Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2013/Unresolved requests

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

Contents

January 2013[edit]

Special:Contributions/Hlmswn[edit]

This user has been incorrectly ref-formatting both example sentences and wikipedia links for some time. I've contacted the user, who refuses to correct the problems as doing so would be a "waste of time". I've cleaned up all the problems dated 4 Jan, but all the previous edits need to be fixed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

liquidus[edit]

Tagged since June 2011; seemingly never dealt with. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, is it always a line on a graph or can it represent the actual real life conditions as well? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
No idea; I just brought the entry here because I saw that it was tagged and had not been altered significantly since. Perhaps, as the tagging editor, DCDuring can tell us what it is about the entry that needs to be cleaned up. I'll post a message on his talk page. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
AFAICT, its only meaning is "a line on a graph [] ". I've made a few non-central changes. It wouldn't hurt if someone better than I at chemistry or physics took a look. DCDuring TALK 19:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I still have a nagging feeling that the definition needs to take account of the possibility of a gaseous state, not just liquid and solid. I'm not sure what the distinction between liquidus and solidus would be.
Also, the definition just seems wrong. It is most likely true that the line(s) themselves represent loci of equilibria, on one side of which the material is liquid and the other solid, and not "A line, in a phase diagram, above which a given substance is a stable liquid and below which solid and liquid are in equilibrium." Other dictionaries seem to say that the line is where liquid and solid are in equilibrium. DCDuring TALK 19:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

M-business[edit]

Barely comprehensible marketroid jargon. What is M-business, actually? Equinox 23:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a way to sell useless stuff to gullible people over their smartphones. —Angr 00:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Place name appendices[edit]

As it stands now, the category is a little bit of a mess. You would expect that these appendices are concerned with place names as they are used locally. But Appendix:Place names in Russia contains transliterated names, so it's not actually Russian. Some of the pages like Appendix:Korean toponyms are clearly tied to a language, while others seem to be more about the English treatment of foreign names. I think that all of these pages should have names that state what language they are in, but I'm not sure on all the details yet. Does anyone else have ideas? —CodeCat 01:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

desire[edit]

Sense 1: "More formal or stronger word for want." Sense 3: "Another word for want, connoting emotion." These definitions are terrible: "desire" doesn't mean "another word for want", it is another word for "want", just as "cat" doesn't mean "noun", it is a noun. They also seem redundant to one another. - -sche (discuss) 10:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "another word for" is wrong so much as much it's pointless and bad style. It would be like starting definitions with "defined as" or "may be defined as". Mglovesfun (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Or "used to refer to", like "used to refer to a breed of domestic cat native to the Isle of Man" (Manx cat, hypothetical example). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:10, 15 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)

fjellabe#Noun[edit]

Obvious. --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:56, 24 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)

agathology[edit]

Needs Ancient Greek etymology and Greek script--Tobby (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Chuck Entz (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

indlamu[edit]

The definition seems to be taken from that at w:Indlamu, which in turn was apparently copied word-for-word from this passage. It needs to be restated in more original language. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

vielen[edit]

A bit... too long? —CodeCat 14:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks correct to me -- Liliana 14:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Better now? I've used {{inflected form of}} at vielen and added a declension table to viel so the reader isn't overwhelmed with a hard-to-read list but can still find the information he's looking for. —Angr 15:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey, who decides if the list in inflected forms is too long? The list was completely correct, so why should someone decimate it? I want to redo the old version. --Bigbossfarin (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand why you're unhappy with this: you put a lot of work into the list of forms that got eliminated, there are no rules that I know of that prohibit making such a list, and I'm sure every single item on that list is correct. Still, there are some occasions when the sheer volume of information makes it too difficult to use. The declension table at viel has the same information, but structured in such a way that you don't have to go through the list item-by-item to find a given combination of strong-vs.weak, case, gender, etc.
There are lots of things that are allowed by the rules that aren't a good idea, such as adding example sentences to the entry for every possible form in the declension table, or having a "see also" list with all the nouns that the adjective could be used with. One has to look not just at whether something is permissible and correct, but also whether it would be of any use to those who are trying to find information about the word. Too much relatively unstructured information in one place increases the work needed to find any one piece of it. The quantity of items on the list provides an odd sort of illustration of the definition, but it would be an even better illustration for zu viel... Chuck Entz (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, Bigbossfarin's comprehensive entry was the kind of entry de.Wikt has, and indeed the kind of entry en.Wikt has for languages like Latin where individual forms have smaller numbers of senses (see e.g. portibus). I'm on the fence about which diff ([1], [2]) is better in cases like this, where forms have large numbers of senses. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no problem with listing the senses of a syncretic inflected form separately, up to about five or six. After that, one starts losing the ability to keep track of them all. If other people feel it's preferable to list all the senses of vielen separately, then I would at the very least recommend removing the "mixed" forms, since there isn't really a "mixed" adjective declension in German: it's just that some forms of ein and kein are followed by strong adjectives and other forms are followed by weak adjectives, so the so-called "mixed" declension is always identical to either the strong form or the weak form. In the case of vielen, the "mixed" forms are always the same as the weak forms. But generally, I do think that if the entry of an inflected form is going to have more than five or six senses, it's preferable to just say {{inflected form of}} and let a declension table at the lemma entry do the work. —Angr 16:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I oppose the removal of information. A better solution, IMO, would be merging some of them, for example:
Mixed masculine, feminine and neuter singular genitive of viel.
Mixed masculine, feminine and neuter singular dative of viel.
Instead of:
mixed masculine singular genitive form of viel.
mixed masculine singular dative form of viel.
mixed masculine singular accusative form of viel.
mixed feminine singular genitive form of viel.
mixed feminine singular dative form of viel.
mixed neuter singular genitive form of viel.
mixed neuter singular dative form of viel.
I don’t see how a list showing the various uses of viele overwhelms the user with information, while forcing them to pick out the vielens in a conjugation table doesn’t. — Ungoliant (Falai) 15:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
If we do want to list them all rather than just using {{inflected form of}}, then I'd recommend merging the whole shebang to:
strong masculine and neuter singular genitive form of viel.
strong, weak, and mixed masculine singular accusative form of viel.
strong, weak, and mixed weak plural dative form of viel.
weak and mixed masculine, feminine and neuter singular genitive form of viel.
weak and mixed masculine, feminine and neuter singular dative form of viel.
That leaves only five lines, which is much easier for the reader to parse than 20 lines. —Angr 15:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Later: I edited the above to indicate that the masculine singular accusative and dative plural forms are strong, weak, and mixed rather than just strong and weak. —Angr 13:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm down with that. It's in line with how we combine the "Simple past tense and past participle of" of English verbs for which those forms are homographic. - -sche (discuss) 01:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

dialyzable and related terms[edit]

This entry was added as an unformatted mess. I cleaned it up, then checked to see if it was redundant to a UK-spelled entry. It is, but clicking through the linked terms led to an annoying game of find-the-definition:

  1. dialysable is defined as "Able to be dialysed".
  2. dialysed is defined as "Simple past tense and past participle of dialyse
  3. dialyse is defined as "Alternative spelling of dialyze"
  4. dialyze is defined as "To subject something (or someone) to dialysis
  5. dialysis (finally!) has useful definitions.

Can someone simplify this maze of links so it doesn't take so many clicks? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

dialyzable said "(of a substance) Able to be removed by dialysis", so I just copied that definition over to dialysable. Now it just takes one click to get to the useful definitions at dialysis. —Angr 21:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
So far, so good. That solves one of the inefficiencies. There's still the other entries that link to alt-forms and derived forms. I also have the nagging feeling that we may be missing something: dialyze actually has two senses: one referring to the substances, and the other referring to patients undergoing dialysis. It's possible that one could talk about whether a patient is dialyzable/dialysable. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Let the fact that dialyzable and dialysable were out of sync show that attempting to duplicate content across entries is a bad idea which invariably ends with entries going out of sync. I've made "dialyzable" an alt form of "dialysable", having arbitrarily decided to standardise in that direction rather than in the other direction. - -sche (discuss) 01:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
dialyzable significantly more common than dialysable per Google n-Gram, so swapped. DCDuring TALK 02:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: I don't see any usage in the first 60 Google Books hits that dialyz/sable is used of people or of blood. And no hits at all on books for "dialyzable patient" or "dialyzable blood". DCDuring TALK 02:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

catracho[edit]

This is apparently a real sense, but it has no PoS or even a language. I hope someone with better English or Spanish knowledge can fix it up? —CodeCat 21:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I used the Spanish Wikipedia, and then checked it's attestable in print too. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

alternative[edit]

Definition "other". Hard to be more vague than that. Was wondering which of our senses covers the meaning of alternative in {{alternative form of}}, and my conclusion is that we don't have one. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

@Mglovesfun to your question, "other". --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

恭喜發財[edit]

This entry has grouped various languages under a single "Mandarin" heading. They should be split into separate languages, but I don't know enough about it to do it myself. —CodeCat 14:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing the pronunciations for the other languages would 'fix' the problem, but not fix the problem of missing languages. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Fixed Cantonese, User:A-cai can fix Min Nan or someone with interest. We have entries to use as a sample. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Kirilboyanov[edit]

This user has been adding badly formatted entries in the Shopski (Western) dialect of Bulgarian. The content itself seems ok, but it treats Shopski as a distinct language, which is not how we treat it on Wiktionary. Not surprising considering it resembles Eastern Macedonian, and we can't even get people to agree whether Macedonian is a language! I've tried to convert some of them to a better format, considering them as alternative forms of standard Bulgarian words. But I don't know enough to make these decisions well, and in the case of питување, внимање, једин and дејаним it's impossible because њ and ј are not used in Bulgarian, they are Macedonian letters. So what should we do? —CodeCat 18:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete entries with non-standard letters, add {{attention|bg}} for others, reformat if not too much trouble. We have native Bulgarian speakers, although they are biased against Macedonian as a language. User:Bogorm is native Bulgarian, very knowledgeable (but not very productive, LOL), native Macedonian User:Bjankuloski06en seems to be back in business as well. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the dubious entries for now. I don't think the issue can be resolved quickly. If we decide to keep Šopski dialect entries, they can be restored. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
храбрина is marked as neuter, but it looks like it might be neuter plural judging by the ending, and the meaning? —CodeCat 22:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it's feminine singular but it's hard to verify. The meaning is likely to be correct, cf. Russian: храбрость (xrábrostʹ, bravery), храбрый (xrábryj, brave). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ɪmaha[edit]

As pointed out on the talk page last year, the headword does not match the pagename, and I also wonder if the initial letter of the pagename is correct as-is (i.e. if Shabo indeed uses the IPA-esque small-caps I) or should be ı (dotless i). - -sche (discuss) 01:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The bad news: there is basically only one linguist in the world who has studied Shabo. The good news: I have his email. I am not very good at communication, so can I email the address to you? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure! :) I'll look over our other Shabo words before I e-mail him, to see if there's anything else we need guidance on. (And I'll ask for the word for "water", for Liliana, lol.) - -sche (discuss) 02:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I got your e-mail with his address. Also, I noticed [[ɛmenan]]: I suspect ɪmaha's content was simply copy-paste-o-ed from there, like c'eka was from ciime... which makes me worry if the other pairs of 'synonyms' (ʃeŋgi/cofolkoh, sukuma/jukuma, kaʔal/kaan, kayan/zefa) also contain one error each. - -sche (discuss) 08:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
From w:Shabo language#Sample sentences I deduce that the Shabo word for water is mawo. I also notice that neither dotless ı nor IPA-style ɪ appears on that page, though several other IPA characters (such as ɗ, ɛ, ŋ, ʃ) do appear to be used in the orthography. —Angr 08:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess it's one of those African languages that use the IPA in its alphabet. - -sche (discuss) 08:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Did this ever work out at all? Any responses? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
ɪ is not a valid letter in any alphabet out there. A few obscure African languages use Ɩɩ, but that is different. -- Liliana 09:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
w:ɪ says ɪ is a letter in the African reference alphabet. - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Dido#Latin[edit]

As I cleaned up a separate problem, I noticed the attention tag: can this be templatised? - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. I notice that the template differs in showing plural forms, but there are other proper nouns using the same template, and also having plural forms. Still, I haven't done too many of these in Latin, so it wouldn't hurt for a more experienced Latin editor to check it. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I did a search of the whole PHI Latin corpus and it doesn't bring up any uses of Dido in the plural in any case (I can't think why she'd appear in the plural, either). My assumption would be that someone just used the regular 3rd declension table because they didn't know how to use a declension table for proper noun (I'm not deprecating them at all, if that's the case - I freak out every time I encounter a template andd it is certainly what I would do) 01:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
That's actually something that's been bothering me for a while, but unfortunately many Latin names do pluralise. I'm not surprised this one doesn't, mainly because it's not Roman. I don't really think it's a big problem, in large part because it would be hell to change now that it's common practice to give plurals for basically everything that isn't a geographical feature. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
We could always add a switch to the template to suppress plural forms, couldn't we? - -sche (discuss) 04:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but SB would also need to recode his bot, and he doesn't seem to care about Latin much right now. Oh, and somebody (not me, because I can't say I really want to) would theoretically need to go through and check the attestability of plural forms for tons of proper nouns, which is tedious. Just doing it to one entry doesn't solve anything. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

metocha[edit]

This had the definitions

  1. {{context|Combination of Spanish words|lang=es}} nosy to obtain information to then gossip
  2. She wants to know what was said in the board meeting, to inform all the employees.

I removed the bogus context and second "definition", but I think it'd be good if a Spanish-speaker checked that no other problems remain. PS, judging by Google Books, this might also be an English word. - -sche (discuss) 04:35, 19 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)

March 2013[edit]

pistol[edit]

One of the senses is tagged with the 'context' "Shakespeare". Does this mean only the bard used the sense in question? - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If the sense in question is the character in Henry V named Pistol, then yes, but then it shouldn't be listed as a meaning of pistol. I don't know whether Shakespeare—or anyone else, for that matter—also uses it as a common noun. —Angr 21:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Widespread use in the US, as if a euphemism for pisser. "She's a real pistol". Shakespeare is, of course, not a context. DCDuring TALK 13:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Etymologically, it is probably from the simile hot as a pistol. MWOnline has "a notably sharp, spirited, or energetic person", which different but not dissimilar from our definition, but, then again, it isn't straining to make a Shakespearean connection. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

Latin inflected forms which contain definitions[edit]

The inflected forms of iacio (iaciebamus, iaciebatis, iecerimus...) and iaceo currently repeat all of the definition information from iacio/iaceo. This is a uniquely terrible idea and I can only hope there are already policies against it. The inflected forms need to be stripped of this duplicated content before they fall further out of sync with the lemma and with each other. (I uncovered this mess by checking the Whatlinkshere of Template:la-conj-form-gloss/iacio/context6 and Template:la-conj-form-gloss/iacio/context5, two templates which also need to be deleted...) - -sche (discuss) 01:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably relatively rare, as I'm pretty sure SB never pulled this kind of shenanigan. I don't know how to clean it up; we might ask AugPi (talkcontribs) for help, but as he championed this ill-fated method, I doubt he would be of great utility. Any botting solution has my support. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes I dislike these as really hard to read. I think we need at WT:RFDO for these, although I suppose we don't need an RFDO to remove the templates from the entries - that would just be normal editing. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind if inflected forms have one brief gloss like "we were throwing" for the sake of those who are intimidated by descriptions like "first-person plural imperfect active indicative", but we should certainly not be including the entire spectrum of translations for polysemous words like this. —Angr 21:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I've cleaned up most of the entries. - -sche (discuss) 23:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
What about all the other entries that use {{la-conj-form-gloss}}? Should they be kept? —CodeCat 23:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
No. And there are a lot of templates listed on User:Eiggge which it may be appropriate to RFD once they have been orphaned pursuant to this RFC. Note that not all entries use la-conj-form-gloss in conjunction with our usual short "x-form-of" glosses, some (especially participles) use only la-conj-form-gloss... which makes it less than straightforward to remove by bot. But the sheer number makes it impractical to do by hand. - -sche (discuss) 23:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Middle English entries from User:AmericanLeMans[edit]

These all lack headwords. Some of them are also lacking ===part of speech=== sections. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Done? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Nope. They keep on coming. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I think he should be warned that if he doesn't fix his entries, he will be blocked. —CodeCat 14:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
He's not even a newbie; he's been around for three years and really ought to know better. —Angr 14:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

abstract verb[edit]

Tagged but not listed. What exactly is the problem here? Abstract and concrete verbs are a feature of some verbs in Slavic languages, verbs of movement - go, run, swim, roll, fly, etc.

For example, in Russian бежать (bežátʹ, to run) is a concrete verb and бегать (bégatʹ, to run) is an abstract verb. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"Abstract verb refers to a verbal aspect in verbs of motion"? Are we defining it, or mentioning it while talking about something else? I would reword it, but I haven't been able to untangle it enough, yet, to figure out what it actually means. By the way: "Abstract verb" should be in quotes- assuming it should be there at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've untangled it, but it's still pretty wordy, and would probably be better if split up into smaller sentences. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
(before edit conflict)I see you have changed the definition just now. Is this satisfactory?
The user examples given are in English, not sure if the notion of "abstract verb" and "concrete verb" are applicable to English verbs. I only know this concept in terms of Slavic languages, no other. As shown above abstract and concrete verbs differ in forms and cause difficulty to foreign learners, e.g. "I'm flying"", "I will go" in translations may use one or the other verb type or both may be acceptable in some contexts.
(after edit conflict). The concept is complicated, I will search for better definitions. Still don't see how this can explained using English verbs. Any help is appreciated. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
BTW, abstract and concrete verbs are not too many. It's not a complete list but you can have a look at: Category:Russian concrete verbs and Category:Russian abstract verbs. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I didn't address the issue of Slavic languages vs. English. I would say that English is good for explaining the concepts to English speakers, even though there's nothing in the morphology to reflect the difference. I suppose, though, that it might give the false impression that English has this as part of its grammar. As for language-specificity: there seem to me to be enough idiosyncratic details in the concept to make it unlikely to be found elsewhere in the same form, but I could be wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The concept of abstract/concrete with English verbs doesn't make sense, since the verbs don't differ depending on the situation, IMHO. Take verbs плыть (plytʹ) (concrete) vs плавать (plávatʹ) (abstract). Note that the verb tense (present simple or present continuous) is irrelevant here, "плавать (plavatʹ)" is a "generic" verb but not in terms of time but direction)
  1. Я плыву к берегу (Ja plyvú k béregu) (concrete, unidirectional). - "I'm swimming to the shore".
  2. Я плаваю по субботам (Ja plávaju po subbótam) (abstract, multidirectional) - "I swim on Saturdays".
  3. Я плаваюплыву (Ja plávaju/Ja plyvú) (abstract/concrete - either type is OK). - "I'm swimming". The former means "swim around", the latter "swim in a direction". The difference in meaning is blurred but the forms are very distinct. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, if there's that much missing from the concept in the English examples, I guess there's no reason to use them. It's generally helpful to explain the unfamiliar in terms of the familiar, but not if it means leaving things out. I won't be much help in that area, though: I was only able to squeeze in one quarter of Russian as I was getting ready to graduate from UCLA- and I was taking Armenian and second-year German at the same time. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I think of adding user examples like I did for "tone sandhi", a concept only applicable to tonal languages. Although I find that box on the right is hard to read now. My original version was this. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
As commonly used in English the expression is almost certainly SoP. I think the scope of non-SoP usage in language needs to be better delineated. For example, David Crystal's Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (5th ed) does not include abstract verb, though it has abstract in a sense that might cover this. The English usage examples could fit under the SoP sense ({{&lit}}). Perhaps the scope needs to be limited to the languages for which the abstract/concrete distinction is morphological. It would also help if there were citations in the entry. The would be suggestive of in what usage contexts the term was used in a non-SoP way. DCDuring TALK 09:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
This is not an RFD or RFV page and "abstract verb" is a grammatical term, like collective numeral or comparative degree, etc., not a SoP. Only this term has little to do with the English grammar, like instrumental case. The examples and explanation match exactly how Slavic abstract and concrete verbs are defined. I'm not surprised that English dictionaries don't include this term or words like "measure word", which is used to describe grammar in other languages, not English. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Citations and usage examples (not just conceptual examples, which are like images) are supposed to be part of every entry and would help here to show the scope of coverage of the word. As the term is used almost exclusively in a very SoP ways and as there is no dictionary coverage, we really need to show usage. DCDuring TALK 10:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I could add user examples (translations from Russian grammar books) but I'll have trouble with citations from the web. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The only cites that CFI requires are for the term "abstract verb" itself. I could be wrong, but I would think that any explanation of it in an English-language grammar about a Slavic language would be a use, rather than a mention: it's a grammatical term, and the book would be using it to explain a grammatical subject. As long as the book is durably archived, somewhere, it doesn't have to be online. Of course, it would have to be in English, since this is all about the English term. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Three cites need to be of a single non-SoP sense. Usually that means that the wording shouldn't by too specific to make sure that enough authors use it with the definition, but the needs to be more than a transformation of abstract + verb. For some reason we seem to be really good at seeing the idiomaticity of terms in the areas of linguistics and computing, so it shouldn't be too hard. DCDuring TALK 04:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

إنكليزي[edit]

Defined as a noun. Does it mean "relating to the English language"? DCDuring TALK 21:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the term has a similar range of meanings to English. If you pick up an English-Arabic/Arabic-English dictionary to check, you'll probably see the term printed on the cover. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The Arabic script, especially with diacritics, looks horrible and harder to read lately but that's not my fault. I don't know when the default font was changed and why. It also looks bad in the Arabic Wiktionary. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Does it mean Englishman, Englishwoman, Englishmen? Or just Englishman. {{ar-noun}} allows feminine forms, right? It definitely allows plurals. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Oops, fixed that as well. Just "Englishman". --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I haven't added feminine and plural forms directly into {{ar-noun}} because fhead and plhead didn't seem to work when I tried. It should be f=إنكليزية, fhead=إنْكِلِيزِيّةٌ, p=إنكليزِين, plhead=إنْكِلِيزِيِّن. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Contributions of User:Bipalabras[edit]

This is looking more and more like LW/GTroy, and they keep adding sexual terms that are attestable- but not with those definitions. I know that such things are needed for Wiktionary to be truly complete, but I really don't care to spend my time salvaging entries I personally dislike. Maybe someone else could deal with this. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Consider Special:Nuke. Yeah it would be a shame if we lost some valid stuff, but we're only human here, we have limited time and mental resources to deal with this sort of thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Asturian verbs[edit]

I spot-checked 4–5 entries from each batch (each verb) of entries User:Scottish friend created today; most checked out, but the forms of the verbs ciarrar, amasuñar, humildar and esnalar (which also needs other clarification, see its talk page) got very few or no hits on Google. It's possible the individual forms I checked are just not attested on the internet yet, but it'd be good if someone could check that the conjugation tables are right. - -sche (discuss) 02:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

April 2013[edit]

pug[edit]

Etymological material confounded with definitions. DCDuring TALK 11:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

dearth[edit]

Marked, not listed. Quotations need sorting out. H. (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

onium[edit]

Merge noun sections or split by etymology. Is the suffix really derived from the plural? — Pingkudimmi 06:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots[edit]

This page and its subpages don't contain just roots, but a rather unorganised mix of roots, stems and even full words. It also seems rather redundant to Category:Proto-Indo-European roots. And the idea of listing all descendants on those pages seems doomed from the start, because there will be far more descendants than we could comfortably list in a table in many circumstances. I would prefer deleting this page outright but maybe someone else knows what to do with it. —CodeCat 18:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

elusive[edit]

"Difficult to describe", usage example A precise definition of diarrhea is elusive (Robbin's pathology, 8th ed). Not sure that it means 'difficult to describe' in this example, but rather 'tending to elude'. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

buster[edit]

Two etymologies listed. Each sense should be assigned to one or another if possible; if that's impossible (etymology is uncertain), then the etymology section should clarify which (if any) are known to be of each etymology and which are unknown.​—msh210 (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

itinerant worker[edit]

"In context, either a politically correct term for unemployed, or a racial slur for the homeless". This seems like it should be in with the definitions, but of course there's no such thing as a racial slur for the homeless, the homeless aren't a race no more than cat owners are a race. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I changed "racial slur" to "derogatory term", but I can't say I've ever heard it used this way. I only know the definition currently labeled "colloquial, Southern California" (and I strongly doubt it's restricted in either of those ways) and would consider it a near-perfect synonym of migrant worker. —Angr 09:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Contributions of User:Hesternopothia[edit]

They've been adding words starting with z, with definitions that seem to be copied verbatim from some list that's been going around the web. Not sure whether we should delete them, or come up with our own definitions. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with Special:Nuke if there's sufficient evidence that these definitions aren't original. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
3 of the definitions:
  • zenocentric Measured with reference to the planet Jupiter
  • zendalet Large black woollen shawl worn over the head or shoulders
  • zemni blind mole-rat
Google search on every word of the above: [3]
This diff shows the lack of original thought in their edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why these haven't been nuked yet. Seems clear cut. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I was going to give him a warning, but forgot about it over breakfast. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

routing[edit]

Pron.#1, noun#2. cutting a channel in a material such as wood using a router. This should be pronunciation#2 surely, and cutting is a verb, not a noun, which makes it the same as the pron.#2, verb#1 entry. SpinningSpark 18:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Forms of the verb and noun route may have either pronunciation (ie, rhyming with root or with out).
If a plural of an -ing-form is attestable, then we often have a noun PoS section for the singular, in addition to the verb PoS section. It would be a somewhat tedious exercise of modest benefit to most users to determine which senses of routing have the plural attestable, but I wonder whether routings in the sense from rout#Verb is attestable. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but the root word for this meaning is rout, not route, which always has the "rowt" pronunciation as far as I am aware. The plural noun probably does exist (cf. turnings, castings etc) and shouldn't be too difficult to find. But the current definition is not worded as a noun. SpinningSpark 23:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I've split routing up by etymology rather than pronunciation to make things a bit clearer. —Angr 00:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I moved the woodworking noun sense into the second (rout) etymology.
The entry for route says that route has two pronunciations for all senses in the US and one pronunciation for all senses in the UK. I think that is right for the US. Is it true that there is only one UK pronunciation? DCDuring TALK 01:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. I'd removed the tag. Done? DCDuring TALK 08:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
There is still the matter of a noun with a verb definition. I have edited it to A channel cut in a material such as wood with a router or gouge. SpinningSpark 09:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it just a gerund with a gerund definition? "Routing" and "cutting" are the same part of speech. —Angr 19:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
We treat it as a noun if it attestably forms a plural. The definition might not be right for said plural. It might be limited to the results of the gerund. DCDuring TALK 20:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

名正言順[edit]

Shouldn't this have a literal as well as a figurative definition? The formatting isn't standard either. DCDuring TALK 20:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

Sameer[edit]

Split by etymology and otherwise fill in the gaps. DCDuring TALK 17:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Turkish word lists[edit]

These pages are far too long and they are triggering script errors halfway through because of that. They should be split up further if possible. But I wonder why we need such lists at all..? —CodeCat 21:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Would the script errors stop if they used {{l/tr}} instead of {{l|tr}}? —Angr 22:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
It's worth trying... —CodeCat 22:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
As for why we need such lists at all, a lot of people find frequency lists helpful for a wide variety of applications. I certainly wouldn't want us to get rid of them. —Angr 09:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't get in to edit them; I just get the Wikimedia Error green screen of death. —Angr 20:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I can edit them, but when I save them it times out, even if I use {{l/tr}}. —CodeCat 11:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

college[edit]

Definitions are poorly ordered, selective in coverage, poorly worded. DCDuring TALK 15:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

Vietnamese entries with pronunciation and readings conflated[edit]

In the following entries, IPA information is shoehorned into ====Readings==== sections. It should probably be in its own section. Other formatting issues may also exist.

  1. 𠻗
  2. 𥆼
  3. 𣗱
  4. 𥘶
  5. 𥙪
  6. 𥛭
  7. 𨤧
  8. 𠠚
  9. 𢹊
  10. 𠝓
  11. 𨦁
  12. 𩂏
  13. 𡍘
  14. 𥻹
  15. 𦷨
  16. 𢯙

- -sche (discuss) 21:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Appendix:Tuvaluan Swadesh list[edit]

This should use {{Swadesh list 207 pronunciation}} or another one of the templates which apparently does exactly the same thing. Apart from the URLs where there should be internal links, amusing the second column displays Tuvaluan but links to Tahitian. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The contributions of User:2602:306:ce03:2830:304b:80cf:d13c:1838[edit]

Karelian words. Most have no headword, and translations are not wikified, and sometimes do not correspond with the part of speech. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

AKA Porokello (talkcontribs) Chuck Entz (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

damn[edit]

Tagged but not listed. Reason given is "(1) Are the adjective and adverb uses really different, or are they both actually "generic intensifiers"? (2) The noun use: curse or swear word. Is that the same or different as the use as interjection?

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with the entry and the tag should be removed. SpinningSpark 17:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate transliterations of terms[edit]

A lot of PIE entries list descendants with double transliterations. This is because automatic transliteration was recently added to {{l}}. Unfortunately, whoever added the transliterations did not use the template's tr= parameter, but instead wrote the transliteration in plain text after the link. So now, the template thinks there is no transliteration, and generates its own, resulting in a duplicate. —CodeCat 14:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Index:Gothic[edit]

This index lists words based on transliterations, which are all empty entries that redirect to their Gothic spelling counterparts. That wouldn't be so bad, but the index basically lists every word form in the whole Gothic corpus. Which means that it lists all the case forms of nouns and adjectives that are attested, as well as lots of verb forms including inflected forms of their participles. That makes these pages pretty much unusable, because forms and lemmas are mixed up, and a lot of the lemmas are even missing because they are not attested in the lemma form. I would prefer this to be deleted outright, but maybe someone else can do something more useful with it. —CodeCat 16:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

anticlinal[edit]

Illu vertebral column.jpg

rfc-sense: "In a spine, the anticlinal vertebra has a dorsal-pointing neural spine towards which the spines of all the other vertebrae are inclined." While this may be true, it provides no definition of the word 'anticlinal'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I've had a go at this. It now reads "The spinal vertebra which has a neural spine towards which the spines of all the other vertebrae are inclined; the vertebra at which the spine orientation changes." I think that about captures it but feel free to improve. SpinningSpark 11:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I think images would help both a user and a definer. This is not the only sense that needs cleanup. DCDuring TALK 14:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
MW 1913 has as a run-in entry: "Anticlinal vertebra (Anat.), one of the dorsal vertebræ, which in many animals has an upright spine toward which the spines of the neighboring vertebræ are inclined"
MWOnline has a definition for this behind its paywall.
They seem to think that the sense has no use apart from this particular collocation. They don't seem to think it can be readily understood from the other definitions of anticlinal either, a conclusion I don't find hard to accept. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree that we should move the anatomical sense to anticlinal vertebra and change it back to a noun. As for a diagram, it could be marked on this picture. Apparently, the human anticlinal vertebra is usually at T11 (eleventh from the top of the thoracic vertebrae). However, it is not clear from this picture, or any other diagrams or photographs of spines I have looked at, why it is anticlinal. This only really becomes clear when looking at images of individual vertebrae such as [4] (note this is cat, not human). That book also calls the neural spines neural processes which might be a good idea for our definition, avoiding as it does the use of spine in two different senses. In my view, the best way of describing this with an image would be with a stick diagram so all superfluous information could be removed. I can produce one if it is agreed that it is needed. I would propose to draw it flat (ie, with no spinal curve) to avoid the natural tendency of the reader to think that it has something to do with the curve by comparison with the geological meaning. SpinningSpark 10:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Your approach seems right. Keep up the good work. In my short-attention-span way, I added images to two of the linked entries, (chemistry) torsion angle (not too good because concept is 3-D, video would help) and (geology) anticline (perfect for the job) and didn't immediately find what would be needed for anticlinal vertebra.
If you can produce an image by whatever (legal) means and enjoy doing so, there are many opportunities to do so. I hope you upload to wikicommons so that the most advantage can be taken from your efforts.
We have conflated {{rfphoto}} and {{rfdrawing}} into {{rfimage}}. Either we ought to use the Wikicommmons request process more when we can't find what we need or we should have some kind of explicit request template for new images that suit our purposes when nothing seems to be available at Commons. DCDuring TALK 12:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Wait a minute. By my reading of your linked text. One can't have an anticlinal vertebra without curvature, which curvature is most intuitive in a quadruped with a basically horizontal spine. One could presumably have a synclinal vertebra, too. On a sway-backed animal the geological metaphor is obvious. DCDuring TALK 13:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not right. I thought the same thing too when I first saw the term but the anatomy books say different. It has nothing to do with the curve of the spine. It is all about the spines (processes, protusions, or, as I will call them to make it clear, sticky-out-bits) of the vertebra. The upper vertebrae have sticky-out-bits pointing towards the rear of the animal. The lower vertebrae have sticky-out-bits pointing towards the head. The vertebra at the transition between the two, that is, the one with a sticky-out-bit perpendicular to the spine, is the anticlinal vertebra. It is not the curve of the spine which makes the sticky-out-bits point in different directions, each vertebra individually has them set at different angles relative to the body of the vertebra, and hence the local line of the spine. This book [5] (dog) maybe has a better description and this one [6] (horse) has a pretty clear photograph at figure 1.7 of what is going on. SpinningSpark 15:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I take your point. But it is not accidental that the low point in a swaybacked animal (See picture there.) — or a youthful, vigorous animal —is approximately the location of the anticlinal vertabra. From the point of view of sense development, they must originally have focused on the superficial geometry, before focusing on the detailed geometry of the vertabrae, which allows them to define a location even on a young, healthy animal without the sway that makes the location easy to identify in middle-aged and older animals and even on animals whose spine is more or less vertical. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that you can substantiate that assumption with cites. Or can you? The oldest quote that I can find for the term is 1818 where it is still being defined in terms of the slope of the spinous processes. It may coincidentally coincide at the bottom of the curve in horses, but that is certainly not true in human anatomy and probably many other mammmals. This anatomy book [7] (1898) explicitly states that the term is borrowed from geology, but still has a definition in terms of spine slopes:
"This process marks the point where a change in the direction of the spinous processes takes place ; the spinous processes of the remaining thoracic and of all the lumbar vertebrae point toward the head. The eleventh thoracic is therefore known as the anticlinal vertebra, a. term borrowed from geology, in which it is used to denote the line from which strata dip in opposite directions."
I would also point out that even the geological senses of syncline and anticline did not originate from the curve of rockbeds. Rather, they originated from what could be deduced about the (often unobservable) shape of beds from measurements made with a clinometer at discrete sites where the beds happened to outcrop. SpinningSpark 18:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Anticlinal vertebra.png
I don't have access to the OED so I don't know what the sequence of sense development was across disciplines. I am not proposing to define anything in line with my intuitions, just to make sure that the metaphorical imagery is not trashed in the course of our efforts. Please forgive my conjectural folk etymology in pursuit of understanding. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The OED is consistent with my understanding of the geological origin of the term. The etymology is given as,
Greek ἀντί against + κλίν-ειν to lean, slope + -al suffix1. Compare Greek ἀντικλίν-ειν to lean against (each other)
The geological meaning is given as,
Applied to a line or axis from which strata slope down or dip in opposite directions; also said of the fold or bend in such strata, or of a ridge so formed.
And the anatomical meaning as,
(A vertebra) having an upright spine, towards which the spines on both sides incline.
SpinningSpark 09:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, here is the diagram. I am going to create anticlincal vertebra now. SpinningSpark 13:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Diagram looks good. BTW, does a human have an anticlinal vertabra? DCDuring TALK 21:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:anticlinal vertebra. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Antonyms or coordinate terms[edit]

By the way, why do you think that anticline and syncline are not antonyms? SpinningSpark 09:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

re: antonyms: Because they are merely different features of a whole, one not existing without the other, like sinus and lobe on a leaf. It isn't entirely a question of what they "are" as much as how we present them. It is no accident that few dictionaries ever have antonyms, though many have synonyms. If we took the trouble to say "antonym with respect to [attribute 1]" explicitly for our antonyms or limit ourselves to "customary antonyms", we might make antonyms a more useful semantic relation. Synonyms usually do not suffer from the same problem. "Coordinate terms" is a more inclusive class, that, for example, permits terms for intermediate points in a scalar range, without squandering vertical screen space on a semantic relation (antonymy) that typically has but one member. DCDuring TALK 12:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I cannot agree with that reasoning. An antonym can be preceded by a sense, as is done at good. However, in this case the two meanings are "leaning towards" and "leaning away from" which is quite unambiguous. Those are antonyms in just about the same way as convex and concave which we have no problem calling antonyms. Calling them coordinate terms instead completely loses the semantic relationship. The claim that anticlines and synclines must exist together is just plain wrong. The geology of England more or less consists of one giant syncline (with London at the bottom) with no corresponding anticline. It is true that in folded beds they commonly occur together but there is no compulsion that they must. SpinningSpark 13:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I have problems with almost all uses of the term antonym here. I can't speak for others here.
My main problem is that the terms that we slide under the heading do not bear the same relationship to their purported antonyms. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I really feel that this ought to be put to the community before going round arbitrarily removing antonym listings. In any case, changing the heading to coordinate term is rubbish, it completely loses the sense that the terms are in opposition. SpinningSpark 20:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
An alternative heading that we have is "See also", truly a "residual" category if ever there was one. DCDuring TALK 21:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Just because we have an even worse heading available does not justify a bad one. SpinningSpark 11:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

cardinal virtues[edit]

also Cardinal Virtues and Cardinal virtues

I am not sure of various aspects of these entries:

  1. Are they not essentially encyclopedic and thereby beyond our scope, meriting {{only-in}}?
  2. At least Hinduism and Buddhism have lists of cardinal virtues, Hinduism's list consisting of three, four, five or twenty virtues. Shouldn't we have all of the attestable ones? (most of the lists mentioned above seem attestable.)
  3. Are the names for the specific lists proper or common nouns?
  4. Phrases such as the Four Cardinal Virtues in that capitalization seem attestable, with multiple meanings.

Accordingly, I leave these to someone gifted with greater certainty. DCDuring TALK 15:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Theological virtues and heavenly virtues seem to have similar issues. DCDuring TALK 19:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

buang[edit]

Needs clarification (or unify various codes in Module:languages to simply Bisaya) DTLHS (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

ромски[edit]

romski[edit]

The second definition in each of these entries has a confusing context tag. I tried to clean it up, but must have misunderstood what it was saying, because Ivan reverted my edits. Is it saying that the term is used as a masculine substantive? In that case, why is it in an adjective POS? Is it saying that it has the specified meaning only when used with masculine substantives? What? - -sche (discuss) 18:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know but I think most language adjectives in Serbo-Croatian have this definition. I picked one at random, katalonski, and it has it. We should ask Ivan. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
It is indeed an adjective, but specifically it can refer to a language when acting as a part of the prahse ...ski jezik "the X language", with jezik part (meaning "language") usually dropped in speech/writing. Before treating language names that way, we had all of them listed as nouns, which was grammatically and semantically wrong, not to mention that it would require special adjectival inflection templates that would only inflect for masculine gender. Color names will be subject to the same treatment, e.g. cr̀ven, which in feminine gender act as a shorthand for the phrase -a boja "the X color", and which will be lemmatized at the original adjective with the context label in femininee . This I announced on WT:ASH talkpage. So far only one color ("the red") has been processed that way, but the rest will be as well. This is the way it is done in all of the Serbo-Croatian dictionaries I checked.
Now that you mention that it is confusing I was wondering whether context labels can generate links to language-specific appendices where things like this will be explained. It would be much more useful than cluttering the general-purpuse glossary, not to mention that we could have space for language-specific examples. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
In some Slavic languages (including Serbo-Croatian and Russian) adjectives denoting ethnicities may also be nouns/substantives, e.g. англи́йский (anglíjskij), ру́сский (rússkij), which mean the language of that ethnicity (a shortened colloquial form of adjective + "язык" (language). In case of русский, it's also an ethnic Russian (noun). They are declined as adjectives, used as nouns. I will also wait for Ivan for further explanations about the Serbo-Croatian setup of this kind of adjectives. Russian adjectives are set up a bit differently but it doesn't have to be that way in Serbo-Croatian. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 14:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I notice that for Russian you have full entries such as английский язык (anglijskij jazyk), and the standalone adjective treated as a shortened synonym. One can argue that the full phrase is then non-idiomatic sum of parts though. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
One may think so, yes and some do but it's important to know that "английский язык" is not only "the English language" but also "English" (noun, "language"), its usage is much broader and is more common in formal settings. The official, formal and most common translation of "English" (language, noun) into Russian is англи́йский язы́к (anglíjskij jazýk), though. The (university) subject, title of textbooks is never simply "английский" but "английский язык". Anyway, having the template as in Serbo-Croatian nominalised adjectives is not such a bad idea, the Russian equivalents have both noun and adjective sections with only one inflection table (someone may wonder why there is no inflection table for the noun sections). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 14:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

GI[edit]

I don't really know what to do with this. The main talking point is the misspelling of Gl, it's apparently a 'prefix' but a prefix would be GI- or Gl-. Is it really a misspelling? Perhaps a misreading because of the similarity between the lowercase l and the uppercase I in some fonts. Erm, help. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's separated from the number by a space, so it's not a prefix in the strictest sense, but it's always immediately in front of the number: "Gl 1234". As for the misspelling part: given that ls and Is are often scannos for each other, and that they tend to look the same in most non-serif fonts, it's pretty hard to tell what the relationship is between Gl and Gi in actual use. It would be more accurate to call it a "common error", but I don't know how we handle such things. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Also G.I.. Do we want to split and initialism like this by etymology? In this case it would seem to be plausible, but in most cases, not. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

lock and load[edit]

This has been trimmed considerably from earlier versions, but it's still encyclopedic. The trimming process also replaced a paragraph with an incorrect rephrasing- the result is (at least superficially) self-contradictory:

  • It is disputed whether the command "lock and load" was ever used by the US military. The term, "lock and load" was used in the US Army as late as 1969 and was also used in Vietnam.

Someone familiar with weapons and US military usage needs to fix this so that people won't feel compelled to constantly add counter-examples to the etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've trimmed it a bit and removed the contradiction, but I really couldn't say how accurate this is. SpinningSpark 22:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Cleaned up, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 16:54, 10 June 2014 (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)

Category:1000 English basic words[edit]

As far as I know, this category has never had 1000 words in it: in 2009, it had only about 900; in January of 2013, it had 747; now, it has 721. It's been RFDed once (and passed) and RFMed once (and stayed put), so it seems to be here to stay. And we've never agreed on a standard of what makes a word "basic". So... can everyone reading this please add a few words to the category, so we can get it up to 1000? lol. Or make a better suggestion! - -sche (discuss) 05:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that's sad. There's Appendix:1000 basic English words, haven't counted the words or checked if they all belong to the category though. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
@-sche, Atitarev I have used a bot to add and remove words according to Appendix:1000 basic English words, which (ironically) only has 997 words. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:200 English basic words[edit]

Hilariously, this category has only 85 words in it... less than the "100 basic words" category (which, thanks to me, now has an even hundred)! - -sche (discuss) 05:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

How do these categories get removed? Is it accidental or what? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I did it. I put these words in the category: above, after, behind, bye, cross, during, less, without, ok, later, bad, sleep, eat, car, bus. Now they are 100 in Category:200 English basic words + 100 in Category:100 English basic words = 200. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

contingence[edit]

We define angle of contingence and line of contingence in the noun section. We shouldn't but what should we do? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

[edit]

definition: a kind of medicinal herb.

Any kind? If not, what kind? DCDuring TALK 20:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, there are at least hundreds, if not thousands of, similar-quality definitions in many languages, not limited to names of living things, though common among such entries. DCDuring TALK 20:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
In this case, the entry was bot-created from an online database, and the definitions are verbatim from there. My guess is that some of the definitions are deduced from the character's use in compounds, and don't mean anything much until you see the context. Something is better than nothing, but one would have to have access to some pretty comprehensive references to convert such entries into anything self-contained and useful for all senses. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

a'n't[edit]

I dun know if this format is good. Should it be {{contraction of|[[am]] [[not]]}} instead? Or perhaps {{alternative form of|an’t}}? --Æ&Œ (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

cerambycoid[edit]

definition: Of or relating to the cerambycoid larva.

I doubt that cerambycoid larva is not SoP. We need a definition. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed- I think. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Probably good. Note the -oid (suggesting a resemblance) versus cerambycid (actual membership of family). IANAB. Equinox 18:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

description[edit]

We have four definitions and two translation tables. The two translation tables fail to match any of the four definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Shikomor[edit]

No such language in Module:languages. DTLHS (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a Bantu language, so it's analogous to Swahili/kiSwahili and Zulu/isiZulu: the "Shi-" is a noun prefix, which is analogous to an inflectional ending in most other languages, and which most dictionaries leave off of the lemma form. There are lots of Bantu languages, and I'm sure pretty much all of the ones known by indigenous names have similar pairs of prefixed and non-prefixed forms for the language name. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Oops! I missed the point. Comorian is a complex of dialects that shades into Swahili. I believe we're currently deliberating over whether to treat it as Comorian, with its own language code, or Swahili. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, at the moment {{swb}} resolves as Comorian rather than as "Maore Comorian", but Category:Comorian nouns and Category:Comorian proper nouns, which use {{swb}}, have tags saying they ought to be called "Maore Comorian (proper) nouns". Comorian is usually considered to be a cover term for Maore plus Ngazidja Comorian (zdj), Ndzwani Comorian (wni), and Mwali Comorian (wlc). I don't know how we're supposed to know which dialect the word "Shikomor" is in; maybe more than one or even all of them. I'd say Comorian should be treated as a single language, rather than four, but separate from Swahili, if only because (according to WP) it's more often written in the Arabic script than the Latin script, while with Swahili it's the other way round. There also seem to be lexical differences. —Angr 18:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
See WT:RFM#Template:zdj.2C_Template:wni.2C_Template:swb.2C_Template:wlc. - -sche (discuss) 08:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

ha'[edit]

No such language in Module:languages. DTLHS (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I changed "Classical Maya" to "Epigraphic Mayan", which is what we call emy, which is the language code used in the {{head}} template of the entry. —Angr 17:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I had changed it from {{mny-noun}} to head, and changed the language code to emy based on the Wikipedia article (mny is a language family, not a language), but forgot about the L2 header. Thanks for catching that, and sorry for not posting about it here. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Columba[edit]

Encyclopedic, includes a translation, I think. DCDuring TALK 12:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

enucleate[edit]

We have two identical senses, just one is glosses transitive and the other transitive. The second one " To remove something; especially, to remove an eyeball or tumor." ca't be intransitive can it? Furthermore one translation table says to remove the eye, one says to remove a tumor, but there are no such definitions; both tumor and eye are present in both of the last two definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

learning curve[edit]

Terrible definition by a permablocked Rockpilot (talkcontribs). BrentDT (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  • WF is useless at definitions. Rewritten from scratch. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:06, 17 September 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)

Recent contributions of User:Flet[edit]

He or she has been cranking out changes to English etymologies claiming actual or possible Occitan etymologies for all kinds of words with Old French in their history. I'm more than a little skeptical, since widespread contact with Old French is well known and well documented, but demonstrable Occitan origin is relatively rare. Someone who knows English and Romance linguistic history needs to check all of these edits. They've done a lot of other types of edits that are no doubt ok, so nuking isn't an option. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Another issue is that Occitan, as far as Wiktionary is concerned, is a modern language. Maybe he means its ancestor, Old Provençal, which demonstrably left loads of loanwords in the languages of Iberia and France. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I picked one at random ramp. Looks pretty bogus. Surely most of the time, the Occitan will be cognate to the French, but almost never the direct etymon of an English word - would have to be via French as in general, English doesn't borrow words from Occitan. I can't name even one. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Porokello[edit]

These are virtually all uncategorized pages. I can see one improvement from the user, however, starting definitions with # not *. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No one seems to have given the user a welcome template, which explains why they had trouble deciphering all the "you're not doing it right, see how I fixed your entries" messages they were getting. I posted a detailed tutorial on headword-line templates before I noticed that. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

inflorescence[edit]

Sense: (eventual etymological fallacy) A beginning to flower. I don't know what the bit in brackets mean. Especially since the etymology says it comes from the Latin "I begin to flower". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

See w:Etymological fallacy. They were trying to say that the sense is the result of trying to force the meaning of the Latin original onto the English term. The question then becomes whether it's really used that way, or whether it just shows up as mentions in dictionaries and word lists because of a faulty assumption. If it is used that way, then the etymological fallacy part belongs in the etymology (if anywhere), otherwise the sense should be removed. Sounds like a job for rfv. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I shall just remove it and if anyone wants to rfv it that's their right. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

ampelos[edit]

Latin: The definition seems to be based on a misreading of the entry in Lewis and Short. I'd like an experienced Latinist to clean it up or, better, explain the Lewis and Short entry. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

शिव[edit]

Defined as "Marsilea dentata" or "Marsilia dentata" (original spelling).

species:Marsilea is a real genus, species:Marsilia is not.

Web search shows it to appear almost entirely in South Asian language - English dictionaries. They must have had something in mind. But what? This kind of thing is not uncommon in our Sanskrit entries. DCDuring TALK 01:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Marsilea dentata - marsilea dentata#English - marsilea dentata#Latin - Special:WhatLinksHere/Marsilea dentata - Marsilea dentata@WSp - Marsilea dentata@WP - Google Marsilea dentata (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive) - Fossilworks.

They seem to all go back to Monier-Williams, who gives the definition as "Marsilia dentata, L.", meaning he's seen it in dictionaries, but not in any text. Marsilia can be seen here and there in the 1800s as an alternate spelling for Marsilea, so Marsilea is likely the correct genus (The spelling "Marsilea dentata" can be found elsewhere in the same dictionary). One or two of the dictionaries equate it with Marsilea quadrifolia, which sounds right, but I've been unable to find "Marsilea dentata" or "Marsilia dentata" in any botanical reference, so far. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz I took a run at this. Please review. DCDuring TALK 19:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Latest entries from User:Shoof[edit]

All these entries lack a proper headword. I can't be bothered. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Apparently they can't be bothered, either. As usual, there's a lot of borderline and outright SOP, too- they seem to be concerned more with sheer volume than with thinking about whether anything is dictionary material or not.Chuck Entz (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

superiorly[edit]

Defined as "in a superior manner".

I think this is mostly used in anatomy or medicine generally, but with some meaning relating to position. DCDuring TALK 16:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

So, what do you want to be cleaned up? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The entry. It ought conform to usage. DCDuring TALK 21:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
So swap the order of the two definitions and be done with it. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
When DCD posted, there was only one definition; I added the second one prior to your comment. Does it look okay now? Equinox 01:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:57, 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)

disease[edit]

The Derived terms section makes up for what it lacks in quality by sheer volume- it's truly epic in size- but has escaped notice because it's in a collapsible box. Oddly enough, the entire corpus of hundreds (yes- hundreds) of terms was added by Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talkcontribs) in a single edit: diff, which added 14,885 bytes to a 6914-byte entry. It may take a while, but someone needs to prune it down to a manageable list of CFI-compliant terms actually derived from disease, not just containing the word. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed most of the worst sums-of-parts and proper nouns. [8] Equinox 08:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

pixilated[edit]

The etymology for this entry isn't that great, but the main problem is the quotes: one says it's "from Mr. Deed goes to Town", but it isn't (if it's an actual quote at all), and the other is under the sense: "Drunk", but doesn't refer to actual drunkenness. Mr. Deeds Goes to Town didn't invent the word, but certainly brought it out of obscurity and widely popularized it, so it might be nice to have a real quote from the movie. The other quote is good, but something needs to be changed so it matches its definition- or vice versa. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

for[edit]

Sense defined as a verb. There is something to it, but the definition can't be right. Requires concentration and perhaps review of entire entry, ideally comparing with other dictionaries efforts to span the range of usage. DCDuring TALK 16:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, which language? It's defined as a verb in several languages, but not English. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought we had the sense-linking capability. Preposition sense 7 or 8, defined as "To obtain". DCDuring TALK 17:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
We do have sense-linking capability, just you haven't attempted to do so. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

bossman[edit]

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)

Bechamp[edit]

Does anybody think that these requests (also some almost exotic languages and Roman based) are not necessary for this surname of French origin or is it just me? (Revisiting the overuse of {{trreq}}). We had a discussion but no serious decision. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous. All removed except Mandarin and Japanese, which probably do have transcriptions of this name in use somewhere. I also cleaned up the bad wording in the etymology. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Filled the two requests. In Mandarin used in "贝尚反应" (Bèishàng fǎnyìng) (Béchamp reaction), etc. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Why was this moved to Béchamp? The English isn't written with an acute as standard, as there is no standard acute accent in English. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
What about café and many others? Besides, it's a surname, not even a place name. I'd say Bechamp is an alternative English spelling of the French surname Béchamp, not the other way around, or am I missing something?
Could we please remove the translation requests again? Or may I do it? --80.114.178.7 00:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The person adding these requests doesn't listen to advise. Yes, remove unfilled translations on Béchamp, they won't be filled in the next few years. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. --80.114.178.7 22:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

cc[edit]

Chapters, with the capital letter. Either it means chapters without the capital letter, or else what's Chapters? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It must be book chapters, like pp for pages. At least it's not (now) a red link. Equinox 19:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:thingy[edit]

Not the Wikisaurus page, but the terms referenced by it.

Most of the entries have one or more spelling variants, what with disagreement on how to spell syllables with schwas and various consonants in these phonetically-spelled informal terms. Only a few, however, acknowledge any of the others. Apparently people have been adding these right and left without checking for existing variants.

For instance: thingamabob has a pretty complete entry, but no alternative forms section, thingmabob lists thingamabob as an alt form, thingumabob is a redirect to thingamabob, thingummabob (just added) also doesn't mention anything else. Only thingamabob mentions the Wikisaurus entry.

Can anyone make some order out of all this? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I could relate to that kind of homeopathic problem (it's quite cheap, though). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

Wu and Shanghainese[edit]

Has anyone else noticed the appalling state of our Wu entries?

In response to a complaint on Feedback about a Shanghainese usage note in the Mandarin section of , I tried to add a Wu section to move it to (Shanghainese is an important Wu dialect). When working with a language I don't know, I always look through the other entries to see how others are doing things.

What I found was only 11 entries under all the POS categories combined, with 18 under Wu terms needing attention and 14 under Wu definitions needed. It looks like overlapping of categories reduces the total to 33 or so, but that's still 2/3s of the entries with no POS. What's more, there's also , which has only one category: the non-existent Category:Wu hanzi. I suspect that there are other Wu entries that are uncategorized: there are no Wu templates, and {{head}} requires a language code and POS, so it's likely there are entries with just the headword bolded by single quotes, but no attention or request template.

Is there any way to get a list of all the Wu entries? I'll see if I can find Wu reference material to at least put POS categories on them, if not provide the 14+ missing definitions. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Al Wu entries as of 2 October: 大人 加油 葡萄 黄砂 面丈魚 爱斯导尼亚 阿拉 火葬場 火葬场 DTLHS (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I never would have found ,,,,, and , since they had no Wu-specific categories. Thanks! Now I just have to deal with missing information and mutually-exclusive POS-treament/formatting. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Pretty much all of our CJKV characters are terrible. Most of them don't even have definitions; just transliterations into the Latin alphabet, sometimes not even that, just a language header and nothing else. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Digress: even after creation of Wu Wikipedia, Shanghanese are busier working on Mandarin - the main language of China and Taiwan, which can take you places. Recently I saw a Mandarin - Wu textbook with audio recordings transliterations, good word lists and good example sentences, thought of buying but then changed my mind. Wu writing traditions are so close to Mandarin, so basically to learn Wu, you need to know Mandarin + a few specific characters and Wu pronunciation. The tone sandhi in Wu is quite weird but it's closer to non-tonal languages and failure to pronounce tones correctly causes less problems for learners. Wu in Shanghai is different from Wu in suburbs, so, even if it's officially larger than Cantonese (about 80 mln speakers vs 70 mln Cantonese speakers), it seems less useful than Cantonese, which has much higher status and popularity. (I know a girl who speaks regional Wu and Shanghai Wu.) 80 mln, 70 mln seems a lot but it's a very small percentage of Mandarin speakers in Greater China. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If the policy wants to split Chinese into 15 or so varieties, shouldn't this appalling status be the expected outcome? Wyang (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I knew you would turn up on sensitive issues. (You're not planning to run away again, are you?) :) Well, that's the policy supported by the majority or rather the economic and other needs. For example, film and music industry (including Taiwan) is not producing much in dialects because there is little demand, not because someone makes them so. I communicate with Chinese people from various regions, all or most of them (notable exception is Cantonese) make Mandarin a priority. I know you are of different opinion but what are you going to do? Can you speak your dialect to all your friends, colleagues? Think of other extremes. In India, local languages give way to English because they could never agree on having one national, local language and they don't treat their languages the way Chinese do. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Giving them language statuses in Wiktionary is not going to assist their preservation. The situation that these varieties are losing speakers does not imply Wiktionary should designate them as languages as a consequence. Dialect#Dialect or language:
Language varieties are often called dialects rather than languages: 1) if they have no standard or codified form, 2) if they are rarely or never used in writing (outside reported speech), 3) if the speakers of the given language do not have a state of their own, 4) if they lack prestige with respect to some other, often standardised, variety. Wyang (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
So, your WTF comment on Talk:爱斯导尼亚 means not badly formatted but "why this entry even exists, under this heading (Wu)"? With Chinese topolects, it's just the way Western linguists treat them, nothing personal. There is no current effort to unify them under "Chinese" at Wiktionary, even though, all Chinese Wiki projects use "zh", not "cmn". For foreign linguists, it's important to show the pronunciation, Chinese topolects differ greatly in pronunciation but have a lot in common or are almost identical (formal writing) in Hanzi. Mandarin uses standard pinyin, that's one of the main reason, why it's treated separately from Cantonese, Min Nan, Wu, etc. Changing the status quo would take a lot of energy and you may still lose. IMHO, it's better to concentrate on adding value, rather than making a point. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

eager[edit]

Tagged but not listed: "Excited by desire in the pursuit of any object; ardent to pursue, perform, or obtain; keenly desirous; hotly longing; earnest; zealous; impetuous; vehement." Not quite sure what the problem is. Perhaps it's a bit Websters 1913. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggest moving most of the words to a synonym section. Equinox 12:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
But the definition that would remain is none too good. We really should have the definition for the sense tag that precedes the synonyms list. DCDuring TALK 01:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

sniggle[edit]

===Etymology===
See {{term|snig|lang=en||a kind of eel}}.

===Verb===
{{en-verb|sniggles|sniggling|sniggled}}

# To catch an [[eel]] by thrusting a baited hook into its den.
# Alternate spelling and pronunciation of [[snicker]] (corruption with [[giggle]].) To [[chortle]] or [[chuckle]].
# {{context|obsolete|lang=en}} To steal something of little value; diminutive corruption of [[snag]] + ''diminutive suffix.''

I guess these are three separate etymologies. I found this by checking out the blue links at WT:LOP#S. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess you're right, though the first sense could be a backformation from the third sense. --80.114.178.7 01:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

smartwatch[edit]

Four-line definition needs shortening. Relationship to Samsung product? DCDuring TALK 01:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A general definition for smart- (a device that shares all your information with anyone who pays, like NSA, FBI, CIA, IBM, MSN, Google, &c.) would help shortening it. --80.114.178.7 01:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Can we keep conspiracy theories out of the main namespace please? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Clearly not a prefix though. Equinox 23:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Special:Contributions/Geofferybard[edit]

As User:Eirikr commented concerning WT:RFV#Nahuatl (which see), "Randomly checking another of his other edits, I see potential for problems... c.f. arahant, where he misunderstands and mischaracterizes the meaning of bodhisattva (and which he initially also misspells)." I'll try to get around to checking his contribs myself. - -sche (discuss) 08:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

wonce[edit]

This is probably mostly correct, but the sense at least is confusing (Obsolete elsewhere? Where are we? What?) Haplogy () 16:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It's trying to say "still used in some dialects and obsolete in all other dialects". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
However, on reflection, that makes no sense. This is just an eye dialect spelling of once, not genuine dialect. It was probably used occasionally in the days before English spelling was standardized; if it's ever used nowadays, it's surely intended to suggest an uneducated speaker, much like the spellings sez and wot. Maybe someone with access to the OED can see how long it's been since this was a common spelling (I suspect at least 300 years). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
It makes sense but whether it makes sense and whether it's truthful are two different things. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it makes no sense to say an eye-dialect spelling is "used in some dialects and obsolete everywhere else". The pronunciation of once and "wonce" is AFAIK the same in all dialects. As far as I can tell from b.g.c. it's used (1) to indicate that the speaker has a nonstandard accent, even though the pronunciation of this word is the same as the standard (that's what eye-dialect is), as here or (2) in attempts at a novel phonetically based orthography, as here and here (both by the same author). I'd just call it {{eye dialect of}} unless there's evidence it was formerly in widespread use (by other people than James Elphinston, in which case it's also an {{obsolete spelling of}}. But no matter what, we need to get rid of the comparative "more wonce" and superlative "most wonce". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, in modern usage I agree that it's just eye dialect (in the old, original sense). The OED does record it as a regional spelling with cites from 1599 (in a report to Queen Elizabeth that uses other obsolete spelling) and 1839 (in a publication by A Bywater on Sheffield dialect: "He sed at hah he wer wonce bahn up t'oud Park Wood" where is looks like eye dialect to me). Dbfirs 10:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Can we get a quote of the 1599 use? --WikiTiki89 16:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be from the papers of John Harington (inventor of the flush toilet). The cite seems to be from Nugæ Antiquæ published in 1775 (but the cite is verbatim as far as I know, and from a 1599 paper): "The rebell wonce in Rorie O More shewed himselfe." As you can see, spelling at that time was variable. Dbfirs 22:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Translingual language[edit]

I don't know how to clean this up, though its faults are obvious.

I think it should be softly redirecting to more sensible categories, such as for CJKV characters, taxonomic names, Translingual symbols etc. It should also contain a brief rationale for why we have the page at all: it is a miscellany for items that don't fit elsewhere. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that the faults are obvious. 'A miscellany for items that don't fit elsewhere' is I suppose accurate, but only because some terms have no inherent language, or not only one. It's really no different from saying that English adverbs don't belong in Category:Classical Nahuatl adjectives. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is the text:

"This is the main category of the Translingual language, represented in Wiktionary by the code mul. It is written in unknown script.[edit details]

"All terms in Translingual should be here, divided into subcategories by parts of speech, subjects, etc. A complete list may also be available at Index:Translingual.

"Please see Wiktionary:About Translingual for considerations about Translingual entries.

"Definitions, translations and related terms may be found at the entry Translingual."

Further the box at the right hand site has mostly non-links or dead links.

Each of the underlined items is problematic:

  1. "language" It is not a language
  2. "script" Items in the category could, in principle, be in any script, provided that the word or symbol was shared by two languages.
  3. "[edit details]" takes one to a module editing window with no clues.
  4. "Index:Translingual" is redlinked
  5. "Translingual" is redlinked

Which of these problems are not "obvious"?

Is the remedy to simply delete the template and start over? DCDuring TALK 23:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you're right just I don't really consider this a problem. Or only a small one. The intention of the category is clear even if technically Translingual is not a language. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we should "subst" the current template and start editing it. Or copy/paste it as an actual subst would make a mess. Not surprising that the normal template doesn't fit for translingual, but the current structure is probably a good starting point. e.g. instead of "script unknown", mention some of the more common scripts and types of translingual entries, with links to categories if they exist; Mention briefly that there is no index, etc, etc. Pengo (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Mglovesfun, we could just leave it as is. --WikiTiki89 17:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

deltaene[edit]

I can't tell what is intended, but the structure is wrong. DCDuring TALK 18:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You can or you can't, because I think it is pretty clear what was intended: the two etymologies correspond to the first two etymologies at delta. --WikiTiki89 18:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Go for it. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't really know how it should be formatted. Should we just merge them into one definition? --WikiTiki89 18:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Keep them separate because of the different gender, even if the declension is identical, IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't even notice that. --WikiTiki89 17:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

deltaer[edit]

Same as deltaene. DCDuring TALK 18:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

appendment[edit]

This noun has a verbal definition and an overly long usage example. --WikiTiki89 17:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

ひょく[edit]

Most of the headers are invalid. - -sche (discuss) 07:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

さん[edit]

As above. - -sche (discuss) 18:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to either replace the "kanji reading" sections with links like Category:Japanese kanji read as ひょく or just remove them entirely. The page ひょく is unusual in that it has all of the readings. Category:Japanese kanji read as さん has 182 members, and they are already sorted into common/rare sections in the category. さん has about 10% that many. The kanji readings sections have been stuck in this miserable state for years. The kanji readings categories are relatively recent. They're populated by the data on the respective kanji entries using Lua. Haplogy () 08:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Entries in the old "nolanguage" categories[edit]

We no longer have categories such as Category:Requests for language cleanup November, but there are still some entries being added to them. Maybe they should come back. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

All of the entries in the category mentioned are English plurals. The absence of L2 headers may be attributable to the defective operation of the inflected forms JS for users who, like me, have selected autonumbering of headings in Preferences. I have been told that this is what causes a some CSS to show up in the L2 header on the entries created by the JS. It would not be a surprising reaction to just delete the bad line rather than just the intrusive CSS. the inscrutable first line of the entry autocreated by the JS. For some reason, even though the JS is invoked from an entry known to be English the creation of the entry resorts to substing a template that invokes the language module in order to make sure that the L2 is "English". This seems like a rectal tonsilectomy and it creates a line that might look like garbage to someone unfamiliar with the arcana involved. As garbage it might well be deleted. This is an example of poor software architecture and a minor consequence thereof. DCDuring TALK 18:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I think there was a consensus to delete these categories, but no consensus as to what to do instead. Another category with a different name that does the same job maybe? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
There's no reason to have it by month, is there? DCDuring TALK 01:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

riyal[edit]

The entry contains what looks like custom, hard-coded CSS. This English entry has two comments admonishing editors not to clean it up without making sure that the fonts in the etymology and translation sections display properly. This means that the normal language/font system apparently isn't working for the contributor. I normally only do cleanup in cases where the normal system is adequate. How general is the problem in this entry? DCDuring TALK 14:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about one editor on 28 November 2013. I believe there is some discussion on the Beer Parlour or the Grease Pit about Arabic fonts being a 'disaster'. Still this is a poor solution; the edit needs reverting an Arabic fonts should be modified as a whole, not on an entry by entry basis. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion is at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Fonts for Arabic are disastrous. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem here is not a general problem with Arabic fonts, but specifically with the word ريال (riyāl), which by many Arabic fonts is interpreted as a currency symbol and made into a ligature. I think this is bad design on the part of the fonts (the currency symbol should only be used when inputted directly rather than as four separate letters). But aside from choosing a font that doesn't do that, there is nothing much we can do. --WikiTiki89 16:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I wish someone had told me that. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:42, 28 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)

Category:Language code is name/ttbc/unrecognised[edit]

This category contains entries that use {{ttbc}} with a language name instead of a code, but the language name isn't recognised by {{langrev}}. Could they be looked at and fixed? —CodeCat 02:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Just in the few I've looked at and fixed so far, I've noticed the following are common (including in entries which haven't been ttbc-ified yet):
  • Taiwanese : a form of 'nan' (Min Nan); perhaps Kephir's xte gadget should accept this as an indented subitem/dialect of Min Nan
  • Tashelhit : 'shi' (currently canonically called "Tachelhit", but see also RFM, where I suggest that "Tashelhit" is actually a better name)
  • Sami : could be any of the Sami languages, but more often than not means 'se', as that's the one with a Wikipedia and that's where whoever added the term found it
  • Frisian : could be any of the Frisian languages, but more often than not means 'fy', for the same reason
- -sche (discuss) 03:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your ongoing efforts to improve our language coverage and accuracy, -sche. It's really appreciated. As for Sami and Frisian, we could add those names as secondary names to the languages they're used for. —CodeCat 04:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been working on these already. Many are from spelling variations and sublects, which can be prevented by adding them to the data modules (see this diff for some examples). Getting changes made to xte may be a problem, though: Kephir (talkcontribs) hasn't edited on Wiktionary since he was blocked three weeks ago. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Pronunciation[edit]

This page is focused only on English, and the first sentence is actually kind of misleading. It makes it look like only English sections can have pronunciation. The page should really detail how we handle pronunciations regardless of language (it's the same for all of them anyway). —CodeCat 00:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:no-verb[edit]

While I don't know why the original tagger tagged it, the issue I came here with is that it's a conjugation-table template and not an inflection-line template like {{en-verb}}, {{es-verb}} and so on. So a rename would be good. I just replaced a few instances of {{no-verb}} with {{head|no|verb}} which is unfortunate. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Various surname entries[edit]

The contributions of Princetonbee (talkcontribs). SemperBlotto (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Plurals by language[edit]

There are several problems with the categories listed here. A category named just "plurals" only makes sense if there is only one thing that can be plural in the language. For many of the languages listed, that isn't the case. Some examples:

  • In several languages, such as many of the Indo-European languages, there are both noun and adjective plurals. Grouping these together into one category wouldn't make much sense, but if we distinguish them, then we need the category for noun plurals to be called "noun plural forms".
  • In languages that have cases, there isn't just one kind of plural, but one for each case. Having one category for plurals would mean putting for example "genitive singular" into one category for singular case forms, and "genitive plural" into a category for plural case forms. Again, this doesn't make much sense, these should be put together into a "noun forms" category. Most languages that have cases also have distinct adjective forms/plurals, but not all do (Hungarian for example).
  • Some languages like Bulgarian or the North Germanic languages have definite and indefinite forms, so here too the concept of a "plural" is not well defined, because there are several types of plural noun form.

These should probably be fixed one way or another. —CodeCat 18:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2.25.214.61[edit]

A lot of this user's early contributions were to add Bible verses to Chinese entries, but they added the citation without, AFAICT, indicating what translation, or even what verse, they were quoting. (Their later edits do include verse information.) Someone should add the verses or remove the usexes (which in general don't illustrate the uses of the words very well). - -sche (discuss) 22:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

trái and quả[edit]

As well as trái cây and quả cây. They're both synonymous qualifiers and their noun equivalents are also synonymous, but I don't know whether to tie them together by designating one as {{alternative form of}} or some other method. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of overlap, but they aren't the same word spelled differently. It's sufficient to list them as synonyms of each other. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)