably my doing; I'm sorry. - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I second the request for clean up with regard to this issue. Given the discussion in Talk:'ve, it seems that clitics are not suffixes (for morphological reasons), though of course they are suffixes in the sense that they are written affixed to the ends of other words. Accordingly, I propose the following:
  • We should use section headings that reflect the POS served by the clitic, e.g. ====Verb====. My rationale is that, when parsing, clitics must be identified as having separate parts of speech from the words they are affixed to. Consider the sentences "she's talking" and "let's eat", where 's acts as an auxiliary verb and as a pronoun, respectively. Simply tagging this as suffix robs the parse of useful information.
  • We should use headword macros of the form {{head|en|POS|cat2=clitics|clitic}} for the appropriate POS. This lists the term in both, e.g., Category:English verbs and Category:English clitics and clearly marks the definition with "(clitic)". To my knowledge, there is no separate clitic headword macro, though one could be defined as suggested.
    • Note: This macro will also list the word in Category:English lemmas, which appears to be correct given the categorization of Category:English clitics. There are possible workarounds if this is not desired.
    • Undecided: We may also want to use "cat3=suffixes" in order to list the term in Category:English suffixes as well. Clitics aren't the same as other suffixes, but I suspect many users will expect to find them in Category:English suffixes because they occur at the ends of words. (Clitics can also be prefixes, though mostly in languages other than English; the only English candidate I can think of is s', as in s'ok. Noting this via category inclusion seems appropriate.)
  • We should avoid the use of hyphens in clitic page titles already demarcated with apostrophes. This seems to be the present trend, and it serves to establish clitics' distinction from other affixes (i.e., their syntactic independence). English clitics almost always have apostrophes where the hyphen would go; the only notable exception is -s', though this is a weird case as either a hybrid non-clitic plural -s and clitic possessive 's or a modified possessive 's after an existing s (itself not a suffix). (Note that -n't is not a clitic!)
    • We may nonetheless want to add usage notes indicating that the form should always occur affixed to the preceding word, unless we are confident that users will interpret the apostrophe itself to indicate that. (We currently assume users interpret the hyphen that way.)
    • Alternately: We could go the opposite route and always use hyphens in clitic page titles. This eliminates any possibility of confusion between clitics and other entries with apostrophes at either end such as 'twas and doin'. Further, it would separate the entries for s' as it occurs in, e.g., boys' club and s'ok (assuming the later had an entry and indeed is a clitic).
Rriegs (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]

せう, redux[edit]

Firstly, this should be in a category, even if only the "non-entry" category that {{no entry}} adds. Secondly, the page it directs users to for more information never mentions it ... is せう an obsolete form of every sense of しょう, or only of some? - -sche (discuss) 04:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Japanese kana entries are basically all about reading -- i.e., pronunciation. The historical kana rendering せう was formerly read as /ɕeu/. Over time, this pronunciation shifted to /ɕoː/, and during the spelling reforms of the Showa era, the kana spelling was changed to しょう to match the pronunciation. There is nothing in modern Japanese that is read as せう, with a modern pronunciation of /seu/.
I've reworded the usage note to match the above. Is that clearer?
I don't know how to categorize this correctly, so I leave that for others. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

ay çöreği[edit]

Part of speech? Definition? - -sche (discuss) 06:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

amui[edit]

Needs to be templatized. - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:English false friends for German speakers[edit]

Needs to be categorized. - -sche (discuss) 18:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

schH[edit]

German or English, or both. DTLHS (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

By GBC it seems like "SchH" is used in English, but abbreviates German "Schutzhund" (or "Schutzhundeprüfung"). Alternative form could be SchH..
German forms could be Sch.H., SchH., SchH. German SchH could also abbreviate Schutzhundeprüfung. Related terms could be BH (Begleithundeprüfung), WH (Wachhundprüfung), maybe also AD (Ausdauerprüfung), FH (Fährtenprüfung), hyponyms could be SchH 1 or SchH I etc.
But I'm not sure regarding the use/mention distinction. Exclusionist maybe could argue that SchH is often just mentioned and not used. -16:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Is it traditional or simplified? If it's simplified, there should not be definitions here. —suzukaze (tc) 23:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

privateer[edit]

A very wordy, POV sense was added and the etymology morphed into an equally word and POV discourse on that sense. It looks like this will need to be split into two etymologies, and the new material will need to be pruned into something suitable for a dictionary- does anyone have a chainsaw? Chuck Entz (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I have split the etymologies.
I won't try to address the definitions without citations. See WT:RFV#privateer. DCDuring TALK 15:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Trimmed it a bit. Equinox 15:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I did some more cleaning including re-merging the etymologies; sorry, DCD, I did this before I read your comment. However, the OED shows plenty of usage for this sense back to the 1600s so I think the proposed 2008 etymology was one of those spurious back-formations. Ƿidsiþ 09:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Widsith Did you read WT:RFV#privateer? DCDuring TALK 10:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't! But yes, I agree with Kiwima's conclusions, which is pretty much what I did. Ƿidsiþ 12:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

oil-canning[edit]

Does this actually make sense? – Jberkel (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. But I can't see a distinction between senses #1 and #2. It seems like the same thing (mild deformation of a sheet of metal) just one occurs in manufacturing and one occurs when the item is already in place (roofing). Presumably because oilcans are round and not flat sheets. I'd just reduce it to a single definition (like mine in brackets above) and be done with it. I assume existence is not an issue here? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Nihon-kyo[edit]

suzukaze (tc) 08:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Cantonese interjections[edit]

Full of Simplified Chinese characters. Cantonese uses Traditional Chinese characters exclusively.

Seems to be an issue on all of these category pages: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Cantonese_lemmas

Would fix this myself, but I'm not sure how to do it.

Cantonese doesn't only use traditional Chinese, since it is also spoken in Guangdong province, which uses simplified Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
touché.
— Jbhk (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

BrunoMed's Prefix Entries[edit]

User:BrunoMed has just created a large number of new prefix entries, apparently from lists in appendices. I've dealt with the ones where he copied content whole from entries for prefixes ending with vowels to new entries for the same prefixes without those vowels. That still leaves the majority, which are nationality prefixes. For these, he copied the same content into every entry:

English
Etymology

Shortened unetymologically from [Latin country name] in compounds- 20th century formation, perhaps echoing terms like Afro-, Indo-, Sino- etc.

Prefix

[headword]

  1. pertaining to [English country name], especially as a political entity
Coordinate terms

This mechanical, cookie-cutter approach may be right in some cases, but it's clearly wrong in others. For one thing, I have my doubts about whether these are all 20th-century coinages, and there are some which are obviously not "shortened unetymologically"- such as Malayo- from Malay. This last one shows that there was no checking for whether the English country name actually exists as a country name.

Would someone please check these and either fix them or delete them, where necessary?

Thanks to User:-sche for some of the points made above. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

quibus auxilus[edit]

Is this salvageable? It seems to be an obsolete term in homeopathy. Equinox 13:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

4. ref has "Boenninghausen classified the characteristic symptoms into seven categories. They are: [...] 4. Quibus Auxilus (Concomitant Symptoms)". That should be an error. In caps quibus auxiliis is QUIBUS AUXILIIS and could be misread as QUIBUS AUXILUS, i.e. quibus auxilus, like [books.google.com/books?id=lc9zfg_dLF8C&pg=PA302&dq=%22quibus+auxilus%22 here] where a GBS gives QUIBUS AUXILIIS while searching for quibus auxilus. The correct spelling and a literal meaning can be found in the 2. ref: "Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando? - Who, what, where, with what, why, how, when?". As the 4. ref should have an incorrect spelling, it could also have an incorrect meaning or an interpretation or something like that. The literal meaning however could be SoP (Sum of Parts), and so maybe the entry should be deleted. -84.161.40.144 11:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016[edit]

crony capitalism[edit]

Definition seems too rambling and wordy; could use a trim. Equinox 22:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

大班[edit]

rfc-sense: What does

The correct Mandarin term is "代办 dài bàn"

mean? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Daivajna[edit]

Strange formatting. No real definition. But seems to be a real word. What to do? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]

beet[edit]

This entry is divided in a very odd fashion into three senses, with odd example sentences to go with them:

  1. A singularia tantum for the plant with the example sentence: "The beet is a hardy species"
  2. A countable sense for an "individual plant (organism) of that species". Example sentence: "They sell beets by the pound in the supermarket. All I want is the roots. Can I cut off the roots and buy them alone?"
  3. A countable sense for the "root of such a plant".

This is especially odd since the plural mass noun sense (as in "she got beets on her new blouse") isn't mentioned in the lemma or in the plural entry.

Can somebody make the senses so they make sense? Chuck Entz (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The distiction between senses 1 and 2 is grammatical, not lexical, and I have merged them. One could just as well say "the tiger/alligator/oak is a species that...". Is "she got beets on her new blouse" using a different sense than (the plural of) the "root" sense? - -sche (discuss) 20:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Not really. My point was that normal usage is closer to always plural than to always singular. There does seem to be a difference, but it probably isn't lexical: one could say "These are big beets- if you cook up even just one, it makes a decent serving of cooked beets". The first is countable and plural, while the second is a plural mass noun. Like most vegetables, mass noun usage tends to be plural only. You can still say "a cup of cooked beet", but "a cup of cooked beets" sounds more natural. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

百正, 那由他, 阿僧祇[edit]

"Translingual numbers" under the category of "Chinese numeral symbols".

Delete. They are words, not symbols. They need separate entries in Chinese and in Japanese. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

whoop-de-doo[edit]

The list of alternative forms includes many that have two syllables (eg, whoopy-doo) and therefore seem to me to be different terms. I don't know exactly how to characterize the relationship among words in the two groups of terms, but it is not that members of one group are alternative forms of one member of the other group. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

кънига / ⰽⱏⱀⰻⰳⰰ, кънигꙑ[edit]

This OCS word is only attested in the plural. We have it lemmatized twice, once at the (unattested) reconstructed singular кънига (kŭniga) / ⰽⱏⱀⰻⰳⰰ (kŭniga) and once at the plural кънигꙑ (kŭnigy). Presumably either the plural should be made into a form-of definition, or the singular should be deleted as unattested; what is the standard policy? —Vorziblix (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it a plurale tantum, like Lower Sorbian knigły? Or is it only attested with a plural meaning as well? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The former; it’s quite copiously attested with singular and plural meanings, and occasionally translates Greek singulars as well as plurals (βιβλίον (biblíon) and τὰ βιβλίᾰ (tà biblía) both become кънигꙑ (kŭnigy)). —Vorziblix (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I think there are some inflected singular forms, which need to be looked into (care should be taken in distinguishing Old Russian from OCS), such as dative "кънигу".--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The SJS claims that the one-time attested кънигоу is an error for къниги; the expected dative singular would be *кънигѣ in any case, since it’s an a-stem. All of the other attestations given in SJS and SS, which cover almost all of the OCS canon, are plural forms. Do you know of sources that attest the singular? —Vorziblix (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant accusative, not dative. I couldn't find anything, not in the normalised spelling, anyway. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


born in a barn[edit]

This entry has some real problems, but I'm having trouble pinning down exactly how to fix them. The definitions:

  1. (en, idiomatic) Lacking a sense of etiquette; ill-mannered.
  2. Of humble birth, especially when referring to Jesus Christ.
  3. (en, idiomatic) Engaging in the annoying behavior of inappropriately, and usually neglectfully, leaving open a door or window.

I'm more concerned with the first and last definitions, though the middle one seems to be just a play on the other two.

The phrase is mostly used in the rhetorical question: "were you born in a barn?". Asking that is a way of indirectly criticizing someone for bad manners, especially with regard to leaving a door or window open. Another variation is to say "you must have been born in a barn."

The indirectness seems to be where things are going wrong. The best way to see this is by substituting in the definitions: "Were you [Lacking a sense of etiquette/ill-mannered]?". "Were you [leaving open a door or window]?". To start with, the time frame of the phrase is always in the past relative to the time period of the utterance as a whole, but the first and last definitions are in the same time frame. Also, this is a rhetorical question/metaphor, so the phrase isn't supposed to be true- it's just implied that the behavior of the other person is like what one might expect if it were.

At first I thought this could be fixed by moving the entry to "were you born in a barn", but the variations make that difficult.

Any suggestions? Chuck Entz (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

"(idiomatic) In phrases such as were you born in a barn?: criticizing the person to whom the phrase is directed as lacking a sense of etiquette or being ill-mannered." — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Compare "were you born in a tent". Equinox 13:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This has only been directed at me specifically for leaving the door open. I never had the sense that it was about manners but about not knowing enough to close the door or having grown up in a place where it is customary to leave the door open (as if it would be typical to leave barn doors open, which, not having been around barns, let alone been born in one, I don't have sufficient information to comment on). Eric Partridge in A Dictionary of catch phrases actually gives leaving the door open as a sole usage for this phrase, without any attribution of any further underlying meaning. Unless it has been documented that people using this expression are specifically intending this as a comment on manners or etiquette (is there a difference?), lack of education, or humble upbringing, then it would seem to be synthesis to extend the meaning any further than "Close the door!". Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
There is also a weird use to imply delusion of divinity, and related poetic reference to Bethlehem myths. "He thinks he was born in a born." - Amgine/ t·e 16:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

December 2016[edit]

boluf[edit]

Unhelpful pronunciation section, definition that may need cleaning up, and bad synonyms section. —suzukaze (tc) 21:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

distillation[edit]

The third sense if super-long. Perhaps it could be condensed? As a whisky drinker, I'd like to have some mention of that beverage on the page too --Derrib9 (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

adventurer[edit]

Sense "A social pretender on the lookout for advancement; one who pushes his fortune by equivocal means, as false pretences." WTF does that mean? Who speaks like that nowadays anyway? --Derrib9 (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017[edit]

Proto-Slavic Reconstructions[edit]

Not an expert, so I can't really judge if these contributions from the same anon are unpolished gems or candidates for speedy deletion. Any takers? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/šestъ appears to be a candidate for speedy deletion, since we have Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/šestь. The others I can't comment on with certainty. — Kleio (t · c) 18:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/vъnukъ appears to be a gem, so it needs to be polished. Mulder1982 (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

jook[edit]

An anonymous editor added a noun sense ("shirtfront"). It's unclear which of the three etymologies it relates to, or if the sense is legitimate. Cnilep (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I found this in New Partridge 2014: "up your juke under the front of your clothing [...] UK, Scotland 1985". No etymology, though. Cnilep (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

character usage note[edit]

Does someone want to take a stab at overhauling the usage note at character? Not only is it prescriptive, but it is taken directly from the 1913 Webster. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

gripe inn and other Norwegian verbs[edit]

Look at the conjugation at gripe inn. Apparently it's horrible because Template:no-verb sucks. CodeCat would be my prime candidate to improve the template. --Quadcont (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

haldinn[edit]

The current definition "held" and the example sentences seem to have nothing to do with each other. DTLHS (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

H[edit]

The etymologies are a bit confusing. Etymology 1 has "Etymology" under it. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

counter[edit]

The noun definitions of etymology 2 are duplicated in etymology 3. It's also questionable whether they are truly separate etymologies. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:ar-personal_pronouns[edit]

I think the notes at the bottom of {{ar-personal_pronouns}} need cleanup. Huhu9001 made some edits, including notes that nobody will be able to understand. I asked Huhu9001 to improve his edits with examples as necessary, but he refuses. —Stephen (Talk) 02:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Neginoth[edit]

Neginoth is listed as both "uncountable" and "plural only", and its alt form neginot is given as a proper noun. Equinox 06:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I made some basic fixes, but these really needs the attention of a competent Biblical Hebrew editor. @Wikitiki89, perhaps? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether the context label you added actually applies. It seems like it's a word only used in Bible translations. --WikiTiki89 19:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

many a[edit]

The anon who created it, who was probably Wonderfool, who had never read a poem in his/her life, tagged it as poetic. Totally wrong, right? And I'd suggest merging the entry, along with many an, into many. --Quadcont (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

many a at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that dictionaries include the term, usually as a redirect to many. I suppose what distinguishes many + [Noun] (plural) from many a + [Noun] (singular) is the emphasis on the individuality of the [Noun]. DCDuring TALK 15:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Not totally wrong. It definitely has a whiff of song/poetry to it – "I've been a wild rover for many a year…", "Many a time and oft on the Rialto…" – these are expressions familiar from songs and literature, not current in contemporary speech except when trying to generate various kinds of archaic/jocular effects. Ƿidsiþ 14:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yahoo[edit]

There are lots of mistakes and mis-used templates in this definition. There is also something wrong with the usage of the reference tag as well. I don't know how to fix such thing as I am new to Wiktionary but I attempted to fix it. Unfortunately, it didn't work. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017[edit]

party[edit]

Re English noun: derived/related terms seem to be arbitrarily mixed up, and I think there's something wrong with the indentation levels. Equinox 07:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There could be the following problems:
  • Two "=" were twice missing, now the levels should be correct.
  • "Related terms" are present twice.
  • Many or even all of the first "Related terms" are simply derived terms. Well, one could differ between real derived terms which are derivates (new terms formed by derivation, by adding affixes) and compounds (new terms formed by composition, by combining words), but both is placed under "Derived terms" here in Wiktionary.
  • Many hyponyms are also derived terms and many derived terms are also hyponyms. E.g. "birthday party" is a hyponym and a derived term of "party".
  • "party" has several meanings like political party and social gathering. So it might make sense to split it up by senses: "green party" is a hyponym and a derived term of the sense political party, "birthday party" is a hyponym and derived term of the sense social gathering.
    BTW: Both terms, "green party" and "birthday party", might be SOP, but that might be the case for several terms listet at party.
  • "political party" is derived term of party and could be both a hyponym and a synonym depending on the sense of "party". To sense 4, "A political group [...]", it should be a synonym. To sense 3, "A group of people forming one side [...]", it could be a hyponym.
-84.161.58.47 19:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Entries lacking sources[edit]

This category is easily forgotten. I'm posting it here to encourage somebody to take a look and help clean a few. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps that category and Category:Pages with broken file links could be indicated somewhere in the explanatory text at the top of this page, preferably in a box so that they can be spotted easily? — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]

alternative fact[edit]

This has gone through RfD and RfV (not all definitions). I have partially cleaned it up, but I fear that I have lost objectivity. Accordingly, could someone take a look at what I've done and correct it and figure out what to do with the "Usage notes", formerly one of the two etymologies, the "Etymology" that I commented out, and the footnotes to the calques/translations in the translation table. DCDuring TALK 01:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

RFC of the Chinese section.—suzukaze (tc) 04:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: It should be cleaned up for the most part. The glyph origin is still incomplete. The problem is that the glyph origin is different for the three etymologies. Should we have different glyph origin sections (Glyph origin 1, 2, 3), or should they be lumped under one? Pinging @Wyang, Bumm13 as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I think Glyph origins 1, 2, ... would be the best method. Wyang (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

in what world[edit]

Just created this; not really happy. Is the PoS right? Can the def be made clearer? Equinox 12:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I've done some work on it. It seems to be a synonym of how only used as the interrogative part of rhetorical questions intended to highlight the unreality or illogic of something. It reminds me of a similar (but more personal) rhetorical question: what color is the sun in your world? I just added that one. Feel free to correct it. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

zothuis[edit]

Sense: "A bad place of abandon", with subsenses. I'm not entirely clear on what the author intended to communicate, maybe sense and subsenses should be deleted altogether. Subsense 2 seems to be inspired by a sense labelled "ironic" in the WNT, if so then it would just be an ironic use of the literal sense. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

boardmanship[edit]

Very wordy, a bit unclear, not sure there are three true separate senses. Equinox 18:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

shot through with[edit]

I don't think this phrase is really an adjective either. Equinox 20:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

無乜個[edit]

Missing templates, I actually can't even say if it's Mandarin, Cantonese or any other language. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE It should be ok now (excepting that the simplified form is not created), but I'm a bit unsure about the exact definition. @Suzukaze-c, perhaps you might know a bit more. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
All I have to say is that it is equivalent to Cantonese 冇乜嘢 and Mandarin 沒什麼. —suzukaze (tc) 21:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

civitas[edit]

confusing entry – Jberkel (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

thirsties[edit]

Why is this plural only? Surely there could be one of them. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thats what the sources seem to show. They all have an "s" at the end. Elkenthedruuwss (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

mandate[edit]

This has a rubbish definition. --G23r0f0i (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

conceptual model[edit]

Unclear, repetitive wording, perhaps SoP. Equinox 19:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

Weihnacht[edit]

Needs pretty much everything — templates, translations and most of all usage notes. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Translations of Holland and Netherlands[edit]

Presumably, the translations at Holland should use {{trans-see}} and all the translations moved over to the Netherlands entry. —CodeCat 14:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@CodeCat That may be obvious to you as a native Dutch speaker, but with The Netherlands and Holland being synonyms in English how should we decide where that translation table goes? Not saying I disagree, I just honestly don't know. W3ird N3rd (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Chitral[edit]

Definitions are too long and the translations section may need examination. —suzukaze (tc) 03:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Appendix:Zulu given names[edit]

This list was created a few months ago by someone with apparently little knowledge of Zulu. In Zulu, all nouns, including names, must have a noun prefix in front of them, but it's lacking for these, which makes the list of relatively little lexicographical use. @Metaknowledge Any idea what to do with it? —CodeCat 23:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's of little lexicographical use. It seems like the content is correct, so I'd add a note at the top about how it's very inexhaustive and the form of the prefix that names have when used in Zulu, and leave it at that. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Except that I don't know the prefix. Normally, it would be class 1a (prefix u-), as you probably know, but there's some names beginning with vowels and Zulu doesn't allow two vowels to be adjacent in native vocabulary. In theory, the prefix would become a consonant before a vowel-initial word, so is wAmahle an attested name? Modern loans use hyphens instead, so I guess u-Amahle is another possibility. I have no idea. —CodeCat 23:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The u-Amahle version is what is actually used in Zulu. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I found some results for uMahle too but whether they're names, I don't know. —CodeCat 00:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

-TŁÉÉʼ[edit]

I can't even find the senses among those huge tables. Moreover, the senses are not marked with # in the wikitext. —CodeCat 19:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

-TŁʼIIZH[edit]

Not as bad as the one above, but there's still a giant table in the place reserved for senses. Also, "stem set" is not an allowed section. —CodeCat 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"Stem set" is the way Navajo roots change depending on mode and aspect. It is not a "conjugation" table in the standard meaning of it, but if you feel it better fits the practices here, I can make that change.
Then, regarding the "huge" table, it is how the Navajo vocabulary is built up, around roots to which various preffixes are added. In many Navajo verb pages, a lot of information is duplicated from verb to verb belonging to the same root. It is a lot more efficient and genuine to the language to gather this info inside a "root" page. This saves the burden to add to each verb their related verbs. See for instance yoołmas, haiłmáás, neiłmaas in their "related terms" section.
Then, a group of such verbs comes usually in a number of predefined "categories", as motion, successive, operative.. depending on the set of prefixes that the roots can take (for instance, yoołbąs, haiłbąąs, neiłbąąs follows the same pattern as the examples cited above).
In the same way a Indo-European root page just lists the descendant terms in the daughter languages, in the Navajo root pages I just list the verbs, arranged by sense, theme, transitivity and "category". (The only difference being that the Navajo root is not a reconstructed root, it's a lexical root).
I believe that for learners of the Navajo language these are of great help since it helps structuring the lexicon.
The one issue I had I admit is that the # sign doesn't work when I have multiple submeanings with verb tables inbetween them.
What do you propose I do? I'm pinging Stephen because I'd like to get his input in that matter too. @Stephen G. Brown Julien Daux (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
We have pages for roots of attested languages (Category:Roots by language), that's not really an issue. They are treated like any other morpheme. For Proto-Indo-European, though, we list terms derived from a root under "Derived terms". There's nothing in principle against there being a table under "Derived terms" instead of a list, and I think it is a better location than right underneath each sense.
As for stem sets, if it's not a conjugation table, then I assume that these would be considered separate verbs, am I correct? If so, then the situation resembles that of Proto-Indo-European as well, which also had various ways to derive stems for aspects. We list those under "Derived terms" also. See *leykʷ- for example. Would such a format work for Navajo? —CodeCat 20:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Stem sets are not separate verbs, and if anything, are closer to a conjugation. For instance, yoołmas, yiłmáás, neiłmaas, all mean "he is rolling it", but the first one is progressive aspect (he rolls it along), the second is momentaneous (he is rolling it ), the third one is continuative (he is rolling it about). The difference is in the stem : -mas,-máás,-maas. Then each of these verbs can be conjugated for mode (imperfective, perfective, future...). Then many of these verbs can then take on lexical (non-aspectual) prefixes (just like English "to roll", "to roll up", "to roll out"...), like haiłmáás (he is rolling it out horizontally). That's why the notion of theme is so central to Athabaskan languages, because behind a given lexical verb actually hide multiple segments of somewhat predictable meaning, combining meaning, mode, aspect and lexical derivation. (sorry if that I'm not being clear enough).
Based on these premises, that's why I wanted to have the derived verbs right below each senseid, because the verbs are the incarnations of the themes. A meaning listed without actual verbs doesn't really make sense to me. I could move this to the derived section, but then it would be weird for the synonym section to come before the "derived" terms, because the derived terms are the root itself and a way to define it. And doing this would also make it very repetitive and not synoptic enough. Unless I'm allowed to have "derived terms" before "synonyms", and that I skip senses altogether? Julien Daux (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I haven't really ever dealt with these languages but I'm trying to understand. If you consider what you might call a "whole" verb, with all of its forms, what is included in this? Would you consider yoołmas, yiłmáás and neiłmaas to be different forms of a single verb? Why or why not? —CodeCat 22:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a very good question, and actually this is the central question of all Athabaskan linguistics. Verb mechanism in these languages is so foreign that trying to define it in terms of European linguistics necessarily leads to some categorizations and views that don't belong to it.
The lexicographic "tradition" in Navajo is to consider yoołmas, yiłmáás and neiłmaas as separate "verbs", just like "gain" / "regain" or "perceive" / "receive" are in English, even though the first pair is a predictable derivation and the second much less so. This also fits the definition by which these are the bare shape before any inflection for person, tense or mode is added. Anything that remains after removing person, tense or mode is considered a verb (in Wiktionary and in all Navajo dictionaries). This definition is workable because first this how native speakers feel it (they actually explicitly told Young and Morgan after a survey to arrange their 1980 dictionary by lexical verbs rather than per root), and also because as in any language, some unpredictable or specialized meanings sometimes emerge from these lexical verbs, so it means they can clearly stand on their own (for instance haaʼeeł means "it floats up out", but can also mean "it (a baby) is miscarried, aborted". No other verb derived from this root has this specialized meaning).
Now, other views have emerged in the 1970 that the "real" verbal unit is not the verb (like neiłmaas), not the root (like -MÁÁZ, which can occur in various actual meanings, like "to roll" but also "to be spherical", not that far semantically, but some other roots do have much more disparateness), but the theme, which is the combination of : a root, a thematic prefix compound (possibly null), a thematic classifier (possibly null) and a category (motion, stative, successive, operative....). It is a virtual unit, whose awareness to Navajo native speakers still need to be tested, but whose explanatory power is enormous, and articulates the entire lexicon. James Kari was one of the first to investigate that route with the Alaskan Ahtna language. No such work has ever been carried out for Navajo, even though the reality of themes is a striking overarching phenomenon.
A theme is for instance "Ø + Ø + -MÁÁZ (motion)" (to roll) or "ʼa + ni + Ø + -TʼIʼ (motion)" (to stagger) (you'll agree that that would be weird to have pages named so on Wiktionary, but that's how the paper dictionary of Tlingit is construed). Like many motion themes, these themes can combine with the lexical derivation "ná + di + yi + Momentaneous aspect" (to start to...), to give the following lexical verbs: "ńdiimáás" (to start to roll), "ná + ʼa + di + ni + yi + Ø + mom(TʼIʼ)" = "ńdíʼníitʼééh" (to start to wobble). The question being, can all motion themes accept this derivational prefix? Skimming through Young's dictionary, one can notice that many such combinations are missing from his dictionary, raising the question whether this combination can be freely formed or if it is lexical constrained. Until one finds this out, it better to consider each of these lexical verbs as separate lexical units as opposed to the result of a productive derivational process.
Making a break there :). Julien Daux (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Wow, ok. It seems, then, that Navajo verbs are quite similar to Proto-Indo-European ones, in that you have a root that can serve as the basis for one or more aspect stems, whose existance is unpredictable (not every root has every aspect) and whose meaning can also be idiosyncratic. However, I'm not quite clear on why it's necessary to list verbs by sense. The meaning of each verb is determined by the aspect/mood isn't it? —CodeCat 00:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, two things: 1. I needed one place where to list the verbs belonging to the same theme instead of the copied-pasted list found at the end of each verb entry. 2. Showing the actual possible verbs demonstrates the theme's well-foundedness and also shows places where expected forms would be missing. Also because just listing a root and a theme (like a+ni+Ø+T'I') is way too abstract to be useful to anyone. This was actually the first draft I came up with when I started creating pages for root, and after a couple of these, I saw how useless and disconnected from reality it was. See for instance -CHĮ́ that I didn't have time to reformat.
(Keep in mind that when I'm showing 12 derived verbs in a given theme, there can actually be close to 100 in reality...).
One thing that is in my plate is also to create Wiktionary categories for each theme, like "Navajo verbs derived from the theme X". Currently, the verb entries do not show their appartenance to a theme, the Etymology section just lists the prefixes, but doesn't distinguish between those that are thematic from those that are derivational. Julien Daux (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I suppose that "huge table" refers to the theme/classifier tables. The tables look good to me. The Stem sets are important, and that's what they're called. I can't think of a better way to do them. Maybe the Stem sets could be reduced to mere bolded lines, placed under a headline such as ====Usage notes====. Not a very good solution, but if we're going to shoehorn Navajo stem sets into a format intended for English, it might work:

Usage notes[edit]

Stem set
—Stephen (Talk) 02:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

quadrupes[edit]

The entry has "3. (substantive) a quadruped".

  1. This misses the gender of the substantive. According to dictionaries there a three substantives, a masculine, a feminine and a neuter.
  2. It misses the declension of the substantive. The entry would imply that they are declined like the adjective, but that's doubtful. It seems that the adjective has abl. sg. -ī and also -e (maybe in poetry out of metrical reasons?), and might have neuter pl. -ia and gen. pl. *-ium. The masculine and feminine substantive however might have abl. sg. *-e and gen. pl. -um; and the neuter substantive might have plural -ia, gen. *-ium, and abl. sg. *-ī (like e.g. animal).

A doubtful reference for the adjective declension:

Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar for schools and colleges founded on comparative grammar, 1903, p. 53f.:
"121. [...] a. The Ablative Singular commonly ends in -ī, but sometimes -e. [...]
3. The following have regularly -ī:—āmēns, anceps, concors (and other compounds of cor), cōnsors (but as a substantive, -e), dēgener, hebes, ingēns, inops, memor (and compounds), pār (in prose), perpes, praeceps, praepes, teres.
[...]"
b. The Genitive Plural ends commonly in -ium, but has -um in the following:1
1. Always in compos, dīves, inops, particeps, prīnceps, supplex, and compounds of nouns which have -um: as, quadru-pēs, bi-color.
[...]
122. The following special points require notice:—[...] d. Many adjectives, from their signification, can be used only in the masculine and feminine. These may be called adjectives of common gender.
Such are adulēscēns, youthful; [†dēses], -idis, slothful; inops, -opis, poor; sōspes, -itis, safe. [...]
[...]
1 Forms in -um sometimes occur in a few others."

This would mean that adjectives like quadrupes have gen. pl. -um - which would usually imply that the neuter plural is -a and not -ia.
BTW: As for the adjective inops, A&G says it has abl. -ī, gen. pl. -um and no neuter plural (so neither *-ia nor *-a). Maybe note that there is a substantive inopes with gen. pl. -um and a substantive inopia, so finding inopum or inopia doesn't necessarily attest a form of the adjective.
However, dictionaries and grammars sometimes do not to properly differ between the inflection of adjectives and substantivations. Based on cites or references given in dictionaries, it should be like stated before the quote.
Examples of related words:

Cites (based on mentioned forms and given references/cites in dictionaries):

Note: thelatinlibrary.com (TLL), LacusCurtius (LC) etc. are just used as they are easy to mention, and although they could contain errors, the important parts should indeed appear in printed editions.

concolor:

  • Plinius at LC in book 8, 9, 21, 33 has "concolori" which might be abl.

versicolor:

Maybe also see versicolor.
L&S: "abl. versicolori, Liv. 7, 10: versicolore, Prop. 4, 7, 50; Ov. F. 5, 356 [...] Subst.: versĭcŏlōrĭa, ium, n., dyed stuffs, colored woolens. constabat apud veteres lanae appellatione versicoloria non contineri, Dig. 32, 1, 70, § 12; 34, 2, 32, § 6" — Georges: "Plur. subst. [...] pingere versicolora (Ggstz. unicolora), Fronto epist. ad Ver. 1, 1. p. 113, 18 N."
  • Livius at TLL has: "Corpus alteri magnitudine eximium, versicolori veste pictisque et auro caelatis refulgens armis"
  • Popertius has: "et fultum pluma versicolore caput"; at TLL: "effultum pluma versicolore caput"
  • Ovid, also at TLL, has "sic haec est cultu versicolore decens?"
substantive:
  • Plinius at LC has "[...] stupueruntque litora flatu versicoloria pellente vela."
  • Marcus Cornelius Fronto's Epistulae (he lived in the 2nd century A.D., but his letters were found 1815 or later) at TLL has: "Quid si Parrhasium versicolora pingere juberet aut Apellen unicolora aut"
  • Digesta cited with versicoloria are from the 6th century, though they could quote or contain an older text.
    book 32 (chapter "Ulpianus libro 22 ad Sabinum") at archive.org: "Et constabat apud veteres lanae appellatione versicoloria non contineri"; book 34 (chapter "Paulus libro secundo ad Vitellium") at archive.org: "Labeo testamento suo Neratiae uxori suae nominatim legavit "vestem mundum muliebrem omnem ornamentaque muliebria omnia lanam linum purpuram versicoloria facta infectaque omnia" et cetera. Sed non mutat substantiam rerum non necessaria verborum multiplicatio, quia Labeo testamento lanam ac deinde versicoloria scripsit, quasi desit lana tincta lana esse, detractoque verbo "versicolorio" nihilo minus etiam versicoloria debebuntur, si non appareat aliam defuncti voluntatem fuisse."

sepes:

L&S: "six-footed: populi (formicae), App. M. 6, p. 177, 26."
  • Apulejus, Metamorphoses, liber VI. In: Apuleius The Golden Ass being the Metamorphoses of Lucius Apuleius with an English translation by W. Adlington (1566) revised by S. Gaselee, 1922, p. 264f.
    Ruunt aliae superque aliae sepedum populorum undae summoque studio singulae granatim totum digerunt acervum separatimque distributis dissitisque generibus e conspectu perniciter abeunt.
    Incontinently they came, the hosts of six-footed creatures one after another in waves, separating and dividing the grain, and after that they had put each kind of corn in order, they ran away again in all haste from her sight.
    The Latin text is also at TLL.
    Elsewhere "sepedum populorum" was translated as ants (here, in German "Ameisen").
    sepedum here could be an adjective like "of the six-footed peoples" or a substantive like "of the peoples of the six-footed [creatures/animals]". I guess it makes more sense as a substantive just as in the given English translation which uses hosts instead of peoples for populi.

bipes:

L&S: "neutr. plur. bipedia, Aug. Mor. Manich. 9 [...] Subst., mostly contemptuously, of men: hoc ministro omnium non bipedum solum sed etiam quadripedum impurissimo, Cic. Dom. 18, 48: Regulus omnium bipedum nequissimus, as great a rogue as walks on two legs, Modest. ap. Plin. Ep. 1, 5, 14; Cic. Dom. 18, 48; Lampr. Alex. Sev. 9"
  • 3rd or 4th century, Augustinus, De moribus Manichaeorum at augustinus.it does have bipedia, and also quadrupedia: "[...], malum esse animalia in illis singulis nata elementis, serpentia in tenebris, natantia in aquis, volatilia in ventis, quadrupedia in igne, bipedia in fumo." and "Quis enim tantam perversitatem ferat, qua dicitur in tenebrarum gente, cui nihil admixtum erat luminis, animalia bipedia tam firmam, tam vegetam, [...]".
    CCEL has an English translation: "[...] to the animals born in each of these elements,—serpents in the darkness, swimming creatures in the waters, flying creatures in the winds, quadrupeds in the fire, bipeds in the smoke." and "For is it not intolerable perversity to say that in the race of darkness, where there was no mixture of light, the biped animals had so sound and strong, [...]"

quadrupes/quadripes:

L&S: "gen. plur. quadrupedium, Capitol. Ver. 5, 2 [...] equestri celeritate, quadrupedi cursu solum replaudens, App. M. 6, p. 185, 7. [....] Masc. [...]: calcari quadrupedem agitabo advorsum clivum, Plaut. As. 3, 3, 11: reprime parumper vim citatūm quadrupedum, Att. ap. Non. 495, 20: quadrupedum vectiones, quorum, etc., Cic. N. D. 2, 60, 151 [....] Neutr. (sc. animal): cetera quadrupedia, Col. 11, 2, 33: majora, id. 11, 2, 14: [...]: plurima autem obruerit quadrupedia, Jul. Val. Rer. Gest. Alex. 3, 36." — Georges: "neutr.: cetera quadrupedia, Colum.: maiora quadrupedia, Colum.: omnia quadrupedia, Pallad. [...] Genet. Plur. gew. quadrupedum (quadripedum); aber quadripedium, Colum. 1, 2, 5 cod. P. Capit. Ver. 5, 2 cod. B (u. ed. Peter). Isid. orig. 12, 7, 5 cod. Gud. 1."
  • quadrupedi/quadripedi cursu Apul. Met. 6 - TLL has: "Et alacri statim nisu lorum quo fueram destinatus abrumpo meque quadripedi cursu proripio."
    A better source:
    • Apulejus, Metamorphoses, liber VI. In: Apuleius The Golden Ass being the Metamorphoses of Lucius Apuleius with an English translation by W. Adlington (1566) revised by S. Gaselee, 1922, p. 286ff.
      Et alacri statim nisu lorum, quo fueram destinatus,
      abrumpo, meque quadripedi cursu proripio
      Then while I devised these things, I broke suddenly the halter wherewith I was tied, and ran away with all my four feet1
      1 Quadripedi cursu seems to be a phrase for galloping, as in modern Greek στὰ τέσσερα.
  • de quadrupede equo Gell. 18, 5, 5 - in PHI Latin Texts it's "de hoc anagnosta et de quadrupede eco uidetur?"
  • All the given cites for quadrupedia are for neuter substantives.
  • "gen. plur. quadrupedium, Capitol. Ver. 5, 2": At LC is "donata et viva animalia vel cicurum vel ferarum avium vel quadripedum" with the note "So P; quadrupedium B, Peter.". Translation at LC is: "and also live animals either tame or wild, winged or quadruped, of whatever kind were the meats that were served,". So it depends on manuscript or edition, and as avium is a substantive (gen. pl. of avis), so should be quadripedum/quadrupedium, although it's translated with an adjective in this English translation.
  • A GBS preview had "Gen. Pl. quadripedum, bipedum, alipedum usw. sehr oft [etc. very often]" - but it could be that that are the gen. pl.s of substantives and not necessarily of any adjective.

Missing:

  • Missing are cites for the abl. sg. of the substantives.
    The masculine and feminine quadrupēs should have abl. -e as they are substantives and have gen. pl. -um.
    quadrupedia could be a plurale tantum (there are many more neuter pluralia tantum derived from adjectives, e.g. in -ālia from -ālis). But L&S gives a cite for a singular: "crocodilum, quadripes malum et infestum, Plin. 8, 25, 37, § 89" (text at LC). It should be more likely that it belongs to the i-declension like animal with abl. sg. -ī.

-80.133.119.166 05:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

hydroelectric power[edit]

Needs templates and content. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this not just hydroelectric + power? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but we sort of already have nuclear power, wind power, atomic power, etc. I figured that it would be ok to keep it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

pop feminism[edit]

Definition:

  1. The viewpoint that women are or should be in all ways equal to men.

It started out as a minimally-formatted statement of opinion. It was rfc-ed before, but the cleanup apparently sanitized the definition to the point that there's nothing left beyond a very generic description of feminism. Given the collision of mutually-exclusive political narratives about the referent, this needs some very careful thought as to how to say what this is without taking sides. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Very "bold" of me (in the Wikipedian sense), but I just found three citations and wrote a new def: "(sometimes derogatory) A populist, non-academic approach to feminism, suggesting that women can attain equality with men through a positive, go-getting attitude, without the need to examine or change cultural institutions and biases." See what you think. Equinox 13:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

more after the jump[edit]

Linked from after the jump and hit the jump. I think we need to resolve this with a new sense at jump, if anyone feels up to it. Equinox 13:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Equinox I've copied the contents from more after the jump to after the jump and redirected more after the jump to after the jump. For example "This story continues after the jump", "We continue this story after the jump", "after the jump you will find a picture gallery" etc all work without "more". W3ird N3rd (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

авось[edit]

Part of the second definition of the noun авось (avosʹ) contains a definition that sounds more like an adverb: "may still; might yet; possibly". Was this inserted by mistake into the wrong POS header, or is there some way in which it can be rewritten into a nounish definition? — Eru·tuon 00:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Atitarev made that edit. I think it's correct. English uses both verbs and adverbs that have a similar sense (maybe, possibly, could be, might yet, may yet, could happen, etc.), and other languages may well translate a "may yet" with a particle or adverb. Atitarev probably had an example in mind when he made that edit. It would be helpful to add the example. That would make it clear. —Stephen (Talk) 06:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I can see where the SoP confusion is. I am going to fix it. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017[edit]

pineapple[edit]

Under etymology 3. Manifestly not a symbol in our usage. No definition. Should we add something to the noun section or just revert to a previous version? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It is an image symbol, should it go under U+1F34D 🍍 instead then? It's a traditional symbol in imagery and as a word meaning hospitality. The etymology is different from the fruit, since it comes from the existence of the fruit and is usage; and is unrelated to pine+apple that the name of the fruit comes from. The wording form is used in English in the U.S. South (so could be moved to "adjective" then?) The image/shape form is as well. -- 70.51.200.162 15:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Image symbology is part of communication, and we have glyphs here like the unicode emoji symbols, so would seem to be appropriate that the hospitality definition for whence a pineapple appears, should appear on Wiktionary. -- 70.51.200.162 15:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Just not dictionary content. A man is a symbol for men's toilets, but that doesn't give it an extra sense at man. Equinox 16:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, but that would be used in a string of emoji, or other symbolic communication. Wouldn't the men's room merit mentioning at U+1F6B9 🚹 ? (in which our definition actually says it's a men's room symbol); The term "Mens" or "Men's" is written on doors of men's rooms as well, so would seem to be written verbal communication, permitting additions there. (our definition at men's actually does say it means the men's room) -- 70.51.200.162 05:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this seems non-lexical. It's interesting information, but it's better suited to w:Pineapple#Symbolism_and_cultural_history. Of course, if it were used lexically, like "that's not very pineapple [hospitable]", or "Southern pineapple [hospitality] pervaded his every action", that could merit a sense-line in the entry. - -sche (discuss) 18:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a symbol used on signage, so would seem to provide symbolic communication, thus could be lexical, in a symbolic/pictographic lexicon (which is being added to Unicode as we speak, with various emoji additions, etc); It is used in corporate naming of companies, locations and items (The word "pineapple" being attached to hospitality related things) -- 70.51.200.162 05:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
It is possible to find citations of pineapple used to refer to the woodcarving sometimes used to surmount a bedpost (eg, He fell when the pineapple he grabbed came loose from the bedpost). It MIGHT be possible to become convinced that this was a separate meaning of pineapple, somewhat analogous to the definition of landscape ("A picture representing a scene by land or sea, actual or fancied, the chief subject being the general aspect of nature, as fields, hills, forests, water. etc.").
I don't see any evidence that the word was actually used in the "Old South" (or anywhere else before the 20th century) in reference to symbolic pineapples. Some suspect that the pineapple-as-symbol-of-hospitality story is a "tradition" invented by Dole Food Company in the 20th century. Older decorative uses of the pineapple-like motif as decoration maybe attributable to the old meaning of pineapple ("pinecone") (See pineapple in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911.), associated with Bacchus. DCDuring (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

upgrade[edit]

Verb entries 2 and 3 doesn't seem clearly differentiated. Entry 1 talks about technology, but seems to refer to hardware. Only entry 3 is labeled as computing, though all seem tech-related. It seems to me that the example phrase at entry 2 fits better under entry 3. --SentientBall (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that there is any transitive use of upgrade that is computing-specific. Differentiating transitive and intransitive use is a good first step in improving the entry, perhaps along the lines of MWOnline's:
transitive verb
to raise or improve the grade of: such as
a: to improve (livestock) by use of purebred sires
b: to advance to a job requiring a higher level of skill especially as part of a training program
c: to raise the quality of
d: to raise the classification and usually the price of without improving the quality
e: to extend the usefulness of (something, such as a device)
f: to assign a less serious status to upgraded the patient's condition to good
intransitive verb
to improve or replace especially software or a device for increased usefulness
DCDuring (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I've added a missing noun sense, an adverb PoS section, transitive/intransitive labels, some new verb senses, some citations and usage examples. Senses a and f from MWOnline are clearly needed. I'm not as sure about b-e. DCDuring (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

reest[edit]

Random text. Needs proper formatting. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Διόνυσος[edit]

I was asked to put a notice here. The etymology is poorly written; it needs to be formatted and more easier to read. I am not an expert on Greek, but I have an interest on that language. TatCoolBoy (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Entries with the text "from borrowing from"[edit]

[1]. —suzukaze (tc) 10:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Just mentioning, I've heard of "bots" that can do that dirty work! TatCoolBoy (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

people's republic[edit]

I can't make any sense of the etymology. Maybe someone willing to improve on it? TatCoolBoy (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

malware[edit]

Someone has been replacing translations that are direct borrowings from English (i.e. the word malware in other languages) with other terms. I have checked the three Portuguese translations they added and found that malware is much more common (about 5 times) than the most common of them, and the other two are quite rare.

I suspect that they’ve done the same thing to translations in other languages. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Removals were done by Special:Contributions/83.20.240.115 here. —Stephen (Talk) 13:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the translations a bit and restored those borrowed terms. --2A00:F41:4860:4FD7:3411:839:4F7D:67C2 19:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts and your participation in this discussion anon, but I feel that there are still some issues with your edits:
  • you have reintroduced the rare term software mal-intencionado, writing that it is “used by Microsoft in Brazil”; however, even in Microsoft’s website this term is significantly less common than malware;
  • the regional qualifiers you added to software malicioso and software mal-intencionado are absolutely incorrect; both (including software mal-intencionado, despite its rarity) are used in Brazil and Portugal;
  • you added the qualifier Anglicism to several translations and as a label in the definitions; surely that’s information that belongs in the etymology sections of their respective entries, not in the translation table.
Ungoliant (falai) 20:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I've just corrected it. Please take a look.
As for software mal-intencionado, it does seem to be used by Microsoft as a translation of malicious software quite commonly. You can verify that here: https://www.microsoft.com/Language/en-US/Search.aspx --2A00:F41:4860:4FD7:3411:839:4F7D:67C2 20:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

words ambiguously defined as "dinner"[edit]

These words define themselves as "dinner", which can mean either "midday meal", "evening meal", or "main meal of the day, regardless of when it's eaten". Can you clarify which sense is meant if you know any of these languages? (A few entries define themselves as "lunch, dinner" or "dinner, supper", but I can't tell if the second word is intended as a synonym or an indication the word refers to both the midday and evening meals. Some entries are homographic with words meaning "evening", but that doesn't ensure they mean "evening meal", compare middag!) Strike through words you've done. - -sche (discuss) 04:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. dinnéar
  2. jantar
  3. jinnair
  4. long'
  5. pranzu
  6. päivällinen
  7. pāʻina
  8. unnukkorsiutit
  9. àm-tǹg
  10. вечера
  11. вячэраць
  12. дэшхын
  13. обед
  14. обеденный
  15. обід
  16. обѣдъ
  17. оройн хоол
  18. павячэраць
  19. поужинать
  20. ручати
  21. ճաշ
  22. սպաս
  23. ארוחת ערב
  24. تعشى
  25. شام
  26. عشا
  27. عشاء
  28. غدا
  • What makes this one special? This kind of problem is so widespread that we could use some kind of automation to at least assist in identifying all the deficient FL definitions.
Don't we have {{rfgloss}} (or {{gloss-stub}} or whatever its real name is) for this? If not, we should create a template that addresses this specific kind of problem. DCDuring (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
An inspection of the number of entries in Category:Requests for clarification of definitions by language shows the very modest level of use of these templates. DCDuring (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Arbi[edit]

Should the common noun sense be lowercase? Compare Arbër, arbër? (Also, will whatever bot adds {{also}} reach these at some point?) - -sche (discuss) 19:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

part of speech of minus, times, over[edit]

plus, of[edit]

Our entries disagree on whether mathematical terms like "plus", "minus", "times" and "over" are prepositions (as argued on Talk:minus and asserted by other dictionaries), or conjunctions. Does anyone want to argue against relabelling them prepositions? @Msh210, as a mathematician and a wiki-lexicographer, what is your view? - -sche (discuss) 20:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"Plus" and "minus" can be used without a preceding word, which is not typically a feature of conjunctions. "Times" seems to be more in between, as you can say "fifty times that", where "that" appears to be the head of the phrase rather than "fifty". However, like plus and minus, "times" has started to be used without a preceding word as well. —CodeCat 21:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
And? (See and (sense 1.9).) DCDuring (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, -sche. I'll quote John Lawler from 1997:
Since the basic operations of arithmetic… postdate the Classic Latin Eight Parts of Speech, and since… we're not speaking Latin here, why be surprised if the words for them don't fit the Procrustean Paradigm?
Mathematicians would call them "operators" or "relations", and that's not a bad name. Check out "divided by", a participial phrase, but equivalent to a true preposition, "over". Parts Of Speech are for grade school (if that). Let's not let our zest for the Classics get in the way of numeracy the way the way it has of literacy.
Of course he's a linguist, not a lexicographer, so don't mind his descriptivism. The relevance of his comment to us is in its pointing out the difficulty of categorization; see other posts in that thread for more.
I don't know what to call these, myself, and see nothing wrong with "preposition".​—msh210 (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I've relabelled plus a preposition; although one of its senses was "and also", even that does not seem to require being a conjunction, as "besides" and some other terms can be substituted into the usex in its place, (plus|and|besides which) it does seem to be the same POS as the senses before it, which are argued above and on the talk pages and in other dictionaries to be prepositions. The other entries were already labelled prepositions. - -sche (discuss) 21:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

という[edit]

It's a mere stub. —suzukaze (tc) 04:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, do we want this entry? Can't this be analysed as just と+言う? (although, it is present in other dictionaries.) —suzukaze (tc) 06:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I see it also in dictionaries, and that puzzles me -- this doesn't strike me as particularly lexicalized, it's just (to, quotative particle) + 言う (iu, to say).
@Shinji, are we missing something? Do you view this as more than just SOP? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 09:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
How about making it a redirect? Daijisen has an entry for という, but the content is repeated in the entry of いう. という is special in that it can have a pause before it, but it is rather a characteristic of the particle . — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

get this[edit]

POS? DTLHS (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. A nonnative speaker who knows what get and this mean might well be baffled by "get this!". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it's an interjection? - -sche (discuss) 22:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that someone with too basic an understanding of English might have trouble getting this, when it is used in the way indicated, at least in written dialog, if not in speech, where tone and gesture supplement the words. But the sense of get (to understand) is fairly common and is used with any number of objects, though, eg, Get her. Did you get the car he was driving? I didn't get what they were trying to say., He wasn't getting it.. It's the same as or close to get in He didn't get the joke.
It seems SoP to me. DCDuring (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
"I'd hear those thrift shop cats say, 'Brother, get her! Draped on a bedspread made from three kinds of fur!" Equinox 22:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

OpCon[edit]

Flagged not listed --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

OPCON[edit]

Flagged not listed --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

-cele, -coel[edit]

-coele; category 1, category 2[edit]

Following Wiktionary:Tea room/2017/May#-cele_-coele_-coel_suffices, Kwataswagri and I edited these entries to more clearly distinguish the two suffixes, one from κήλη and one from κοῖλος. Entries which end in these suffixes probably need to be checked to see if they're linking to the right one. Any words which more commonly use the "wrong" suffix would be interesting to find. - -sche (discuss) 05:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I checked all the derived terms, and they are all formed as expected, except blastocele, pseudocele and schizocele (cavities using the tumor/hernia suffix), and possibly laryngocele and ureterocele. - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
And of those first three -celes, -coel seems to be more common and more standard in each case. Whereas, laryngocele and ureterocele are apparently the most common spellings of those words, with -coele less common in Ngram Viewer and -coel not showing up. This issue may be resolved at this point, but confusion and entries with the "wrong" suffixes will probably re-arise in the future. - -sche (discuss) 05:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I've added -coele and the "derived terms" categories to the header so that pointers will be left on their talk pages, too, when this is archived (by aWa). - -sche (discuss) 06:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2017[edit]

appuli[edit]

Formatting, inflections for English. DTLHS (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

malware#Translations[edit]

IP users (maybe the same person) have made a number of sum of parts entries in various languages, which are translations of the English malware. I {{rfd}}'ed some of them. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be the same person. They seem to be working off of some source with the translations of PC/Computer terms into a wide variety of languages- I'm guessing something put out by Microsoft. Since they don't know most of the languages, they can't tell if the terms are idiomatic. The entry at malware seems to have been their initial and main focus, but they've been working on the whole range of terminology relevant to PC operating systems and software.
I brought up the subject of their edits here in March with a concern that they were editing in so many languages that they couldn't possibly know all of them. You confirmed that their edits seemed to be accurate, and the discussion was archived to User talk:Anth2943. That account has since been renamed, so it's now User talk:Deletedarticle. There have been a series of edits blanking the page and others reverting the blanking, but for the moment you can see the archived discussion there. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Entries in Category:en:Language families[edit]

Language family names are generally both adjectives and nouns. But some of the entries here contain only an adjective definition, while others contain only a noun. Would anyone be willing to sort these out? —CodeCat 16:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

several "Determiner & Pronoun"[edit]

The "Determiner & Pronoun" frankenheader, added in diff, needs to be cleaned up and sorted into two separate headers. - -sche (discuss) 14:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

cleaned up by undoing the above-linked edit. - -sche (discuss) 04:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
It's cleaned up - but does it now again miss a PoS?
If the word can be both, determiner and pronoun, and if the term pronoun is used in a strict sence, then properly two PoS headers (===Determiner=== and ===Pronoun===) have to be added as in that. The definitions of the two PoS could even be very similar, but the examples would differ. Examples for the determiner should look like "several people were killed" (several + noun + verb) while for the pronoun it should look like "several were killed" (several + verb, no noun). In same cases it could be more complicated to determine the PoS because of possible ellipsis (compare with adjectives vs. nominalizations thereof).
Sense 3 should indeed have a pronoun variant. By the definition I would think that sense 1 has none, while I'm not sure about 2.
This should be real examples of a pronoun with a sense similar to 3, so if there are no objections, a pronoun should be attested by it:
  • 2011, Daniel Baracskay, The Palestine Liberation Organization: Terrorism and Prospects for Peace in the Holy Land, p. 157 (google):
    Several were killed in Feburary 2008 when a suicide bomber from Hamas attacked a shopping center in Dimona.
  • 1811, Edward Augustus Kendal, Pocket Encyclopedia or a Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Polite Literature. Vol. I, London, p. 209 (google):
    In 1538, a proclamation was issued against them, and several were burnt in Smithfield.
    It's "The baptists in England ... . other sentence. In 1538 ...". Just like them is a pronoun, several should here be one too.
  • 1820, A Graphic and Historical Description of the City of Edinburgh. Vol. 1. Views in Edinburgh and its Vicinity, London, p. 128 (google):
    Thus several were burnt for heresy during this year; and when cardinal Beaton succeeded to the see of St. Andrews, a still greater persecution ensued.
    There it is "... authors. another sentence. Thus several ...". Anyhow, "several" should still be a pronoun in this cite.
(If secondary sources could be used like in some other wiktionaries, then dictionary.com with "(as pronoun; functioning as plural): ..." could be used.)
-84.161.54.171 18:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Cambridge Grammar of the English Language argues against including several and many other determiners in the word class 'pronoun', but I don't think any dictionaries follow that advice. Consider this from page 421:
"The fused-head analysis avoids the need to recognise a large amount of overlap between the pronoun and determinative [sic] categories. In the present grammar, there are just four items that belong in both categories: what, which, we, and you." DCDuring (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Other dictionaries follow various courses: AHD, MWOnline, and WNW call it only a pronoun; Oxford (online), Cambridge (online) and Macmillan have "Determiner & Pronoun"; Collins English and COBUILD have "Determiner"; RHU shows no word class. DCDuring (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

Labelled a "prefix", but with the form of a suffix (preceded by a hyphen). In the derived terms, it seems to be an interfix, and is spelled out as -é-. It seems like it should be moved to -é- and the POS should possibly be updated.

Can you be more specific? What language are you talking about? —CodeCat 19:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, sorry; Navajo, the section that's tagged with {{rfc}}. (I wonder why the template accepts a language parameter but doesn't generate language-section links like {{rfv}}.) - -sche (discuss) 19:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

See also , -ba and maybe others. - -sche (discuss) 19:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This one is a pretty tricky one.
First, any morpheme found before the final stem has traditionally been considered a prefix in Athabaskan literature, but as typical of these languages, prefixes can be stacked up to 8 or more in a row, making them appear as infixes, but they really are prefixes (just like suffixes can be stacked in langages like Japanese or Turkish). Now, in all Navajo etymology sections here on Wikipedia the convention appears to be to hyphenate both before and after any non-initial and non-final morphemes. It is what it is, but it doesn't really change the actual nature of said morphemes.
Secondly, on the nature of -í, -é, -ba,... : these morphemes are actually postpositions found as part of a constituant of a prefix, but they never occur outside of these prefix combos, unlike postpositions , -aa... This means, they require a personal pronoun "prefix" before them (sh-é: about me, n-é: about you, b-é: about him,...) and the whole thing becomes a legit "prefix" (shé-, né-, bé-). So it seems we could move to -í- but where the logic might break is that some of these postpositional prefixes can also act as regular postpositions (like above) , so that positing both a pre- and a pre/post- hyphenated forms might lead to confusion and unnecessary repetitions.
If I had to choose, I would prefer to keep them classified as (pre-hyphenated) postpositions rather than prefixes (or even less so, suffixes). —Julien D. (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, see {{nv-prefix}} for a list of these postpositional prefixes so far referred to here in Wikipedia (second table). There is only a couple of them, so the situation is still manageable. —Julien D. (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Navajo is mainly a prefixing language. There are only a few suffixes. Prefixes may be stacked up to eight or more deep. For example, the verb form diʼnisbąąs ("I am in the act of driving a vehicle into something and getting stuck") is formed with a final stem and five prefixes: ʼa-di-ni-sh-ł-bąąs. I think this entry is good as is. —Stephen (Talk) 14:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

しか[edit]

  1. The pronunciation section does not use {{ja-pron}} and probably doesn't apply to every word in the entry
  2. しか#Kun-reading_of: is definitely wrong, many of the words listed are not kanji and use on'yomi

suzukaze (tc) 06:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Entries by User:Vuzorg[edit]

They seem to think every word is a noun, add random invalid parameters to templates, and have also added odd "Zazaki language" definitions to some entries. —CodeCat 13:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Because they are noun. Vuzorg (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Not if your definitions are correct. For instance, you defined berz as "high", which is an adjective, and you put it in Category:zza:Grammar without any explanation as to what it has to do with grammar. @Vahagn Petrosyan do you think this might be a Marmase sock? Chuck Entz (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Looks like Vuzorg does not know English as well as they think they do (en-3 in their Babel box; I would speculate en-1 would be more accurate), and they do not quite understand the proper entry format. — Eru·tuon 19:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but I would go further and say they don't understand the concepts behind the formatting, either. For instance, they had inca derived from "Indo-European English here", which shows they don't know what an etymology is for, and elsewhere they had a definition line that said "Zazaki language" before the actual definition lines, and added Category:zza:Grammar to several entries that weren't about grammar.
Their account was created a week after Marmase was globally locked in 2015, and they've avoided notice because, until today, no one has looked at or edited their work except for bots (and in one diff, User:Embryomystic editing like a bot). Unless Vahag can confirm the accuracy of their edits, I'm inclined to delete and remove it all as "No usable content given". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I have cleaned up after the user based on my Zazaki sources. His definitions are usually correct, but the formatting is terrible. I don't know if this is Marmase's sock. @Vuzorg, please look at the changes we made to your contributions and learn our formatting guidelines. --Vahag (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey what's problem there? I'm not sock puppet of Marmase. I only don't know formatting guidelines very well. I won't contribute anymore. And Eru·tuon, you, be careful when you speak about a subject, don't attack me, even you don't know me, you can't judge me and my English. Do I know you? No, so I don't talk about you. Vuzorg (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@Vuzorg: You're right, and I apologize for my comment about your English. — Eru·tuon 19:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About Japanese[edit]

Still mildly out-of-date, and the formatting makes it difficult to understand sometimes. —suzukaze (tc) 17:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About Han script[edit]

Out-of-date. —suzukaze (tc) 17:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

петух[edit]

Senses 2 & 4. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017[edit]

Translation tables of get[edit]

Translation table glosses that translate only part of the definition:

  • “fetch” for “(transitive) To fetch, bring, take.”
  • “adopt, assume (a position)” for “To adopt, assume, arrive at, or progress towards (a certain position, location, state).”

Glosses that point to God knows which definition:

  • “don”
  • “doff”
  • “betake”

Glosses written in a way that encourage incorrect translations:

  • “go or come” for “To cause to come or go or move.”: wrong transitivity
  • I’ve changed “respond to” to “respond to (a telephone call, a doorbell, etc)”, to prevent people from adding translations of the more typical use of “respond to”. The Finnish and Swedish translations need to be checked.
  • “colloquial: be” for “To be. Used to form the passive of verbs.”
  • I changed “become ill” to “to become ill with” to prevent intransitive translations from being added. The Bulgarian, Dutch and Swedish translations need to be checked.

In addition, some tables could be merged into other entries and changed to {{trans-see}}

Ungoliant (falai) 14:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

ÿ[edit]

Maybe this definition should be distributed into the appropriate language sections. —suzukaze (tc) 03:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017[edit]

technical[edit]

Definition one is copied verbatim from Century 1911:

Of or pertaining to the useful or mechanic arts, or to any academic, legal, science, engineering, business, or the like terminology with specific and precise meaning or (frequently, as a degree of distinction) shades of meaning; specially appropriate to any art, science or engineering field, or business
The words of an indictment must be technical.
I am too tired to deal with this now, but it should not remain in this state. Other parts of the entry have wording problems (dated, etc.) as well. DCDuring (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring I changed it, it's not perfect but hopefully better. W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring Can the {{rfc}} be removed? W3ird N3rd (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I rolled it back. That may be the primary definition in Urban Dictionary or in your idiolect, but certainly not in that of most others. The "improvement" was shorter, but didn't provide the basic definition. See technical at OneLook Dictionary Search for the basic definition, usually the first shown, in the opinions of professional lexicographers. DCDuring (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @DCDuring I just thought of one explanation that would explain everything: you thought I had only changed the first sense and overlooked the other two senses and example. In that case your revert is perfectly understandable. If this is what happened, you can revert the revert (hmm..) and ignore what I said above. W3ird N3rd (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    Au contraire, the added definitions, like the noun "jargon" as a definition for the adjective technical, scared me even more. DCDuring (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    Okilly-dokilly, thanks for the clarification. W3ird N3rd (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Module:kum-translit[edit]

Module:sty-translit[edit]

Module:slr-translit[edit]

Module:uum-translit[edit]

Module:chg-translit[edit]

Module:krc-translit[edit]

Module:kim-translit[edit]

Module:dlg-translit[edit]

Module:kaa-translit[edit]

Transliteration modules created by a user banned for making bad edits to transliteration modules. —suzukaze (tc) 03:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

(None of them are in use.) —suzukaze (tc) 10:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ameriqa[edit]

Zazaki or Kurdish? DTLHS (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

pisti[edit]

Cebuano section. —CodeCat 12:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

camera[edit]

I have created a new entry for movie camera, and found some translations under camera. I would transfer them, but they appear to be a bit of a mess. DonnanZ (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:English surnames from India[edit]

These surnames should be categorized by the respective languages. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Advaita[edit]

First definition:

  1. A Sanskrit philosophical term that may be literally rendered in English as nonduality: denoting that though differences and variegation appear in the human condition they are unreal or illusory and are not ultimately true.

This is supposed to be an English-language entry, not a Sanskrit one, and the wording smells of teaching Enlightenment to the ignorant. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

प्री (prī)[edit]

The definitions are unreadable. Heydari (talk|contibs) 16:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

obnubilus[edit]

The header says Old Latin, but everything else in the entry is regular Latin. —CodeCat 11:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Edits of Campista1891[edit]

Campista1891 (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks) seems to be the same person as Juantheman96 (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks), 99.194.52.254 (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks) and 99.194.53.66 (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks). What they all share is a preoccupation with terms related to socialism and religious calendars, a very rigid view as to what things mean, and a willingness to remove valid content to make entries fit their concepts. Sometimes they're basically right, and the edits are an improvement, but usually they're at least partially wrong- often in subtle ways that are hard to categorically rule out. They also have a tendency to come back later and re-add content that was removed or reverted. They've been getting away with a lot of it because no one has been consistently paying attention to all of what they're doing.

Someone needs to go through the entries edited by all of the above accounts and IPs and rework them in the interest of what's best for the entries. As much as I dislike the games they're playing, I don't want to just revert everything they did- as I said, a number of their edits are at least partly an improvement, even if the overall pattern is harmful. It will take a bit more time and editorial judgment to do it right than I can put into it myself right now. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, I took a look att Campista1891's contributions and made necessary changes. I'll take a look att the other two this evening. Thank you for keeping an eye on these edits — I've reverted several of them myself while tracking anons. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

suzukaze (tc) 05:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

一本[edit]

Is "numeral" really the right way to describe this? —suzukaze (tc) 06:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

No, "SOP" is a much better description- unless you think we should have entries like "四十三本"... Either delete it, or use {{&lit}} like the Chinese section already does. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

bankruptcy[edit]

A mishmash of things have been stuck under "Related terms": some are derived terms, some are synonyms, some would belong under "See also", and some may just be junk. I don't have time to sort these out now - could someone else have a look? — Paul G (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2017[edit]

far-flung[edit]

Unsure how to fix template. Spaced forms need to be removed. "Further flung" etc. (with a space) is not an inflection of "far-flung" (with a hyphen). Equinox 18:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

mim[edit]

"Scottish", could be Scots or Scottish Gaelic. DTLHS (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I did find it in Scots. I've make the distinction clear. Not sure if in Scots Gaelic though Leasnam (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

slanina[edit]

Slovak / Slovene confusion. DTLHS (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

No confusion: in this diff the IP copies the slovene section and gives the original a Slovak header. The only difference between the two is that header. Even if there should be a Slovak section, the current content is all Slovene- it should be removed as "no usable content given". Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Mulder1982 (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

fyrmest[edit]

Two alternate forms sections, unclear if one is supposed to apply to only the adjective / adverb. DTLHS (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I got rid of the second (fyrmesta) as that is really an inflected form. Leasnam (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

measure the drapes[edit]

The etymology needs a little bit of cleanup. 123.136.112.104 06:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

The Middle Chinese and Old Chinese readings (there should be three) seem to be out of place. It is also unclear what the different meanings are for the different readings. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Note (Schuessler, 2007): "This word could be a cognate or variant of above, but the same graph also writes a word (ɣuoᴮ) ‘overnight wine’ [Shi 302, 2] with which it may be related since means ‘buy wine’. Karlgren (GSR 49b’) has assigned readings to meanings as given above, yet traditional commentaries and dictionaries don’t agree which reading, or , goes with which meaning." — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: I did some re-editing, and I removed the RFC tag after I think the article is usable, without seeing here. As far as I know, the sence ‘to buy alcoholic drink’ has a definite pronunciation /*kuo/. The sense ‘overnight alcoholic drink’ does have different accounts in historical documents, and I accepted both, whithout thinking much. Any other thing need to do? Dokurrat (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Mayberry Machiavelli[edit]

This was originally the Wikipedia article squeezed into dictionary format. A great deal of cleanup has already been done, but the "definition" is basically a string of quotes from a description of the alleged practices of this group, and not a definition at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

gattu[edit]

Unclear what the multiple forms refer to. 21:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

it's a long road that has no turning[edit]

Must clean the meanings. --TNMPChannel (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017[edit]

withspeak[edit]

This English entry was created 7 years ago by User:Leasnam with two senses:

  1. To contradict; speak against.
  2. To gainsay; renounce.

There were two quotes added at the time it was created. The first (on the first sense) is a quote from a science fiction short story which gives the word as an example of a made-up Germanized substitute for contradict, albeit in a sentence. The second (on the second sense), used it as a one-off science fiction coinage for some kind of telepathic or other deeper-level communication, which doesn't match the second sense at all.

User:-sche changed the second sense to (sort of) match the quote:

  1. To direct conversation or questions (to).

I've only been able to find a couple of actual uses in Books (here and here) and a couple dozen uses in Groups (mostly not Usenet) by a few non-native speakers, supporting the "contradict" part of the first, so it might squeak by rfv. I'm not sure what the original second sense even means, since gainsay and contradict are synonyms and renounce means something else. The replacement second sense is only found in the one science fiction short story quoted, and it's in-universe at that.

I'm not sure exactly how to approach this. I'm not sure whether it would be worthwhile to rfv the first sense, but it should be labeled as rare or nonstandard, or something. I'm not sure if archaic makes sense, since I can't find anything more than a century old (Middle English has it, but under a different spelling). Maybe I'll rfv the second sense. The quotes already in the entry should probably be removed- if not, the author attribution needs to be corrected on both. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

To me we seem to have as many as 5 definitions offered and two citations which are, erm, ambiguous, possibly irrelevant. For example, is "speak against" meant to be the same as "contradict" or is it something akin to "denounce"? I propose that we limit the damage that this entry can cause should it prove as wrong as it seems by inserting {{trans-see}} for each of the five definitions. And that we RfV each of the five definitions. Century 1911 doesn't have an entry, though they do have one for withsay.
The practice of starting an entry from its etymology, making sloppy definitions, and offering such shoddy "evidence" makes for bad entries, as we have seen before. DCDuring (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
What we need to also do (in addition to the suggestions (?) mentioned above) is to quit thinking that entry creation is ever a final step in adding any term--preferably it is; but sometimes it is not, despite best efforts to make it so. The whole purpose of this project is to allow for multiple user inputs to ensure things are correct and balanced. So if it needs cleaning up, let's clean it up. Yeah, if you're expecting everything I do to be perfect all the time, well I've got disappointing news for you... Leasnam (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring, and to answer to your comment about the etymological connection, No, the last known definition is not a surefire way to know how the word is used/will be used today, but it is absolutely the most logical place to start with, especially when the current usage is rather fuzzy Leasnam (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
For sense #2, I believe we could also add "speak or answer back", no ? That is not an inherited sense, but it is analogous to what with- connotes in related modern words, like withdraw (draw back), withhold (hold back), so it seems like the author might mean "the only timeframe in which he could speak/answer back to the Spirit Ring" Leasnam (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Both the "1957" (really 1999) and 2010 quotes added to sense 2 are both from the same short story, "The days of Solomon Gursky", by Ian McDonald, which appeared in several anthologies. In both cases you attributed it to the editor of the anthology, not the author. Your other science fiction quote (added to sense 1) is from another short story that first appeared in 1984 in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction magazine (now w:Asimov's Science Fiction), "Blued Moon" by w:Connie Willis (Asimov didn't write the story, he just had his name in the title of the magazine). As for sense 2, the context of "1957" quote shows that the word wasn't limited to responding, and in fact seems to be based on the idea of "speaking with", which isn't the same sense of with, at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz, Okay, Thanks for that ! I'll get these updated Leasnam (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz, is it appropriate to call this an inherited word, or a (re)borrowing from Middle English ? I can't really find older uses of the word, and I don't have access to OED. If the word indeed shows a gap in use, I think it's good to show it with a label of nonstandard. Otherwise, if it continued throughout (doubtful), then rare might be better (?) . In any event, I feel weird saying it's inherited from ME...Leasnam (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Duckburg[edit]

Leaving aside the question of whether the proper-noun sense meets the requirements of WT:FICTION, this entry has a translation table full of terms in languages the sole editor of the entry doesn't speak, including Gothic. That's right- Gothic. Even scarier, some of the translations are bluelinks- because that same editor has been creating entries in languages they don't speak for a term that probably doesn't meet CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

And what exactly should be cleaned up? Should t (in {{t|CODE|TERM}}) be changed into t-check? The German translation for example is correct, so it could be changed back to t. Whether or not the German term or any other translations meets WT:FICTION should be a matter of WT:RFVN to decide. -84.161.12.35 09:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Jeames[edit]

Someone asked me on my talk page to clean this up. I don't really know what to do with it. Equinox 23:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Looking at User talk:Equinox, it doesn't seem like someone asked you on your user page: user page's first post is from 20zh November 2017 (this revision)‎, post above from 12th October.
  • The etymology seems to be copied from it's source (Adrian Room, Dictionary of Pseudonyms, 5th ed., p. 518, s.v. C.J. Yellowplush). Is it a copyright violation?
  • "used this name" - which name? The source makes it clear by the dictionary entry: The pseudonym C.J. Yellowplush.
    "The same character appeared" - which character? Charles James Yellowplush is the purported author and the servant was a living guy. "character" seems to refer to Charles James Yellowplush as if he is the purported author and the character in his story, but IMHO it's not so clear.
-80.133.98.186 04:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

Would appreciate it if someone could clean this up to the current standard for singular zi entries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I did some cleaning up. Dokurrat (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

word up[edit]

These definitions are probably all pretty good, but formatting is weird. Dunno why someone put all those "unnecessary" "speech marks". It's something I can't stand. --P5Nd2 (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:en:Family[edit]

A lot of the entries here would be better placed in Category:en:Family members. —Rua (mew) 12:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Or just delete the new cat. --Lirafafrod (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:en:Anatomy[edit]

A lot of entries here would be better placed in Category:en:Body parts or its subcategories. —Rua (mew) 14:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:en:Pathology[edit]

A lot of entries here would be better placed in Category:en:Diseases or Category:en:Disease. —Rua (mew) 14:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/kalw-[edit]

PIE a. --Barytonesis (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

/a/ was rare but not nonexistent in PIE. There isn't much else that could have given all the attested forms. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @JohnC5, I don't know how to address this RFC, but maybe we can resolve it by citing the reconstruction? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @Metaknowledge: This word/etymon has been a problem for a long time, given the *a vocalism and its proposed descendants.
      • In order to get the sequence -lv- in Latin, you need to have a syncopation of PIt. *-VlVwV-, since PIt. *-lw- regularly yields L -ll-. This means that the PIt. form has to look like *kale/owos. Some have tried to set up forms like PIE *kolHwos, but then you run into a whole bag of worms of whether Saussure's Effect is real (see Nussbaum "The 'Saussure Effect' in Latin and Italic"), and the a vocalism is still problematic. De Vaan on the other hand does something like PIE *kl̥H-e/o-wó-s > PIt. *kale/owos > L calvus, with cognates Sanskrit कुल्व (kulva), Avestan 𐬐𐬀𐬎𐬭𐬎𐬎𐬀 (kauruua, thin-haired) < PIE *kl̥H-wó-s. Regardless of whether this etymology is good or whether we believe in PIE *a vocalism, the current reconstruction cannot possibly give Latin calvus.
      • Proto-Balto-Slavic *galwā́ˀ, Proto-Slavic *golъ, and Proto-Germanic *kalwaz all seem to point to a different etymon *golH-wo-s, whose initial *g is hard to square with *k.
    • The overall answer is no, there is not way this form can account for pretty much any of the proposed descendants. —JohnC5 10:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

canvass[edit]

Significant overlap between definitions; ambiguity as to which definition each citation actually supports. DCDuring (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Etymologies by User:Rajkiandris[edit]

They're formatted incorrectly and aren't actually etymologies, all they do is mention a Finnish cognate. They do this even if said Finnish cognate has an entry on the same page with a proper etymology. It seems to me like they just don't want to put any effort in but would rather leave it for someone else to clean up. —Rua (mew) 16:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tropylium, if you haven't noticed. I'm not sure anyone else has the expertise needed to clean these up. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed, yes. My workflow on cleaning up the minor Finnic languages goes usually through checking up from Proto-Finnic entries once they've been sourced, though, so that may take a while before it hits all of these "naturally". I've barely even started the initial source literature scan (going on at User:Tropylium/Finnish inherited vocabulary).
This also makes me wonder if a database dump search for Etymology sections that do not use any of our etymology templates ({{der}}, {{inh}}, {{bor}}, {{suffix}}, {{compound}} etc.) might be worthwhile at some point. Maybe after our eternity project to depreciate {{etyl}} finishes… --Tropylium (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

mayor#Spanish[edit]

The Spanish entry includes a definition for el mayor and related forms as the superlative form of mayor. This is correct, though probably not deserving of mention: my understanding is that the general rule in Spanish is that el or la followed by any comparative results in the superlative, e.g. el más guapo (the most handsome). In this case, mayor is already a comparative form of grande or viejo, so más is unnecessary (and indeed, incorrect).

Also, is there a more appropriate means of annotating mayor as a comparative when in the sense of bigger or older? Mayor is apparently not always a comparative as it has an additional sense of wholesale, so noting it in the headword line is not appropriate (unless we add separate headwords for its comparative and non-comparative senses). Rriegs (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Some useful points you raise. You are of course correct about the structure of comparatives and superlatives in Spanish. However, mayor isn't always a comparative. It certainly isn't a strict comparative of viejo, just it means "older". And mayor itself doesn't mean wholesale - that's venta al por mayor (although I'd like to move that page to al por mayor. I'll have a shot at rewriting the page. --P5Nd2 (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Your changes make for a significant improvement, thank you! I'm curious, though, whether you mean senses 6 and 7 ("head; boss" and "(music) major") to be adjectives (more specifically, noun adjuncts) or nouns. If the former, then usage would be like ella es la cajera mayor to mean she's the head teller (as opposed to she's the oldest/biggest teller). If the later, then these should be moved under a ====Noun==== heading and usage would be like ella es la mayor to mean she's the boss. ―Rriegs (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

derecho#Spanish[edit]

The Spanish entry has an additional headword for the plural derechos in the sense of duties, taxes, fees, or charges. Because this page concerns the non-plural derecho and a separate page already exists for the plural derechos, shouldn't this sense be moved over there? Alternately, is it necessarily the case that singular derecho can't have this sense? I note that the English counterparts all work fine in the singular (duty, tax, fee, and charge), even if the plural is also commonly used ("hidden fees", "filing one's taxes", etc.). ―Rriegs (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

absolute superlative[edit]

This entry is a confusing mess. The formatting issues are just the beginning; the real issue is that the definitions are actually just a collection of examples from various languages. As noted in the talk page, the concept of absolute superlative should be language independent; its definition should be something like:

  1. An adjective form indicating a quality expressed to the greatest possible extent, in contrast to the comparative superlative, which instead indicates a quality expressed to the greatest extent within some specific context.

A significant feature of absolute superlatives is that some languages use different inflections for the absolute and comparative cases. Accordingly, it is reasonable to still include some language examples in that context.

As an additional observation, I think the Romanian examples are actually just intensifying adverbs, not absolute superlative forms. Wikipedia provides a different explanation using the adverb phrase cel mai and related forms. ―Rriegs (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Formatting should be slightly improved now (diff), but that doesn't address the real problems. The current senses maybe are better as usage notes in foreign entries; e.g. the Romanian sense could be put into an Romanian entry superlativ absolut (if the statement is accurate). -80.133.98.186 03:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

November 2017[edit]

seigniory and seignory[edit]

Looks identical to me. If it is not utterly interchangeable, the articles need that a distinction be formulated. And IPA is desirable. I have stumbled upon this after asking myself which one would have been preferable to gloss سِيَادَة (siyāda); I drop this for the native speakers of English. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 18:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

白金[edit]

The etymology section in Chinese claims that Japanese 白金 is "semantically readapted from Chinese", yet the etymology section in Japanese claims that Japanese 白金 is "calque of Dutch wit goud". There must be one who is wrong, and this page currently is confusing. Dokurrat (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dokurrat -- I've had a go at the Japanese entry. The Japanese term has an older sense of silver, in keeping with the older Chinese. The current Chinese etym is incorrect and misleading, as Chinese had this term long before platinum was known to the Dutch, and the current etym erroneously suggests that Dutch for platinum somehow relates to the archaic Chinese sense of silver.
I've pinged Shinji on the Talk:白金 page to get his input, as he was apparently the one to add the Dutch derivation.
I'm also tempted to remove the =====Descendants===== section from the Japanese entry, as that indicates that the term was wholly a Japanese coinage. I think we should at least remove the line for Chinese, and the lines for the other languages too if there's any evidence of earlier borrowing of 白金 prior to the emergence of the Japanese term's platinum sense. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
If 白金 existed in the meaning "silver" first and then later came to mean "platinum" under the influence of Dutch wit goud, then I'd say this is a {{semantic loan}}, not a {{calque}}. In which language did it first refer to platinum, Japanese or Chinese? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@Aɴɢʀ -- Re: original meanings, Chinese philosophy (or would "astrology" be the better term?) included the idea of the five cardinal colors: blue, red, yellow, white, and black. There were also five metals, each associated with a color: tin? (blue), copper (red), gold (yellow), silver (white), iron (black).
Re: repurposing, Shinji's research points to Japanese as the first language to repurpose this spelling to mean platinum, and Udagawa Yōan as the first author to use this term with the sense platinum (probably in his 1837 work, Introduction to Chemistry), based on now-obsolete European usage of various languages' equivalent of white gold to refer to this same metal. Udagawa's source material was primarily Dutch, and Dutch too formerly treated witgoud and platina as synonyms.
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
It is not a semantic loan but a calque. The character 金 means “metal” in the Classical Chinese word 白金, while it means “gold” in the newly coined Japanese word 白金. They are different words that happen to have the same characters. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji: I wouldn't go so far to say they're different words; it's just polysemy (metal > gold). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The edits of Attractor321[edit]

This editor is adding huge blocks of text to entries, and seems to be pushing William Reich pseudoscience. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

verbod[edit]

Two etymologies. DTLHS (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed the second etymology and improved the first. —Rua (mew) 00:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm curious about the Proto-Germanic etymon. Dutch verbod is clearly related to verbieden, and the latter traces to Proto-Germanic *furibeudaną, which lists *furibudą as a derivation. However, the etym for Dutch verbod traces to Proto-Germanic *frabudą instead.
Are *furibudą and *frabudą alternative spellings of each other? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
In the daughter languages of Proto-Germanic, the prefix *fra- was merged with *fur-, *firi-, *furi- (but this didn't happen in Gothic). @Anglom made the PGmc page *furibeudaną off the Gothic 𐍆𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌱𐌹𐌿𐌳𐌰𐌽 (faurbiudan) which would give us that *furi- prefix, BUT *frabeudaną could have also been possible (see Old English forbēodan, Old High German firbiotan and Old Frisian forbiada which would give us the *fra- prefix). Anglish4699 (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
For the Dutch verbod (also see English forbode), the Proto-Germanic term would likely be *frabudą to keep with the trend of ver- terms coming from PGmc *fra- unless a Gothic term can be found coming from *furibudą. Anglish4699 (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Old Dart[edit]

The definition is unclear, the sections are in the wrong order, and the entry is generally confusing. I tried to fix it a little by moving a description that was in the definition into a Usage Notes section, but it's still kind of funky. Also, there's a misplaced synonyms section. Globins (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

apellai[edit]

What is a "Spartan verb"? DTLHS (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@DTLHS: Based on the LSJ entry, it means the Ancient Greek dialect of Sparta, Laconian, a subvariety of Doric. — Eru·tuon 21:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I've made a first attempt at cleaning it up. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:enm-verb[edit]

This template is basically a copy of an old version of {{en-verb}}, and is woefully inadequate for Middle English. Middle English verbs have many more forms than just the ones given in this template. There should be a proper inflection table. —Rua (mew) 16:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The Middle English templates in general could really use some love. Some templates just don't exist where useful ModEnglish varieties do (e.g. {{enm-adv}}, as well as a number of grammatical boxes such as personal pronouns)); in others a number of factors make ME more complicated than English (some adjectives having plural forms in addition to the typical comparative and superlative forms.) I'm fairly new so I don't know how templates are born or altered here (or even whether this discussion belongs in RFC as opposed to the Grease Pit), but it would make a huge difference if someone could update and expand the Middle English templates. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

サンタ[edit]

suzukaze (tc) 21:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

yoink[edit]

"(sarcastic, facetious) To act or do something specific; It is used emphatically."

What is this supposed to mean? Kiwima (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

Mix up of multiple pronunciation.--2001:DA8:201:3512:4503:8F3E:74EC:C251 17:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Done, still needs to arrange some of the compounds/derived terms. Also added o and sasa/saza.
Side question, are (sasa, bamboo grass) and 栄螺 (sazae, turban shell) derived from the sasa/saza root? --POKéTalker (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@POKéTalker -- For terms referring to living organisms, many monilingual JA dictionaries list encyclopedic details about the organisms themselves, while leaving out details about the terms, such as etymology and first citations. It can be rather frustrating.
One of the few online resources that discusses the etyma of such terms is 日本辞典 / Japan Dictionary. See their entry for 笹 and their entry for 栄螺. Both list 細・小・些些 (sasa) as a possible derivation.
Gogen Allguide is another resource that focuses on etymologies. They have an entry for 栄螺, but nothing for . The entry they do have similarly lists 細・小・些些 (sasa) as a possible derivation.
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ა̈ჲრი[edit]

Needs the correct templates. And decide whether it is a verb form of ლიჲრი or a lemma. DTLHS (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I cleaned up most of it. @Vahagn Petrosyan should probably check it over. —Stephen (Talk) 06:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017[edit]

letter of comfort[edit]

The definition is very long, and so is the quote. Needs trimming, but I am not familiar with term to be able to redo it.--Dmol (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I knew such things as comfort letters. See also Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg comfort letter on Wikipedia.Wikipedia . DCDuring (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I was able to simplify the definition. John Cross (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

bever[edit]

Multiple pronunciation sections and multiple etymologies, unclear which refers to which. DTLHS (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

JLPT[edit]

I think the long translations of the full name should go to Japanese-Language Proficiency Test#Translations, and JLPT#Translations should be reserved for equivalent acronyms in other languages. —suzukaze (tc) 04:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

water brash[edit]

Listed as Scots despite the Scots word for "water" being watter. Meanwhile, the alternative form waterbrash is listed as English rather than Scots. Any idea what's going on here? BigDom 15:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I keep on finding instances of Scots-only entries appearing in English synonyms lists. It makes me wonder whether there is much consistency in general in the treatment of Scots vs Scottish dialect of English. DCDuring (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

彼奴#Japanese[edit]

This spelling has five different readings by my count, four of which are currently included in this entry. Each reading needs its own etym section, and additional detail (as available) on usage, context, phonological development, and sense development.

For instance, the aitsu reading is the main one I'm used to encountering in modern colloquial Japanese. The other readings may be dialectal, historical, archaic, etc. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:English non-idiomatic translation targets[edit]

This category contains several entries which should not belong here. I propose to remove entries with current full definitions from this category. If you disagree with a specific entry's idiomaticity, feel free to send it to RFD.--2001:DA8:201:3512:F0D2:BCEA:BF85:63BB 13:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

-tion[edit]

The usage examples and many(most?) of the derived terms are not of terms derive from -tion, but rather of terms derived from -ion applied to a stem ending in t. And sometimes the word was actually taken on board English directly or via French from Latin, ie, from a Latin word ending in -atio. That means that [[-tion]] and will direct the contributor to many etymology sections that need to be corrected. DCDuring (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I have partially cleaned out Category:English words suffixed with -tion. I see some evidence for a suffix -ition, preferred to -ation in some cases, possibly for euphony. DCDuring (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Contributions of 108.75.79.57[edit]

I've suspected for some time that this is Luciferwildcat (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks) contributing as an IP: geolocation to the San Francisco Bay area of California, interest in scatalogical/sexual terms, Wicca and medical terminology consistent with EMR training, amateurish Spanish translations, and generally poor lexical judgment. Alarmingly, they're now branching into adding translations in a number of languages they obviously don't know and into terminology associated with Tibetan languages (They defined Old Tibetan as "Of or pertaining to Old Tibet"!).

I get the impression that people have been cleaning up the more boneheaded of the contributions in their own areas of interest without looking at the bigger picture of overall incompetence and bad judgment. The translations added by this IP need attention from those who know the various languages, and we need to decide whether blocking or other action should be taken. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2013/February#Lucifer is back for an earlier discussion. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018[edit]

värde[edit]

Etymology 2 has no definition or part of speech. DTLHS (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's just one term and just etymology 2 belonging into 1 like: "From Old Swedish ..., from Old Norse ... (worth)" (Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/werþaz)? -84.161.53.59 17:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

relegation[edit]

The definition is far to simplified. "act of being relegated" - there are many subsenses missing. --Gente como tú (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Contributions of Special:Contributions/98.113.14.63[edit]

In other technical details besides IP range, this IP is a perfect match to יבריב (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks), and indeed shows the same indiscriminate, high-volume and diverse editing- They seem to be adding translations in just about any language they can think of. Given that יבריב was blocked for making crappy edits in languages they don't know, this makes me very nervous. Depending on the source(s) they've been vacuuming up, their edits could very well range from ok to horribly, horribly wrong.

These need to be checked, but I don't have the expertise to do it myself. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

damp[edit]

Verb section. Apparently two people are having a hidden conversation inside this page about the verb being obsolete. So, it's a messy page...--Gente como tú (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

suicided[edit]

  • The definition goes “One who's suspicious post-death [] ”, but the quotations all use “Requiem for the Suicided”, which suggest something similar to “the Irish” or “the poor”. No plural is given.
  • Poor grammar and spelling.
  • Synonyms that are really hypernyms.
  • The list of quotations could be simplified.

Ungoliant (falai) 16:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I just whittled all that information into one line - # Someone who has committed suicide --Cien pies 6 (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

pug[edit]

Etymology 1 needs further splitting - these do not have the same etymology. --Gente como tú (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I split off a few of the definitions which come from a common source, and added another sense with its own etymology. Etymology 1 still needs further work clarifying origins. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

jobber[edit]

RFC sense ‘One who works by the job and recruit other people’. Between the vagueness and the grammar problems I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 05:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

A jobber is one who's job is to recruit others to work for a company or some other entity, i.e. someone who recruits nurses to work for a travel nursing agency. —This unsigned comment was added by 2600:8807:5401:f760:6108:f455:228c:f21c (talk).
Thanks for the useful information anon, but please add them as your own on a new line and not inside somebody else's comment. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Si[edit]

Poor etymology formatting, dubious pronunciation. —suzukaze (tc) 04:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

黃金雨[edit]

--Zcreator (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

reckon[edit]

Synonyms are listed somewhat randomly. --Gente como tú (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, most of the synonyms are included in the definitions themselves. Surely that duplication isn't necessary--either the definitions ought be pithier or the synonyms omitted. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/131.164.141.148[edit]

Are these edits good or bad? - -sche (discuss) 23:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

cps.[edit]

German entry, but abbreviating a Latin term. At the momemt it's mis-categorised because of Category:Latin abbreviations.
Properly, {{abbreviation of|TERM|lang=CODE}} would need two language parameters to produce "Abbreviation of [Latin] {{m|la|TERM}}" with category Category:German abbreviations.
Should the abbreviation template be replaced by text and the category be added manually? -84.161.53.59 16:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

lest[edit]

Lots of annoying elipses in the defn. Surely there's a better way to define it. --Gente como tú (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

lither[edit]

The definition is # Bad; wicked; false; worthless; slothful; lazy.

Lots of different synonyms listed. Either simplify it or split it. --Gente como tú (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

this way[edit]

No OneLook reference has even a redirect let alone an entry for this, but we have had the entry since before 2007 and we have translations etc, so we might want to try to make sense of this. I have a few questions:

  1. What does the label "imperative determiner" mean? If it is a determiner, why is it in a Noun L2?
  2. Isn't the noun definition SoP?
  3. The three words presented as definitions on the same line in the Adverb L2 don't seem synonymous to me and there are no usage examples, let alone citations. Does anyone have a view on this.
  4. Should we just RfD it? DCDuring (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I added an example that might be of non-SoP usage:
It's good that he's gone. This way we don't have to argue with him all the time.
I don't know how to define it. It might just be an elliptical deixis, which doesn't seem to me to be much of a basis for inclusion. Is it? DCDuring (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
There's also "I wish he'd gone; that way we...", and "I would have preferred things the other way", etc. Equinox 00:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Also with other definite determiners like "his way", "John's way", etc. I was just looking for something I was familiar with that might be idiomatic, it doesn't seem very idiomatic to me. MW Online has a two=definition entry for that way that resembles ours for this way. Oxford has a euphemistic sex-romance usage.
I am tempted to add as citations the lyrics from Walk This Way and Did You Ever See a Lassie?. DCDuring (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

変梃[edit]

Don't know whether this should be the main entry.--Zcreator (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the kanji spelling is listed as the lemma form in the majority of the monolingual JA-JA dictionaries I've referenced -- Shogakukan's KDJ, Daijisen, Daijirin online. Shinmeikai and Daijirin non-online list the lemma at hiragana spelling へんてこ, noting that kanji spelling 変梃 is also valid. Shogakukan's KDJ usage examples all use the hiragana spelling. No source I can find lists the lemma at the katakana spelling ヘンテコ.
Additionally, our katakana entry at ヘンテコ is a soft redirect pointing users to 変梃, which (prior to Zcreator's recent edit) was a hard redirect back to ヘンテコ. This kind of circular redirection is less than ideal. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018[edit]

[edit]

Korean. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

[edit]

Korean: There is some extra information that shouldn't be there. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon and Middle English in (New) English entries[edit]

As Anglo-Saxon and Middle English are not (New) English and as thus Anglo-Saxon and Middle English cites do not belong into (New) English entries but might nontheless be useful for Anglo-Saxon or Middle English entries to be created, I'm moving them to here now:

  1. from God the Son, God the Father,God the Holy Ghost (maybe for God Fæder, Godes sunu, God þe son, God þe holi gost, though are the latter three idiomatic enough and not SOP?):
  2. from thereto (maybe for þher-to?):
    • c. 1430 (reprinted 1888), Thomas Austin, ed., Two Fifteenth-century Cookery-books. Harleian ms. 279 (ab. 1430), & Harl. ms. 4016 (ab. 1450), with Extracts from Ashmole ms. 1429, Laud ms. 553, & Douce ms. 55 [Early English Text Society, Original Series; 91], London: N. Trübner & Co. for the Early English Text Society, volume I, OCLC 374760, page 11:
      Soupes dorye. — Take gode almaunde mylke [] caste þher-to Safroun an Salt []

-80.133.98.90 19:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I added the þher-to quotation to ther-to. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This is difficult to address because our Middle English entries (if they exist at all) are in a poor state, with little standardization of spellings. DTLHS (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Follow the headwords in the Middle English Dictionary Online? — SGconlaw (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
As for a clean-up of (New) English entries, moving it to citation pages (like Citations:God, Citations:þher-to) as somewhat suggested in WT:RFC#thereto seems like a good idea. With Category:Old English citations, Category:Middle English citations the citations can than be found.
MED? -80.133.97.179 02:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Following the headwords in the MED is a good safe bet, I think. We could then put the other spellings in alternative forms, I suppose? In some cases there are a plethora of spelling options, some of which are universal (e.g. the '-e' ending that may or may not be included; 'þ' and 'ð' instead of 'th' and vice versa, the wynn and the yogh, etc.)--it might be good to somehow standardize how those are handled as well. Or, perhaps, there are already ways the treatment thereof is standardized here--if so, I'd love to know. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
No, there's not really any standards. This should be documented at Wiktionary:About Middle English, if something is agreed upon. DTLHS (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not really that simple. There is no hard dividing line between ME and modE, it's more of a sliding scale and some texts (like Malory) could fairly be counted as either. I think ME citations should not be removed from modE entries if they are doing the job of showing the word's usage through time. Ƿidsiþ 09:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
By time and WT:About Middle English, Malory is Middle English. -84.161.47.237 05:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, we picked 1500 as a dividing line, but that is arbitrary. Language did not morph into modern English overnight. Malory is right at the end of the ME period, and in fact is functionally identical to early modern English. He is a world away from (for example) Chaucer. Ƿidsiþ 04:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I see this as a four-step process:
  1. make a list of works/authors used in English quotes and quote requests
  2. select from those a list of those which are from before modern English
  3. make a list of English entries with pre-modern English quotes
  4. go through the list and fix them
The first and third require processing the dumps, the second can be done by anyone who has the time to research or who knows already which is which, and the last requires someone who knows ME well enough to create entries.
It won't get everything, but it will at least catch a large subset of obvious ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Quotes are not parseable enough to make step 1 feasible. DTLHS (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
It's also not necessarily desirable, since it's been established here already that Middle English citations can be used to support modern English definitions if the definition in question is also attested from the modern English period. Ƿidsiþ 14:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

indirect[edit]

Sense - Not direct; roundabout; deceiving; setting a trap; confusing.

  • This definition doesn't help much, IMHO. Also, it's missing a few more definitions. I also found a noun out there, but am not sure what it means. --Pas un coiffeur (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/151.255.69.66[edit]

User:Kaixinguo~enwiktionary and myself spotted mass-editing of Arabic verb forms. The anon refuses to interact and the edits don't seem right. He may be a native speaker or, more likely an advanced learner, but they are not familiar with some forms and they bulk-remove them. @Erutuon, Kolmiel, Wikitiki89, ZxxZxxZ, Backinstadiums, please review the edits, if you can. I have briefly checked some and I don't like what I see but would be better if they actually explained their actions. Please advise if a block or a warning is warranted. I wonder if they are one of formerly blocked users? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't speak Arabic, but if you think the IP requires blocking please ping me. I will be online for the next few hours. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
In some cases, like this or this, this user seems to be deleting definition lines that have the same inflectional categories as another definition line, but link to an alternative form of the lemma. In the first case the alternative forms are اِسْتَحْيَا (istaḥyā) and اِسْتَحَى (istaḥā), in the second مَاسَّ (māssa) and مَاسَسَ (māsasa). WingerBot created the entry, and I guess Benwing had decided to include both alternative forms. — Eru·tuon 20:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

submission[edit]

Rfc for "the act of submitting", this clearly needs to be split into different senses and clarified, its translation table contains translations for very different senses (act of surrendering, act of submitting mail). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

tuo[edit]

Italian: Contains a lot of stuff that belongs in a template. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, yes. Some of the information should probably go into the usage notes. Jberkel 11:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

tunafoto, tular, gegantung[edit]

Malay or Indonesian. DTLHS (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

вина, ас, воны, юр, вурны, лыд, сьöла, тыр[edit]

Komi-Zyrian or Komi-Permyak. DTLHS (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

More Rajkiandris trouble. @TropyliumΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Native vocab is in most cases identical in KZ and KP (they're not much more different than, say, American English and British English, and I'm not convinced that treating them as different languages is a good idea), but I'd have to double-check that there aren't any pitfalls here.
I can tell off the cuff that the entry for сьöла should be moved to сьӧла though — it currenly uses a Latin ö instead of a Cyrillic ӧ. --Tropylium (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I've moved it. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, I've split most of them. The only cases where these lemmas cannot be treated as both languages equally as well is the predictable л > в shift in KP. --Tropylium (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018[edit]

prolix[edit]

This has a translation table without a corresponding sense and the entry is classed as an autological term which makes little sense based on the current definitions, probably based on the translation table's "tending to use large or obscure words, which few understand". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Reason for the inconsistence: diff (June 2016, sense "tending to use large or obscure words, which few understand" was removed while the transes stayed), diff (November 2017, a new second sense was added).
Compared with dictionary.com the old 2nd sense was wrong, which means the old transes should be deleted as well (or be checked, if they fit for the 1st or new 2nd sense). As for proper procedure, it would be more correct to re-add the old 2nd sense and add {{RFV-sense|en}} and have an RFV process. -84.161.46.24 12:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

culvert[edit]

Etymology might need tidying. —suzukaze (tc)

I took an initial stab at cleaning it up. I think it is still far from ideal, but I tried to sift through the information to find the essentials, to pare away what might be considered unnecessary or over-encyclopœdic. Maybe some of that information should be added back in; I wasn't sure. I'm also not totally happy with a list format, but it seemed like a good starting point at least. SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Webster 1913 has it ("prob.") from Old French coulouere, but that word doesn't appear in Robert at all. DCDuring (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I've tried to do a little digging, but I'm not strong enough in Old French to be of much use on that front. I'm also curious about the Tamil theory that was in the original etymology. There's no citation that points that way. The same conjecture is mentioned on the Wikipedia entry for culvert, and again here, notably as the only one without a reference in the table. That seems curious to me. SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

esthetic information[edit]

Strange entry that hasn't been touched by humans in 10 years. —suzukaze (tc) 02:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Lux Mundi[edit]

Tagged but not listed. The comment was "la [or en?]", which I interpret to mean that it may be SOP in Latin itself but entryworthy in English. Maybe a case for RFV rather than RFC in that case. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 17:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Originally it was Lux Mundi but head "lūx mundī". That didn't fit.
The senses don't seem to fit too: "3. Light is Protecting the World [Lux est prōtegēns Mundi]". The meaning seems to translate the Latin sentence and not just "Lux Mundi" or "lux mundi". -84.161.47.237 05:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

-phyte[edit]

Definition:

  1. A taxonomic group of plants or algae, e.g. arthrophyte, cyanophyte.

Wrong. The taxonomic group names are translingual and end in -phyta. A cyanophyte is a member of the phylum Cyanophyta. I'm not exactly sure how to rework this, since it seems to be tied specifically to translingual -phyta, rather than being a general term for some taxonomic group. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it only misses a label like "in plural", as e.g. cyanophytes (collectively) = Cyanophyta. -84.161.47.237 05:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

unit[edit]

Metaknowledge expressed concern to me about the military senses. "Way too many badly written military senses... probably should all be clarified, and some might need to be sent to RFD". I agree, and I'm not familiar enough with the military to make a perfect judgement, but I can tell you now some of the red links look questionable, and one of the defs looks unnecessarily long. Any takers? PseudoSkull (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

vale#Spanish[edit]

First POS missing etym heading. – Jberkel 22:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Are there really three different etymologies? It looks like they all derive from valer, valeō. – Jberkel 08:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I was debating back and forth within myself about that. What is unambiguous is Etymology 1 (the IOU comes from the Spanish verb es|valer), and Etymology 3 (the valediction comes from Latin {l|la|valē}. Etymology 2 is really a redundancy, but it's infinitive form (valer did come from Latin. Do we usually include etymological information for inflections, which may be found easily at the lemma entry?
The other catch has to do with the Spain "okay" definition. I couldn't find decisive etymological reasoning for that usage, which it comes from the Latin greeting or from the verb meaning "it's worth/it suffices". It's unclear whether the Spanish usage and the Mexican "sale y vale" usage are actually related; the latter is clearly derived from Etymology 3 (cf. salvē & valē). What do you think? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

ekranoplan[edit]

This has a huge list of synonyms- most of them look to be unattestable. DTLHS (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I have removed them entirely. Synonyms should go at ground-effect vehicle anyway, where there seems to be a good enough list. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

zhng[edit]

Misuse of the {{quote-newsgroup}} template. —suzukaze (tc) 03:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw should be able to help both with the word and formatting the (non-durable) cites. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 11:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Лорд Алекс[edit]

He's been carelessly adding tons of unchecked translations taken from something like Wikipedia entry titles or Google Translate. --WikiTiki89 18:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Litvanya[edit]

The template used in Declension is for Crimean Tatar, and there are usexes that need to be formatted. —suzukaze (tc) 23:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Appendix:English–French relations[edit]

The "identical spelling" section is a mess. Some entries are red linked. Some have only an English entry and some have only a French one. Would it be simpler to just delete it? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Not having an entry isn't a good reason. Not existing in English or French would be a reason for removing single terms. A note could be missing: "The gender only applys to the French, not to the English". A reason for deletion could be, that the list would get to long as ~1/3 of the English vocabulary is of French (Old, Middle, New French) and Anglo-Norman origin, cp. File:Origins of English PieChart.svg, after all, l'anglais est un créole. -84.161.7.111 09:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

ice bag[edit]

Why are there two noun sections? Why is one at level 4 underneath alternative forms? DTLHS (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd understand it as two different words:
  • ice bag, also spelled icebag, the bag for an ice pack (bag containing some gel which is put in a freezer and used in case of inguries)
  • ice bag, the calque
Fitting a more usual style it could be
===Etymology 1===
(ice + bag)
====Alternative forms====
====Noun====
... 1. ...
===Etymology 2===
(ice + bag,) calque
====Noun====
... 1. ...
or
===Alternative forms===
===Etymology===
ice + bag. 2nd sense is a calque
====Noun====
... 1. ... 2. ...
[1st sense and 2nd sense should better be paraphrased as numbers can change]
-84.161.7.111 09:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Fixed, I think, along the lines of 84.161's second suggestion. I doubt only speakers in the Philippines call a bag for making ice an "ice bag", btw, so I'm sceptical it's a calque and not a straightforward compound, like "soup bowl" etc. - -sche (discuss) 20:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

khulumkha[edit]

The first interjection sense is defined as a noun and as a verb. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Ostara, Ostra, Ostora[edit]

If these aren't attested (as the ue of {{reconstructed}} and an asterisk would suggest), then they don't belong in the main namespace, and should be handled like attested vs unattested Latin (if there is a reason to include them, e.g. descendants suggesting they existed). If one is attested (as the absence of an asterisk on the plural forms might suggest), then the entry should not use {{reconstructed}}, and should perhaps be located only at the plural form, with a better gloss. - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I object to this decision. What is the harm of leaving it the way it is? I mean it's clear that to anyone who will look at it will know what is and isn't attested. It will help those writing Old High German and especially help those understanding feminine n-stem nouns. Pagans would benefit greatly from the entries. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably it's an easy case: The OHG name for Easter (feast) being attested and being a plurale tantum (and beginning with a small latter); but the German name for the Germanic goddess of spring first being attested in NHG (Ostara). An RFV for Ostara (goddess of spring) should result in RFV failed, and would be an easy way to solve this (though it takes some time, at least 30 days, for the RFV process)... -84.161.25.152 10:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, what is exactly "RFV"? I mean I think the entries should be left alone. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

See WT:RFV. Our policy for unattested forms is to put them in Reconstruction: namespace. If these are unattested in OHG, they should be at Reconstruction:Old High German/Ostara, Reconstruction:Old High German/Ostra, and Reconstruction:Old High German/Ostora. Or rather, they should be at only one of those names, with the other two being redirects there. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't there a rule that reconstructions need a descendant? (I haven't found that at WT:Reconstructed terms though.) Else one could, for example, make up Germanic terms by applying sound laws to PIE terms which are only attested in Indian languages. A descendant of *Ostara probably is first attested in NHG as Ostara (which could also be a derivation of the OHG name for Easter (feast)). -84.161.7.111 08:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be a borrowing? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
It would be non-inherited, but IMHO also not properly borrowed, but derived from an OHG term. If there are only terms like Irminsul or Irminsäule, and scholars notice that the second part means Säule and conjecture that Irmin might be a god or hero, would NHG Irmin be a borrowing? -84.161.20.5 04:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/gǫsli[edit]

If it existed, it must have meant something else. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

lipstick on a pig[edit]

"References" apparently intended to be citations. DCDuring (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

adultery[edit]

The quotation for sense 7 is really messy and needs to be reformatted. —Globins 23:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Wolfgang#Middle High German[edit]

To add: Alternative form Wolfganc (cp. Talk:Wolfgang#MHG).
And the gender surely has to be fixed.... -80.133.98.20 00:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

capiz[edit]

No idea whether this is supposed to be English, Spanish or Cebuano. DTLHS (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

cadeaukaart[edit]

Right, it looks like the term exists, but it needs a lot of help. Any takers? --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I added in the missing template content for the compound, since that was obvious enough. I'll leave the rest to other editors with more experience with Dutch. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Does it really mean "suggestion for a gift card", and not just "gift card"?? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
It may be a gift card which on occasion has suggestions for gifts, I think just "gift card" should be enough. Apparently cadeaubon is a synonym (Wikipedia Cadeaubon). DonnanZ (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Another one for @Lingo Bingo Dingo, methinks. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 12:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, cadeaukaart is generally used for digital debit cards, whereas cadeaubon denotes more traditional gift vouchers. They might get mixed up a bit in everyday use, but a quick check indicated that this would be a pain to cite. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

partialitas[edit]

Added by an IP today. "Where's a philosopher when you need one?" said no-one ever. Equinox 16:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

User:TheDaveRoss/Rare_headers[edit]

Based on some feedback we got via OTRS, I ran a report on the 4/20 dump to find headers (L3+) which occur twenty times or fewer in NS:0. If you would like to help clean up the many typos, feel free to knock some off of the list. Mostly the pages link to the section with the offending header, but sometimes things get weird. Just delete sections if you clear them all out so others don't try and duplicate the effort. I will run this again for each of the next several dumps with higher thresholds until things seem relatively clean. If you have any feedback on ways to make this easier to use, let me know. - TheDaveRoss 17:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This is useful; thanks for putting it together. - -sche (discuss) 19:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll be subdividing it in a more reasonable way next time! - TheDaveRoss 19:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Gosh, amatuer lexicographers totally suck at spelling. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Could be better if anybody could edit it. After diff and diff, I thought of removing "Declension (Early)" and "Declension (Late)", but that didn't work. If the edit would be unwanted, it could easily be undone; but if wanted, it might be helpful... -84.161.20.186 22:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
All are welcome to edit, is there something in particular you found you were unable to do? - TheDaveRoss 12:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

díní-[edit]

Needs a part of speech and a definition. - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. —Stephen (Talk) 01:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

necesitar[edit]

They mention how to pronounced this word in "fast speech".

  • Fast speech: /neːsiˈtaɾ/, [neːsiˈt̪aɾ]
  • Faster speech: /neːiˈtaɾ/, [neːiˈt̪aɾ] and /nejˈtaɾ/, [nejˈt̪aɾ]
  • Fastest speech: /niˈtaɾ/, [niˈt̪aɾ]

I think it's cool that this is documented, and think the editor should be praised. I also understand why others would disagree with me, though. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

supercalifragilisticexpialidocious[edit]

Etymology:

[[super-#English|super-]] + [[calibre#English|cali-]] + [[fragile#English|fragilistic-]] + [[expiate#English|expiali-]] + [[docile#English|doc]] + [[-ious#English|-ious]]

That are very misleading links. Much better:

[[super-#English|super-]] + [[calibre#English|cali(bre)]] + [[fragile#English|fragil(e)]] + [[-istic#English|-istic]] + [[expiate#English|expia(te)]] + -li- + [[docile#English|doc(ile)]] + [[-ious#English|-ious]]

-84.161.1.61 03:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That etymology looks entirely speculative to me. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The entry states "Likely formed from". Maybe "Maybe formed from" is better, as maybe is weaker than likely. -84.161.20.5 05:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

punctus[edit]

The definition "point" appears in two etymology sections with the same passage of the same work (but with two different genitives) cited to support each one. I am sceptical that two strings which have homographic lemma forms and are so perfectly synonymous that they are used interchangeably can really have two different etymologies. - -sche (discuss) 01:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Etymology is similar but is different as is the inflection:
  • 2nd declension punctus (gen. -i): late alternative form of punctum (gen. -i), substantivisation of the PPP punctus of verb pungō. The PPP could be analysed as pungō + -tus (etymology 1, forming PPP) with changement of g to c (cp. usage notes in -tus).
  • 4th declension punctus (gen. -us): verb pungō +‎ suffix -tus (etymology 2).
As for the Pliny quote: The younger one doesn't reveal to which word it belongs (cp. Citations:puncto). The older as source for the sense point of punctus (-us) -- backed-up by L&S for the translation/meaning --, is older, so may be less reliable, less correct. Anyhow, Georges and L&S give other sources for both punctus (-i) and punctus (-us), that is even without Pliny both words should be attested, even though the sense point of punctus (-us) might not.
-84.161.20.186 19:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

strid [edit]

In the Norwegian Bokmål derived terms section, the section was previously labeled "of noun", can someone check and ensure that everything is as it should be? - TheDaveRoss 12:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's missing a noun sense that that term is derived from, so it's nested wrongly. @Donnanz, could you please add the noun section? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss, @Metaknowledge: I think I'm the guilty party, adding the derived term so it won't be forgotten, and then forgetting to add the noun. Yes check.svg Done now, if you are satisfied the RFC tag can be removed. DonnanZ (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all, tag removed. - TheDaveRoss 15:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

загранпаспорт[edit]

This (and, I suspect, possibly other entries which use the same template) is labelled as an acronym of заграни́чный па́спорт. But it's not an acronym in the usual sense (sense 1), or IMO even in sense 2 (since it uses the first two syllables, not the first syllable). I suggest the wording should be changed to "short form" or maybe "abbreviation". - -sche (discuss) 17:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

In discussions of Russian language, these are traditionally referred to as acronyms (I've never heard them called anything else). Most of the parts are single syllables, but multiple syllables are not uncommon. Russian-style acronyms are made up of (1) one or more initial syllables plus initial syllables (замза́в (zamzáv), детдо́м (detdóm)); (2) one or more initial syllables plus a whole word (Главка́бель (Glavkábelʹ)); (3) one or more initial syllables plus a letter abbreviation (ГорОНО́ (GorONÓ)). An acronym can use even more than two syllables of a word: Беломоркана́л (Belomorkanál) (Беломорско-Балтийский канал). Russian acronyms may be long: Росглавтекстильснабсбытсырьё (Rosglavtekstilʹsnabsbytsyrʹjó) (Рос-глав-текстиль-снаб-сбыт-сырьё, meaning "Main Department for Supply and Marketing of Raw Materials of the Textile Industry of the Ministry of Textile Industry of the RSFSR").
Maybe the definition of acronym could be edited to include Russian acronyms. Since the English word acronym is used for these Russian terms, it is actually part of the meaning of the English word acronym. —Stephen (Talk) 02:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

happen[edit]

Sense 2, "To occur unexpectedly, by chance or with a low probability." The usex "Do you happen to have an umbrella?" doesn't fit in here; it doesn't mean "Do you occur to have an umbrella?". I'm not sure how best to phrase the definition (which is why I'm asking here), but I have a feeling that happen is modal here, as the sentence really just means "Do you by any chance have an umbrella?". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Using the verb "chance" might work; it is at least substitutable ("do you chance to have an umbrella"). Otherwise, the definition could be made non-gloss, along the lines you mention; like {{n-g|Functions like a modal verb indicating chance.}} or something. One other dictionary uses "have the fortune of". - -sche (discuss) 14:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

bower[edit]

Pronunciations don't entirely align with etymologies. Also, several unrelated etymologies have been stuck together within Etymology 4. Dylanvt (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

万歳[edit]

Bad etymology; doesn't have an Interjection section; mildly strange definitions (wording?), and the common reading of banzai isn't presented first. —Suzukaze-c 08:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

[edit]

RFC-sense: Used after 咋, 咋就. so; that. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

creole[edit]

Tagged by an IP, not listed. Suggests clean up of etymology. —Stephen (Talk) 22:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

היה[edit]

Tagged but not listed. I suppose part of the request may have been to document any use of this to convey "to own, to have", a sense suggested by the translation table at [[own]]. Pinging recently-active Hebrew-speakers @Wikitiki89, Msh210, Sije. Feel free (IMO) to remove the {{rfc}} if it doesn't look like anything actually needs to be done. - -sche (discuss) 14:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's rather referring to the fact that the copula is normally omitted in the present tense, or a pronoun is used instead of any form of the verb. --WikiTiki89 14:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I reworked it with the wording that Wikitiki used. An expansion of the usage note would be even better, but given that our Hebrew editors seem uninterested in doing so, I consider the newly clarified note to be good enough to close this RFC. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

あふる[edit]

Needs formatting. DTLHS (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Middle Japanese[edit]

Since nothing has been done, I am putting these here: かめ, かへる, かへす, かはる, かはす, かふ. DTLHS (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

resilient[edit]

This had only a single, rather narrow sense from its original creation back in 2005. I've split it into two senses, but I'm not completely happy with the results, and I'm not sure what to do with the translations. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

kick ass[edit]

Two out of the three definitions and their usexes were based on confusion between this, which is intransitive, and kick someone's ass, which is transitive. I think I fixed the definitions, but I have no clue what to do with the translations. Perhaps they might be moved to the other term if someone would be so kind as to create it. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Italiot Greek[edit]

  • avvlì, ammài, ...: "{{lb|el|Italiot Dialect}}"
    With Italiot Greek being treated as a separate lang with own code grk-ita, "el" is wrong and label "Italiot Dialect" unnecessary. In this case the label could simply be removed.
  • σόνο/sono: el term as synonym
  • άντρα/andra: "{{Italiot dialect form of|άνδρας}}" with link to an el entry
    That's an unusual link - is it correct?
    Does άντρα/andra have all the meanings of άνδρας or only some?

-84.161.61.132 18:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

PAN[edit]

Proto-Austronesian lemmas needs help to use Wolff 2010 system in place of Blust 1999. The conversion is easy as stated on Wikipedia. IPA also needs to be updated a little though. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

zanadj[edit]

"Judeo-Spanish", which we don't recognize, with the code for Franco-Provençal. DTLHS (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleted; we also have Ladino zanadjí, which actually makes sense. The potential problem there is that a Google search doesn't seem to turn up anything besides Wiktionary mirrors, although this is probably an orthographic issue. @Wikitiki89? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

dát, můj, svůj, tvůj[edit]

The conjugation table can (hopefully) be replaced by the appropriate template, it looks like it was subst'd in incorrectly. - TheDaveRoss 15:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky, do appropriate Czech templates exist? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Citations:ondivago[edit]

Tagged not listed some time ago, Italian citation needs checking, translating and cleanup. - TheDaveRoss 21:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Modern words "borrowed" from proto-languages[edit]

I just listed this as a WT:TODO task because I expect it'll keep being an issue even after we fix the existing cases, but: numerous entries in "Terms borrowed from Proto-Foo" categories (like Category:Terms borrowed from Proto-Slavic) were not actually "borrowed" by the L2 language in the way we use the word; see e.g. here. (Surprisingly, one English word apparently was borrowed from Proto-Indo-European, ghrelin.) - -sche (discuss) 08:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

[edit]

An explicitly Japanese-only creation, which another user insists should nonetheless have a Translingual section. Previously RFCed by User:Eirikr for that reason. - -sche (discuss) 16:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Zcreator alt -- Please see Talk:硴. If this character is actually used in any other language than Japanese, I'm happy to have a ==Translingual== section included. However, if this character is only used in Japanese, its usage is by definition not translingual. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
They're plenty of Chinese-only characters (e.g. Mainland-coined simplified characters), but nevertheless they all have a Translingual section. It provides radical, strokes and IDS data can not be found elsewhere.--Zcreator alt (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
^this. —Suzukaze-c 20:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Why not put that information in the Japanese section, though? - -sche (discuss) 21:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The data there is pretty "translingual" most of the time. —Suzukaze-c 23:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Does the indicated Cangjie input for this character actually work in a Chinese IME? That could be viewed as evidence of translinguality. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Bavarian Old High German given names[edit]

Many of the Bavarian names in Category:Old High German given names need to have gender specified. - -sche (discuss) 21:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought Bavarian Old High German was the default Old High German? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Catholic Konkani given names[edit]

Many entries in Category:Konkani given names have things like "Catholic male" in the gender parameter. The information that these names are used by Catholics should be presented in another way, not by adding it to the gender parameter. - -sche (discuss) 22:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@माधवपंडित, what do you think of the change I made here? (Note also that I fixed the use of {{alter}}.) If you like that format, we can apply it to all such entries. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Looks good to me. I'll apply those changes. -- माधवपंडित (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

二輪#Japanese[edit]

per Talk:二輪 (currently @ RFDO) —Suzukaze-c 12:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

That talk page appears to be missing.
I had a go at the entry. Pease have a look and de-tag if appropriate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

garbage pail[edit]

I think I have heard of the term, but it needs a regular format. DonnanZ (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

As a kid in the late 80s early 90s I collected Garbage Pail Kids stickers (GPK): British English speakers are quite unlikely to call waste "garbage" or "trash" (it might be rubbish or junk). Yet I've never heard the phrase "garbage pail" outside of GPK stickers; definitely "garbage can" (doesn't make sense in British English because a can is a tin, a small metal cylinder with food inside)... oh well, ramble ramble, let's just say it's definitely not BrE. -- Oh, should have mentioned, "garbage pail kids" (for the 80s stickers) was a pun on the phrase "Cabbage Patch Kids" (a series of popular toys at the time): whether anyone called their actual rubbish dump a "garbage pail" is arguable. Equinox 23:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleted by DTLHS. Oh well. DonnanZ (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It's gone forever, don't even try to put in the slightest effort to recreate it with actual content. DTLHS (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/rīks & Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/þeudō & Dietrich & Theodoric[edit]

-Geckoupper (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

chock[edit]

One definition can combine all of the meanings of the 4 definitions, by removing needless specialization of material and purpose, except for a specialized maritime sense. Pictures would help, too. DCDuring (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)