Wiktionary:Votes/2007-10/Lemma entries

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

Lemma entries[edit]

  • Voting on: Noting lemma and non-lemma entry differences in WT:ELE.

Wiktionary:Entry layout explained does not yet distinguish between the full format typically used for lemma entries and the abbreviated format typically used for non-lemma entries. This vote seeks to describe which entries should be considered non-lemma entries and what details they should exclude. If approved, the following text will be added to in WT:ELE#Basics:

===Lemma entries===
For English entries, the lemma form is usually the “bare” form: the singular form for nouns, the bare infinitive form for verbs, and the positive form for adjectives:
Some kinds of words may have a different lemma form or may be handled differently, including pluralia tantum, pronouns, defective verbs, and in some cases, words in other inflected languages. Other kinds of words may have only one form, including prepositions and words from non-inflected languages.
When the situation is unclear, editors are advised to use their best judgment on a case by case basis.

The first paragraph of the "Inflections" section will be changed to this:

The term of the entry is given in boldface type in the line following the "Part of speech" header. Key grammatical properties follow on the same line (e.g. gender, case, and number). For lemma entries with other forms, the key forms are given in parentheses. See {{infl}}. For non-lemma entries, the only inflections shown in the inflection line are the headword and optionally the lemma.

The following will be appended to the paragraph in the "Definitions" section:

For non-lemma entries, it is sufficient to describe the relationship of the entry to the lemma form, optionally with a brief gloss of the main meaning of the lemma. See {{form of}}. E.g. on words:
  1. plural of word
or, with a brief gloss:
  1. plural of word Units of language.

The following sentence will be added to the first paragraph of the sections "Synonyms", "Further semantic relations", "Translations", "Descendants", "Derived terms", and "Related terms":

This section is only used for lemma entries.
  • Vote ends: 29 November 2007 23:59 UTC
  • Vote started: 30 October 2007 23:59 UTC

Support[edit]

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Rod (A. Smith) 04:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support EncycloPetey 04:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Forgive me, but the idea of a full definition/translation for each sense of each word form is a bad one. If the translation of pardonner seems a bit off to me, but I know that every single one of its many forms has a version of that translation, I'm certainly not going to improve all of them, and I might not even bother improving the lemma translation, as I'll know that such an improvement is suddenly a lot less worthwhile. If it seems like a verb might warrant a usage note, this will tip it over the line: I know that people looking up a form of the verb — the people who don't know which form is the lemma, and therefore seem most likely to need the usage note — aren't likely to see it, so why bother? I guess I'm being defeatist here, but I'm also being practical: I can't be the only editor whose desire to contribute has something to do with thinking his contributions will be helpful to future readers, and we stand to sacrifice a lot of potentially useful contributions from new editors who realize the barrier to helpfulness is insanely high. If we want to be maximally helpful, require the minimum number of clicks, etc., then we should seriously re-consider the possibility of using redirects where possible, which is most of the time. —RuakhTALK 22:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    I should clarify that I'd be O.K. with form-of entries having a bit more information, provided they make very clear that the lemma page is where the full scoop is; for example, it would be cool if, whenever foo has a usage note, there were a bot that added a usage note to foos that read simply, "The entry for foo has usage notes; see foo." And it would be O.K., though not great, if pardonnes had a definition along the lines of "Second-person singular present indicative of pardonner; so “[you] forgive”, roughly (but see pardonner)." But, absent any sort of specification of how this should work, I think we're better off without editors following their own half-cocked notions. —RuakhTALK 23:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think anyone who's functioning on a logical level wants full translations or full treatment on non-lemmas. :-) What I would like to see is just a basic translation, and maybe an example sentence. Nothing fancy, just more than grammatical terms that not everyone is going to be familiar with. Wikipedia has little "Main article" templates from which we might be able to base something similar here for these articles. Something like {{main1|fubar}}. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 00:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    Hmm. The comments below suggest to me that Robert, Connel, and Cynewulf want to see full definitions, full translations, etc. in every non-lemma entry. You, however, would support this proposal if I just modify the definitions section to make the brief gloss required instead of making it optional? Rod (A. Smith) 02:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    NO! You are making an utterly absurd and unfounded leap from not prohibited to required. I did not say "required" and no one else did. We are seriously concerned about more complete entries being "dumbed down" by people removing content because ELE supposedly says it shouldn't be there! And people thinking that they "aren't supposed to" add definitions etc because ELE says non-lemma entries don't have them. The vote language above explicitly prohibits things that are reasonable and useful in some set of entries. The language should make it crystal clear that a non-lemma entry MAY be anything from the bare minimum soft-redirect stub to being a expanded "complete" entry. In particular that some actual English in the definition and usage examples are always desirable. Robert Ullmann 22:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    Why are you yelling? The proposal above allows for an optional brief gloss definition. You and Ric opposed it, for one because you don't want editors to remove brief glosses. So, I suggested that the next proposal should require a brief gloss. What the hell do you want? Rod (A. Smith) 23:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not yelling about the the definitions / tranlations gloss, I'm yelling about the flat prohibition on Translations, -onyms, etc, and the idea that the only alternative is to require them! And about the presentation which implies that stubs are the "normal" form of non-lemma entries, instead of being incomplete stubs. Robert Ullmann 00:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    Full definitions and translations would be friggin insane. See dar#Spanish. All those definitions in every article? No thanks. Like I've said (somewhere) I don't want to see full treatment of non-lemmas, just enough so that those who aren't familiar with the grammatical terms we use. If someone doesn't know what "pluperfect" or "past historic" or "genitive" mean, what good is the article? I might support this proposal if the "brief gloss" were very strongly suggested, or an example sentence required in its absence, if the word itself is impossible to translate accurately alone. I also think the "form of" information should by default go on the inflection line if there is a definition or "brief gloss" given. It just makes sense to me that way. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 02:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    Ric, the idea of lots of people going and creating an open free dictionary of words in all languages is friggin insane ... but somehow we have 2.6 million unique headwords in 170 languages describing 401 languages. Yes. It is friggin insane. You may not want to do it; but those that think that something cannot be done should stay out of the way of those doing it. (;-) Robert Ullmann 22:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    Do you think you could format such translation tables in a way that isn't an un-navigatable (yay for making up words) pile of crap? :) I've tried, but that level of organization takes an assload of work that I seriously doubt most people are going to ever want to deal with. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 23:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    Please note that I never suggested putting the conjugation tables in the translations tables; other people have gone way way past anything I said! (We don't do that at the lemma, and no one is suggesting it, eh?) See on my talk page. We just do something like at the lemma, where we translate to (e.g.) masculine singular, or maybe a couple of forms if not too much. Likewise, talked can have "Swahili: -linena, -lisema, -liongea", very useful and perfectly reasonable. Robert Ullmann 00:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    No, that is not useful and only seems reasonable with sufficient myopia. How is a reader to know whether those are alternate translated lexemes or just alternate forms of a single translated lexeme? It's impossible to know from that text, and the reader will need to click through to the target entry for more details. No clicks were saved. If we were to adopt such a system, readers would lose the consistent way to find translations that we have today. (Should languages without tense have translations at talked? Should languages without number have translations at talks?) To find the translation of an English verb, readers should be consistently able to turn to the primary English entry (the infinitive), which nicely organizes the translations by sense, not by person, number, mood, etc. Then, to know which specific target inflection to use, readers should be able to turn consistently to the conjugation/declension tables of lemma entries and not have to scour our site in various other nooks and crannies. Rod (A. Smith) 01:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Robert Ullmann 11:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC) very strongly
    The premise is wrong. There is no reason why a non-lemma entry cannot be a full entry. The "soft redirect" form specified (and commonly used) should not be described as "sufficient", but as (barely) "minimal".
    • Specific sections may not be needed, but they must not be prohibited.
    • The (e.g.) plural form may have differing senses, requiring the -nyms be used for some information.
    • The forms may have different translations depending on tense and/or sense used only by that form.
    • The inflection (... form of) should be on the inflection line, the definition line should contain something in English that translates or defines the word. For most users, minimal FL form entries that say "first-person singular present tense of saltare" might as well be written in Klingon. That should be on the inflection line, and the definition line should read "(I) jump"
    • It should then have an example, or a quotation, or both; translated into English if a FL entry. Keep in mind that our users are often learning English or the FL (they are looking up a word, after all!)
    • Other: there is, for example, no reason not to put the conjugation table in each form if it is a one-line template call.
    • Most importantly: Licence must not be given to editors to go around removing content because "ELE says it shouldn't be here".
    We have a lot of entries created by hand or by bot that are in the minimal soft-redirect form; that is fine, and the majority will probably stay that way, but they should be seen as stubs to be expanded, not in any way whatsoever recommended as the preferred form. I ran across this sort of minimal stub being created by WF when I first started here, and wondered why, was he just lazy? (The answer was a bit more complex). I created mtoto and watoto; and have spent time since thinking about this. Now see children, which in its present form would violate the proposed ELE. Would you remove content? Is it to be wrong to have a complete entry? Robert Ullmann 11:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for your feedback, but I disagree.
    • Prohibiting the extra sections in non-lemma entries focuses contributors’ efforts on the primary entries. That focus is good for this project.
      (inlining a comment: This idea is diametrically opposed to the fundamental principle of a wiki: people will work on different things that interest them; if you tell them they aren't allowed to spend their time adding obscure details to w:Albus Dumbledore but should work on what you want them to "focus on", they will just leave. Robert Ullmann 23:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC))
      Then why do we prohibit "sum of parts" entries? Rod (A. Smith) 23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
      And why do we prohibit translations between foreign languages? Those are potentially genuinely useful, and experience shows that there exist editors who want to add them. —RuakhTALK 03:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    That's what the Wiktionaries in other languages are for... this idea seems crazy to me. Maybe you're seeing something in it that I'm not. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 05:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    Precisely. There is an ideal repository for many types of information. Normative documents like WT:ELE help define such ideal repositories. This proposal and its successor, Wiktionary:Votes/2007-11/Lemma entries 2, seek to have WT:ELE inform contributors and readers about where best to place certain information like nuance definitions, synonyms, translations, and inflections of any given word. With any luck, the next proposal will be much more clear about how defining “primary entry” helps in that regard. Rod (A. Smith) 07:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • We don't include (non-idiomatic) sums of parts because we are a dictionary, and we don't include translations of between foreign language because we are an English- language dictionary (of all languages). You are both drawing false dichotomies here. There are many useful things we don't do, because they don't fit our scope or purpose, not just bcause they are more work. In this case, however, I think that inclusion of full information appropriate for a dictionary in the English language on all articles ought to be our aim. Dmcdevit·t 04:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      Maybe we are in violent agreement, because I also think that inclusion of full information appropriate for a dictionary in the English language on all articles ought to be our aim. This and the successor proposal, Wiktionary:Votes/2007-11/Lemma entries 2 seek to help define what's appropriate for a dictionary. Rod (A. Smith) 07:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • If a plural form has a sense that the singular lacks, that sense is a plurale tantum, which would be treated as a lemma.
    • Spreading translation efforts across the multiple forms of lexemes dilutes translation efforts and is confusing to readers who may happen to encounter a non-lemma entry first (e.g. words, which currently has a small translation section that should be deleted).
    • This proposal allows the lemma inflection to be shown on the non-lemma entry’s headword/inflection line.
    • This proposal allows non-lemma definitions to include translation glosses. Requiring them would be difficult in many cases and would deviate from current practice. This proposal does not seek to introduce any new requirements.
    • This proposal does not prohibit example sentences with translations.
    • Conjugation sections should be only in the lemma entries so that readers learn to go to the lemma entry for complete details.
    Rod (A. Smith) 16:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Connel MacKenzie 16:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC) I know I commented on this topic somewhere - but that discussion is not linked here. In general, my opposition echoes Robert's: this is exactly opposite the intended goal. Complete entries should replace minor enrties, minor entries should replace stub/form-of entries, sub entries should replace redirects. Advocating the wrong direction in the past has had immediate bad effects (removal of content) and must never be encouraged. --Connel MacKenzie 16:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    Currently, some editors (myself included) are under the impression that non-lemma entries are supposed to be minimal. For example, I think this project is better off if we delete the translation table from words. If this vote shows that our project should have non-lemma entries with translations, etc., then at least that will be clarified. Rod (A. Smith) 17:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    I think that is a poor example. For translation tables, (in the past) people have extended the "lemma-only" mentality to irregular verbs, e.g. be, which remains ridiculous, IMHO. I think your proposed vote is much further-reaching than you intend it to be. But note that I am only discussion translations without even broaching any of the other topics. In general, the emphasis should be on expanding entries. So far, translations, indeed, have been an exception. As Wiktionary stabilizes, I hope that too, will change (gradually.) This proposal does seem to be the direct opposite of where we should eventually be aiming: complete entries everywhere, synchronized in an automated fashion (with the ability to override automatic synchronization where appropriate.) --Connel MacKenzie 20:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    I don't understand why words is a poor example of a non-lemma entry. I'm trying to understand how you and the other opposing contributors think non-lemma terms should be formatted. Do you have a better suggestion for our example non-lemma entry? Rod (A. Smith) 20:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposemsh210 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC). I agree with the proposal as a minimum for non-lemma entries, but must vote against it as a model or maximum for them. Denying editors the ability to enter -onyms, translations, etc. into non-lemma English-language entries is a Bad Thing, per Robert Ullman's comments.
    "Prohibiting the extra sections in non-lemma entries focuses contributors' efforts on the primary entries", while a reasonable argument, is not a strong one, especially as editors will do what they want anyway (by which I mean that someone who wants to work on lemmata will do so even if he's allowed to work on other entries, and someone who can't be bothered to work on lemmata will do nothing if he's not allowed to do anything else).
    "Spreading translation efforts across the multiple forms of lexemes dilutes translation efforts and is confusing to readers who may happen to encounter a non-lemma entry first (e.g. words, which currently has a small translation section that should be deleted)" is a reasonable argument: someone who wants to know how to say "words" (units of language) in, say, Hebrew (for which we have a translation at word but not at words) might, in the current state of affairs, go to words, see translations, see that Hebrew's is missing, and give up. I grant that this is a problem, and a solution should be found, but I don't think that prohibiting translations is it. Perhaps instead we can, for non-lemma entries, have the Translations section start with "For translations of the singular ''{{{1}}}'', see [[{{{1}}}|its entry]].".
    As to "Conjugation sections should be only in the lemma entries so that readers learn to go to the lemma entry for complete details", this depends on the language and word. For example, as recently discussed elsewhere, many verbs in Hebrew, but not all, have one or more infinitives. But all verbs are referred to, usually, by their third-person, singular, masculine, past-tense form. So the latter is where The Powers That Be (Shai, Ruakh, perhaps others; and I concur) have decided to put conjugation tables. I see no reason not to put them also at one or more infinite form's entries. I imagine a similar situation exists in other languages. —This unsigned comment was added by Msh210 (talkcontribs).
    Wow. From the voting responses so far, it is clear that not everyone agrees that we should distinguish at all between lemma entries and non-lemma entries. The respondents believe we should include translation tables for every inflected form of a word. I am surprized by the feedback, but happy to receive it. Assuming this turns out to be the majority opinion, should the headline of non-lemma entries specify all the key inflections? That is, should words be formatted like Wiktionary:Votes/2007-10/Lemma entries/words? If not, please help format it into your ideal. Rod (A. Smith) 18:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cynewulf 19:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC) I like children. Let's do more like that. The proposal for "words" looks nifty too. A couple thoughts. In a pure volunteer project, as User:Msh210 says, people are going to do what they want; using restrictions to try to focus people's efforts isn't going to work. Also, we should give people what they ask for; they shouldn't be given something else, or told to look up something else to find what they want. If someone looks up won and wants to know how to say "he won" in Spanish, it would be great if they didn't have to click win → translation section → ganar → conjugation section → figure out what preterite means, but rather just have a translation section in won listing something like "gané ganaste ganó ganamos ganasteis ganaron (see ganar)". Probably a bad example. Coming the other way, the entry at ganó is just barely sufficient: I'm starting to think that English translations are necessary in all cases (e.g. here "(he) won"). I've shown wikt entries for lemmas to people who were just wondering what someone said in chat, and their reaction could be summed up as "that's real helpful". Give users what they want up front, let editors work on what they want. Cynewulf 19:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    Re: "I'm starting to think that English translations are necessary in all cases" I cannot begin to express how much I agree with that statement! YESYESYESYESYESYESYES! --Connel MacKenzie 19:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Yeah, the "starting" is for the "necessary" and "all" -- if there's no "easy English" there, it belongs on a cleanup list. Cynewulf 20:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    That could very easily get incredibly messy with verbs. For instance, on won, would we have a separate translation table for past particple, simple past? Romance languages tend to have 6 simple past forms. Which do we include? All of them? How are we going to handle that? lol — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 20:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Well, it's a Wouldn't It Be Nice If. We could at least say (start with saying) "see preterite conjugation in infinitive ganar". Cynewulf 20:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    Messier than chasing links three or four down now? Well, yes won could have the translation tables split. The example given was for the opposite, though - from another language to English. I expect this to be a (very) long-term goal of Wiktionary, adding language-specific automation only where applicable. While we currently have things like TheDaveBot, they do not keep anything in sync yet. Gradually, they would, could and should (if given room to grow.) --Connel MacKenzie 20:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    Messier than chasing links three or four down now? - What? lol...I didn't understand that at all. For those who would like translation tables in non-lemma entries, check this out and comment or something, please Wiktionary_talk:Votes/2007-10/Lemma_entries/words#Translations. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 20:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    If you are trying to create a mess, you have failed utterly.  :-)   Indeed, the layout you have there is much easier to comprehend, particularly if the target pages exist (for popup-previews via WT:PREFS.) Are you saying you don't (ever) want that sort of information filled out by bot? --Connel MacKenzie 20:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    Rejecting a normative proposal because "using restrictions to try to focus people's efforts isn't going to work" is ridiculous. Shall we just delete WT:ELE and let this project become a free-for-all? Of course not. Yes, contributors may choose to add full definitions, translations, and synonyms wherever they want, but a normative document like WT:ELE helps others know how best to realign such contributions to deliver the highest quality dictionary we can. This discussion is headed in the direction of abandoning the concept of a lemma/non-lemma distinction. If that is the conclusion we reach, we will have to find creative ways to manage the additional maintenance. Not that it cannot be done, but it will require a significant new infrastructure to maintain the required synchronization. Rod (A. Smith) 20:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    You've apparently misunderstood my statement, otherwise you would have called User:Msh210's reasons "ridiculous" too. Your argument wrt ELE also does not follow. This proposal is about telling people not to work on words and instead to "focus" on word. That is a "restriction". It's "[not] going to work" because rather than focus on word, they're going to do nothing. This proposal is ... proposing that we prevent people from "add[ing] full definitions, translations, and synonyms wherever they want". Rather than "realign" (i.e. delete) what others have added, we should add whatever is missing. Cynewulf 21:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    There is obviously some confusion. If an editor chooses to add a Spanish word to our project but uses a structure not approved by WT:ELE, that's fine, but other contributors use WT:ELE to normalize that contribution. Rod (A. Smith) 21:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    Stated another way, this proposal tells editors that if a sense appears on dice that applies equally to all inflected forms of the word, it should be moved to decir. Ignoring the distinction between lemma entries and non-lemma entries means we will need to introduce a huge, massively complicated infrastructure to update all of the inflected forms of decir. When an editor discovers a new definition for decir, a single edit should suffice to inform interested readers. I hope we can create a high quality set of lemma entries and soft redirects from inflected forms. It is more than an order of magnitude more difficult to produce a complete, high-quality dictionary that treats every inflected form with equal detail. Rod (A. Smith) 21:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I agree completely with Robert and others. I view the stripped down non-lemma articles as placeholders for fleshed-out articles. Lemmas and non-lemmas are different words, and we ought to aim to include translations and meanings and all the other information we have, for all words, not just for some grammatical canonical words while explaining their relationships to others. That's a lot of work, of course (but I would say the same thing about a multilingual dictionary!). Our efforts should be towards finding creative solutions to that problem, though. Dmcdevit·t 06:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    Wow. English entry translation tables are a terrible place to show each of the dozens of persons, numbers, tenses, aspects, moods, and levels of formality for each translation target for each of the hundreds of languages that will eventually be in those translation tables. Instead, only a single form of each translation target lexeme can fit into each English translation table. Each of those target entries can then show all of the many inflected forms of the target lexeme without further cluttering the huge English translation tables. Since the English translation tables only have room for one form of the target lexeme, it would be deceptive to show anything other than the target lemma. Thus, the translation table for a past tense English verb must be the same as that of an English lemma. So, why repeat? Rod (A. Smith) 16:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    Repetition = bad and messy. lol...if people really insist on translation tables in all English entries, with verbs at least one could put in *Language: ''Varies by person, number, etc. See'' '''[[lemma]]'''., or something. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 17:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    I wasn't really thining of English words here, but it works all the same. We repeat ourselves all the time, and it's usually for the better. If I come across a word I don't know, (quisiese, maybe) I cannot be expected to know it's lemma and look that up, and then to extrapolate from some lemma entry's inflection line or conjugation table what the actual meaning of the word I'm really curious about it. Our ideal should be to have an English translation of every non-English word (i.e., every form of every word), and vice versa. Dmcdevit·t 04:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Wtf is a lemma anyway —This unsigned comment was added by 131.216.61.192 (talk).
    Rod: a good point: most people have no idea what a "lemma" is, and one of the most confusing things about dealing with (dead-tree) FL dictionaries is figuring out what the lemma form is, and what stuff they implicitly expect you to go to the lemma for, because they have such limited space. We don't have that problem. Robert Ullmann 13:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    Correct, we don't have that problem, because if you visit a non-lemma form, we give you a link to the lemma form. —RuakhTALK 17:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    Right. For readers, we don't really have that problem because links from secondary entries to main entries should ensure that readers who land on a secondary entry get a common sense of the word and are just one click away from the most complete information repository we have. The terminology may challenge casual contributors, though, so the updated vote page, Wiktionary:Votes/2007-11/Lemma entries 2 uses main instead of lemma. Rod (A. Smith) 18:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Abstain[edit]

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain — [ ric| opiaterein ] — 01:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC) I agree with some parts, but others not entirely. I think the "form of" information should be on the main inflection line, as with lemma entries, with a brief definition below.
    Indeed, we should be making entries like estu, with the inflection on the inflection line, and a definition (in English) on the definition line. What we have now are just stubs, that should be expanded over time, not limited. Robert Ullmann 16:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    I hope the current wording is an unobjectionable compromise between current practice and the vision expressed by Opiaterein and Robert. Is that so? Rod (A. Smith) 19:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Decision[edit]