Wiktionary talk:Wanted entries

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

긴 한국어 낱말[edit]

If Google Translate (Korean to Japanese; I hear that it's fairly accurate) is right this just means "long Korean words". —suzukaze (tc) 05:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing "arf caru"[edit]

I've removed # {{l|cy|arf caru|arf}}({{l|cy|arfau caru|au}}) {{l|cy|arf caru|caru}} from the queue; it's Welsh for "weapon of love" (the plural arfau caru being "weapons of love"), a phrase which gets next to no Google hits, no mention in the University of Wales Dictionary, and probably doesn't mean anything more than what it seems to. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Aɴɢʀ: It has an idiomatic meaning. An arf caru is like a love spoon, but, rather than being wooden, it is made of iron. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Evidence? Google Books has nothing. Regular Google has one hit for the singular and one hit for the plural, neither of which is durably archived. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Aɴɢʀ: The hit for the plural is in the right sense. The one for the singular translates to "fisting … The act of using a fist (and arm, if it stretches that far) as a love weapon.", in which arf caru is akin to the English love truncheon. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Still, that makes one single hit—in a non-durably archived source—for the word. Not enough to warrant an entry. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Aɴɢʀ: Pfft. Well, I know it's a thing. One day, CFI-satisfying evidence will turn up to prove that. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

oligotropical [sic][edit]

@SemperBlotto: Re your addition to the list of oligotropical [sic], I've added the only Google Book Search hit for that word to Citations:oligotropical, which use is indubitably an error for oligotrophic (I've added the correct form of the cited work to Citations:oligotrophic). Can you cite any uses of *oligotropical that aren't errors for oligotrophic or oligotrophical? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No, that looks good. The word was in one of Visviva's lists - quite rich in misspellings. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I've added the citation, but it might not be formatted very well. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: Tweaked. I don't know why that article spells the words oligotrophic and *oligotropical. I can't detect a difference in meaning, but it's weird that the article doesn't feature *oligotropic or oligotrophical. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it looks deliberate. That's why I originally added the word to this list. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: Yes, I can see why. If it is deliberate, I can't define the word. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

E.l.c.[edit]

@I'm so meta even this acronym I'm removing your request for "E.l.c." which you sourced to the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek dictionary because in my paper edition of LSJ, the entry in question says "ῑ in Hom.; ῐ in Att., Eur. l.c.", which confirms my suspicion that "E.l.c." in the edition used at Perseus is just "E." = "Euripides" + "l.c." = "loc. cit.". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Aɴɢʀ: Yeah, that's great, thanks for looking into it; that totally stumped me! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding orange links[edit]

The first sentence is "This is a list of red links", and that's true, it is. But does it have to be? Is there any rule against adding orange links here, i.e. entries that exist for other languages, but not for the one requested? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Aɴɢʀ: What's an orange link meant to look like? A link to a page with any content always looks blue to me. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym If you go to Special:Preferences and select the Gadgets tab and scroll down to User interface gadgets, you can select OrangeLinks. This will turn links orange when the page exists but not in the language linked to. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@Aɴɢʀ: That is the first I've known about that. How well known is this gadget amongst the editing community? I suspect not very. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually I think it is. You're the first regular editor I've seen who hasn't immediately known what orange links are when someone mentions them. This page itself mentions them, though it calls them yellow rather than orange. Anyway, whether your links are orange, yellow, or blue isn't the point; the point is, is it OK to add a wanted entry to this list when the entry is there but not in the wanted language? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I've always thought this page would be to request redlinks only. Shouldn't we just keep using "Requested entries (xxxxx)" to request for xxxxx-language entries specifically? This is the specific suggestion in the page now, but sure, it could be changed if people want. Then again, I was one of the people who had written/rewritten part of this page with this kind of use in mind. (back in the day the terms were just [[...]] without language codes)
Also, I've seen cases where people ask here for terms in language X, then it gets defined in language Y, then it [the request] gets deleted by someone else. Until now, I've found that to be normal. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@Aɴɢʀ, Daniel Carrero: Maybe I was uniquely ignorant. Nevertheless, I’d favour additions to this page being restricted to red links. Even in those cases where I’ve added terms in language X which have subsequently been defined in language Y, I have never objected to the terms then being removed, and I have oftentimes even removed them myself. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The sentence "Yellow links, which indicate that an entry exists but not for that particular language, should not be removed." was added in this diff from 17 August 2015. It kind of contradicts the beginning of the page, i.e. "This is a list of red links."
Can we revert that edit per this discussion? (I don't mind if people come to decide to keep orange links in the list, but as said above by me and I.S.M.E.T.A., that would be a substantial change to what we seem to have been doing for years, that is, deleting all blue/orange links and keeping this page strictly with red links only.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero: I'm in favour of that reversion, despite being newly enthralled to this OrangeLinks gadget. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I, too, am newly enthralled with that gadget after it was mentioned in this discussion.
Maybe @Angr would like to give an opinion on the reversion too? Also, I've called @CodeCat, since she's the author of the edit I'd like to revert. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I think orange links should be considered unfulfilled requests. I don't understand the arguments given that "Requested entries" pages should be used for language-specific links. If this page isn't for requesting terms, then what is it for? Of course the language of the term matters; that's what the requester specified the language for in the first place. If I request a Spanish entry I wouldn't want to see an Italian one created and then have people call that "request fulfilled". It's not, because the entry I actually asked for still isn't there. —CodeCat 21:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Yes, that would be a request whose intention remained unfulfilled, but if you would then still want a Spanish entry, then add a request to WT:RE:es, because this is a page for red links. If we could add orange links to this page, then what would be the point of all the language-specific requests pages? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Meta (which is easier to type than the actual user name or punctuated acronym). Not to mention that the list is increasingly long as it is, with only red links; it would potentially become much longer if it allowed orange links. And if we did allow them, since not everyone has orange links enabled, many would be unable to make the necessary distinction to properly remove links from the list. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the description back to the "red links only" version. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero: Thank you. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't really have a strong opinion on whether this list should contain orange links or not. I just wanted to request texas#Norwegian after Facebook went nuts over it, but then someone added it before I got around to requesting it, so the point became moot. But I did notice that if it hadn't already been created and I had requested it, it would have been the only orange link on the page, so I thought I'd better ask. I admit I sort of forgot about the language-specific requests pages, which can also hold red links, of course, so there's already a good deal of overlap between those pages and this one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
One drawback to the way this page is organized is that with redlinks, it's impossible to see which language is being requested without opening the edit box of WT:Wanted entries and looking. If I wanted to create a page for the current top word on the list, тиште, I'd have no way of knowing which Cyrillic-script language was being requested unless I actually opened up this page and looked at the text to see what code follows {{l}}. And some requests are made with bare links, so there's absolutely no way to know. I'm not sure how to fix that, but it's something that's bothered me for a long time. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I have one idea that is not quite what you complained but is kind of related: Maybe someone could use JavaScript to make buttons like "Show only: English - German - Russian - " etc. That seems doable. I don't know about other people, but I'd use that if it were available. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero: That sounds like a reasonable idea, but bear in mind that there are very many languages represented in the current wanted-entries list (of the mere eight terms currently in the active list, two are Ancient Greek: grc, two are Mari: chm, one is Middle English: enm, one is Turkish: tr, and two are undetermined: und — that's at least four languages), so the list of language buttons may get very long indeed. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @I'm so meta even this acronym: It's true that the list of language buttons could get very long. Maybe we could try something along the lines of this design, a table with 32 language codes:

Show only: en · und
aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa
aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa
aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Daniel Carrero: I like it. All it needs is a thin border to box it. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: Yes check.svg Done: Except I used separate pages rather than a JavaScript function as proposed. See examples:
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero: That is excellent. Great job! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. :) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've attempted a simple solution to the problem of not knowing what language is being requested. Feel free to undo it if you don't like it, or to try a different solution. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Extending the width of the active list[edit]

Can we extend the gray line that limits the width of the active list?

The active list is noticeably smaller than the "Logs – New – Cleanup – Verification – Deletion – Requests – Shortcuts – Vandalism – New editors’ contribs – Patrol Anons" above. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The ideal is that the "Utilities" and "Wanted" lines be the same length. Feel free to adjust the width of the active list so that those two lines match, but remember to take into account the "(+/-)" that follows the members of the active list in the "Wanted" line. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Mediolatinitas[edit]

This should be Latin, with a self-explanatory meaning, but it just doesn't seem to be sufficiently attested; I can only find one, maybe two cites. @I'm so meta even this acronym, what do you think? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Μετάknowledge: I've added what I found to Citations:Mediolatinitas; did you see anything else? Those French sources all seem to be discussing a specific project called "Mediolatinitas". I don't know about the German ones. The Latin citation is interesting, because the actual title of Niermeyer's dictionary is Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus; I'm guessing the usual Latin term for Mediaeval Latin is Media Latīnitās. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: That's more or less it; the specific work is not exactly helpful for independent citations, so I was largely ignoring it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@Μετάknowledge: The French project or the Latin dictionary? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The project, given that the lexicon has a different actual name. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@Μετάknowledge: Yes, I thought that's what you meant, but I wanted to make sure. The French project definitely shouldn't get an entry; I suppose that the German and Latin terms simply don't have enough supporting quotations to satisfy WT:CFI. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@Μετάknowledge: Still, Latin is a low-documentation language, so I suppose I could create an entry for the Latin term. What do you think? Should I create the Latin entry, or just remove the request? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: I would remove the request, personally. As for the LDL status... that's complicated. We've had the tradition here of only treating extinct languages as LDLs if citations come from when they were actually spoken, but I think that really ought to be codified in a vote. (If you have further opinions on this, please start a thread on WT:T:ALA, my talkpage, or somewhere else more appropriate than this venue.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Μετάknowledge: I don't agree with that restriction. IMO, LDL status should apply to Latin pre-New Latin, because before then there isn't all that much of it (i.e., there is little documentation of it). But regardless, 1979 is about six centuries too late, so that difference of opinion has no impact on Mediolatīnitās. Still, we have Mediolatīnus. I'll go remove “Mediolatinitas” from the list now. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

ja-l bug[edit]

Minor bug: Currently, Wiktionary:Wanted entries/ja is not listing terms that use {{ja-l}}. Sorry, I'm not sure how exactly I'd fix that in the regex, so I won't try fixing it right now, maybe later.

The quickest way to fixing this problem would be converting all uses of {{ja-l}} into {{l|ja}}. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The whole point of {{ja-l}} is to provide Japanese-specific features not available in {{l|ja}}. Converting everything back would be a step backward. --WikiTiki89 20:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
You're gonna have to special-case it, since {{ja-l|縄抜け|なわぬけ|nawanuke}} generates a link to both 縄抜け and なわぬけ. --WikiTiki89 20:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm still thinking how could I accomplish that in the code of the module. I've thought of a quick fix, but being a kludge, all uses of {{l|ja}} would be listed above all uses of {{ja-l}} in Wiktionary:Wanted entries/ja. If all Japanese wanted entries use only {{ja-l}}, no one will notice a thing. But I'll try to think of something better. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, looking at the code, it should be pretty easy. Instead of using gmatch, just iterate through the list line by line, and match each line individually to as many regular expressions as you want. --WikiTiki89 00:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Let me know if you want me to do it for you. --WikiTiki89 00:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Please do it, I'd appreciate it. That was the first module I ever created except for sandbox stuff that I never actually used, so I'm still learning. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --WikiTiki89 01:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Don't remove links for entries you define."[edit]

Currently, it is written in italic:

Don't remove links for entries you define.

I suggest changing it to (non-italic):

Avoid removing links for entries you define.

Reason: I defined a few entries, I want to remove all bluelinks. I have no problem with giving people a little time to review new entries, but we should relax that rule and allow people to delete links they defined sometimes. (Plus, in all likelihood, a person who defined some entries has their attention on WT:WE at the moment, he/she may be the only person available to delete links, who knows.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)