Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2010/Unresolved requests

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

April 2010[edit]

respire[edit]

We have four verb senses for this. Some of them seem redundant or at the very least unclear. I wasn't sure whether to RFD or RFV, or even which senses to RFD and RFV, so I brought it here. How many definitions are dictionaries Oxford and Websters giving this? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Only the 1st and 4th have any real connection, with the difference being whether or not an object is used. The second definition refers to metabolic (chemical) respiration, not mechanical respiration. I'm not familiar with the 3rd sense currently listed, and so can't address it without seeing citations that use that meaning. My Collegiate Webster's has four deifinitions, but they don't match up with ours. They're missing the chemical process sense, and list (in summary) v.i. "breathe in and out", "breathe freely", v.t. "breathe", "breathe out", which seems far more redundant than what we have. --EncycloPetey 18:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010[edit]

hit the ball twice[edit]

Isn't this an adverb? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

s[edit]

There is a Translingual pronunciation section for an IPA symbol.

  1. Is the name of an IPA symbol its pronunciation?
  2. Did the contributor intend to provide an example rather than a pronunciation?
  3. I thought that the pronunciation of an IPA symbol differed a bit according to the language being represented.
  4. How do symbol and letter entries don't seem to fit into WT:ELE? Should they be deleted?
  5. If they are to be kept, are such entries to be opportunities for formatting experimentation?

Help! DCDuring TALK 18:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

CAVOK[edit]

Mglovesfun (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010[edit]

reason[edit]

Get rid of the cause subdivision. Can’t we remove the webster tag by now? Split up derived terms and translation sections. H. (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All Webster tags should be considered tantamount to rfc tags, IMHO. When I am ambitious, I tackle one. (I tried at accident. Does the new version seem better?) It is quite time-consuming. The wording is usually stilted and using words and wording likely to communicate effectively to few users. Modernizing the formatting only or removing {{Webster}} only serves to make such problematic entries harder to find and correct and perpetuates the illusion that we have a satisfactory monolingual dictionary.
If I were translating, I would avoid such entries as a matter of course and add them to this list if they are important to you. Correcting them may take time. I would be happy to make any entries that appear here as having {{Webster}} a matter of priority for my efforts. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, all webster entries need modernising. Exactly the reason why I don't want a great batch of similar entries generated from the old medical dictionaries (see Grease Pit). SemperBlotto 15:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
And some of the Webster tags have been removed prematurely. The medical dictionary entries would probably languish unless we recruit and train (!) some medical types. Perhaps other templates and a process for updating would give us some hope of eventually getting such entries right. DCDuring TALK 16:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
If anyone is simply dumping definitions from the medical dictionaries, I'll be happy to join in the collective administration of a cluestick. So far, with just us regulars working through the list, I haven't seen any evidence of that. -- Visviva 17:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

quid pro quo[edit]

A well-meaning user has merged several definitions and translations, one of which was a legal definition. This can't be easily undone because he's also added a lot of other content. --EncycloPetey 03:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

tort[edit]

rfc-sense: (plural) The area of law dealing with such wrongful acts.

Does it mean torts or that tort is treated as a plural noun? Clearly, the definition for torts should be at torts. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It means torts. The definition should be s.v. torts only, but with a prominent link from [[tort]]. Arguably, though, this is not distinct from the plural torts.​—msh210 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010[edit]

any[edit]

Determiner section. The usexes "I haven't got any money. It won't do you any good." don't match the definition "A guaranteed selection from (a set). At least one, sometimes more (of a set)" and might belong under a (currently nonexistent) adjective section instead (though I don't know, as I honestly don't know what a determiner is exactly).​—msh210 (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

around[edit]

There's some weird history for this entry. I don't know exactly what's going on. But the translation tables don't match the senses, at least not for the adverb.​—msh210 (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

cut out[edit]

Encarta has 11 senses; we have three. Also, is the adjective sense separate from the verb senses we should have? Is it a true adjective? DCDuring TALK 19:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

mete[edit]

Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

loyalty[edit]

Five definitions, one of which is for an adjective, and three of which seems to be the same (faithfulness to X, where X varies a bit). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just as we have full entries for adverbs, where many dictionaries just have run-ins, so also this contributor has expanded "the quality or state or an instance of being loyal" to show the senses and subsenses, based on the senses/subsenses of loyal. I think we would find different synonyms were appropriate for the senses/subsenses. DCDuring TALK 11:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Are synonyms reason enough to keep these senses? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
They suggest distinctions in meaning, don't they? DCDuring TALK 11:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I get it now, a normal dictionary will just says 'the property of being loyal' no matter how many entries there are for loyal. So, the real question is how many distinct meanings loyal has, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

plume[edit]

Senses "An upwelling of molten material from the Earth's mantle." and "An arc of glowing material erupting from the surface of a star." Aren't these actually two different uses of the same sense? If not, how do they differ? When it's not in an arc shape, is there a different word for it, or is the fact it's an arc just incidental? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

September 2010[edit]

got it going on[edit]

Some of the defs are for adjectives; and several of the cites have various forms of "have got it going on". I'm not sure how best this should be handled. —RuakhTALK 18:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

wrench[edit]

rfc-sense: "Sad feeling when leaving something or someone loved". The citation doesn't really back this up. Perhaps it just means 'a sad feeling', though I'd go for something more like 'a trying, difficult experience'. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. A few physical-movement words have this kind of figurative use relative to emotion (eg, pull, tug, rend, jerk, twist). gut-wrenching makes this metaphor explicit. DCDuring TALK 11:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

-ity[edit]

Many of the items in the list of "synonyms" are at least misleading, if not outright wrong. Some need to link to specific Etymology sections at the target suffix entries to avoid wasting users' time and confirm the claimed synonymy. DCDuring TALK 11:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

vocal[edit]

Tagged but not listed. I notice among other problems, we don't have a definition relating to being vocal about something. "Being vocal on the issue of abortion" for example. Looks a lot like a bot import that's never been checked. Also, when we sort out which definitions this entry needs, we need translation tables, which I deliberately avoided adding because the definitions don't look right to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dravidian[edit]

I'm not sure what the definitions all mean. Sense #2 in particular ("Any of several aboriginal peoples of India and Sri Lanka thought to have spread in India before and after [Aryan] migration") seems unlikely, at least as a proper noun. I suspect that the entry needs to be split into three POS sections: ===Adjective===, ===Noun===, and ===Proper noun===. Some senses may be missing. Representative citations or decent example sentences would help clarify the issues. —RuakhTALK 14:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010[edit]

account[edit]

Definition 4 & 5 looks the same to me. In general, 21st Century wording would be a fine thing. The entry looks like it was written 200 years ago in some respects. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

draught and draft[edit]

Either the senses need to all be at one entry, or all duplicated at both. Right now it's kinda messy. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 01:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Partially done. - -sche (discuss) 22:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

top[edit]

rfc-sense: "That part of an object furthest away in the opposite direction from that in which an unsupported object would fall. " tagged by someone, seemingly two different users, with the following invisible comment: <!-- This is gibberish. What does it mean? Answer: this definiton works for any celstial body, be it the earth, moon or mars, etc. because of the direction of gravity! Excellent definition.-->. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, I tagged this years ago with <!-- This is gibberish. What does it mean?--> It is still gibberish to me. If I stand a pencil on one end and watch it fall, the opposite direction from the way it falls is not the top. In orbit around a celestial body, a water bottle has a top and a bottom in spite of the fact that there is no gravity to cause it to fall in any direction. —Stephen (Talk) 04:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
On earth, if you lay a cereal box on its side, you can talk about "the side of which is currently its top", as well as of "the top of the box, which is now on the side facing you". These are two senses of top: one, the side currently facing away from the pull of gravity, and the other, the side which is usually facing away from the pull of gravity (or some better definition than that, most likely). The first corresponds to our tagged sense.​—msh210 (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it does, but wording could be better. In fact I've read this about ten times, I still don't get it. "Furthest away in the opposite direction" looks bad to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it's worded opaquely; I was commenting only on SGB's implication that the definition is wrong. As to the opacity, perhaps "That part or end of an object which is farthest from the source of gravity"? (But physicists will cringe.) By the way, we're missing the other sense I used in my cereal-box example: the usually-farthest-from-the-'source'-of-gravity sense. And I think our currently second sense (The part viewed, or intended to be viewed, nearest the edge of the visual field normally occupied by the uppermost visible objects: Headings appear at the tops of pages; Further weather information can be found at the top of your television screen) is nonexistent, or redundant to our first.​—msh210 (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's not forget that the top of a box is still the top if you turn it upside down. Certain things just naturally have a top side, which is the easiest-to-open side, the side where the writing is the right side up, etc. —CodeCat 00:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You're right that there are two senses of top, it's got nothing to do with gravity though. Whoever wrote this just meant "uppermost" or "highest". Ƿidsiþ 10:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010[edit]

French, Basque, Irish, …[edit]

2007 entries which still need attention

I am archiving the 2007 discussions. Most are resolved. The few that are not resolved are unlikely to get attention unless they are re-listed here, at the bottom of the page, as new requests. Therefore: — Beobach 02:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The comments were "These words can be used for ‘the X people collectively’. However, most of the translations for these definitions mention singular persons." and "Practically all our entries that are language names need to be redone thoroughly." — Beobach 06:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

risk appetite[edit]

risk tolerance[edit]

Volunteers? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

They look to be encyclopedic if accurate, SoP if defined at dictionary length. But I look forward to being surprised. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

-istic[edit]

The table of derived terms needs merging into the category Category:English words suffixed with -istic. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 21:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)